Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
Sign In
CITIES

When Universities Swallow Cities

By Davarian L. Baldwin July 30, 2017
When Universities   Swallow Cities 1
Richie Diesterheft

I n March 2016, as New Haven struggled to balance its shrinking budget, Mayor Toni Harp joined alders and local unions calling for a State Senate bill to help fine-tune Yale University’s property-tax-exempt status. Universities and their medical centers are registered with the Internal Revenue Service as 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit groups. Because of the public services that higher-education institutions provide to surrounding communities, their property holdings are exempt from taxation in all 50 states. The Connecticut bill, SB 414, would allow the state to tax university properties that generate $6,000 or more in annual income. Another bill, SB 413, which died in committee, sought to tax unspent returns on Yale’s endowment.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

I n March 2016, as New Haven struggled to balance its shrinking budget, Mayor Toni Harp joined alders and local unions calling for a State Senate bill to help fine-tune Yale University’s property-tax-exempt status. Universities and their medical centers are registered with the Internal Revenue Service as 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit groups. Because of the public services that higher-education institutions provide to surrounding communities, their property holdings are exempt from taxation in all 50 states. The Connecticut bill, SB 414, would allow the state to tax university properties that generate $6,000 or more in annual income. Another bill, SB 413, which died in committee, sought to tax unspent returns on Yale’s endowment.

6342 Review Cities cover
Cities: A Special Issue
In this special report, we look at the role urban universities play — for better and worse — in their communities, new insights into the history and future of cities, and the barriers that get in the way of good research.
  • The New Urban Science
  • A Fragile Urban Consensus
  • How the Government Segregated America
  • The Neighborhood University
  • Power to the Cities

Over the past 40 years, Yale had become the single largest commercial power in New Haven, as part of a national urban economy largely driven by universities and hospitals. Harp celebrated Yale’s central role “in the city’s transformation,” but she warned that while cities rely “more and more on eds and meds,” New Haven leaders must “be clear as a policy matter about the fiscal impact of this transition.” New Haven felt the need to adjust its relationship with Yale University, which had gone from an influential urban stakeholder to a tax-exempt municipal powerhouse.

SB 414 did not pass, however, and New Haven continues to struggle with Connecticut’s multibillion-dollar budget deficit while its largest local economic entity remains tax-exempt. (Yale does pay tax on some properties deemed “clearly commercial,” such as stores on campus, and offers “payment in lieu of taxes,” voluntary contributions that make up a small fraction of the estimated taxes it would pay based on the assessed value of its properties.)

Municipalities across the country face a similar tension: They attempt to patch budget holes while watching the endowments and urban footprints of tax-exempt colleges and universities grow. These problems necessitate a sober look at the inflated role of higher-education institutions in shaping urban policy, planning, and economic development — at the rise of what I call “UniverCities.” The quaint notion of the ivory tower is dead, as city schools take on a baronlike stewardship over surrounding neighborhoods to help shore up their fiscal stability in times of economic change. Collectively, these institutions have taken a leading role in shaping the future of urban America. Indeed, urban universities and their attendant medical centers (“meds and eds”) stand as perhaps the most central, and yet profoundly underexamined, social force in today’s cities. The presumption that higher education is implicitly a public good has for too long distracted critics and scholars from getting to the heart of the matter: What makes universities good for our cities?

The enlarged influence of “meds and eds” over city life dates at least to the end of World War II. We are familiar with universities that supplied academic research for military application during the Cold War. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has generally been the biggest university defense contractor in the country. Stanford used the defense-contract system to propel itself from a regional school into a science-and-technology powerhouse. Research for the Manhattan Project was conducted at the University of Chicago’s Met Lab. But in 1959 a group of city universities lobbied for the “Section 112 credits program” in federal housing legislation that helped make higher education the friendly face of urban-renewal projects across the country. These efforts demolished black neighborhoods and established white residential islands around urban campuses. In 1967 the University of Pennsylvania used the credits program to start displacing approximately 600 low-income and African-American families to build its University City Science Center, the nation’s first inner-city urban research park.

How are flourishing colleges acting in the public good when that public is paying for their economic competitive advantage?

Today, higher education’s tides of influence have spread far beyond the campus. Universities are now the dominant employers, real-estate holders, policing agents, and education and health-care providers in many major cities. The University of Southern California, for instance, is the largest private-sector employer in Los Angeles. Columbia University and New York University are two of the largest private landowners in New York City. The University of Chicago fields one of the largest private security forces in the country, with jurisdiction over 65,000 nonstudent residents on Chicago’s South Side. What happened?

In the middle of the 20th century, there was large-scale economic divestment from urban areas, followed by the flight of largely white urbanites. But starting in the 1990s, municipal leaders began competing to create an attractive “urban experience” to capture the consumer dollars of young professionals and empty nesters venturing back inside their borders. With the decline in manufacturing, the “bell towers” of higher education have become the new “smokestacks” — the signals of a thriving urban economy. In the process, city colleges and universities have recast themselves as institutions that can parcel and repackage “blighted” areas into “destinations” for a safe and profitable urban experience.

After Columbia announced its plans to build a new campus in West Harlem in 2003, President Lee Bollinger acknowledged the university’s fraught history with the neighborhood. He proclaimed, “Columbia is a different neighbor now,” publicly emphasizing the themes of partnership and collaboration. However, students and residents discovered that, starting in 2004, Columbia began working with the city’s Economic Development Corporation, an environmental-consulting firm, and the Empire State Development Corporation to manufacture a “neighborhood conditions” report. This report labeled the West Harlem/Manhattanville area “blighted,” which justified the use of eminent domain to take over and demolish properties on 17 acres of the neighborhood for a $6-billion research campus. In 2009 a court found the use of eminent domain unconstitutional and characterized the evidence for blight as “preposterous” and “egregious.” But the following year, New York State’s highest court upheld Columbia’s use of eminent domain and its plans forge ahead.

T he university has gone from one small, noble part of the city to serving as a model for the city itself. It is precisely the commercial amenities historically associated with “university life” — concerts, coffee shops, foot-traffic congestion, fully wired networking, high-tech research — that are being sold as a desirable urban experience. Residents have flocked back into cities looking for these university-styled urban experiences at the same time that rapidly shrinking state budgets have led universities to seek new ways to generate capital in the for-profit realms of labor, health care, and land control.

It may be the case that urban universities have been saved by gentrification, or are even the drivers of gentrification. Readers can draw their own conclusions. But what we can say with certainty is that at the same time universities were looking for new revenue, municipal leaders were seeking to remake their cities in the high-tech and high-density model of the university. UniverCities emerged when the interests of higher-education administrators, government officials, business leaders, and young professionals converged in the new service-and-information economy.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the past, urban-renewal schemes attempted to push poor and nonwhite residents away from campus neighborhoods through primarily residential development. The irony, today, is that colleges and universities are left with few amenities to sell and little commercial development — a problem when it came to attracting what a University of Chicago student called higher education’s most “precious set of imported individuals,” its students. Now the urban development of impoverished neighborhoods has been handed over to the for-profit arm of higher education. This convergence between money-hungry colleges and the attractiveness of “university life” for new urbanites has given rise to UniverCities.

The urban-planning model of UniverCities provides needed capital to institutions of higher education. University-based urban planning is also celebrated for creating a vibrant kind of public life that attracts wealth-creating entrepreneurs and the workers they employ. In 2009 promotional material in an airline magazine championing economic development in Ithaca, N.Y., went so far as to tout colleges and universities as key weapons for counteracting what it called, with no racial irony, the “bright flight” of the creative class from America’s biggest cities. Everyone wants to build a UniverCity.

In 2006, Phoenix passed a $223-million bond to build Arizona State University a downtown campus, with the hopes of converting undergraduates into a ready-made consumer base to energize urban retail and nightlife. Cornell University collaborated with Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and won a 2011 international competition to build a campus in New York City, hoping to spark a boom in the local high-tech sector. Furthermore, the growing faith in higher education as an urban growth engine has gone global. Consider the audaciously named Education City, in Doha, Qatar, or the controversies surrounding NYU’s franchising of its university brand in Shanghai and Abu Dhabi.

Many, like the “prosperity expert” Richard Florida, celebrate colleges’ and universities’ capacity to spark neighborhood vitality by providing museums, lectures, and public-safety protections while also creating new economic opportunities. The University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, and the city government came together to transform an abandoned steel mill into the Pittsburgh Technology Center, a site for advanced academic and corporate research. Saint Louis University instituted the Hometown SLU mortgage-loan-forgiveness program for employees and opened the boutique Hotel Ignacio in the newly revitalized Midtown Alley district. Even during the Great Recession, urban leaders all over the country rushed to pay Richard Florida’s consulting firm up to $250,000 for tactics hoping to transform their location into a potentially lucrative “Creative City.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Despite all the triumphalist rhetoric surrounding higher education’s expansive reach across American cities, black and Latino communities that surround campuses are left especially vulnerable. These neighboring communities of color frequently sit in zones of relatively cheap and sometimes abandoned land, and hold little political influence. Richard Florida, for instance, has since pulled back on his grand claims, after facing vigorous critiques that an increased creative class can, in fact, increase inequalities.

To be sure, higher-education institutions can deliver positive urban outcomes, but a central question remains: What are the costs when colleges and universities exercise significant power over a city’s financial resources, policing, employment, and real estate?

Higher education’s noneducational investments in real estate, policing, and labor can carry negative consequences for neighborhoods of color. Urban schools have become islands of wealth amid a sea of poverty. And this uneven geography rapidly gives way to an extension of the campus as a planning model for larger swaths of the city. The result? Poorer neighbors are pushed to the periphery of “meds and eds” prosperity. Large-scale university acquisitions of prime real estate (such as in New Haven, Philadelphia, New York City, and Chicago) lead to housing and land values that skyrocket beyond the reach of community members. The University of Southern California pushes ahead to replace the ancient University Village shopping center with a $900-million complex of stores and dormitories. As related changes quickly follow, including a nearby Expo train line, residents watch landlords convert family-friendly dwellings into student-oriented rentals with rates increased by almost 50 percent.

Many of these same residents may be shunted into the low-wage sectors of higher-education labor: janitors, cooks, groundskeepers, and other kinds of support staff. Harvard wields its $38-billion endowment to continue rapid campus growth into the Allston-Brighton neighborhood, while its food-service workers recently went on strike to protest low wages and rising health-care costs. South Side Chicago residents championed the extension of campus-police jurisdictions into their embattled neighborhoods, but “security,” it turned out, largely meant protecting white students amid increased complaints of racial profiling and harassment. Black students at USC have alleged excessive force and racial profiling by the LAPD.

ADVERTISEMENT

Univercities are taking over, and yet we fail to examine the consequences of their embracing an increasingly for-profit approach to their urban surroundings. A growing body of work, including Derek Bok’s Universities in the Marketplace (Princeton University Press, 2003), Henry A. Giroux’s University in Chains (Routledge, 2007), and Jeffrey J. Selingo’s College (Un)Bound (New Harvest, 2013) has examined the state of universities today. Soaring tuition costs, staggering student debt, and the inroads of business interests and the defense industries seem to confirm fears of a “corporate university.” While insightful, few of these works turn their eyes beyond the campus walls to scrutinize higher education’s nationwide expansion across our cities. Our blind spot to the rise of UniverCities comes largely from the assumption that higher education, while hypnotized by corporate power, is still an inherent public good, most clearly marked by its tax-exempt status for providing services that would otherwise come from the government.

A public-good paradox arises: Nonprofit status is precisely what allows for an easier transfer of public dollars into higher education’s urban developments with little public oversight or scrutiny. Colleges and universities pay virtually no taxes on their increasingly prominent downtown footprints. They also reap the benefits of police and fire protections, snow and trash removal, road maintenance, and other municipal services while shouldering little financial burden. Homeowners and small-business owners ultimately carry the weight of inflated property taxes caused by urban campuses, and the cost of rental properties skyrockets.

Such unfair taxing rates caused residents in the historically black neighborhood of Witherspoon-Jackson to sue and win an $18-million settlement from Princeton University in 2016. Residents argued that while local property taxes increased, the university maintained its exemption for buildings where research had generated millions of dollars in commercial royalties. The public-good paradox creates a lucrative higher-education “shelter economy,” in which tax-exempt status helps generate significant private profits with little public benefit. Donors’ gifts to endowments are tax-deductible, the investment income earned by endowments is tax-free, and so higher education has a competitive edge over businesses that pay taxes in, say, biotech or property management.

One plaintiff in the Princeton case described the university as “a hedge fund that conducts classes.” We must no longer evaluate colleges and universities simply by their stated aim of knowledge production and dissemination. They have become rapacious pro-growth behemoths that discuss students as consumers, alumni as shareholders, and the world beyond the campus walls as either prime real estate or a dangerous threat to their brand.

ADVERTISEMENT

They also oversee a vast payroll of white-collar and low-wage contingent workers. They maintain cheap workshops where exploited graduate students secure lucrative patents for corporate research. Campuses expand across cities, often choosing to bank land, awaiting its appreciation, rather than invest in services and infrastructure that would aid the local community. Higher education is a key growth machine in today’s cities because it has been given the keys to drive the urban economy forward by reorganizing urban space to serve its institutional desires as much as or more than its educational interests.

Caricatures of colleges as ivory-tower bastions of tenured radicals and young “snowflakes,” out of touch with reality, abound. But higher education’s footprint across the nation’s cities tells a different story. How are flourishing colleges acting in the public good when that public is paying for their economic competitive advantage? Has the very notion of the public good been perverted when it is used to justify multimillion-dollar tax-exempt endowments, an enormous contingent and low-wage labor force, the elimination of affordable housing in campus neighborhoods, and increased racial profiling?

Colleges and universities are where we should be able to pose and begin to answer those tough questions. Yet while universities set themselves the task of solving humanity’s most difficult problems, they have failed to question their own impact right outside their gates.

There is reason to hope for a better ending to this story. Activism against higher education’s urban expansion goes back at least to the 1960s, when residents and students in New York City led protests with the shout “Gym Crow!” after they learned that Columbia University planned to build a gymnasium in Morningside Park that would serve as a physical barrier between the campus and Harlem. More recently, students, workers, neighborhood residents, and even municipal leaders have found innovative ways to rally against higher education’s growing hunger for control over today’s cities. In 2012 the college-heavy city of Boston asked nonprofit groups with more than $15 million in tax-exempt property to volunteer 25 percent of the property taxes they would owe if not exempt (though many of the institutions involved, including Harvard, have fallen short in their contributions).

ADVERTISEMENT

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of California, and many places in between, students have joined forces with campus workers to demand union recognition, living wages, and better health care. Since 2013 the Campaign for Equitable Policing has been fighting to ensure just treatment and end racial profiling in the expanding jurisdiction of the University of Chicago Police Department. Students continue to fight alongside residents against Columbia’s use of eminent domain and NYU’s rewriting of zoning laws to control large sections of West Harlem and Greenwich Village, respectively.

A new city is emerging before our eyes. City campuses sit at a critical crossroads between their educational mandate and their economic footprint. If colleges and universities are going to be the new company in our “company towns,” then campus stakeholders, neighborhood residents, and city leaders must be at the table, in an equal way, for transparent discussions about how higher-education institutions can best serve as a public good.

Davarian L. Baldwin is a professor of American studies at Trinity College, in Hartford, Conn. He is working on a book version of this “UniverCities” research.

A version of this article appeared in the August 4, 2017, issue.
Read other items in Cities: A Special Issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Davarian L. Baldwin
Davarian L. Baldwin is a professor of American studies and founding director of the Smart Cities Research Lab at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. His latest book is In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower: How Universities Are Plundering Our Cities (Bold Type Books, 2021).
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

NYU Eats World
Caught in the Middle

More News

Illustration of a magnifying glass highlighting the phrase "including the requirements set forth in Presidential Executive Order 14168 titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government."
Policy 'Whiplash'
Research Grants Increasingly Require Compliance With Trump’s Orders. Here’s How Colleges Are Responding.
Photo illustration showing internal email text snippets over a photo of a University of Iowa campus quad
Red-state reticence
Facing Research Cuts, Officials at U. of Iowa Spoke of a ‘Limited Ability to Publicly Fight This’
Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues

From The Review

Football game between UCLA and Colorado University, at Folsom Field in Boulder, Colo., Sept. 24, 2022.
The Review | Opinion
My University Values Football More Than Education
By Sigman Byrd
Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin