Neighborhood characteristics and the location of HUD-subsidized housing in shrinking cities: an analysis to inform anchor-based urban revitalization strategies

Silverman, Robert Mark; Patterson, Kelly L.; Yin, Liang; Wu, Laiyun

doi:10.1080/15575330.2015.1088875

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Typologies frequently categorize community-facing investments into economic development (e.g., local procurement and hiring), housing (e.g., rehabilitation or homeownership incentives), and community building efforts (e.g., K-12 partnerships or public amenities). The thrust is broad and targets mutually-beneficial outcomes for universities and their communities (Hodges & Dubb, 2012), although research suggests few universities achieve this goal Silverman, Patterson, Yin, & Wu, 2015;Silverman, Taylor, Yin, Miller, & Buggs, 2018).…”

Section: Anchoring the Community?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Can You Imagine What’s Happened in Durham?”

Ehlenz¹

2020

Journal of the American Planning Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem, research strategy, and findings: As Durham's economy collapsed in the mid-1990s, Duke established a plan to intervene. Its actions aligned with anchor institution models at many universities; its approach, however, was unique: In a city where Duke was a fixture, university leadership understood a top-down approach was not viable. Instead, administrators launched a community-led model intended to change the "story [from] look at what Duke did," to "can you imagine what's happened in Durham?". I use a longitudinal case study to examine Duke's anchor institution model in 12 Durham neighborhoods. The research considers Duke's approach from the mid-1990s to present, drawing from: interviews with Duke administrators, community organizations, and neighborhood representatives; newspaper articles and reports; and a descriptive analysis of neighborhood change. This case explores an anchor model that engages non-profit partners and community development strategies. Findings show the potential for a multi-partner anchor model that cultivates neighborhood improvement and minimizes (to an extent) gentrification pressures that can arise from anchor investment. Duke's anchor model offers a unique perspective on university-community engagement, partnerships and neighborhood investment. Takeaway for practice: Duke's case offers insights for how major institutions-from university anchors to local government-can recast their roles in communities; it also offers a roadmap for how institutions can engage (and benefit) neighborhoods in meaningful ways. Informed by a collaborative anchor model, Duke empowered residents to identify their own neighborhood priorities and partnered with local community organizations to meet those aims. This anchor model reveals a powerful role for intermediaries, including planners and community organizers, to connect institutional resources with neighborhood priorities. Supported by a participatory planning process, there are opportunities to realign anchor institution strategies and tools with neighborhood priorities to move towards mutually beneficial outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Anchoring the Community?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Can You Imagine What’s Happened in Durham?”

Ehlenz¹

2020

Journal of the American Planning Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Universities and other higher education institutions are increasingly viewed as examples of place-based anchors, and are assumed to offer expertise and fiscal support to "revitalize" their host neighborhoods [17][18][19]). In the United States, more than half of all universities are located in central cities, and a growing number of them are engaged in some form of physical neighborhood intervention, including both public and private institutions [10].…”

Section: Universities and Neighborhood Revitalization Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ultimately, then, neighborhood upgrading and gentrification wiped out any gains that might have been derived from "soft" programs, including the public schooling strategies. The neighborhood effects literature make clear the relationship between neighborhood conditions and undesirable socioeconomic outcomes [19]. The bottom line is that universities adopted a "throw-back", market-driven neighborhood revitalization strategies, which undermined the desirable effects of University Civic Engagement 2.0.…”

Section: University Civic Engagement 20mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The University, Neighborhood Revitalization, and Civic Engagement: Toward Civic Engagement 3.0

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay analyzes and syntheses key theories and concepts on neighborhood change from the literature on anchor institutions, university engagement, gentrification, neighborhood effects, Cold War, Black liberation studies, urban political economy, and city building. To deepen understanding of the Columbia University experience, we complemented the literature analysis with an examination of the New York Times and Amsterdam newspapers from 1950 to 1970. The study argues that higher education’s approach to neighborhood revitalization during the urban renewal age, as well as in the post-1990 period, produced undesirable results and failed to spawn either social transformation or build the neighborly community espoused by Lee Benson and Ira Harkavy. The essay explains the reasons why and concludes with a section on a more robust strategy higher education can pursue in the quest to bring about desirable change in the university neighborhood.

show abstract

“…To date, urban universities have been the most active and studied type of anchor institution. Researchers and institutions are now asking how the model and best practices might translate to other anchors, particularly hospitals (Zuckerman 2013), but also civic institutions (e.g., libraries, art and cultural institutions), as well as how to connect public policy and subsidies (e.g., affordable housing policy and investments) to anchor institutions (Silverman et al 2015;Patterson and Silverman 2014).…”

Section: The Intersection Of University Anchors and Neighborhood Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gown, Town, and Neighborhood Change: An Examination of Urban Neighborhoods with University Revitalization Efforts

Ehlenz

2017

Journal of Planning Education and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universities are expanding their missions to encompass neighborhoods and revitalization strategies, yet there is an inadequate understanding of how targeted neighborhoods have changed. This study combines institutional survey data with 1990 and 2010 Census metrics to examine twenty-two neighborhoods with university revitalization initiatives. It explores market and socioeconomic change for target tracts relative to their regions, finding significant positive changes in target tract median home and rent values. The research suggests universities use revitalization efforts to respond to place-based deficits and, in doing so, align their neighborhoods with concurrent national trends toward growing enrollment and urban revitalization.

show abstract

Neighborhood characteristics and the location of HUD-subsidized housing in shrinking cities: an analysis to inform anchor-based urban revitalization strategies

Cited by 17 publications

References 29 publications

“Can You Imagine What’s Happened in Durham?”

“Can You Imagine What’s Happened in Durham?”

The University, Neighborhood Revitalization, and Civic Engagement: Toward Civic Engagement 3.0

Gown, Town, and Neighborhood Change: An Examination of Urban Neighborhoods with University Revitalization Efforts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About