Discussion 9

Communities of Opportunity: Smart Growth Strategies

For Colleges and Universities

Communities of Opportunity: Smart Growth Strategies for Colleges and Universities

Contributing Writers: Matthew Dalbey, Kevin Nelson, and Peggy Bagnoli, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

David Bagnoli, Cunningham + Quill Architects Martha Droge, Ayers/Saint/Gross

Anna Marie Cirino, NACUBO

Sponsor: Ayers/Saint/Gross

Ayers/Saint/Gross, Architects + Planners is a 130 person firm, focused exclusively on designing environments that

support the creation and dissemination of knowledge and culture. The firm is organized around seven areas of expertise –

Academic Buildings, Campus Planning, Cultural Facilities, Graphics/3D/Writing, Landscape Architecture, Student Life

Facilities, and Town Planning – each focusing on specific areas of an educational or cultural institution.

Baltimore Washington Tempe

www.asg-architects.com

Copyright NACUBO, 2007

National Association of College and University Business Officers

Washington, DC

www.nacubo.org

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Table of Contents

Foreword

Preface

The Challenge

What Is Smart Growth?

Environmental Benefits of Smart Growth Development Practices

Smart Growth On and Off Campus

Benefits of Smart Growth Development Strategies Creates enduring, vibrant, accessible places

Realizes fiscal benefits for the institution and the community

Fosters greater cooperation between the institution and

the community

Contributes to a healthy and sustainable campus

What Do We Do Now?

Profiles Planning for the Future: Placemaking to Inspire a New

Generation of On and Off Campus Interaction

Revitalizing Notre Dame Avenue: A Founder’s Vision

Reaping the Benefits of Investing in Good Neighbor Relations

Investments in a Downtown Satellite Campus Supports

Multiple Community Goals

Producing What You Need: A Sustainable Campus that Works

Accommodating Growth Through Revitalization: University

of Kentucky College Town

Growing Green: Master Planning for an Enhanced

Campus Footprint

Becoming Socially and Physically Embedded:

Arizona State University’s Downtown Campus

Appendix: Structuring Public-Private Partnership (P3) Transactions

Endnotes

Acknowledgments

6

7

9

11

11

13

15 15 19 25

29

31

32 32

33 35 36

38 39

40

41

43

45

47

Cover Images: Clockwise from top left, Northeastern University by David Bagnoli; University System of Maryland at Hagerstown by John W. Frece; University of Virginia by Andrew Greene, University of Virginia Office of the Architect; University of Cincinnati by Lisa Ventre; University of Pennsylvania by David Bagnoli

Foreword

Ayers/Saint/Gross Architects + Planners is pleased to sponsor

and co-author “Communities of Opportunity: Smart Growth

for Colleges and Universities” with the National Association of

College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). We

hope the contents of this publication will inform and inspire

college and university leadership to create sustainable places of

lasting value both on and surrounding their campuses.

High performance strategies are becoming fundamental to

campus operations. When first instituting sustainable practices

on a campus, the focus is typically on several key issues,

including energy use and production, water consumption and

treatment, the composition and reuse of materials, curriculum

development, purchasing policies, and dining operations. It is

equally important to incorporate sustainable practices into

planning for facilities renewal and expansion both on and off

campus. As space needs grow beyond the capacity of existing

facilities, new development should adopt a sustainable pattern

that sets the stage for integrated operations at all levels.

The most frequent definition for sustainability, found in the

Brundtland Report, states: “We must learn to care for the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations everywhere to meet their own needs.” Principles of

sustainability can be applied throughout higher education

operations and programs. When applied to large-scale

planning and development projects, sustainability is often

called smart growth.

As defined by the Smart Growth Network, smart growth

describes a development pattern that supports the economy,

community, public health, and the natural environment.

Strategies and techniques that support this pattern help

communities create attractive, safe, and healthy new

neighborhoods and maintain existing ones. They facilitate

design that encourages social, civic, and physical activity

through interconnected, compact, and walkable mixed-use

neighborhoods.

Centuries-old institutions of higher education traditionally

followed smart growth patterns to create connected, compact,

and coherent campuses. Unfortunately, those values were lost

on many campuses during the latter half of the twentieth

century. But now colleges and universities are returning to

strategies that created some of the best-loved campuses and

college towns to the benefit of students, faculty, staff, and

community members.

Higher education campuses hold a unique role in our society.

They are the laboratories for innovation and the setting for the

formative experiences of our citizen-leaders. Colleges and

universities have both the opportunity and the responsibility to

exhibit excellence in all areas, including sustainable campus

planning and design through smart growth. This is especially

important with college town developments in which

institutions expand beyond their traditional boundaries and

town-grown distinctions dissolve.

As is stated later in this publication, “we express our values by

what we build.” What we build on and near campuses should

exemplify our strong appreciation for supporting our future.

What better way to do this than to offer the next generation –

tomorrow’s leaders – thoughtfully planned models of a

sustainable world.

Jim Wheeler

President, Ayers/Saint/Gross

�

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Preface

Communities across the United States have adopted smart

growth strategies to help ensure that new growth and

development meets multiple community goals. They have

adopted policies that allow for mixed-use development and

encourage the reuse of abandoned properties and brownfield

sites, as well as invested in infrastructure that allows for the

construction of a variety of housing types, provides

transportation choice, and removes barriers to compact,

walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods that are safe and

convenient for residents. Many of these strategies can be

applied to growth and development on and off college and

university campuses. Similar to communities – where these

strategies support a range of community goals – smart growth

strategies can help colleges and universities meet their mission

to provide high quality education, support research and

innovation, and serve the community through community

service.

Colleges and universities are growing, and they need new

facilities to accommodate this growth. Whether it’s space for

new academic classrooms, laboratories, dormitories, research

centers, business incubators, or space for retail and services

necessary for a campus to thrive, college and university

business officers are involved in decision-making related to

how and where this growth occurs. Communities of

Opportunity: Smart Growth Strategies for Colleges and

Universities makes the case that growth and development of

new facilities that support the functions of a college or

university – whether on or off campus – is an opportunity to

add to and enhance the physical identity of an institution, use

limited resources more efficiently and maximize investments,

improve relations across the campus boundary and with local

communities, and demonstrate that an institution is and can be

a good steward of the environment.

Communities of Opportunity aims to show business officers how

better development patterns can support the goals of

institutions of higher learning. The publication begins with an

overview of smart growth strategies and the better outcomes

that these strategies have yielded when adopted by colleges and

universities and communities across the country. It then makes

a four-part argument for adopting these strategies:

1. Creating thriving, vibrant places helps to attract

and keep the best students, faculty, and staff.

2. Smart growth development patterns are a

more efficient use of scarce resources and are

better investments.

3. Colleges and universities and the surrounding

communities can work together across the traditional

boundary of the campus to solve challenges in mutually

beneficial ways.

4. Better development patterns allow colleges

and universities to improve their environmental

performance.

The publication concludes with eight profiles showing how

some colleges and universities have adopted these strategies

and are addressing the challenges and opportunities presented

by growth. The colleges and universities included in this

publication are just a sample of institutions that are doing good

work in this area. Time, space, and the scope of the project

precluded the authors from including every example. My hope

is that this publication makes choosing examples to showcase

even more difficult by stimulating smart growth on campus.

John D. Walda

President, NACUBO

�

�

Eckerd College (Image: Photographer, Chris Hildreth)

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

“We express our values by what we build.” — James Moeser, Chancellor, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The Challenge

Each college and university prides itself on its unique traits of

identity, culture, and core mission. An institution’s campus and,

in many instances, the surrounding college town are typically

the physical representation of these characteristics. Quads,

walks, greens, or, more specifically, places like Bascom Hill in

Madison, Wisconsin, the Corner in Charlottesville, Virginia,

or Morningside Heights in Manhattan, are as indicative of a

college or university as the array of majors and courses and

faculty members. In an era of growing enrollments, the need

for additional research facilities, opportunities to partner with

the public and private sector to support economic development,

and the increasing community service roles, most institutions

know they need to expand.

Institutions increasingly recognize the degree to which the

continued growth of campus facilities – when done well – can

strengthen efforts to recruit and retain the highest caliber of

students, faculty, and staff. This growth does not come without

challenges, specifically how to grow in a way that respects the

best qualities of the institution; uses resources efficiently;

provides students, faculty, staff, and community members

increased choice in how to get around, where to live, work, and

shop; and even addresses environmental concerns that often

accompany growth and development. Smart growth strategies

can help colleges and universities tackle these challenges.

Industry analysts estimate that 40 percent of all colleges and

universities are engaged in new construction, renovations, and

retrofitting projects on and near campus. In 2006 alone, the

value of this construction was approximately $14.4 billion.

As campus administrators know well, numerous factors

contribute to the constant need for updating and constructing

campus facilities. In the face of such needs, many colleges and

universities have replaced the question, “Should the campus

grow?” with “How will we grow to meet future needs?” and

“How can we grow to compete with our peers?” To meet the

challenges, institutions are looking for better ways to grow and

opportunities to collaborate with communities immediately

adjacent to campus as a way to ensure growth is beneficial

to all stakeholders.

�

1

2

Eckerd College (Image: Photographer, Chris Hildreth)

10

From Iconic Past to Successful Smart Growth Strategies

Thomas Jefferson’s design for the University of Virginia is the seminal achievement in American campus planning and defines

the image of the university. Building upon this unique history and addressing current day pressures, UVA has implemented a

variety of measures to improve the health and livability of campus and community members, while improving the health of our

natural environment.

Demonstrating further commitment to the University’s Guidelines for Sustainable Buildings and Environmental Design, in

January 2007 the Board of Visitors approved USGBC LEED certification for all new and existing building projects. Aimed at

improving multi-modal transportation opportunities, since 2006 UVA has hired a transportation demand management

coordinator; established a fare-free bus program allowing all university ID holders to ride the City of Charlottesville buses; and

updated the UVA Bike Smart Plan and map. Thinking holistically about integrating sustainability into the planning, design, and

operations, UVA released its first Sustainability Assessment, establishing baseline performance and proposing a strategy for

increasing activity levels. Similarly, the university is in the process of updating its master plan, the Grounds Plan, addressing

historic preservation, the natural environment, connectivity, and sustainability.

Representing a snapshot of smart growth strategies, the university is continually advancing opportunities and initiatives.

Historically campuses in the United States have been tied to their places and their landscapes – the University of Virginia to the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains and Charlottesville, the University of Pennsylvania to Philadelphia and the Low Library at Columbia University echoing the grand institutions of New York City. (Image: Victor Waldron)

Smart growth approaches can help campuses and their adjacent

communities achieve multiple benefits from investments in

new facilities. New development on and off campus typically

presents challenges related to traffic, parking, mobility, and the

environment. New growth can also strain the financial

resources of the institution and the surrounding community.

Smart growth approaches, however, can help colleges and

universities create great places, as well as promote positive

environmental outcomes by enhancing transportation choices,

fiscal responsibility through the reuse of existing infrastructure

and underused properties, and economic development and

job creation by supporting mixed-use and joint venture

projects. This publication will show how smart growth

strategies can help:

1. Create enduring, vibrant places that improve both

campus and community quality of life with each

increment of growth. This in turn helps boost

student, faculty, and staff recruitment and retention

and ensures the college or university can remain

competitive with peer institutions.

2. Realize fiscal benefits by maximizing dollars spent

through efficient use of existing space and

infrastructure, increasing transportation options,

creating mixed-use live-work-play developments on or

near campus, and, where appropriate, partnering with

private and public sector entities to make the most

effective use of investment dollars.

(Image: Dan Addison, University of Virginia News Servies)

(Image: University of Pennsylvania, Division of Facilities and Real Estate Services)

11

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

3. Foster greater cooperation between the institution and

the community by working to ensure that growth

can help meet multiple challenges across the traditional

divide of “town vs. gown.” Smart growth approaches

can help institutions and communities address issues

such as housing affordability, transportation choice,

revitalization, community connectivity, and increased

economic opportunities in a collaborative way.

4. Contribute to healthy, sustainable campuses and

communities through the preservation, restoration, and

enhancement of the environment. By supporting a mix

of uses and compact building design, smart growth

approaches can increase transportation choices, reduce

reliance on the automobile, and decrease emissions.

Environmental benefits are compounded when

additional strategies are used such as green building

techniques and purchasing renewable energy.

What Is Smart Growth?

Smart growth development strategies support multiple

economic, community, public health, and environmental

outcomes in the creation of new places. These strategies help

create attractive, safe, and healthy new neighborhoods and

maintain existing ones. The ultimate goal is to facilitate

development that encourages social, civic, and physical activity

by creating interconnected, mixed-use, compact, and walkable

neighborhoods. The Smart Growth Network, a national

partnership of over 35 business, government, and civic

organizations, supports and educates communities on the

implementation of smart growth development principles.

The Cotton District in Starkville, Mississippi, home to Mississippi State University, is a great place for faculty, students, and staff to live, work, and play only a short walk away from campus. (Image: U.S. EPA)

Environmental Benefits of Smart Growth Development Practices

Growth and development affects our environment. Direct

impacts of development include water runoff due to increased

impervious surfaces when natural land, for instance, is turned

into a new subdivision and wildlife habitat fragmentation and

wetland destruction resulting from the conversion of forest to a

new office park. Indirect impacts include increased automobile

trips and increased emissions because of low density as well as

single-use development that doesn’t support transit or

alternative transportation choices. Not all development affects

the environment equally, however. Smart growth strategies

support development patterns that are environmentally

friendly, such as:

• Compact development that lessens the demand for the

conversion of undeveloped land and thereby helps to

protect working lands and habitat

• Mixed-use development that increases transportation

choices and decreases automobile trip generation

• Reusing existing properties such as brownfields and

underused sites that yield multiple environmental

benefits including cleanup of contaminated sites (or

potentially contaminated sites) and reduced demand for

greenfield development.

For a more in depth, technical discussion of the environmental

impacts of development patterns see Our Built and Natural

Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions between

Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality, available

at www.epa.gov/smartgrowth.

3

12

Rams Head Plaza at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill used to be a surface parking lot. Now it is a three-story parking structure topped by a “green” roof. At the roof level students access a dining hall and recreation center. (Image: Dan Sears, University of North Carolina)

Getting Better Environmental Results

The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill is aiming to accommodate new growth on infill sites. By taking advantage of

topography, UNC was able to convert a surface parking lot to a three-story parking garage, as well as convert the roof into a plaza

that allows students, faculty, and staff to access a new dining hall and recreation center. The vegetated or “green” roof absorbs some

of the rainwater that falls in the plaza. This site level strategy reduces the overall amount of water that must be accommodated in

the stormwater system.

Smart Growth Principles

1. Mix of Land Uses – By mixing housing, shops, offices, schools, and other land uses in the same neighborhood,

community leaders can encourage alternatives to driving, such as walking or biking.

2. Take Advantage of Compact Building Design – When growth is accommodated in compact development patterns,

communities can preserve open space, minimize infrastructure costs, and support transportation choices.

3. Create a Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices – New development can increase the number of homes available

in a community. Zoning and development policies can be adapted to ensure that a variety of home types are available –

small homes to large, rental and homes for purchase.

4. Create Walkable Neighborhoods – Walkable neighborhoods enable a variety of transportation options and provide

opportunities for everyday physical activity.

5. Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place – Development should represent the values and

unique history, culture, and geography of a community.

6. Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty, and Critical Environmental Areas – Farmland, pastures, forests, and

other undeveloped land are vital to the local and national economy and to a healthy environment.

7. Strengthen and Direct Development Toward Existing Communities – Development that invests in existing

neighborhoods takes advantage of the infrastructure and resources already in place, thereby maintaining and increasing

the value of public and private investment.

8. Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices – A balanced transportation system that incorporates many means of travel

and is supported by land-use patterns increases choices for moving around a community.

9. Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair, and Cost Effective – Governments have the opportunity to create a

more attractive investment climate; this can be done with clear codes and regulations as well as by the ability to make

decisions quickly, cost effectively, and predictably.

10. Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration in Development Decisions – Growth can create great places to

live, work, and play when it involves residents, businesses, and all other stakeholders early and often to define and

implement the community’s vision and goals. 4

5

13

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Smart Growth On and Off Campus

Most of our best-loved universities and their surrounding

towns have naturally used development strategies that we

would call smart growth to create connected, compact, and

coherent campuses. In addition, some of the best-known

college towns have exhibited the same type of development

patterns for generations. The constituency served by these

places – students, faculty, staff, and community members –

fulfill many of their daily needs in and around the institution,

allowing for a lower number of automobile trips. Because

colleges and universities do not typically pick up and move

their historical campus, sorting out issues that come with

growing in place has been a prominent challenge for both the

institution and the college town.

American colleges traditionally separated the intellectual

pursuits of the college or university from the surrounding

community. The term “campus” evokes this separation.

However, recent developments across the United States suggest

this separation has begun to break down, and the edges are

blurring. University districts in many communities are integral

to the social and economic health of the local institution and

vice versa. In addition, the expanded needs of campuses and

surrounding communities, and the arrival of innovative real

Eastman Theatre at the Eastman School of Music of the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. (Image: University of Rochester)

estate financing options, have led to a greater integration of

community and college.

The trend for both on and off campus development is toward

more efficient use of land through increasing densities and a

mix of land uses. On campus this may mean seeking out infill

opportunities for redevelopment such as surface parking lots or

underused facilities to take full advantage of existing space and

mixing previously segregated uses such as residential,

classroom, and administrative uses in new buildings or sets of

buildings. The increased densities and mix of uses not only

efficiently uses the infill spaces, but it also helps to solve

transportation problems by allowing students, faculty, and staff

to get around without an automobile. Since campuses and their

surrounding towns or precincts are interrelated to varying

degrees, the prevalence of compact mixed-use development

off-campus is also gaining momentum. Development adjacent

to campuses often includes dining and shopping options,

administrative office or academic support spaces, as well as

housing for staff, students, or the community. Entertainment

venues, limited parking, and connections to mass transit

naturally follow. Other new developments outside of traditional

campus boundaries also include such uses as research facilities,

6

14

academic space, or “incubator” facilities to promote public/

private partnerships for research and development. In each

case, the pattern creates growth and development to serve

multiple purposes and is a successful addition to an

institution’s assets.

In the recently published book The University as Developer,

editors David C. Perry and Wim Wiewel, argue that

development plans for colleges and universities have increased

impacts on the local community as a whole. Local policy and

the participation of higher education institutions in

community-wide planning efforts are paramount. Experience

shows that collaboration between institutions and local

stakeholders increases fairness and predictability, leads to better

places, and ensures that the development pattern addresses and

helps to solve multiple challenges.

The Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC) and

CEOs for Cities recently documented that more than half

of all colleges and universities are located in core urban areas

and most of these institutions are land locked. Unlike private

sector businesses, many colleges and universities have great

physical and institutional investments in their campus and

are not likely to move to the metropolitan edge to

accommodate growth.

Learning to accommodate growth within a constricted development context is essential for such campuses.

Colleges and universities offer unique strengths and benefits to

struggling communities. A 2004 Planning magazine article

reports on the increased role colleges and universities are

playing in urban community revitalization. The article quotes

David Perry, one of the editors of The University as Developer

and the director of the Great Cities Institute at the University

of Illinois at Chicago, on the increasing role of colleges and

universities as developers, especially in light of the recent

history of corporations abandoning cities. Specifically, Perry

argues that colleges and universities need “to be a signature

element of a city’s cultural and aesthetic direction. They also

have an obligation to be a good neighbor and to buffer their

impact on the people who live next door.” More recently, The

Chronicle of Higher Education reported on a number of

colleges and universities stepping into the void created by the

changing global economy, especially in traditional

manufacturing communities. Writer Karin Fischer reports, “As

traditional manufacturing economies in many parts of the

country decline, universities are being asked to play a greater

economic role in their local communities.” Cities from

Akron, Ohio, to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to Rochester, New

York are cited as benefitting from the economic opportunities

nurtured by higher education institutions in these places, as

well as the renewed spirit of cooperation and collaboration

between the communities and these colleges and universities.

A good example of a university partnering with a municipal

government, adjacent neighborhoods, and other research

organizations interested in seeing their resources leveraged for

positive economic benefit of the entire community is the

University at Buffalo’s participation in the Buffalo Niagara

Medical Campus (BNMC). BNMC is a nonprofit community

economic development corporation in downtown Buffalo, New

York, that coordinates activities related to planning,

development, and enhancement within the medical campus;

addresses issues of common concern to its member institutions;

cultivates a sense of place within its 100-acre footprint; and

promotes an awareness of community among its members and

with the surrounding neighborhoods. Its mission is “to

cultivate a world-class urban medical center by facilitating

collaboration among the region’s major health care and

research-related institutions located on the campus.” BNMC

carries out its mission by implementing the strategic plan

adopted in 2003. The guiding principles for the plan are:

• Establish a common campus address

• Improve physical integration between campus

and neighborhoods

• Foster community and economic development

• Enhance the open space network

BNMC is run by a board of 20 members and a professional

staff of five. The annual operating budget is approximately

$600,000 per year. A trustees council of about 40

neighborhood organizations, local businesses, and partner

institutions serves in an advisory role and helps BNMC carry

out its mission. The district as a whole is approximately 100

acres, exclusive of two residential neighborhoods adjacent to

the district that participate in BNMC activities and services.

The organization is funded by its member organizations. Its

programming comes from a variety or sources including direct

governmental appropriations, grants, cooperative agreements,

and charitable contributions. Each year, the area sees

approximately $600 million in expenditures and an additional

$300 million in annual economic impact. Of the 8,000 workers

in the district, 500 are M.D.s and 200 are PhDs.

7

8

9

10

11

15

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus map, showing the member organizations and the campus’ place in the community. (Image: BNMC)

The leaders of BNMC are leveraging the growth of their

member organizations to create a downtown campus where

residents, employees of the institutions, and university faculty

and staff feel safe, have convenient access to stores, and have

places to live and work. This type of mixed-use growth and

development can help reduce commute times, revitalize a

portion of the city that had previously seen large scale

disinvestment, have a positive impact on surrounding

neighborhoods, and create a place where people really want to

be – an increasingly important component of recruiting high

level students, faculty, and staff.

Benefits of Smart Growth Development Strategies

Colleges and universities that adopt smart growth strategies as

they seek to accommodate growth can realize significant

benefits. These strategies can help institutions meet their core

missions more efficiently, allowing growth and

development to be beneficial for a range of priorities. The

section that follows discusses these benefits.

Creates enduring, vibrant, accessible places

Colleges and universities are growing at a significant rate in the

effort to meet demands of increasing enrollment, research, and

infrastructure needs. Institutions have a choice in how to

physically accommodate such growth. They can pursue a

program to build enduring, memorable places that seek to meet

multiple institutional goals or, alternatively, they can build

facilities meant to meet the most basic, necessary

functions and goals of the individual building and program.

It is clear that prospective students and faculty desire

institutions that provide not only the highest quality education

and facilities, but also a vibrant and active campus life.

The physical campus and its interface with the surrounding

community is often an important part of these prospective

constituents’ final choice. Thus, creating enduring, vibrant

places both on and off campus is becoming more recognized as

a critical part of any recruiting effort. Further, while

enrollments are expected to rise through 2010, such increases

are projected to level off shortly thereafter. With high school

graduation rates expected to decline beginning in 2009, any

increase in enrollments will be made up of more nontraditional

college students. Meeting increased expectations and this

more competitive recruiting climate may be a challenge to even

the most well-planned recruiting efforts.

12

1�

Buildings as well as the physical space between buildings –

streets, sidewalks, plazas, parks, or greens – contribute greatly

toward what makes campuses, cities, and towns memorable

throughout the world. Design principles that colleges and

universities should adopt to create such enduring, vibrant

places include:

• Form: Well-defined outdoor “rooms” or “corridors”

should add to the existing campus and the

surrounding community.

• Unity: New development should physically connect to

and strengthen existing campus forms.

• Completing the Existing: Infill buildings on difficult

sites should complete outdoor spaces. Completion of

such spaces supports the campus as an expression of the

college’s identity.

• Reuse Old Buildings: The combination of old and new

adds vibrancy and interest to the campus.

• Mixed-Use Building: Buildings that support a variety

of uses create vibrant places, can help connect

campus and community, and help solve

transportation challenges.

• Interconnections: As appropriate, the campus should

provide for connections with surrounding communities.

• Uniqueness of Place: New construction should

acknowledge and build upon attributes such as

materials and building forms that make the campus

unique and recognizable.

• Compactness: Campus should develop at densities and

with a mix of uses that add to campus life and provide

environmental benefit by preserving natural areas.

• Mobility: Campuses are unique in their ability to

accommodate pedestrian and bike circulation as a

means to contribute toward the resolution of

transportation challenges. Access to transit and

shuttle services help relieve pressure to accommodate

the automobile.

• Sustainability: Institutions should take advantage of

sustainable building technology and siting, as

exemplified by the LEED Rating system.

The following examples illustrate recent efforts by universities

to ensure future growth creates such enduring, vibrant places.

The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia,

has a vision for design that is both simple and straightforward.

Seeking to ensure future campus development meets its vision

of unifying the campus’ architectural and landscape character,

the college adopted four plain, yet powerful, guiding principles:

1. The architectural configuration and character of the

Old Campus should be preserved.

2. New public spaces on campus should be created and

connected by clearly articulated pedestrian

circulation paths. New buildings should create and

frame new public spaces wherever possible.

3. Existing barriers to unifying the campus, such as

roads and parking, should be removed (or at least

minimized) wherever possible.

4. The unique naturalistic attributes of the ravine

intervening within the campus landscape should be

preserved and enhanced.

College of William and Mary campus in 2002 showing existing buildings, open spaces, and pedestrian and car circulation in the South Campus and the Historic Campus (Image: Sasaki, Inc./Boynton Rothschild Rowland for the College of William and Mary)

13

Old Campus

South Campus

1�

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

The design guidelines are influencing the form that new

development takes as William and Mary grows. The map on

this page shows the College of William and Mary as it existed

in 2002 and highlights two areas within the campus – the

South Campus and the Old Campus. Much of the South

Campus was built in the 1960’s and 1970’s. It is principally an

academic area; dormitories and other uses are absent. In

contrast, the Old Campus, dating to the end of the 17th

century, has always been mixed use. Residence halls, academic

buildings, and administration buildings all existed in that area.

The vision for the expansion of the college’s facilities used the

design guidelines to show how new buildings on the South

Campus could be sited. These new proposed buildings help

to create spaces in the South Campus that are more formal,

reflecting the traditional development pattern of the Old

Campus. The proposed mix of residence halls and academic

buildings will create a more vibrant place, while also beginning

to knit together the old and the new portions of the William

and Mary campus.

William and Mary’s vision for future growth and expansion of the South Campus (2002). (Image: Sasaki, Inc./Boynton Rothschild Rowland for the College of William and Mary)

New dormitories – Jamestown North and South – completed in 2006 on the South Campus (Image: Cunningham + Quill Architects)

As of 2006, the new dormitories – Jamestown North and

South – have been built on the South Campus across the street

from the Old Campus. These new residence halls respect the

integrity of the Old Campus, help to define the open space

adjacent to the building site, and begin to restructure the South

Campus by bringing student living into the previously

single-use campus.

Aerial view of Jamestown North and South (looking east) (Image: College of William and Mary)

14

South Campus Vision

Existing Building

Proposed Construction

Dormitories completed 2006

Old Campus

1�

Jackson State University ( JSU) in Jackson, Mississippi is

another example of how a university is using the need to grow

and accommodate enrollment increases as a mechanism to

create a vibrant campus and help to revitalize the adjacent

neighborhoods. In 2000, early in his tenure as president of

JSU, Ronald Mason, Jr. recognized that the first impression

of visitors to the campus needed to be improved if the

university was going to be able to compete for the best

students, faculty, and staff. The need to expand the existing

campus facilities to accommodate growing enrollments and

research production allowed JSU to retrofit some of the

existing facilities and build new facilities with the aim of

improving the way the campus looked, felt, and performed.

With Mason leading a revamping of the entire campus master

plan, JSU looked to accommodate and focus growth on its

western edge, proposing creation of a series of open spaces

connected by well-landscaped pedestrian and vehicular

thoroughfares. The new master plan defines a main east-west

pedestrian street that bisects campus, and proposes two north-

south quadrangles to establish pedestrian places with a human

scale for faculty, staff and prospective students.

“ The overarching goal of the $200 million in construction projects is simply to build a living and

learning community deserving of the students, faculty, staff, and alumni who make Jackson State

great. As we continue to build our nation’s leaders, we must make sure that they get the best education

possible. The facilities and their varied resources are very important to that end.”

— Ronald Mason, Jr., President of Jackson State University

JSU has also recognized that growth and development off

campus can, and should, yield multiple benefits, including

creating a vibrant, thriving place for students, faculty, staff, and

residents in the adjacent communities. This meshes not only

with the current academic and research mission of Jackson

State, but also its historic mission as a historically black

university to serve the local community. Jackson State, through

the JSU Foundation, is beginning to redevelop a 50 acre parcel

just to the east of the campus, adjacent to downtown Jackson.

Over the past 30 years or so, this area has seen disinvestment in

businesses, infrastructure, and housing stock. The desire to

reinvest in the area is strong, however, from the both university

and community perspective. The redevelopment strategy calls

for the construction of neighborhood shops and restaurants, as

well as homes ranging from single-family detached to

townhomes and student residences. The JSU Foundation is

also revitalizing a second neighborhood just to the south of the

campus. These efforts will help transform declining

communities into places where residents will have choices in

where to live, shop, work, and play. For Jackson State, the

additional supply of homes will mean that faculty, students,

and staff will have the choice of living near campus and

downtown, and have the opportunity to walk to class or an

office, restaurant, or shopping.

15

Jackson State University Campus Master Plan, showing growth occuring on the west side of campus and the formalization of the pedestrian walk through the campus. (Image: Jackson State University)

1�

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

— Ronald Mason, Jr., President of Jackson State University

Master Plans

While growth rates vary by institution, facility renewal and expansion is a continual process for all colleges and universities. To

build successfully while safeguarding a university’s mission as outlined in a strategic plan, growth should be guided by a campus

master plan, typically updated every 10 years with periodic reviews to ensure changing conditions comply with the plan. Such a

planning process should study near-term academic and physical plant needs as well as additional “beyond the horizon” needs, and

objectively consider the responsible capacity of campus land to accommodate such needs. A key element of the master plan should

be consideration of how the plan can reflect and facilitate the institution’s core academic mission and institutional values. Master

plans, or a separate planning process, should also take into account how the campus interacts with the surrounding community

and what goals exist to improve the campus and community in concert. The final product should provide a road map guiding

immediate additions and renovations to the campus’ buildings, grounds, and infrastructure, as well as anticipated long-term

campus growth.

Realizes fiscal benefits for both the institution and the community

Compact, walkable, mixed-use development that takes

advantage of infill sites and existing infrastructure can yield

numerous benefits to both a university and the surrounding

community. In addition, when colleges and universities

leverage their existing resources in partnership with the

adjacent community, they both maximize investments. The

institution gets the facilities it needs and the community, as a

partner in creating these facilities, can help ensure the new

development also serves community needs.

Colleges and universities are beginning to recognize the

tremendous market demands they can bring to bear on the

development process in adjacent precincts. Many factors point

toward the need for increased campus development that is

financially efficient and ecologically-responsible, as well as

creates excellent social spaces that serve the university and

the community.

Colleges and universities are major economic engines. Urban

colleges and universities alone employ more than two million

workers who bring a demand for housing, retail, transportation,

and leisure services near their place of employment. More than

1,900 urban universities spent $136 billion on salaries, goods,

and services in the mid-1990s. Many municipalities would like

to capture that power to benefit the local economy. Cities and

even states across the country are beginning to recognize the

economic value and vitality associated with colleges and

universities, especially when compared to the single industries

that were the economic lifeblood of many older U.S. cities.

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, so called “Rust

Belt” cities and their respective regions are teaming up

with local higher education institutions to nurture job growth

based on much of the intellectual and entrepreneurial activity

evolving from campus. Further national studies show that

population growth trends are favoring regions with college

towns and cities over regions without them.

Growing more efficiently. With more than two billion gross

square feet of existing campus space dating from 1970, a

tremendous amount of renovation and replacement is

anticipated to occur on campuses to meet current needs and

future expectations. Many older campuses may be considered

to be near their responsible capacity, making new development

outside of the traditional campus core the only choice for

growth. Such a choice, coupled with the rising costs of energy

and infrastructure improvements, demands efficient land uses

and sensitive designs that maximize the value of every dollar

spent. Fiscally sound decisions for campus expansion need to

start with assessing existing assets, resources, and opportunities

for maximizing the development potential of current land uses

and improving campus systems efficiencies.

Colleges and universities can inventory their campuses to

assess where the greatest potential for additional development

and a mix of uses exist. This might reveal sites on campus that

are appropriate for additional buildings, expanded complexes,

or reconfiguration to accommodate more residences or

classrooms. Furthermore, a master plan might suggest an

innovative or adaptive reuse of some part of campus that would

offset the need to build off campus.

16

17

20

Efficient land use decisions do not always need to be based on

the amount and type of buildings but can focus on land use

resources such as parking or street right-of-way. When

these land uses are efficiently redeveloped to their highest

use, existing infrastructure can be maximized and costs can

be minimized.

For instance, by providing additional surface parking to address

transportation challenges, colleges and universities are

spending scarce resources on projects that serve limited goals.

By replacing surface parking with structured parking, valuable

and in the long term potentially scarce, amounts of land are left

available for other uses more directly related to the core

mission. Colleges and universities should look more broadly at

parking challenges and consider increasing mobility in and

around campus. Efforts to solve campus mobility issues by

mixing uses and buildings more compactly result in more

efficient use of land and ultimately dollars.

Creating mixed-use places on and adjacent to campus with a

range of residential types, academic and administrative space,

retail and commercial opportunities, and transit connections,

reduces overall trip generation and thus the demand for more

parking. The reality is that colleges and universities and their

adjacent communities often have the infrastructure,

development pattern, and tradition to solve broad

transportation problems by providing a range of use options to

students, faculty, staff, and the community. By taking advantage

of existing assets and viewing parking as one of an array of

answers to a transportation challenge, institutions and

communities may adopt development policies and practices

that allow for scarce resources to be spent on educating

students rather than financing parking spaces. 18

Emory University converted a faculty parking lot with 40 spaces to a brick pedestrian way with an adjoining lawn, landscaping, trees, and benches. While the physical transformation was extraordinary and a great improvement, the university community was most impressed that 40 colleagues gave up their front door parking spaces in an effort to make the campus better for everyone. (Images: Ayers/Saint/Gross)

21

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

BruinGo! at UCLA: Addressing the parking problem by increasing mobility choice

The University of California, Los Angeles has adopted an innovative approach to reducing costs and protecting the environment.

By using Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to help address mobility demand to and from campus, the

university has been able to maintain and even reduce traffic levels since 2001. UCLA’s TDM approaches include vanpools,

carpools, transit pass subsidies, and encouraging faculty, staff, and students to walk or ride a bicycle to campus. Providing

incentives for these alternative modes so that they compete with the demand for parking has enabled UCLA to both enjoy better

relations with its adjacent communities, and continue to grow its academic and research programs. UCLA administrators estimate

that more than 1.3 million annual trips to and from campus are eliminated through UCLA’s TDM programs. Another half

million are saved through provision of on-campus student housing, which the campus has significantly expanded in the past

several years.

One such program is the BruinGo! transit subsidy. UCLA has partnered with Big Blue Bus, the city of Santa Monica’s transit

provider, and Culver CityBus, to provide a subsidy for students, staff, and faculty. The subsidy means that UCLA riders can swipe

their Bruin ID cards, drop a 25¢ co-pay into the farebox, and ride the bus (the campus has also developed a subsidized pass

program with LA’s Metro and DOT transit, providing transit and rail access throughout the metropolitan region). While the

program costs are not insignificant, the benefits reaped include reduced demand to build costly parking on campus, less

automobile traffic to and from campus, and environmental quality enhancements. Early studies showed a benefit to cost ratio of

about 2.4 to 1. Other external environmental benefits, such as reduced vehicle emissions and decreased single-occupancy-vehicle

commutes to campus were not part of the calculation.

At universities where TDM strategies are part of the mobility solution, parking demand has shrunk and students have more trans-

portation options, yielding greater environmental and economic benefits. The effect at UCLA has been a dramatic reduction in

parking demand—the wait list for a student parking permit has shrunk from a historical high of 4,000 to zero over the last few

years, eliminating a long-standing parking problem. Other universities with similar programs to UCLA’s include the University of

Illinois and the University of North Carolina, among others.

The University of Puerto Rico (UPR) in San Juan, Puerto Rico

has a transportation challenge – there’s not enough parking on

campus to satisfy demand. Sites for future parking, surface lots

or structured parking, are either limited or construction costs

are prohibitive. In 2003, a new metro transit stop opened near

the main entrance to the university. Officials at UPR were

skeptical that the new access to rail transit would help to solve

the broader transportation challenge. Preliminary research by

UPR professor Gabriel Moreno-Viqueira shows that public

transportation ridership to UPR has risen from 8 percent in

2003 (when the only choice was bus) to 22 percent in 2007.

Public transportation usage by first year students is up from 2

percent in 2003 to 31 percent in 2007. Approximately one-

third of all trips to the campus are now walking or public

transportation trips. The opening of the metro station can now

allow UPR to make decisions about how and where to grow

the campus with the knowledge that public transportation can

actually lower the demand for parking on campus. This new

transportation choice can help UPR shift resources away from

the construction of parking spaces and toward other facilities

that better represent its core mission.

Faculty, students, and staff come with increasing expectations.

Today’s administrators know that recruitment of the best

faculty and staff includes the ability to offer up-to-date

facilities in the right location, with a high quality of life.

Furthermore, today’s students come with higher expectations

for quality of facilities and leisure opportunities than in the

past. With rising costs of tuition and debt, students today place

tremendous weight on high quality facilities. Additionally, with

the increase of non-student residential communities on or

adjacent to campus (e.g. alumni condominiums and retirement

communities), older, sophisticated residents bring significant

disposable income and a desire to live where daily needs of

retail and culture are met within walking distance.

To meet such rising market demands, many campuses are

turning to the creation of new mixed-use developments off

campus in nearby areas. These projects may include retail,

student or market-rate housing, academic space, commercial/

office space, or other “back of house” university departments.

Benefits to the town include retail that adds to the local tax

base, housing within walking distance of a major employer,

19

20

22

additional parking, and a lively pedestrian-friendly destination.

Proper balance of these uses may consequently reduce traffic

congestion and pollution.

One example is the University of California, Davis. UC Davis

is working with a private partner to build a mixed-use

community to provide affordable ownership housing

opportunities for faculty and staff, as well as additional housing

for students. The plan encompasses approximately 205 acres of

university-owned land immediately west of the core campus

and south of the Davis city limits. Existing residential

neighborhoods border the site to the north.

The university’s board of regents approved the project in

November 2006, and groundbreaking could be as early as fall

2007, with first occupancy in spring 2009. The first-phase plan

of West Village calls for 312 to 343 homes for employees and

apartment-style housing for 3,000 students. The project is

oriented around a village square surrounded by commercial

services that will serve as the heart of the community. The

plan also creates a site for the Davis Center of the Los Rios

Community College District and a small day care or

preschool facility. The plan includes a generous network of

connected open spaces with bicycle and pedestrian paths.

West Village is designed to contribute to the vitality of the

university and the Davis communities, reduce regional traffic

on roads and highways, and offer high quality and sustainable

environmental design.

With prices about 30 percent below market in Davis, the West

Village homes are seen as a major tool for recruiting and

retaining top faculty and staff. Already, about 1,400 people

have expressed interest. To maintain affordability over time, the

price of homes at the time of resale is tied to the faculty salary

index or cost-of-living index, whichever is greater. In this

manner, future housing prices will more closely match

the ability of future generations of faculty and staff to pay,

rather than fluctuate with the local housing market, which has

recently experienced double-digit annual percentage increases.

The campus engaged in an extensive community outreach

process, including more than 30 public meetings and

workshops and development of a Web site. The faculty and

staff newspaper runs regular updates, and the communications

office issues news releases. The university also prepared a video

for use in the approval process.

Northeastern University. (Image: David Bagnoli)

University of California, Davis, land use plan for the West Village project. (Image: UC Davis)

21

23

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Financing options. Options abound for the financing of these new college town developments, including conventional

campus financing as a means to maintain control, or, where

private sector developers can build more efficiently, long-term

land leases. Additional options might consider mixed financing

with other joint venture partners (for more details on public-

private partnerships, see the Appendix, starting on page 43). In

some cases, colleges have combined efforts to benefit both the

institution and the municipality.

The University of Maryland, College Park has successfully

implemented a relatively new strategy to use private funds for

traditional campus services such as housing. With this

approach, a separate nonprofit foundation is established to

own the buildings and obtain tax-exempt financing. The

university leases the land to the foundation. A developer is

selected to construct the improvements, and may be hired to

manage the buildings, earning both a development fee and a

percentage of revenues. The foundation sends any excess profit

back to the institution. After the lease expires the property

reverts to the institution.

In another College Park example, the university is seeking a

private sector developer to redevelop a 38 acre parcel within the

east campus district. The project will create an exciting mixed-

use environment comprised of office, retail, hotel, residential,

and structured parking which will provide inviting outdoor

civic spaces and connectivity to the main campus, the city of

College Park, and the adjacent transit district. A question and

answer session for prospective developers hosted by the

university to gauge interest in September 2006 attracted more

than 200 participants.

In the University of California, Davis example previously

described, the university will retain ownership of the land, but

it will enter into ground leases with a private developer who

will design, finance, and construct the on-site infrastructure

and buildings, then sell units to faculty and staff, and rent

housing to students.

Another example is the Ohio State University which, in 1995,

collaborated with the City of Columbus and a number of

neighborhood associations and civic groups to establish

Campus Partners for Community Urban Redevelopment as a

nonprofit organization to develop a comprehensive

revitalization plan for the neighborhoods around the university

and to work with the university, city, and neighborhoods to

implement improvements outlined in the plan. Working with a

master developer for portions of the University District,

Campus Partners successfully led the community-based

Sketch of the University of Maryland College Park East Campus development (Image: University of Maryland)

planning effort that resulted in the development of the

Campus South Gateway project.

The project includes a wide mix of uses, as well as:

• 250,000 square feet of community and university

serving retail

• 88,000 square feet of office space, the majority of which

is occupied by the university

• 190 market rate apartments

• 1,200 space parking garage

• Eight-screen cinema

In order to accomplish such a broad scope of change, Ohio

State sounded out financing and partnership strategies that

would include support from multiple sources:

• The university’s board of trustees authorized

investment of $20 million from endowment to finance

the land acquisition.

• The City of Columbus helped Campus Partners

acquire the necessary land, committed $6 million for

infrastructure improvements, approved a tax- increment

financing district to support the garage, and permitted

Campus Partners to manage the design and

construction of these improvements to meet

city specifications.

• The State of Ohio appropriated $4.5 million in capital

funds to help subsidize the parking garage.

• Campus Partners received an allocation of $35 million

in federal New Markets Tax Credits to help finance the

retail portion of the project.

• The university issued tax-exempt bonds to finance the

housing, office space, and parking garage.

22

23

24

24

Joint Venture: Johns Hopkins University and the development of Charles Village

Charles Village, a Baltimore neighborhood adjoining the Homewood campus of the Johns Hopkins University, had been a

struggling area. Despite being blessed with an excellent housing stock and avid supporters of the area, for several decades the

Village had experienced limited reinvestment. It has recently undergone resurgence. As part of the preparation of a campus

physical master plan in the late 1990s, the university reached out to the Charles Village residents and businesses, including them in

its planning. As Hopkins continued its expansion to its east into Charles Village, it worked closely with the neighborhood to

ensure compatible and acceptable additions. Most recently, Hopkins chose a joint venture group, the Collegetown Development

Alliance (comprising a national student housing developer, a retail/marketing analyst, and a local development/construction

company), to develop retail, conference space, and student housing on university-owned land in the Village. The Alliance worked

with community members and organizations to garner local support for the project. Although the university’s initial impetus was

to relocate the campus bookstore, the project grew to meet both the university and the community’s desire for an enhanced retail

district as well as the university’s need for more student housing. The new $80 million building, known as Charles Commons,

houses a Barnes & Noble bookstore, 600-plus student beds, dining areas, and conference facilities. It has become a catalyst for

other, privately financed revitalization projects on nearby properties.

Rendering of Charles Commons, Johns Hopkins University. (Image: Johns Hopkins University)

Public institutions with cumbersome procurement processes

and smaller colleges with little internal design and construction

management expertise may find it useful to collaborate with

the private sector. However, universities and colleges may want

to exercise caution with this strategy as bond-rating agencies

consider such projects to have a higher risk of default. The

result may drive up the costs of borrowing, and, consequently,

rents on the property.

25

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Fosters greater cooperation between the institution and the community

Many communities know that colleges and universities bring

communities vibrancy and economic stability through their

support of cultural, commercial, and residential uses adjacent to

campus. College towns are attractive places to live, work, and

play, and, increasingly, they are becoming a retirement

destination for aging baby boomers. As attractive places to live,

many college towns are growing and need to address the

challenges and opportunities that accompany growth. Many

colleges and universities are growing as well, compounding

both the opportunities and challenges for the institutions and

the surrounding communities. Meeting these challenges in an

open, transparent, and collaborative way helps to foster

goodwill across what, in many places, has been a historic divide

between “town and gown.” Colleges and universities can start

to bridge the divide by showing that growth can be beneficial

to all stakeholders, especially when there is cooperation on how

and where that growth occurs.

A nontraditional growth model. As institutions venture “off-

campus”, they must recognize that unlike traditional campus

growth, the development of off-campus cultural, commercial,

and residential space may not align with the traditional model

for growth met by the office of a university architect or

facilities office. Such challenges have been met by a partnership

with the private development community or in some cases an

institution’s sanctioned real estate office or foundation. Such an

approach ensures that the goals of the institution are being met

while being kept independent of 501(c) restrictions that might

preclude profit-driven mixed-use development.

Off campus improvements such as new construction on infill

sites, brownfields, and vacant or underutilized properties,

rehabilitation of existing structures, and the complementary

expansion of a local economy, can yield invaluable results in

college towns or precincts. These opportunities, however, are

often unachievable because of the challenges associated with

land acquisition and the securing of appropriate investment

resources. As place-based institutions with long-term views, as

well as the ability to acquire both land and financing to develop

it, colleges and universities have much to offer communities

interested in seeing these types of properties redeveloped. In

some cases though, institutions may not be staffed to work

through some of the challenges that typically accompany

redevelopment of these sites. Colleges and universities should

look to partner with organizations that do this well. Numerous

experienced brownfield and infill developers exist across the

country. As a first step, institutions interested in initiating an

infill project should identify the developers of excellent similar

projects on or near other campuses and investigate partnering

with those firms. The partnership will allow the institution to

concentrate on its core mission, allow the developer to do what

it does best, and share both the risks and rewards inherent in

such projects.

In addition to partnering with experienced developers of infill

sites, colleges and universities should try to break out of the

traditional financing model and tap into the breadth of its

alumni and other supporters by introducing investment

opportunities for small investors. By introducing nontraditional

funding sources as well as the provision of a built-in market,

institutions bring to the table a ready mix of success that can

provide for such uses as incubator office or laboratory space, as

well as residential options for faculty, staff, and graduate

students, topped off with a healthy balance of retail. This in

turn can provide the community with a more attractive quality

of life for noninstitutional workers and residents and, perhaps

most important, a vastly improved tax base.

2�

Good Neighbors: Virginia Commonwealth University

Since the early 1990s, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) has taken very seriously its role in its community. It has used its

resources and growth and development policies to benefit its students, faculty, staff, and neighbors. VCU has two campuses in

Richmond, Virginia, the Monroe Park campus and the Medical College of Virginia (MCV ) campus. The Monroe Park campus

includes the Broad Street corridor. Historically, Broad Street was a retail center, but was in decline during the 1970s and 1980s.

Since the early 1990s, under the leadership of President Eugene Trani, VCU has been one of the drivers of the revitalization of the

Broad Street corridor.

By investing in a new recreation center, student apartments, a new school of fine arts, administration, and other buildings along

the Broad Street corridor, VCU demonstrated, through an investment that amounted to $100 million, that the area was a good

place to grow. As a result, approximately $100 million in new private investment has occurred in the Broad Street Corridor

including retail stores such as Lowes, Kroger, and a local food retailer Ukrops, as well as nearly 500 new housing units.

VCU has done much of this work by embracing the community and working with the Carver Area Civic Improvement League

(CACIL). Called the Carver-VCU Partnership, this initiative involves students, faculty, and staff in a variety of activities

including community policing and visioning and planning for development. One result of the partnership has been VCU’s respect

for the integrity of the housing stock in the residential portions of the neighborhood. VCU agreed not to purchase residential

properties to accommodate university expansion. Noting the importance of collaborating with the community, VCU has begun

an interdisciplinary effort to continue its relationship with its neighbors. VCU Community Solutions has involved student, faculty,

and staff research, teaching, and service in an effort to help solve community challenges. Partners include public and private

organizations that support community development in Richmond.

Overcoming suspicion. As college and universities are using

development projects to improve the physical connections to

adjacent communities, opportunities and challenges arise.

Given the manner in which many campuses have grown over

the past 50 years, communities are often distrustful, if not

outright fearful, of local institutions. Colleges and universities

often face the challenge of conveying a genuine interest in

improving the life of their surrounding communities as a

means to maintain a competitive edge while frequently having

to defend a history of independent planning and growth.

Overcoming such suspicions requires determination and

commitment from the highest levels of an institution and may

involve some of an institution’s most tangible assets, including

both land and access to funds. An example of this dynamic is

the University of St. Francis (USF) in Joliet, Illinois. As

reported in University Business, USF faced a skeptical

community – one resident wondered why the university

couldn’t just move away and “leave the neighborhood alone” –

as it began to plan for and implement an expansion agenda.

Despite working closely with the community to develop

expansion plans, USF needed support from residents to

convince community skeptics that the university could and

would respect community members’ involvement in the

expansion plans. Trust between the institution and the

community rose in part due to USF’s commitment to

grow in place and not relocate to land it owned on the outskirts

of Joliet. Ultimately, USF worked closely with the

neighborhood association, listened to the concerns of the

community, and relied on citizen support for its expansion

plans, which included the doubling of its on campus residence

halls to a total of 750 beds between 2006 and 2021. With

both town and gown’s vested interests in seeing economically

stable and culturally vibrant neighborhoods adjacent to local

schools, it is important to recognize the contributions each

brings to the relationship. Colleges and universities quite often

have procured land in adjacent communities and are, of

necessity, often committed to betterment of the surrounding

community. For their part, cities and towns provide the

framework within which a local institution can grow to meet

market demands. Too often faced with the significant loss of

substantial commercial and middle-class residential tax base to

the suburbs, these cites and towns can benefit from increased

interest and investment by local colleges and universities.

25

26

27

28

2�

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Community residents and students at Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi at a community meeting discussing a road project that affected both campus and community in 2002. (Image: Wes Harp)

Following a concerted effort to capitalize on such assets as a

physical place in the community, economic development

opportunities, and its historic mission as an educational

institution, Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut has

increased enrollment by 77 percent over a decade earlier. In

1996, Trinity set out to be a partner in revitalizing the

neighborhoods around the college, creating a vibrant, viable,

and safe community that would take advantage of existing

educational, health center, and economic development

resources. One of the signature projects has been the Learning

Corridor, a 16-acre site adjacent to the campus. This site

includes a magnet middle school, high school level resource

centers, a Boys and Girls Club, an arts center, and an early

childhood education center. This is just one of a number of

initiatives in which Trinity engages with the local community

to advance not only its own mission of academic excellence and

civic engagement, but to partner with the surrounding

community to grow opportunities from within. Such efforts

point the way toward how colleges and universities can become

an effective catalyst for revitalization that meets a community’s

long-term planning needs. Thus colleges and universities,

inextricably linked to their surroundings, may provide a major

impetus for growth otherwise unavailable to a town or city.

VCU buildings in the Broad Street Cooridor. (Images: Mary Lorino, BAM Architects)

29

2�

Noting the need to solve problems that arise due to population

growth such as increased traffic volume, the provision of

services, and the need for forward looking strategies to

accommodate growth, the University of Maryland teamed with

the City of College Park to address transportation and

development challenges that have accompanied expansion and

economic growth. Collaboration to address this issue occurred

through the College Park City-University Partnership. City

and university officials understood that the US Route 1

Dartmouth College: The campus in the community

When Dartmouth College purchased a prime site on Lebanon Street in Hanover, New Hampshire, behind the colleges’s Hopkins

Center for the Arts, the college saw “an opportunity to do things that were beneficial for us and for the town,” explains Paul S.

Olsen, Dartmouth’s director of real estate.

Because the Dartmouth campus is strongly integrated with downtown Hanover, the college was eager to help complete the

Lebanon Street streetscape by working with the town to consolidate an existing town-owned lot with land owned by Dartmouth,

an area that for some time had been considered a prime location for a municipal parking facility. Dartmouth worked with Hanover

to develop the two sites as one, resulting in a three-story retail and office building over an underground garage and linked to an

above-grade parking structure next door. Once the project was completed, Hanover assumed ownership of the parking facility,

leasing a number of spaces back to the college for its use. While the upper floors of the building were originally planned to be

office space offered for rent or lease, the college ultimately opted to use the space to address its own space needs. The town got

nearly 200 new parking spaces and additional commercial offerings for the downtown, while Dartmouth got a new building that

provided much-needed office space as well as revenue from retail space on the ground floor. Current ground-floor tenants include

a women’s clothing retailer, a home furnishings store, and an investment firm.

Still, Olsen insists that the rationale behind the Dartmouth-Hanover collaboration on a mixed-use building and parking garage

“wasn’t about economics,” because “Dartmouth had larger goals in mind,” including addressing the town’s long-standing need for

additional parking and luring new businesses to an already vibrant downtown.

corridor, the main gateway into the community, provided the

best opportunity for accommodating new expansion, yet the

street design and land use codes did not allow a development

pattern consistent with minimizing automobile traffic.

Through a series of initiatives, including technical assistance

provided by the U.S. EPA, the Partnership worked with the

county and other stakeholders to develop and apply a

transportation demand management study for the corridor.

Dartmouth College building at 7 Lebanon Street in Hanover, N.H. (Image: Dartmouth College)

30

31

2�

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

“A sustainability focus requires that we as a society focus simultaneously

on a systematic solution for building healthy, economically strong, and

secure, thriving communities….Sustainability is not one more issue that

higher education must deal with – like computer literacy. It really is

central to an institution’s mission and function.”

— Tony Cortese, Second Nature

Contributes to a healthy and sustainable campus

Colleges and universities across North America have

significant impact on the built and natural environment. Many

are growing in efficient ways that lessen growth’s

environmental impact; others are working to address

environmental issues associated with energy, transportation,

waste management, and relationships with local communities.

In addition to adopting smart growth strategies in planning

and siting development projects, yielding better environmental

outcomes by reusing land and new vehicle trip generation,

colleges and universities can also seek to pursue site specific

strategies to increase sustainability on and off campus.

Sustainable practices not only provide beneficial environmental

outcomes, but they also can be cost efficient, and, in an

increasingly competitive recruiting environment, colleges and

universities are finding that campus sustainability initiatives

can provide an edge.

According to Second Nature, creating a healthy and

environmentally sustainable campus requires a systematic

approach that integrates sustainability into every aspect of

campus life: addressing “how, when, where of campus growth”;

identifying compliance requirements and implementation of

sustainable practices; and realizing fiscal benefits. These

components already exist individually, but colleges and

universities should take a holistic view of their campus, and

work together to grow in a more sustainable manner and

improve their overall environmental performance. Achieving

sustainability requires changes in policy and practices at all

levels of the university community, and requires action from

individual students, staff, and faculty members through to the

administrative level.

The second Smart and Sustainable Campuses Conference held at the University of Maryland in April 2007 brought together 350 participants representing nearly 160 colleges and universities to discuss innovative ways to improve environmental performance on campuses across the country. (Image: NACUBO)

33

32

34

30

Colleges and universities can begin to “green” their campuses

and take a leadership role among their peers by implementing a

number of different initiatives, including:

• Using land in a way that allows for transportation

choice, balancing the demands of pedestrians, cyclists,

and vehicles in transportation management

• Incorporating environmental considerations in the

planning and design decision-making process of

proposed projects, programs, and activities, including

property acquisition, transfer, and leasing

• Conserving, protecting, restoring, and enhancing

the natural and cultural landscapes that contribute

to a balanced comprehensive open space system

on campus

• Preserving historically significant resources and

committing to a comprehensive understanding of

its place in the broader cultural/historical fabric of

the region

• Protecting and improving indoor and outdoor air

quality and minimizing atmospheric pollution

• Minimizing water consumption through efficient

resource use and implementing conservation programs

and initiatives.

• Reducing quantity of wastewater produced,

improving wastewater quality, and reducing the

quantity and improving the quality of storm water

runoff that drains from outdoor surfaces

University of New Hampshire received an Energy Star Award from the U.S. EPA in 2006. Three residence halls at University of New Hampshire have received the U.S. EPA’s ENERGY STAR rating. According to the U.S. EPA, the residence halls are the first residence halls to receive this rating. Recent extensive upgrades in these residence halls, part of a campus-wide Climate Education Initiative to conserve energy and lower greenhouse gas emissions, are saving UNH nearly $80,000 per year compared to an average dorm in the United States. (Image: University of New Hampshire)

• Reducing energy consumption, implementing

energy conservation programs, and promoting

energy efficiency

• Implementing pollution prevention practices or waste

minimization programs to reduce the amount of

hazardous and solid waste generated on campus

• Purchasing products that consider environmental

impacts in addition to quality and cost

• Promoting environmental awareness, education, and

training for the university community regarding their

responsibilities as citizens

• Measuring and monitoring progress in achieving

environmental principles, goals, and objectives

35

31

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Colleges and universities have taken steps to minimize their

environmental footprint: from tackling energy efficiency to

reducing greenhouse gas emissions to developing their

campuses in a “smart and sustainable” manner. Contributing to

a healthy environment ensures a college or university becomes

a leader on sustainability by increasing its competitive edge

with other colleges and universities on the social, economic,

and environmental impacts among students, faculty, and staff

who rank their top choices for recruitment and retention. It

also increases potential profit by reducing the environmental

impacts from the operations and maintenance budget.

Examples of these activities include maximizing environmental

efficiency; conserving natural resources; extending life cycles of

buildings and equipment; avoiding potential fines and

penalties; and improving public health.

What Do We Do Now?

Many campuses go through strategic planning processes that

typically include work groups for academics, research, student/

campus life, finance, outreach and service, and campus

facilities. Strategic planning efforts in these areas can and

should evolve into a vision for future campus development. As

discussed above, while campus development is about

accommodating growth in new or renovated facilities, the

resulting development pattern can have an impact across

campus functions. In following the path towards a new

development pattern – one that serves multiple goals –

colleges and universities should use as broad a vision as

possible. A strategic planning process often provides a start

for such a vision.

Once a campus understands the rationale for developing in a

compact sustainable manner, college and university leaders

chart a course and provide the resources for how they will move

toward better development patterns on and off campus. That

said, what are the steps for implementation and who should be

involved to ensure acceptance of a project and the support it

needs to ensure success? Here are some steps to consider:

1. Make an environmental assessment and survey the

current situation – ask the question, will the current

plan and structure allow the university to meet

its mission?

2. Understand the historic growth of students, faculty,

staff, and funding to have a better understanding of

future needs.

3. Communicate the need for change in the status

quo – a better development pattern means a

better institution.

4. Establish a broad coalition to help guide change

including the board of trustees, students, faculty,

staff from all departments, community members,

alumni, etc.

5. Develop or revise the vision for the institution –

make sure it’s an accurate reflection of where the

institution wants to go and constantly communicate

that vision.

6. Create a strategic plan that can be implemented –

include the academic mission and its physical

manifestation, the campus.

7. Write or revise the master plan based on the

strategic plan and vision.

8. Engage the local leaders on the interconnection

between campus and the community.

9. Help ensure success by implementing catalytic

projects first; build on successes.

Beyond establishing the process for creating and implementing

a development process on and off campus, decisions must be

made with a broader focus so that impact from the entire

community can be assessed. Assets and resources such as

students, faculty, and community residents can contribute to

direction of a smart and sustainable plan. Keeping the best

interests of these groups in mind will help in decision making

and prioritization of strategies that can be used to enhance the

campus and the development process.

36

32

Planning for the Future: Placemaking to Inspire a New Generation of On and Off Campus Interaction

Institution: University of Cincinnati

Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Type of Institution: Large Urban Public

Total Student Enrollment: 35,000 (Fall 2006)

Tools and Resources: http://www.magazine.uc.edu/0798/

contents.htm

Administrators at the University of Cincinnati (UC)

understand that in order to flourish in the 21st century, colleges

and universities must take bold steps to define themselves as

innovators, leaders, and trailblazers. To be recognized as

exceptional is a goal the university has had throughout its

history. However, in the past 15 years the university has made a

focused investment in building a campus that places students at

the center of all it does. University administrators realized that

to make their campus more attractive to students, staff, and

faculty, a more dynamic sense of place had to be created. In

other words, buildings and open space needed to interact in a

way that frames public areas and invites people to use them.

On campus this is done by creating pedestrian corridors,

bringing buildings to the street, and mixing land uses so that

activity can occur throughout the day and all over campus.

This multi-year effort has been nationally recognized for

articulating a strategy for redefining the university through

renovation of historic buildings, construction of mixed-use

structures, and establishment of “Main Street,” a lively

thoroughfare that meanders through the campus and like a

small town, provides places for students, staff, and faculty to

Main Street, University of Cincinnati. (Image:Lisa Ventre) Steger Center, University of Cincinnati. (Image: John Hunter)

gather, work, and interact. Inherent in the Main Street concept

is the permeability of the campus borders. Consequently, it was

clear to campus leadership that improvements in the

neighborhoods adjacent to campus were also necessary to

complete the transformation.

The university worked with local neighborhood associations to

assess the opportunities for investment and improvements and

even helped create some community development corporations.

The results have come in the form of public-private

investment, for which the university has provided some of the

development costs, primarily in the form of what it calls

“patient capital,” or low interest loans and gap financing.

Products range from housing at all income levels, especially

for students who wish to live near campus, to space for

businesses in new and renovated buildings. New mixed-use

development has been constructed adjacent to the university

on Calhoun Street in the Clifton Heights neighborhood, and

opposite the university’s academic health center in Corryville,

among others. Included uses are restaurants and specialty

shops, cafes, and clothing stores, all ideal uses to serve the

nexus of college students and the neighborhood population

surrounding campus.

To accelerate the momentum, the university joined with four

other major employers in the combined neighborhoods around

campus to create the Uptown Consortium. The consortium

leverages the resources of its members to stimulate investment

and economic growth in Uptown. All of the partners are

focused on building a better community and realize that strong

and vital neighborhoods are essential for preserving and

bolstering the strength of the existing assets like the campus

of the university. The consortium’s formation has resulted in

Profiles

33

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

The Mews near Main Street, new campus development at the University of Cincinnati (Image: Andrew Higley, University of Cincinnati)

a major shift in civic leadership’s view of the urban core,

which now extends beyond downtown to include the

Uptown neighborhoods.

Yet, improving the physical structure of campus is only half

of the puzzle for a university like University of Cincinnati. As

with many public, research-oriented universities, another

motivating factor is the academic status of its programs.

While UC has many top-ranked programs, it has recently

raised admissions standards, improved retention and

graduation rates, and, building on its distinction as the

founder of cooperative education, increased the range and

number of experiential learning opportunities for its students.

While many institutions address these factors separately, UC

has made it a goal to do it simultaneously with the physical

transformation of the campus.

The near completion of the campus master plan, and the

arrival of a new president, Nancy L. Zimpher, has stimulated

the creation of a strategic plan for academics at UC as well.

This plan, called UC|21, has ambitious goals aimed at making

UC a leading urban research university in the 21st century. 37

Existing intersection of Eddy Avenue, South Bend Avenue, and Corby Boulevard. Eddy Avenue leads directly to the campus. (Image: Ayers/Saint/Gross for the University of Notre Dame)

Revitalizing Notre Dame Avenue: A Founder’s Vision

Institution: University of Notre Dame

Location: South Bend, Indiana

Type of Institution: Large Private

Total Student Enrollment: 11,500 (Fall 2006)

Tools and Resources: http://architect.nd.edu/ and

http://www.asg-architects.com/expertise/campusPlanning/

und/index.htm

The University of Notre Dame College Town Feasibility Study

is the revitalization guide for 82 acres south of the university

surrounding Notre Dame Avenue. The plan calls for a

redevelopment that increases affordable housing options and

creates a pedestrian-friendly environment. Under the plan,

Notre Dame provides home ownership incentives to encourage

faculty and staff to live within walking distance of the campus.

Corby Boulevard

South Bend Ave

Eddy Street

34

Aerial sketch of the proposed intersection of Eddy Street, South Bend Avenue, and Corby Boulevard showing the creation of a quadrangle, infill development, and the formal entryway to the campus. (Image: Ayers/Saint/Gross for the University of Notre Dame)

Sketch plan of the proposed intersection of Eddy Street, South Bend Avenue, and Corby Boulevard. (Image: Ayers/Saint/Gross for the University of Notre Dame)

The study includes a master plan as well as urban and

architectural design guidelines shaping the redevelopment of

the streets, homes and businesses in proximity to the university.

Notre Dame Avenue provides a ceremonial approach to the

Golden Dome of the Main Building on campus, with the main

gates and design aesthetics that welcome visitors onto campus.

It was originally envisioned as a grand avenue flanked by a

double row of tightly spaced trees. Over the years the

neighborhood around Notre Dame Avenue declined due to

disinvestment, increased demolitions, and general neglect.

To reverse the decline and restore the original approach to the

campus, Notre Dame purchased a number of vacant parcels

around and along the avenue and has since begun developing

these properties in an effort to revitalize the neighborhood.

The revitalization includes residential, retail, dining, and

commercial developments, as well as vehicular and pedestrian

connections linking the campus to the area. The photos and

plans illustrate how this revitalization will take shape in the

neighborhood, specifically where Eddy Street, South Bend

Avenue, and Corby Boulevard intersect. The redesign of this

intersection illustrates how the “quad layout” can be echoed

within the neighborhood adjacent to the university. Buildings

located close to the street will help frame this space and define

how its pedestrian nature is similar to that of other spaces on

campus. Furthermore, open spaces are recommended to further

reinforce the connection and to create an identifiable figural

place within the city fabric.

The design guidelines for the neighborhood, and specifically

for Notre Dame Avenue, will ensure consistency of form and

character of the new houses slated to be built in this area. The

guidelines outline the placement of the house on its lot, size

and massing of the house, the selection of architectural

elements, details, color selection, and landscape choices. All of

these efforts aim to restore the original vision of Father

Edward Sorin, the university’s founder, as a grand, processional

approach to the university while giving the faculty a welcoming

community in which to live nearby.

Corby Boulevard

South Bend Ave

Eddy Street Notre Dame Campus

35

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Reaping the Benefits of Investing in Good Neighbor Relations

Institution: University of Pennsylvania

Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Type of Institution: Large Urban Private

Total Student Enrollment: 23,704 (Fall 2005)

Tools and Resources: http://www.upenn.edu/ccp/index.shtml

Over the course of many years, the University of Pennsylvania

had separated itself from its neighbors in West Philadelphia.

As with many institutions in similar situations, Penn

recognized a need to make changes or contend with eroding

neighborhood conditions and impacts upon its own vitality.

Disinvestment in the neighborhood, blighted buildings, and

decreasing property values collectively were creating a

perception that the university was not safe for students,

faculty, and staff.

Motivated to improve this perception and invest in the

surrounding neighborhood, leaders of the university decided

that a wholesale initiative to use its knowledge, resources, and

students to improve the physical and psychological make-up of

West Philadelphia would not only help revitalize the

neighborhood, but would also allow the university to grow and

share with its neighbors the opportunities that come along

with that growth. Beginning in the mid-1990s the university

initiated a revitalization strategy through applied learning

activities and direct investment to make West Philadelphia a

better place. Penn’s leaders also understood that in order to be

effective, they had to present a comprehensive strategy for

addressing revitalization and reinvestment in West

Philadelphia. This process had to be open, transparent, and

yield results. The strategy, called the West Philadelphia

Initiative (WPI), included strong stakeholder involvement,

participation from the highest levels of the university’s

Revitalization in the University City District near the University of Pennsylvania. A restaurant in the University City District near the University of Pennsylvania (Images: David Bagnoli)

leadership, and a commitment to addressing issues as they

arose. Results have been strong and quantifiable. WPI has

yielded 350,000 square feet of new retail space, more than 500

new homeowners, the addition of 500 new apartments in the

area, and more than $300 million in private investment since

the mid-1990s.

In addition to the WPI, since 1997 Penn has been part of the

University City District (UCD), the Business Improvement

District in the Penn neighborhood. UCD is a nonprofit

community improvement association run by a coalition of 11

partner organizations. Within its 2.2 square-mile service area,

its mission is to build “effective partnerships to maintain a

clean and safe environment and to promote, plan, and advocate

for University City’s diverse, urban community.” Each of the

partner organizations support the UCD’s operations. UCD

employs 40 “safety ambassadors,” maintains open space, is a

partner in providing transit service through the district,

manages planning and capital improvement initiatives, and

provides marketing and promotional support for activities in

the district. Results have included a decrease in crime and an

increase in population as well as growth in tax revenues as new

businesses locate in the area.

The university and private developers invested hundreds of

millions of dollars over the past decade in security, retail,

schools, the local housing market, and what Penn refers to as

“economic inclusion”—making sure the community and

minority companies share in the success. The results have been

monumental. Penn has become a model for campus-

community relations and return on investment. The mixed-use

transitions between the campus and West Philadelphia include

a range of commercial and housing options as well as increased

services. Penn is now the beneficiary of increased national

rankings and applications for admissions—both harbingers

of success.

38

39

40

3�

On campus, university buildings have been refaced to open out

toward the streets and West Philadelphia, and all new buildings

have ample windows facing the street, making the university

appear welcoming. Penn has provided additional lighting on

the streets for safety. As these efforts were gaining momentum,

the university worked on formalizing its focus on campus

planning and articulating its commitment to the community.

In 2001 the university’s “Development Plan” was released (and

updated in 2006) illustrating how the campus would physically 41

Downtown Hagerstown, the site of the University System of Maryland at Hagerstown. (Image: John W. Frece)

Investments in a Downtown Satellite Campus Supports Multiple Community Goals

Institution: University System of Maryland at Hagerstown

Location: Hagerstown, Maryland

Type of Institution: Regional Higher Education Center

Total Student Enrollment: 400 (Fall 2005)

Tools and Resources: http://hagerstown.usmd.edu/

renovation.aspx

Colleges and universities often accommodate growth by

building satellite campuses. In other instances, new campuses

serve institutional needs or are built for educational

opportunities beyond traditional campus experiences. Colleges

and universities can ensure that the development of new

campuses serve the multiple needs of their constituents –

students, faculty, and staff – as well as the surrounding

community by providing transportation choice, creating vibrant

places, mixing uses, and involving numerous stakeholders in

development decision making. When the University System of

Maryland decided to open a regional higher education center

in the western Maryland city of Hagerstown, the initial plan

was to place the campus on the outskirts of town near a major

interstate highway. But when an abandoned hotel – Baldwin

House – and department store in the heart of the city was

offered as an alternative location, controversy arose over which

location was in the long-term best interest of both the

university and the city.

When the costs of acquiring property and creating the

appropriate space – either new or rehabilitated – at each site

were all added up, the downtown Hagerstown site was the

slightly more expensive option. The impact of the investment

overall varied in each of the sites, however. Supporters of the

downtown site argued that more benefits would accrue for the

city, its residents, and the University System of Maryland

should the Baldwin House rehabilitation be chosen. Ultimately,

the decision was made by then Maryland Governor, Parris

Glendening, to renovate the building downtown rather than

build outside of town. The City of Hagerstown sold the

building to the state for $1, and by the fall of 2005, the

Hagerstown campus enrolled approximately 400 students in

the downtown site. The center is funded through state budget

appropriations to the University System of Maryland.

By siting the new education center in downtown Hagerstown,

more students come downtown in the afternoon and evenings.

As a result, new businesses began locating downtown and foot

traffic increased. The existing parking garage that had been

empty at night was soon put to further use. An adjacent

outdoor courtyard created a location for day and evening

community events, establishing the downtown as a destination.

The decision to site the campus in downtown Hagerstown has

caused university officials – from the chancellor and university

presidents down to facilities’ managers – to become more aware

of the impact their facilities have on surrounding communities

and revitalization efforts. The University System of Maryland

had been teaching courses on smart growth policies and

integrate with West Philadelphia and extend east toward

Center City. The goals of the plan included strengthening the

identity of the pedestrian core as well as upgrading the building

stock and infrastructure on campus. The plan calls for creating

a coherent identity throughout campus while considering the

needs of the community by stabilizing residential housing stock

and creating more student housing options on campus. This

balance will also be enhanced by fostering mixed-use

development achieved through public-private partnerships.

3�

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

“I’ve seen in the last 16 months [since January 2005] an energy for

redeveloping downtown that I’ve never witnessed before. The university

center is a big part of that. I was initially opposed to the downtown location.

Now that I’m here, and seeing what is happening, I see the wisdom.”

— David Warner III, Executive Director, University System of Maryland at Hagerstown

practices for a number of years beginning in the mid 1990s.

This Hagerstown project was an opportunity for the university

system to “walk the talk” and use smart growth strategies in its

own growth and development decision-making.

City officials – and the public – became more aware of the

importance of placing or keeping key institutions downtown

rather than on the fringe. In this case, although the cost of the

rehabilitation of the Baldwin House was slightly more than

new construction at the fringe of Hagerstown, the overall

positive impact on the community is greater in the downtown

site. Infrastructure is being reused, the downtown has become

more vibrant, new economic activity is occurring there, and the

community did not have to bear the cost of providing new

services to a site where no services had existed.

Map of the Hagerstown, Maryland, area showing three possible sites for the new University System of Maryland at Hagerstown. Maryland chose site 2, Baldwin House, in downtown Hagerstown rather than the other two sites outside of downtown. (Image: University of Maryland)

42

3�

Berea College’s Ecovillage learning complex. (Image: Berea College)

Producing What You Need: A Sustainable Campus that Works

Institution: Berea College

Location: Berea, Kentucky

Type of Institution: Small Rural Private

Total Student Enrollment: 1,514 (Fall 2006)

Tools and Resources: http://www.berea.edu/buildings/

ecovillage/default.asp

Berea College was founded in 1855 as the first interracial and

coeducational college in the South. The college provides a high

quality, liberal arts and professional education to students from

Appalachia and beyond. The college promotes understanding

and kinship among all people, service to communities in the

region, and sustainable living practices, which set an example

of new ways to conserve our limited natural resources. Based

on this philosophy, administrators and college leaders believe

that the campus and community should be integrated, with

specific attention paid to resources the college uses for energy

consumption and other aspects affecting the college’s ecological

footprint. Decisions are made with the understanding that

Berea’s goals should incorporate the confluence of ecology,

economics, society, and technology. Berea College is motivated

to be a sustainable campus both in policy and in action. As

such, the entire collegiate experience for students is designed as

a holistic one. All students are required to work for the college

at least 10 hours per week. Doing so, they gain an appreciation

for the dignity of all types of labor, earn money for their room,

board, and books, and provide needed assistance to the

college’s operations.

The college’s strategic plan, called “Being and Becoming: Berea

College in the 21st Century,” focuses on key operational and

academic issues. Growing out of the strategic plan, the college

reviewed institutional policies and practices to ensure

environmental responsibility and sustainability in all its

operations. This included adopting a land use plan addressing

the college’s holdings of campus, forest, and farmlands. It also

included a stringent Energy Master Plan to significantly reduce

energy consumption as well as design standards with minimal

ecological impact for building construction and renovations.

Some of the key elements include renovating buildings to

increase efficient energy and water use, while improving

comfort and functionality;;construction of student residences

and teaching facilities;;campus operations such as heating and

lighting systems, recycling, purchasing practices, grounds

maintenance; and sustainable management of the college farms

and forest;and ecological design that encourages the

participation of all community members in the design process.

With this commitment to sustainability and holistic ecological

function of the campus, the college established a Campus

Environmental Policy Committee. The committee monitors

the progress of Berea College toward ecological sustainability −

the ability to meet current needs without degrading the natural

systems and resources required to meet future needs and

recommends policies and actions that will promote progress

toward ecological sustainability.

Broadening the conversation from sustainability to smart

growth, the college notes that its practices regarding master

planning, design, and land consumption and management can

and should be hand-in-hand with practices for ecological and

environmental stewardship. For instance, Berea aims for its

land holdings to retain green space, increase recreational

opportunities, protect wildlife habitat and stream corridors, and

encourage conservation of “production” land use (agriculture,

wildlife, forestry, etc.).

Berea College is committed to land use policies that promote

no net loss of ecological function where possible and pursues,

to the greatest practical extent, placement of permanent

conservation easements on portions of farm and forest land.

3�

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Accommodating Growth Through Revitalization: University of Kentucky College Town

Institution: University of Kentucky

Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Type of Institution: Large Public

Total Student Enrollment: 26,260 (Fall 2003)

Tools and Resources: http://www.uky.edu/EVPFA/Facilities/

FacilitiesPlanningUnit/Campus_PLan_Update/ and

http://www.asg-architects.com/expertise/townPlanning/

lexington/index.htm

The “University of Kentucky College Town Feasibility Study”

is a revitalization plan for a 77 acre neighborhood in

Lexington, Kentucky. The site is advantageously located

between the downtown core and a large land-grant institution.

The urban design strives to revitalize this area after years of

abandonment and/or uncontrolled infill retail. The goal is to

improve the quality of life for the city’s residents and the

university community by providing an area that is a vibrant

place where students, faculty, and residents will meet, live,

work, shop, play, dine, and walk.

To show quick results, the institution implemented streetscape

improvements such as tree planting and sidewalk repair. To

tackle bigger issues, the university hired specialized consultant

groups to examine the potential for increased retail and

residential development. Based on recommendations from

market data and analysis, the team prepared schemes for eight

multi-family residential projects to be developed on vacant or

underutilized lots.

Renderings for the University of Kentucky College Town Plan. (Images: Ayers/Saint/Gross for the University of Kentucky)

Substantive research on university-community partnerships

and employer-assisted home ownership initiatives led to a

recommendation for a program to foster home ownership. The

university provided a housing ownership stipend to those who

would relinquish their parking permits near the campus. This

program reduced traffic, created more pedestrian activity

round-the-clock, led developers to be less speculative about

residential development, and advanced a stronger sense of

community through ownership.

This urban design initiative generated substantial interest

allowing the city to move forward with its goals. The city

issued requests for proposals to developers for housing projects

on city-owned land, and the university is building projects

within the study area as proposed by the design. Shared goals,

such as structured parking for the neighborhood’s institutions

and retail, increased retail development, and increased home

ownership are creating a foundation for revitalization and

genuine community. The public and private partnership has

resulted in progressive development which is positive and

complementary to both entities.

To date $65 million have been invested in the study area, and

an additional $85 million is proposed for new building projects.

40

Growing Green: Master Planning for an Enhanced Campus Footprint

Institution: Lewis and Clark College

Location: Portland, Oregon

Type of Institution: Small Urban Private

Total Student Enrollment: 3,433

Tools & Resources: http://www.lclark.edu/dept/public/

howardpressroom.html

Lewis and Clark College is committed to integrating

environmentally responsible development practices into its

construction program and campus master planning. This is a

natural outgrowth of the commitment to sustainability and

smart growth that is prevalent across the City of Portland.

Campus administrators and decision makers understand the

beneficial position of being a leader and model for campus

planning. Their actions and directives can motivate other

campuses around Portland, the Northwest, and throughout the

country to achieve environmental results. President Tom

Hochstettler believes “that sustainable development concepts,

applied to the design, construction, operation, renovation, and

demolition of our buildings and landscape, can enhance the

economic well being and environmental health of the college.”

“Lewis & Clark’s commitment to sustainability is not just talk;

we model our sustainable efforts to the community at large,”

said President Tom Hochstettler. “We are proud to put our

‘green’ face forward.”

Lewis and Clark College has established an array of planning

and construction programs and initiatives, including green

building, campus master planning, and sustainable

development. The college is committed to green building and

green architecture which implies a development methodology

that stresses solving the needs of the present, without

diminishing the resources necessary to solve the needs of the

future. In building construction, this is normally accomplished

by creating architecture that minimizes use of natural resources;

energy; toxic materials and waste; and emissions of pollutants

and maximizes the use of recycled materials.

Lewis & Clark College received a LEED Gold Certification

for the John R. Howard Hall for environmentally friendly

design by the U.S. Green Building Council. “We are honored

to receive the LEED Gold certification,” said President Tom

Hochstettler. “The systems, materials, and construction

practices that went into Howard Hall make it a model of

sustainable design and operation. In very practical ways,

Howard Hall does not just sustain the environment—it

transforms it. What it does for our natural environment, it also

does for Lewis & Clark’s academic environment. Howard Hall

is now the college’s academic center for disciplines involved in

studying and interpreting certain patterns, habits, and

behaviors of people and society.” As of Spring 2005, Howard

Hall joined approximately 40 other comparably rated buildings

across the country. These building standards, guided by the

U.S. Green Building Council, help colleges and universities

understand that green buildings can boost the bottom line and

promote the creation of livable, sustainable communities. J.R.

Howard Hall is expected to consume 40 percent less energy

than a typical building of the same size, thanks in large part to

raised-floor displacement ventilation and night cooling

systems. The elevator operates with 40 percent less electricity

than standard elevators and does not use hydraulic fluid. The

new building’s interior features exposed steel, unpainted

concrete blocks, and polished concrete floors. The building has

a smaller footprint than the structures it replaced, but it brings

a net gain of 25 offices and 14 classrooms to the campus.

Contractors recycled more than 95 percent of construction

debris and used low-toxicity adhesives, carpet, and composite

wood products throughout the building. The building design

and construction was accomplished through a campus-wide

initiative that coalesced with three applied learning classes in

environmental studies to educate the campus and community

about the benefits of green building.

This project fits into the broad sustainability framework

established in the campus master plan. The master plan has

three objectives: the accommodation of a wide array of facilities

that will enhance the academic, social, and residential resources

of the campus; enrichment and restoration of Lewis & Clark’s

unique open space environment; and spatial integration and

ordering of the disparate areas of the campus. As the campus

expands, college planners expect to achieve these objectives

by infill development, shifting automobile movement and

parking to the periphery, and siting buildings in a manner

to create places.

Howard Hall, Lewis and Clark College. (Image: Lewis and Clark College)

43

41

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Map of downtown Phoenix showing the ASU Downtown Phoenix Campus. (Image: Arizona State University)

Becoming Socially and Physically Embedded: Arizona State University’s Downtown Campus

Institution: Arizona State University

Location: Phoenix, Arizona (Downtown Campus)

Type of Institution: Large Urban Public

Enrollment: 6,200 – Fall 2006 for the Downtown Campus;

15,000 – projected Fall 2020

Tools and Resources: http://www.asu.edu/downtownphoenix/

The Southwest has grown steadily for the past two decades,

particularly in Arizona where the state’s population has grown

by 60 percent from 1990 to 2005. The addition of 2.3 million

people in that timeframe has spurred construction of towns

and cities as well as increased the need for services. Demand

for higher education added to the complexity for

accommodating growth in the state. Arizona State University

(ASU), located in Tempe, just outside of Phoenix currently has

more than 50,000 students. While university administrators

realized that this main campus would continue to flourish and

add students, they also understood an opportunity that existed

in another location – downtown Phoenix.

In 2004, university leaders began exploring the logistics of

planning and developing a downtown campus. While not

completely new to the urban sites (ASU had one building

downtown in which to expand upon), much work needed to go

into preparing the downtown for growth. Being downtown

would help ASU connect both socially and physically with city

residents and downtown workers. This would enable better

coordination and interaction between community partners and

faculty, staff, and students. Establishing a new campus would

require a master plan and a delicate balance between existing

and new building stock.

The most important event for the development of ASU’s

Downtown Campus was the approval of a $223 million bond

initiative by Phoenix voters in March 2006. This bond

provided funding for land acquisition and construction of

ASU’s campus – a state institution. The August 2006 campus

opening was the culmination of the Herculean effort required

to bring the campus into being. The Downtown Campus will

provide urban amenities that are not currently available to

students on the Tempe campus. Located in the area bounded

by Van Buren and Filmore, 1st Avenue and Third Street in

Phoenix, students will be able to interact with downtown

employers and vice versa. This campus is adaptively reusing

existing buildings combined with new construction. An

elaborate conceptualization and master planning process will

guide the multiyear development of the mixed-use academic/

artistic/commercial/residential campus plan. The campus will

be convenient to light rail service and other transportation

systems connecting with commercial, cultural, and

entertainment venues, including the Main Campus in

Tempe. Adjacent to potential residential and community

development, the campus will be a subdistrict of downtown,

lending critical mass to other educational and cultural

institutions, including the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative

(ABC), and University of Arizona Medical School in

collaboration with ASU and the Translational Genomics

Research Institute (TGen). Businesses throughout downtown

are excited about the campus and have adjusted their hours

and services to accommodate this institution.

As the downtown campus expands, university officials must

focus on placemaking and creating an experience for students,

faculty, and staff that will take advantage of the urban

environment. For instance, with the light rail adjacent to

campus, policies on campus should support this mode of

transport. Also, higher density development will have multiple

positive effects. First, density, which is common on campuses

urban and rural, creates a lively mixture of activity. Higher

densities will also support the business community downtown

including restaurants, shops, and other retail establishments

that cater to the university crowd.

ASU Buildings:

42

Developers are finding that the ASU Downtown Campus is a

good investment. The possibilities are endless as far as

encouraging public-private partnerships to build technology

space, classrooms, and residences for students and others. The

campus yielded two types of return on investment. The first

is the more traditional model wherein vacant buildings

surrounding the now Downtown Campus have become

valuable by virtue of the university’s investment. These

buildings have either been renovated by Arizona State

University or by developers who are building mixed-use

space, offices or private residential. Other redevelopment

projects are occurring simultaneously, such as the $600

million expansion of the Civic Center and the construction

of the Medical School. 44

Downtown Phoenix, site of the ASU Downtown Phoenix Campus. (Image: Arizona State University)

43

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Appendix: Structuring Public-Private Partnership (P3) Transactions By Joan J. Millane, Millane Partners, LLC

Diverse models and strategies exist for developing effective

public-private partnership transactions. A P3 project is

considered privatized if an entity other than the institution

owns it; finances it; markets it, leases it, or collects rent; as well

as based on who operates it; who keeps the profits, if any; and

finally, who fixes it if rental income does not cover operating

expenses, reserves, and debt service. In the traditional model,

the college or university performs all of these functions. In P3

transactions, the answer could be the higher education

institution or third parties for one, some, or all of the

aforementioned criteria.

In a P3 transaction that is 100 percent financed with tax-

exempt debt, many players are involved, including the

institution, a (501)(C)(3) tax-exempt owner entity and/or its

limited liability corporation (LLC), a developer, an

underwriter, the bond issuer (conduit), a credit enhancer or

bond insurer (not in all instances), the bond trustee, bond

buyer(s) or traditional lenders, their real estate and bond

attorneys, the property manager, and the project’s occupants.

Numerous legal documents are generated, of which almost

every aspect is negotiable. The transaction documents may

include, but are not limited to, the ground lease, the

development agreement, bond documents, building title,

survey, environmental studies, a management agreement,

sometimes a resident life agreement, tenant leases, and service

agreements. (To learn who is a likely party to each agreement,

as well as to see additional resources on P3 projects, visit www.

nacubo.org/x9127.)

Institutions seek to develop P3 projects through a convergence

of needs, including:

• Limited state financial support, which drive campuses

to seek new revenue streams, lower costs, and

shorter timeframes.

• Desire to provide new state-of-the-art facilities to

remain competitive in attracting and retaining top

students and faculty.

• Economic development, to reinvigorate nearby

deteriorating or unsafe neighborhoods. According to

Ayers/Saint/Gross, trends include less-defined campus

edges, off-campus university bookstores as strong

anchors, college towns as potential incubators of

new business, and a formula for a successful college

town that consists of high-end national (30 percent)

and local merchants (70 percent).

Other drivers of P3 projects include:

• Urgent need: Often institutions find they need to make

housing available for occupancy as soon as possible.

• Speed of delivery and execution: Public institutions

recognize that cumbersome state contracting

regulations can be facilitated via public-private

partnering in which the institution engages the

developer and the developer engages architects,

engineers, and other parties.

• To purchase expertise and resources: Institutions

recognize their need for development, financing,

construction, property management, or residential life

expertise, or may want its own staff to focus on the

institution’s core missions. Furthermore, developers

bring resources and expertise from lessons learned at

other institutions.

• To reduce risk: Colleges and universities transfer

responsibility for programming, design, financing,

construction, lease-up, lease rollover, and operations to

third parties.

• To make money: It makes sense to put

underutilized land assets to work to generate new

sources of revenues.

Historically there have been two significant misunderstandings

of reasons to privatize:

• To have the transaction be off balance sheet to

the institution.

• To have the transaction be off credit for the institution,

i.e., not using the institution’s debt capacity.

Whether a P3 transaction is determined to be off balance sheet

and/or off credit is the result of numerous considerations. From

an accounting perspective, operating leases can inadvertently

become capital leases. From a rating agency perspective,

determination of whether a P3 transaction is considered off

credit depends on numerous considerations viewed on a

continuum of university interface with the project and the

rating agency’s analysis of risk to future bond buyers.

A P3 project may or may not be off balance sheet, and if off

balance sheet, it may still not be off credit. It is important to

understand the implications of FASB Statement No. 13

(operating lease criteria versus capital lease designation), which

considers transfer of title, bargain purchase option, 75 percent

of useful life, and 90 percent present value of future minimum

44

lease payments. This topic is also addressed by FASB

Statement No. 98 (real estate sale/leaseback) and GASB 39

(consolidating affiliated entities) as well as other regulations

recently drafted and still being considered since Enron. An

institution should seek early advice from its accountants.

From the rating agencies’ perspective, a ground lease

transaction is unlikely to be considered fully off credit. The

rating agencies consider numerous factors with respect to the

transaction such as whether the project is on or adjacent to

campus, or is an essential component of student housing,

parking, or other integral institutional program. In such cases,

the project’s debt is likely to be considered by the rating agency

as indirect debt and will therefore have some impact on use of

the institution’s debt capacity, albeit not dollar for dollar as is

more traditional institutional debt financing. Other factors

considered include whether the institution has the right to

eventually take title to the project, receives revenue from the

project, provides services on site at the project, commits to steer

students to the project, or retains some control over rent levels.

(See Moody’s Investors Service March 1998 and May 2001

Special Comments.)

To determine the most appropriate way to meet its objective at

a particular time, an institution should consider several factors.

Resources and expertise that a developer can bring to the

project include project management and leadership, as well as

experience and expertise in design, financing (equity),

construction, marketing, leasing, property maintenance and

operations, and design and implementation of a residence

life program.

In a P3 project, the developer earns market-rate development

fees and market-rate property management fees (optional), and

obtains an easing of barriers to entry (i.e., land assemblage and

zoning), 100 percent tax-exempt bond financing (thus no need

for an expensive equity partner but also no residual interest),

minimization (not elimination) of development risk,

university-facilitation of student awareness of availability of

new housing, and an exceptional location. In addition, a

developer has less real estate market volatility, it diversifies its

business risk, and increases the potential for business from

other colleges and universities.

The institution benefits from new resources in the competition

to attract and retain top-notch students; “control” through the

project’s annual budget approval process; and any “cash”

remaining after expenses, reserves, and debt service (i.e., profit)

become annual payments of ground rent to the institution.

Finally, the land and buildings become property of the

institution at the end of the ground lease (generally 30 to 40

years); in the meantime, the institution has the use of the

developer’s creativity, expertise, and vast resources resulting in

the development of modern high-tech housing within 18-24

months; an integrated residence life program (optional); and

the potential for more students to become involved with faculty

and extracurricular activities.

Typically, P3 projects have a number of common elements:

• Available land that the institution is willing to ground

lease. (Institutions are strongly encouraged not to sell

land adjacent to it. Furthermore, a developer can help

assemble land at no cost to the institution.)

• A ground lease document which memorializes the deal

and stipulates all the controls, rights, and obligations of

the parties.

• An economic engine, i.e., a mechanism to provide

adequate revenue to cover the cost of operating

expenses, debt service, required reserves, and sometimes

return on equity. Potential economic engines might be

student leases (housing), student fees (dedicated

to a recreation center), institutional leases (office,

classroom, or research space), and institutional

purchases (e.g., goods and services from a bookstore,

restaurants, or hotel/conference space).

It is strongly recommended that institutions obtain an

objective, credible market study rather than proceeding on

the basis of “gut feeling.” A professional market survey

(considering both on and off campus factors) conducted by

an independent firm with credibility in the bond markets and

with the rating agencies, or with traditional lenders, will help

determine the project size, mix, rental rates, operating expenses,

reserve requirements and project debt capacity, as well as

an understanding of whether the project can be supported

by academic leases or must issue 12-month leases to be

financially viable.

A market survey will aid in making the case for approval by the

institution’s governing board and for the underwriter, rating

agency, lender, and credit enhancer for the sale of the bonds. A

market survey may range in cost from about $25,000 to

$40,000, depending on the number of focus groups, market

size, and other variables in the scope of work. Considered a

transaction cost, the fee for the market study may be

reimbursed to the institution at financing closing.

New student housing projects are not always self sufficient. If

the new student housing project is to provide new beds, the

project can be self sufficient and, in fact, will generate cash flow

to the institution due to the financing requirement, generally,

45

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

for a 1.2 debt service coverage ratio. However, if the new

student housing project is to provide replacement beds, the

project is not likely to be able to replace the annual cash flow

that the campus had been receiving from the replaced housing

in addition to covering the development and operating costs of

the new project.

The developer will take development risk, bring equity and

financing, and make profits as a fair return on investment. The

typical profile for student housing is 100 percent tax-exempt

bond financing; for mixed-use projects with private sector use

and/or ownership, the structure is generally 75 percent

financing and 25 percent equity.

The most common model in higher education facilities

construction is the design-bid-build model, although many

institutions also use a design-build process. P3 projects most

often utilize a developer-led team. While each has its particular

advantages and disadvantages, among the advantages of a P3

transaction is its ability to bring expertise and speed of delivery.

Endnotes

1. UNC Chapel Hill Campus Sustainability Report 2005

http://sustainability.unc.edu/Office/Coalition/UNC%20Campus%20Sustainability%20Report%20%

2. Paul Abramson, “2006 College Construction Report.” College Planning and Management, February 2006

3. Smart Growth Network and International City/County Management Association (ICMA), This Is Smart Growth, http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/articles.

asp?art=2367&res=1400, accessed June 14, 2007.

4. Smart Growth Network, www.smartgrowth.org.

5. University of North Carolina news release “Campus sustainability day to feature awards, exhibits, food, report,” October 24, 2005, http://www.unc.edu/news/

archives/oct05/sustainability102405.htm, accessed April 27, 2007.

6. David C. Perry and Wim Wiewel, eds., The University as Developer (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2005)

7. See Perry and Wiewel, eds.

8. Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC)/CEOs for Cities, Leveraging colleges and universities for urban economic development: an action agenda, CEOs for

Cities, 2002, p. 7.

9. Steven Litt, “Big man off campus,” Planning, August 2005.

10. Karin Fischer, “The University as Economic Savior,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 14, 2006, http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i45/45a01801.htm. accessed

July 27, 2006.

11. See www.bnmc.org.

12. See Hussar, Projections of Education Statistics to 2014. Student graduating from high school are projected to peak in 2009 at approximately 3,328,000 and decline

to 3,209,000 in 2014. See page 71.

13. See www.wm.edu/construction/vision.php.

14. For a full understanding of how the design guidelines and vision for future growth work, see http://www.wm.edu/construction/photos%20for%20web.pdf.

5. Ronald Mason, Jr. quote via e-mail on April 11, 2007, from Troy Stovall, Senior V.P. for Finance and Operations, Jackson State University

16. ICIC/CEO’s for Cities

17. Fischer, “The University as Economic Savior.”

18. For a good discussion of the parking and mobility, see U.S. EPA Parking Spaces/Community Places http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/EPAParkingSpaces06.pdf.

19. The BruinGo! Information was provided by the UCLA Transportation office in an e-mail from the director on April 9, 2007. See also, Jeffrey Brown, Daniel

4�

Baldwin Hess, and Donald Shoup, “Fare Free Public Transportation at Universities: an evaluation,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23:69-82, 2003, p. 78.

20. E-mail conversation with Professor Gabriel Moreno-Viqueira, March 21, 2007 and March 28, 2007.

21. E-mail correspondence with Julia Ann Easley, UC Davis News Service April 13, 2007; see also University of California – Davis West Village, http://www.westvillage.

ucdavis.edu/community/index.html.

22. University of Maryland, East Campus Redevelopment Initiative, http://www.eastcampus.umd.edu/ProjScope.cfm; e-mail correspondence with John Farley, Assistant

Vice President, Administrative Affairs, University of Maryland, May 24, 2007.

23. E-mail correspondence with Julia Ann Easley, UC Davis News Service April 13, 2007.

24. See Campus Partners, South Campus Gateway. http://campuspartners.osu.edu/gateway/index.html.

25. ICIC/CEO’s for Cities, pp. 48-49.

26. ICIC/CEO’s for Cities, p. 50. President Trani serves on the board of Venture Richmond (http://www.venturerichmond.com/downtown/), a nonprofit community

development corporation that supports economic development, marketing, promotion, and events in Richmond, particularly downtown.

27. See Community Solutions, http://www.vcu.edu/communitysolutions/overview.html, accessed May 15, 2007.

28. Melissa Ezarik, “Got to Grow – But Where to Go?” University Business, December 2005, http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=1083, May 31, 2006.

29. See “History of Trinity in the Community,” http://www.trincoll.edu/UG/UE/OCIR/History.htm accessed Jan. 8, 2007; Council of Educational Facilities

International (CEFPI), Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth. http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/SmartGrowth_schools_Pub.pdf, p. 25.

Accessed Jan. 8, 2007.

30. See ICF Consulting, Achieving the Vision: Options for the College Park U.S. Route 1 Corridor, http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/collegepark.pdf.

31. E-mail correspondence with Rick Adams, Director of Web and Print Publications, Dartmouth College, May 15, 2007.

32. Karla Hignite, “Will Sustainability Take Root?” Business Officer, April 2006.

33. Juliet Eilperin, “Colleges Compete to Shrink Their Mark on the Environment,” The Washington Post, June 26, 2005, p. A01.

34. See Second Nature, http://www.secondnature.org.

35. “UNH earns first EPA ENERGY STAR rating for efficient dorms,” http://www.ceps.unh.edu/news/releases06/estar508.html, accessed May 3, 2007.

36. See John Kotter, “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1995, and Harriet Tregoning, Smart Growth

Leadership Institute, “Smart Growth Tools for Wyoming: More Choices, Better Places,” Cheyenne, Wyo., February 14, 2006.

37. E-mail correspondence with Jill Jansen, University of Cincinnati External relations, May 25, 2007.

38. E-mail correspondence with Tony Sorrentino, Executive Director, Public Affairs, University of Pennsylvania, April 16, 2007.

39. University City District: About UCD, http://www.ucityphila.org/about, accessed May 4, 2007.

40. Penn: West Philly Home, http://www.upenn.edu/campus/westphilly/streets.html, accessed May 4, 2007.

41. Lois Romano, “Urban Colleges Learn to Be Good Neighbors, Universities Also Reap Benefits From Investing in Their Communities” The Washington Post,

January 9, 2006.

42. John W. Frece, “Cow Pasture or Downtown: University of Maryland Campus in Hagerstown, Maryland,” presentation at the First Smart and Sustainable Campuses

Conference, November 3, 2007;e-mail correspondence with Erin Harman, Director of Marketing and Public Relations, University System of Maryland, April 23, 2007.

43. “Press room for J.R. Howard Hall,” http://www.lclark.edu/dept/public/howardpressroom.html, accessed May 24, 2006; “Campus Planning,” http://www.lclark.

edu/dept/planning/, accessed May 21, 2007.

44. E-mail correspondence with Mernoy E. Harrison, Jr., Vice President and Executive Vice Provost, ASU at the Downtown Phoenix Campus, April 30, 2007; see

also Ayers/Saint/Gross, “Planning for a new American University,” Creating: The Magazine, no date, http://www.asg-architects.com/research/creating/vol1 no2/10.

pdf, accessed May 4, 2007.

4�

C o m m u n i t i e s o f O p p o r t u n i t y : S m a r t G r o w t h S t r a t e g i e s f o r C o l l e g e s A n d U n i v e r s i t i e s

Acknowledgments

This publication was made possible with the help of many colleges and universities whose staff members gave generously of their time and information:

Arizona State University

Berea College

Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus

College of William and Mary

Dartmouth College

Jackson State University

Johns Hopkins University

Lewis and Clark College

Ohio State University

Trinity College

University at Buffalo

University of California, Davis

University of California, Los Angeles

University of Cincinnati

University of Kentucky

University of Maryland, College Park

University of New Hampshire

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

University of Notre Dame

University of Pennsylvania

University of Puerto Rico

University of St. Francis

University of Virginia

University System of Maryland at Hagerstown

Virginia Commonwealth University

The following individuals gave invaluable comments and suggestions as reviewers: Tim McCarty, UniDev, LLC

Joan J. Millane, Millane Partners, LLC

Megan Susman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Paul Tankel, University of Rochester

Wim Wiewel, University of Baltimore

Michele Madia of NACUBO managed the project, and Donna Klinger of NACUBO provided editorial direction.

Christopher Goldan of Ayers/Saint/Gross directed the design and printing of the publication.