Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
University campus expansion: an analysis of Harvard University’s expansion into Boston, Massachusetts
(USC Thesis Other)
University campus expansion: an analysis of Harvard University’s expansion into Boston, Massachusetts
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS EXPANSION – AN ANALYSIS OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY’S
EXPANSION INTO BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
By
Gerard William Hollins, Jr.
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
December 2016
Copyright 2016 Gerard W. Hollins, Jr.
Page | 2
Epigraph
“Place matters. From its global footprint to its local roots, Harvard is committed to the
economic, intellectual, social, and cultural vitality of our community. Our broad plan for
environmentally sustainable campus development includes a diversity of new uses that
enable people to teach, learn, collaborate, live, work, play, adapt, and innovate.”
Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust, President - Harvard University, October 12, 2007
Page | 3
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I want to acknowledge my parents Jeanette Hollins and Gerard
Hollins Sr. who have provided me with the love and support necessary for me to turn my
dreams and aspirations into reality. I would like to also acknowledge my son Matthew
Hollins for his unconditional love which has inspired me to be the best person I can be.
I would like to thank the academic faculty and staff of Harvard University for their
support of my research. Without their support and guidance I would not have been able
to compile the research necessary to complete my dissertation. I would like to also
acknowledge the community stakeholders of Boston who kindly agreed to be
interviewed for my dissertation. Without the insight they provided my research would
have been incomplete. I would like to also thank my fellow USC classmates Jeffrey
Wigintton, Robert Pittman, and Brian Dollar for their dogged encouragement
throughout my journey through the DPPD Program. Finally, and certainly not least, I
want to thank my doctoral committee, USC Professors Lisa Schweitzer (Doctoral
Committee Chair), Debbie Natoli, Gary Painter and David Sloane. Their support and
guidance and made my dissertation possible.
Page | 4
Table of Contents
Epigraph…………………………………………………………………………………………………….... 02
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………… 03
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 05
About The Author…………………………………………………………………………………………. 07
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 08
Purpose of the Dissertation………………………………………………………………………….. 10
Research Question………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
Introduction…………………………………………..…………………………………………………… 14
University Motives Behind Campus Expansion………………………………………………. 14
Community Organizing………………………………………………………………………………... 19
Community Benefit Agreements…………………………………………………………………… 20
Gentrification – What Communities Fear From Real Estate Development……….. 24
Government’s Role in Building Government, University & Community
Relationships………………………………………………………………………………….………….. 31
Conflicts Within Government, University & Community Relationships.……………. 34
Financial Impact of Universities on Local Government…………………………………... 36
Chapter 3 – Harvard University Case Study
Overview of Harvard University……………………………………………………………………. 42
Motivation Behind Harvard University’s Decision to Expand its Campus……….… 47
Harvard University’s Campus Expansion Project Overview…………………………….. 51
Harvard University’s Campus Expansion Execution Strategy…………….……………. 54
Local Government’s Reaction…………………………………………………………………….…. 59
Local Community’s Reaction……………………………………………………………..…………. 63
Chapter 4 – Research Conclusion
Lessons Learned From Harvard University’s Campus Expansion Project Case
Study…….....………………………………………………………………………………………………… 70
Limitations of Harvard University’s Campus Expansion Project Case Study……… 81
Research Areas Necessary of Further Study…….…………………..………………………… 85
University Campus Expansion Methodology………………………………………………….. 91
Appendix
End Notes……….………………………………………………………………………………………….. 96
Bibliography…….………………….……………………………………………………………………… 107
Page | 5
Abstract
Universities have become major economic engines for many large urban cities in
the United States. By providing educational, employment, healthcare services and
cultural exploration opportunities for local residents, universities improve the lives of
local residents like few other institutions in American society. Due to the importance of
universities to the lifeblood of many urban American cities, the topic of campus
expansion has become a new area of academic investigation. Interest in the academic
examination of university campus expansion has increased over the last several years
due to the dramatic increase in the number of large university campus expansion
projects announced over the last few years. Harvard University became the poster child
for this trend when it announced in 2001 that it would almost double the acreage of its
campus through a large land acquisition in the City of Boston. My dissertation will
examine the strategy used by Harvard University to secure the necessary land and local
government approval while dealing with community objections to successfully execute
its ambitious campus expansion plan. My dissertation will also touch on the reasons
behind Harvard University’s decision to undertake such a large and controversial
expansion of its campus. My hope is that my research will service as a template for
universities within urban communities when considering a large scale expansion of their
campuses.
My dissertation will summarize the literature on the topics related to university
campus expansions. My dissertation will examine the literature which examines the
motives behind why universities decide to expand their campuses beyond their
traditional boundaries as well as the impact these actives have on the local urban
communities where they are taking place. Specifically my research will examine in
Page | 6
detail Harvard University’s campus expansion project which was the largest and most
controversial project ever undertaken within an urban American city. My research will
focus on cataloging the steps Harvard University took to acquire the land and obtain the
local government approval necessary to make its ambitious campus expansion project a
reality. My research will also examine how the university’s strategy obtained
community support for its campus expansion plan. Finally my research will examine
the motives behind Harvard University’s decision to expand it campus in such a
dramatic fashion. The motivations behind the university’s decision to expand its
campus serviced as the foundation of its campus expansion strategy which is why it is
important to examine and understand.
The primary goal of my dissertation will be to assist private universities located in
urban cities in developing a strategy which will assist them in avoiding the obstacles
community groups and government officials can use to slow, increase the cost of or eve
stop campus expansion projects. The recommendations of my dissertation will be
limited to private universities which are located in urban city environments. Public
universities and universities located in rural environments do not face the obstacles that
private universities face when attempting to expand their campuses within urban city
environments.
Page | 7
About the Author
Mr. Gerard William Hollins, Jr. is a candidate for the Development, Policy and
Planning Doctoral Degree at the University of Southern California located in Los
Angeles, CA. Mr. Hollins is also a public finance analyst for the County of Los Angeles
where is responsible for managing the debt issuance process for specific transactions
involving the County of Los Angeles as well as school districts and community college
districts located within Los Angeles County. Mr. Hollins has been involved with the
execution of municipal bond transactions issued by the County of Los Angeles as well as
several school districts and community college districts located within Los Angeles
County which have a combine par value of over $3 billion. Mr. Hollins holds a Bachelor
of Arts Degree in Business Administration from Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA and
Master of Business Administration Degree from Harvard University located in
Cambridge, MA.
Page | 8
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Introduction
University campus expansion is a new area of academic exploration. Interest in
the academic study of university campus expansion is a result of the growing number of
large-scale campus expansion projects which have been undertaken by private
universities over the last 15 years within densely populated urban cities. St. Louis
University, Columbia University, Harvard University, Morehouse College and the
University of Southern are just a few examples of the private universities that have
undertaken large-scale campus expansion projects in the last 15 years. As the trend of
university campus expansion continues, more academic investigation is needed to
understand the effect of these types of projects on local governments and residents. In
addition, more academic research is needed on the strategies universities have to meet
their institutional objective of expanding their campuses in the most timely and cost
effective manner.
A university’s decision to expand outside of its historical campus boundaries
comes from both external and internal pressures. As top-ranked universities fight to
attract the limited number of top academic students, universities have had to expand
their campuses to accommodate the lifestyle demands of these students, which has
made some universities look more like five-star resorts than institutions of higher
learning. Five star workout facilities with rock claiming walls, spas, tennis courts,
Olympic-sized swimming pools and golf courses, as well as luxury apartments are just a
few of the amenities now demanded by top students.
1
Also, universities have also
developed and expanded their non-academic activities to generate much needed new
revenue. Museums, retail malls, research & office parks, bars and restaurants and
Page | 9
sporting and concert venues are just a few examples of non-academic facilities that
universities now own and operate throughout the United States. In addition, many
universities have built large medical research and hospital complexes affiliated to their
medical schools. Large aspects of these medical research and hospital complexes are
not devoted to the instruction of medical students but to revenue generating medical
research and patient care activities. In short, historical campus boundaries can no
longer accommodate the growing financial and operational needs of universities.
As a result of these external and internal pressures, many university
administrators now feel that they are in a race with their peer universities as it relates to
the lifestyle they are able to offer to their students and academic faculty through the
amenities available on its campus. Universities often note recent campus developments
at peer universities when announcing new campus expansion projects to the public. For
example, in 2011 the University of Southern California discussed how campus expansion
projects at other top universities like Harvard had influenced the development of their
campus expansion project, which involves the construction of a luxury mall, conference
center, and apartments for students adjacent to its main campus.
2
Harvard University’s
ambitious expansion plan was itself modelled on the success of Stanford University who
used its campus to develop the area known today as Silicon Valley. In this new, more
competitive environment, universities maintain or improve their reputation as an elite
institution by serving the demands for luxury amenities among top students and facility.
Universities can no longer rest on their laurels when it comes to the quality of their
campuses.
As universities pursue campus expansion projects driven by internal and external
pressures, conflicts can arise with some local community residents and businesses,
Page | 10
particularly in densely populated cities where there is little, if any, available land to
expand. Local residents, primarily renters, fearing any expansion by a local university
will create increased gentrification, usually oppose university campus projects. Some
local businesses also oppose university campus projects, as they fear the university will
build facilities on their expanded campus, like new restaurants and retail stores, which
will take business away from non-university owned business. As a result of these
concerns, universities must proceed with caution when pursuing their campus
expansion projects.
Private universities located in densely populated cities face even more challenges
than their publicly owned counterparts when attempting to expand their campuses.
Private universities do not have the power of state or federal owned universities to use
laws like eminent domain laws to take land from private property owners to expand
their campuses. Also, in many jurisdictions government agencies, like state owned
universities, are exempt from zoning laws and fees associated with the construction of
new facilities on land they own which, is another big advantage government owned
universities have over private universities when it comes to executing a large-scale
campus expansion project. For these reasons, private universities find it difficult to
expand their campuses in any meaningful manner.
Purpose of the Dissertation
The primary objective of this dissertation is to provide a roadmap for private
universities in effectively executing campus expansion projects within densely populated
urban communities through the analysis of the available academic literature on the
topic as well as an examination of a case study of a successful campus project at Harvard
University which many feel changed the way local governments and many in the
Page | 11
academic world viewed these types of projects. The dissertation is divided into four
chapters. Chapter 2 provides a review of literature on the topics related to the general
topic of this dissertation, university campus expansion. Those topics include the general
motives behind a university’s decision to expand their campus on a large scale, the
issues faced by local governments when confronted with a university campus expansion
proposal and the position of local residents when confronted with the proposition of a
university enlarging its campus footprint within an urban community. Chapter 3
presents the case study of Harvard University’s massive campus expansion project into
the Boston community of Allston. Chapter 4 outlines my conclusions and
recommendations based on my research and analysis of the case study outlined in
chapter 3 and the background literature presented in chapter 2.
Harvard University successfully secured the necessary land and winning approval from
the City of Boston for their ambitious campus expansion project totaling more than 360
acres which will more than double the size of their main campus which will is located in
the both the cities of Cambridge and Boston divided by the Charles River. The portion
of Harvard University’s campus located in Boston will be larger than the original
historic campus located in the city Cambridge.
Research Question
What is a possible strategy private universities could undertake to win the
support of local government and secure the land necessary to substantially expand their
campuses within an urban American city in a cost effective and time efficient manner?
Alternatively stated, what strategy could a private university implore to successful
secure local government approval and secure the land necessary to expand its campus
on a large scale within the urban core of a large American city?
Page | 12
Methodology
My case study of the campus expansion executed by Harvard University was
developed using interviews as well as document analysis. I interviewed the 4 key
individuals who lead the major stakeholders of the Harvard case study. Specifically, I
interviewed Jim Montgomery, who is the recognized leader of the Harvard-Allston Task
Force and Gerald Autler, who oversees the Harvard University’s expansion project for
the Boston Redevelopment Authority. In addition, I interviewed Harris Band who is a
Senior Director within Harvard University’s planning and project management unit and
Marika Reuling who is the Chief of Staff within Harvard’s office of the executive vice
president of Harvard University. Mr. Band leads the day to day operations of the
university’s expansion project in Allston while Ms. Reuling provides direct oversite of
the entire project for the Executive Vice President of Harvard University who has
ultimate responsibility for the project. Both Mr. Band and Ms. Reuling were intimately
involved with the planning and execution of Harvard University’s campus expansion
plan. Mr. Autler was the government official who was responsible for the review and
ultimate approval of Harvard University’s campus expansion plan. Mr. Montgomery as
a very active member of the Harvard-Allston Task Force and respected leader within the
Allston community lead the effort to assure the concerns of local residents were
addressed by Harvard University and the City of Boston as it related to the expansion of
Harvard’s campus in Allston.
Additionally, I performed extensive investigation and analysis of newspaper
articles and official documents of the City of Boston related to Harvard University’s
campus expansion plans. I reviewed publications and reports issued by Harvard
University which detailed the university’s motives behind its decision to expand its
Page | 13
campus, how the university acquired the land necessary to execute its campus expansion
plan and the university’s efforts to win government and community support for its
campus expansion plan.
Finally, I performed extensive examination of newspaper articles, television
special reports and academic research on issues related to the general topic of university
campus expansion. Those issues include the motives behind the growing trend of
campus expansion by private universities; the impact campus expansion can have on
local communities, and the dilemma local governments face when confronted with a
university campus expansion plan proposal.
Page | 14
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
Introduction
While there is no academic literature discussing how universities should plan and
execute a campus expansion project, there is an expanding collection of literature
discussing the major issues surrounding university campus expansion. Those issues
include the motives behind why universities decided to expand their campuses, how
communities organize to protect their interests when faced with large real estate
development projects, the economic impact universities have on local governments,
gentrification of local communities, community benefit agreements and government’s
role in fostering partnerships as well as resolving conflicts within community and
university relationships. A better understanding these issues provides the foundation
necessary to determine how universities can more effectively plan and execute their
campus expansion projects.
University Motives Behind Campus Expansion
Universities are one of the few location dependent organizations left in society.
As such, the quality and size of a university’s campus is an instrumental element in its
ability to be a leading institution of higher learning.
3
Universities decide to expand their
campuses for a variety of reasons including increased student enrollment, academic
offerings and to generate new revenue sources.
4
Competition among top research
universities is the number one reason behind the current trend of large scale university
campus expansion.
5
Specifically a university’s internal drive to maintain or improve its
prominence within the university community is a leading driver behind university
campus expansion.
6
You need to look no further than the University of Southern
California for an example of this internal drive. The University of Southern California’s
Page | 15
strategic goal to become a top ten research university has focused the university’s
attention on 3 key areas. One of these three key areas is to increase in size and quality of
its main campus to put it more on par with the campuses of other elite research
universities around the country. In a Los Angeles Times article, the former head of real
estate development for the University of Southern California, Kristina Raspe, pointed to
the long standing trend of universities developing upscale shopping districts with
restaurants, movie theaters, bars, conference centers and supermarkets, as the reason
for the University of Southern California wanting to redevelop a shopping center across
from its main campus when she stated. "We are the only campus of our size and stature
that doesn't have these kinds of amenities directly adjacent to its campus."
7
As early as
the late 1980s, Harvard University determined that without the growth in the size and
quality of its campus, its place as one of the world’s leading research universities would
be in jeopardy.
8
These are just two of many examples of how a university’s internal
drive to keep up with its competitors motivates a university to expand its campus.
The quality of a university’s main campus has become a key selling point for top
universities in attracting top students and faculty.
9
The quality of a university’s campus
is determined by a lot of factors. The quality of classrooms, research space, office space
and residential living facilities offered to students and faculty are all very important
factors in judging the quality of a university’s campus. The quality of a university’s
recreational facilities like gyms, retail centers, open park space, and student unions have
also become new important factors in judging the quality of a university’s campus.
Universities use high-quality residential, academic, retail and recreational facilities to
attract top academic students and faculty to their universities over other universities
with lesser quality facilities. Specially, top current and prospective academic students
Page | 16
now demand that universities have on campus luxury living accommodations, research
space and entertainment facilities before they will even consider attending a particular
university. Top faculty also routinely demand luxurious office, classroom and research
space from universities to stay at a particular university or move to a new one. As a
result of these new demands placed on universities, new and improved recreational and
residential living facilities have been a major component in most of the large scale
university campus expansion projects currently under construction. While the academic
excellence of a university will always be a key factor in attracting and keeping top
academic students and faculty, a university’s campus has become a very important
factor in this process. In short without these type of new facilities, universities feel they
will no longer be able to attract top academic students and faculty to their campuses.
In addition, some universities face enormous pressure from alumni to maintain or
improve the performance of its athletic programs especially men’s football and
basketball programs. This pressure is compounded due to the large amount of revenue
these activities can generate from ticket sales, athletic apparel sales, increased alumni
donations and television broadcasting rights for a university. According to the Houston
Business Journal, the University of Texas generates over $100 million in revenue
annually from its football program.
10
When you consider that the average division one
football program in the Southeastern Conference cost approximately $27 million to
operate a year in 2012, you can see how valuable a top football program can be to the
bottom line of a university.
11
Universities need high quality athletic training facilities
and stadiums to attract top student athletes, which are the most important element in a
top athletic program. High-quality athletic training facilities and stadiums require large
amounts of land, which in some cases has resulted in the expansion of a university’s
Page | 17
campus. Of the 20 largest stadiums as far as number of seats in the United States only
3, AT&T Stadium (Dallas Cowboys), FedEx Field (Washington Redskins) and MetLife
Stadium (New York Giants and Jets), are not the primary home of a college football
program. Most of these facilities being university owned and operated venues. The
University of Michigan’s Football Stadium will it’s officially capacity of 107,601 is the
largest stadium in the United States. Many universities administrators believe that their
overall enrollment and application levels are correlated to the performance of the
university’s football program. For example, fearing a decline in the enrollment growth
levels at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa, the state’s flagship university, due to
the growing popularity of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) as a result of
UAB’s football program, the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama System
voted to end UAB’s football program in 2014.
12
After a large negative public outcry over
their decision, the trustees reversed their decision and reinstated UAB’s football
program for the 2017 season. Baylor University expanded its campus in 2012 to
construct a new 45,140 seat football stadium at a cost of approximately $266 million,
which opened in 2014.
13
External pressures on universities to expand their campuses can also come from
neighboring community residents, the local business community, and municipal & state
governments. External pressure on universities usually leads to projects that are
generally focused on generating economic growth for the local community or the
regional as a whole. Typical university projects focused on local community or region
economic growth include small business development centers, medical research parks,
start up business incubators and general office parks.
14
Municipal and state
governments actively support these types of projects for the resulting increase in tax
Page | 18
base.
15
The direct involvement of Stanford University in the development and
ownership of the office parks and research centers which now comprise the heart of the
area now known as Silicon Valley exemplifies how external pressure placed on a
university to improve the local community can transform the tax base of a local
community.
Other external pressures lead to the construction of facilities focused on
improving the daily lives of community residents who live near the university. Typical
university projects that improve the community include preschool centers, healthcare
clinics, public elementary schools, fire stations as well as police stations.
16
The
expansion of university owned and operated hospitals service as an example of projects
driven by pressure on universities to spur community economic growth and to improve
the daily lives of community residents by providing local residents with access to high-
quality healthcare. University campus expansion projects that are focused on local
community and regional economic growth or on improving the daily lives of community
residents also work to the advance the university’s objective to improve the standing of
the institution within the university community. These projects increase the profile of
the university as a major economic engine within their local community and region,
generate new academic research opportunities for faculty and students and provide new
revenue sources for the university.
17
For example university owned and operated
hospitals have become large revenue generators for major research universities. New
York University’s Langone Medical Center generates over $3 billion in annual revenue
for the university.
18
Page | 19
Community Organizing
Community organizing the process where individuals and organizations within a
community join forces within an organized unified group that acts in their shared self-
interest.
19
Community organizing seeks to empower community members to address the
issues impacting their community. Communities organize for a variety of reasons.
Peter Dreier stated that “Community organizations vary widely in size, scope and
competence, but the range of issues and concerns that have been addressed is
remarkable.
20
They include: public safety; crime and drugs; tenants’ rights; housing
issues; environmental and public health issues; and economic development.”
21
The
academic literature on community organizing breaks down the topic into three basic
types of organizing by communities which are faith-based community organizing,
grassroots community organizing and coalition building community organizing.
22
The
ultimate objective of community organizing is to create political power for community
members, allowing them to influence key business and political leaders on a variety of
issues directly impacting their communities. In a perfect world, community organizing
groups’ work to have meaningful input into the development of government policies
impacting their communities.
Community organizing involves the use of numerous tactics. The academic
literature points to eight tactics commonly used by communities while organizing to
address a threat.
23
Those eight tactics include:
24
o Facilitate Coalitions
o Direct negotiations with government and the business community
o Political Campaigning
o Develop new local community leaders
Page | 20
o Picketing
o Boycotting
o Sit-ins
o Petitioning
Organized community groups use these tactics to influence or increase their direct
representation within decision-making bodies like government, corporations and
nonprofit institutions like universities. Community organizing also seeks to inform
others outside the community of the community’s concerns to pressure decision-makers
to address their concerns.
In recent years, the academic literature on community organizing has detailed
the trend of communities focusing their organizing efforts primarily on using municipal
governments to exercise the community’s unified power. Communities organize to sway
and in some cases force municipal governments to enact local ordinances that protect
existing community residents. Community groups’ use of zoning ordinances is a prime
example of this method.
25
Community groups routinely use existing zoning laws or
work to change existing zoning laws to halt real estate development projects like
university campus expansion projects to protect existing residents from the negative
impacts tied to these types of projects. It is usually at public hearings held by municipal
governments where community residents express their concerns regarding issues
impacting the community.
26
Community Benefit Agreements
A direct outgrowth of community organizing activities is community benefit
agreements. Community benefits agreements are legal written contracts usually
between municipal governments, community organizations, non-profit institutions like
Page | 21
universities and for-profit institutions like real estate developers that require non-profit
and for-profit institutions to provide specific economic benefits to local communities.
27
In exchange, community groups and municipal governments agree to support and
approve the non-profit or for-profit institutions’ redevelopment projects. Government
is usually intimately involved in the development of community benefit agreements. In
many cases, government officials are formal signatories to the community benefit
agreement. In all cases, government officials play a more formal role of facilitator of the
negotiations surrounding community benefit agreements.
Community organizing is at the core of community benefit agreements. Broad
based community coalitions which result from community organizing are used to
negotiate community benefit agreements. Creating and managing a coalition, enabling
compromise and constructing a shared vision for a community is critical to forming a
successful community benefit agreement.
28
Coalitions can include a variety of
community members from differing social economic and racial backgrounds. Larger
more complex coalitions sometimes develop operating agreements to outline the goals,
objectives and operations of the community coalition.
The academic literature on community benefits agreements points to the growing
use of these agreements to guarantee that one of the core purposes of economic
development is to improve the daily existences of the existing residents of the
community, chiefly those of low-income.
29
Supporters of community benefits
agreements have pressured government and the business community to play a more
strategic role in using redevelopment projects like university campus expansions to
create employment, housing that is affordable, and other services that improve
community residents’ daily lives.
30
The recent requirement of the city government of
Page | 22
Los Angeles imposed on the University of Southern California to fund a new $20 million
affordable housing fund in exchange for the approval of the university’s new retail,
conference center academic and student housing complex called University Village is a
prime example of how community benefits agreements are used to assure that current
community residents benefit from new redevelopment projects within their
community.
31
The academic literature describes the three ideals of community benefits
agreements which include inclusiveness, enforceability, and accountability.
32
Community benefits agreement negotiations should serve as an inclusive process to
guarantee that community fears are listened to and addressed in an appropriate
manner. It is vital that municipal governments do an effective job of seeking and
responding to community input and concerns as a key element of the negotiation
process for the community benefits agreement
.33
The recent creation of laws around the
country concerning public notice and open official public hearings like the Brown Act in
the state of California are a key element in ensuring inclusiveness. Community benefits
agreement negotiations provide a process for all segments of an impacted community to
be heard and their concerns to be addressed with a legally binding agreement.
Enforceability and accountability are also important principles of community
benefits agreements according to the academic literature on this topic. Community
benefits agreements ensure that community benefits agreed upon by government,
community groups and private institutions are legally binding and enforceable by law
. 34
Community benefits agreements make the promises of private institutions to
community groups and government in connection to redevelopment projects easily to
monitor and enforce.
35
Community benefits agreements also give residents the ability to
Page | 23
hold government accountable for how tax dollars are spent by giving them a direct in
how funds from these types of agreements are distributed between the demands of
community residents and that of government.
36
The community benefits agreement negotiation process allows for each
agreement to be customized to a particular community’s requirements.
37
The academic
literature extensively examines the range of benefits that comes out of the community
benefits agreement development process. The benefits of community benefits
agreements may be financed by the private institution or government can impose
stipulations on its tenants, vendors, and contractors to fund the agreement.
The most common benefits included in community benefits agreements are local
employment programs, and low-income housing requirements.
38
Other benefits
sometimes encompassed in community benefits agreements include:
o Funding of police and fire protection
o Funding of road improvements
o Public school funding
o Community college funding
o Pollution mitigation
o Local business contracting requirements
o Minimum wage requirements
o Employment training programs
o Contracting goals for minority and woman owned businesses
o Union hiring requirements
o local small business tenant requirements
o Restrictions on large national retailers
Page | 24
o Environmentally friendly building requirements
o Funding for the development of parks and recreational amenities
o Retail tenant selection community input provisions
o Parking and traffic mitigation
o Affordable housing requirements
While many community benefits agreements have proven to be successful in
improving the lives of community residents, the academic literature on community
benefits agreements also points to the ultimate failure of many agreements. The most
significant criticism of community benefits agreements is that they don’t prevent
gentrification which is usually the largest fear of existing community members as it
relates to community redevelopment projects.
39
In addition, the community benefits
agreement development process does not offer a way to ensure that a truly
representation of a community‘s wants, needs and desires is present.
40
In many cases,
only a community’s most powerful members’ wants, needs and desires are represented
within a community benefits agreement.
41
Finally many community benefits
agreements do a poor job of considering how each agreement provision will be
monitored and enforced
. 42
While well written agreements usually include annual
reporting requirements and issue investigation protocols as well as community
oversight committees, community benefits agreements usually are most successful when
government officials or agencies play a formal role in monitoring and enforcing the
provisions of the agreement.
43
Gentrification - What Communities Fear From Real Estate Development
You cannot discuss the topic of how communities respond to real estate
development projects like university campus expansion projects without discussing
Page | 25
gentrification. Within cites where redevelopment projects like university campus
projects are occurring the largest fear of local residents is gentrification. Gentrification
is the process of depressed areas transforming over a short period of time into a wealthy
area as a result of population shifts within the community driven by new commercial
and residential development.
44
Gentrification is defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention as "the transformation of neighborhoods from low value to high
value”.
45
Urban gentrification often involves population migration within a community
where new wealthy residents replace poor residents who are displaced. In a Brookings
Institution report, Maureen Kennedy expresses "that the term 'gentrification' is both
imprecise and quite politically charged", defining gentrification as "the process by
which higher income households displace lower income residents of a neighborhood,
changing the essential character and flavor of that neighborhood".
46
In a gentrifying
community, the median home price, income per household, education level, and
monthly rent increases while the average family size decreases.
47
The housing stock of a
gentrifying community shifts from a primarily rental community to an owner-occupied
community further lowering the availability of housing for poor residents who can’t
afford to purchase a home. Home ownership is an important element to consider while
examining the impact of gentrification. Homeowners do obtain an economic benefit
from gentrification while renters are usually displaced without any form of offsetting
compensation as a result of gentrification. In the end, gentrification ultimately results
in the dislodgment of lower income community residents, who cannot afford the higher
rents of a gentrified community. In a gentrified community, new businesses who cater
to the new affluent residents replace the business that catered to the poorer pre-
Page | 26
gentrification residents thus decreasing the ability of poorer residents to remain in the
community.
Gentrification can be accelerated or even result from a transformational
redevelopment project within a community like a large university expansion project like
the new campus under construction at Harvard University. There are numerous
examples of transformational redevelopment projects which have altered the
composition of a neighborhood. From the construction of the World Trade Towers by
the New York and New Jersey Port Authority which began the transformation of lower
Manhattan from a low rent district to the upscale neighborhood it is today to the
numerous baseball stadiums and basketball arenas which have been built over the last
25 years around the county which began the transformation of several downtown
districts into upscale neighborhoods. You can look no further than the impact of the
opening of the Staples Arena in 1999 on the South Park area of downtown Los Angeles
now one of the most desirable residential neighborhoods in Los Angeles to the
gentrifying impact new baseball stadiums had on the downtowns of Pittsburg, Baltimore
and San Francisco. Philadelphia is a prime example on how university campus
expansion can accelerate gentrification. Philadelphia is home to Temple University,
University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University. All three universities are currently
undertaking major multi-billion dollar campus expansions. As a result of the
universities’ development activities, private developers in Philadelphia have constructed
countless new projects mainly comprising of high end stores, luxury private student
housing complexes and entertainment venues near the universities’ campuses beginning
in 2010.
48
The development activities surrounding these universities has resulted in a
substantial increase in commercial rent and real estate valuations in these areas.
49
For
Page | 27
example a small business near Temple University reported an 80% increase in rent over
the last five years.
50
Residents have even coined a term to describe the gentrification
taking place around the University of Pennsylvania in West Philadelphia,
Penntrification.
51
Due to the negative impact of gentrification, most local residents oppose
gentrification efforts. Political protest against government officials is the most common
method used by local residents to stop gentrification.
52
Usually local residents focus
their protect efforts on government officials within a city’s zoning department.
53
To
limit or stop gentrification, community residents organize themselves to develop
strategies to use existing zoning laws to prevent or limit development within their
community. Sometime community residents with organize to push for changes in
zoning laws to prevent future development which they feel will cause gentrification of
their community. If community residents can build a large enough coalition,
community residents will sometimes even directly pressure elected government officials
to not support pro-gentrification policies by threating to not vote for them in the next
election.
While community residents fear gentrification, many local governments
indirectly encourage gentrification through their pro-development policies, which are
focused on increasing the government’s tax base. Local governments like gentrification
because of the increase in a community’s tax base when it is gentrified due to the new
high-income residents who relocate into the community.
54
In short, the economic
changes that occur in a gentrifying community are financially positive for local
governments. New community residents in a gentrifying community are wealthier thus
expanding the local community’s tax base as well as providing greater financial support
Page | 28
of local more upscale shops and businesses. This is why local governments sometimes
indirectly incorporate gentrification into their urban policies to redevelop a community
by promoting large-scale transformational redevelopment projects. Over time,
gentrification decreases commercial and residential building vacancy rates thus
increasing property values which also generates more tax revenue for local
governments.
55
Gentrification generates economic growth which in the end generates
new sources of tax revenue for local governments which is why in the long run local
governments will always support gentrification efforts by real estate developers and
universities.
Some scholars explain gentrification as an economic process of wealthier
residents pushing out poorer residents while others explain gentrification as a social
process that occurs when college educated, white collar professionals force out blue
collar workers.
56
The majority of academic literature describes five approaches which
explain the spread of gentrification within urban communities in the United States.
57
First coined by Bruce London and J. John Palen in 1984, the five theories describing
gentrification include:
58
o Demographic-ecological theory
o Sociocultural theory
o Political-economical theory
o Community networks theory
o Social movements theory
The demographic-ecological theory simply defines gentrification as a
demographic analysis of the baby boom generation. Due to the extreme size and wealth
of the baby boom generation, their pursuit of housing caused a housing shortage which
Page | 29
forced baby boomers to move to urban neighborhoods.
59
The more affluent baby
boomers who were usually white-collar workers, forced out older blue collar workers
resulting in gentrification. The population movement of the baby boom generation
transformed neighborhoods across the country from working class blue collar
neighborhoods to upper class with white-collar jobs neighborhoods changing the face of
many American cities.
The theory of sociocultural explains that gentrification stems from the changing
values of residents not demographics.
60
Simply this theory states that gentrification is a
direct result of the changing lifestyle values of middle-class residents in the United
States. As middle-class residents began to value living in urban environments closer to
city centers over the last 30 years, they have begun to move back into cities from the
suburbs displacing poorer residents who had traditionally lived in these neighborhoods
closer to city centers due to their lower cost. Over the last 30 years as middle-class
residents migrated back into city centers, urban run-down environments have been
transformed into upper class wealthy economically vibrant neighborhoods.
The political-economic theory of gentrification contends that economic as well as
political influences over the years led to gentrification within inner-city
neighborhoods.
61
As the political and legal environment has changed over the last 30 or
so years it allowed residents more freedom of movement in housing decision, which
resulted in some urban neighborhoods being gentrified. A decrease in racism allowed
more minorities to relocate to the suburbs while whites began to relocate back to city
centers or urban cores. The trend of increasing suburban housing prices also played a
role in white residents relocating back into cities where housing prices were lower
causing gentrification.
Page | 30
The community-network approach theory proposes that gentrification is due to
the new limited role of neighborhoods as a result of improvements in public
transportation, roadways and communication over the last 30 years.
62
As public
transportation, roadways and communication systems improved, residents have the
freedom to move anywhere. This freedom resulted in an increase in the movement of
residents to new neighborhoods resulting in the gentrification of certain areas.
The social movement theory is focused on the examination of identity focused
movements in society. In short, gentrification results from population movements
caused by people following real estate developers, government officials, wealthy elites,
and lending for-profit institutions into new residential areas.
63
In short people believe
these individuals and institutions have inside information on what neighborhoods are
going to increase in value over time so they follow them into these neighborhoods. As a
result of this movement certain neighborhoods gentrify as these individuals move into
these neighborhoods and take them over. University campus expansion is an example
of this process.
What the academic literature all agrees on is that the residents who are primarily
displaced by gentrification are usually minorities and elderly residents.
64
Studies have
shown that these groups are displaced in larger numbers by gentrification than other
groups. These studies also show that those who are most negatively impacted
gentrification usually lack the financial or political resources necessary to stop the
gentrification process. In the end, gentrification is a process that usually can’t be
stopped for political and economic reasons.
Page | 31
Government’s Role in Building Government, University & Community Relationships
Historically, universities and their fellow community members comprised of local
residents, organizations and businesses have not developed effective relationships to
address issues troubling the community. Local governments have stepped in as a new
relationship partner and missing piece to encourage, and in some cases force,
relationships between universities and communities to tackle the major issues
impacting both universities and their surrounding communities. The new model which
has been adopted widely within the government sector of encouraging pioneering
relationships between the government sector, the private sector and the non-profit
sector to exploit their shared resources.
65
University community relationships in
particular have become a tool of government to address large scale problems which
government and local communities are unable to solve alone.
This new model within the government sector stresses the importance of strategic
relationships which exploit the strengths of each partner in the relationship.
66
This new
relationship model is based on the theory that problems dogging the community can
only be solved through the combined efforts of multiple relationship partners including
government, private and the non-profit sector.
67
The objective of this new model is to
create a relationship which is win-win that benefits all relationship members. As
powerful as government is, it has realized its limitations and turned to universities to
help them improve the lives of its residents. In addition, government has turned to local
residents to become more of an active relationship member with government and the
non-profit sector to the benefit of their communities. In short, government has realized
that it alone does not have all the solutions for the problems plaguing communities
which is why they have turned to universities with their vast resources and local
Page | 32
residents to help them develop creative solutions to address the problems negatively
impacting community residents.
Due to the importance of government, university and community relations, they
have taken on a more formal form. Government has begun to encourage the use of
community benefits agreements to define government, university and community
relationships. Governments usually requires universities to sign a community benefits
agreements in exchange for government approval of a large university campus
expansion project. The enforcement of these agreements when involving universities is
carried out by the government. The penalties for a university not complying with the
terms and conditions of a community benefits agreements are spelled out in detail
within the community benefits agreement. In many parts of the county, government
involves community residents in the development and oversight of community benefits
agreements through the use of local resident groups who oversee and monitor the terms
and conditions of executed community benefit agreements as it relates to the actions of
universities within the community. Community benefits agreements have become an
important management tool within these relationships.
The issue of power imbalance within stakeholders involved in government,
university & community relationships is another reason governments have become
more involved in these relationships. Governments most service as the defender of the
weaker relationship member usually community residents within government,
university & community relationships. Within most communities, universities are the
economic engine of the community directly or indirectly producing the majority of the
commercial activity within the community. For example, the University of Southern
California is not only the largest private employers within its home community of South
Page | 33
Los Angeles it also is one of the largest private employers in the City of Los Angeles.
68
Universities have the power to work to improve the lives of community residents and
businesses or use its power to only further its own institutional goals and objectives.
University’s hiring practices related to local residents, campus expansion activities,
primary public education partnerships, local resident admissions practices, local vendor
contracting practices and its allowance of local resident access to cultural events held on
the university’s campus are all examples of government, university & community
relationships where universities can directly improve the daily lives of local residents
and businesses. Universities have the option of building actual and literal walls around
their campuses and using their resources to improve the lives of only their students,
alumni, staff and professors or bring down their walls and integrate themselves with
their local communities. Universities have the power and resources to achieve the
majority of their institutional objectives with little if any relationship with their local
communities. Harvard University demonstrates this fact with its ability to acquire land,
finance, and design its new 300 plus acre campus expansion project with very limited
collaboration with local residents or businesses located near the new development. In
short, government’s role is to encourage and in some cases force universities to deal
fairly with community residents within government, university & community
relationships. Government is the only institution who has the power and the resources
to negotiate with a university with the goal of creating a government, university &
community relationship which is fair for all parties.
69
Without government,
communities would be at the mercy of a universities’ willingness to participate in
government, university & community relationships.
Page | 34
Conflicts Within Government, University & Community Relationships
Conflicts within government, university & community relationships usually arise
around issues related to zoning and tax disputes.
70
Zoning conflicts around university
campus expansion projects between universities and local residents are common within
government, university & community relationships. Government can serve as either a
neutral party or take a side within a zoning conflict between a university and community
residents involving university campus expansion project. It is very difficult to determine
what side government will take within a zoning conflict. Tax conflicts arise between
local governments and universities based on the tax-free use of public services like
police & fire protection by universities.
71
Both zoning and tax related conflicts can
destroy government, university & community relationships.
Zoning conflicts within government, university & community relationships
usually take two basic forms.
72
Community groups either use existing zoning law to halt
current university campus expansion projects usually to protect existing residential
areas within the community or they make changes to existing zoning laws to stop the
possibility of future campus expansion projects.
73
It is frequently at zoning hearings to
the surprise of the administration of universities, that community residents first express
their built-up rage with universities.
74
Community members usually express concerns
regarding the lack of low-income housing, affordable retail and increasing levels of
gentrification as a result of the university’s activities. In many states, public universities
are exempt from local zoning laws which is a major reason why I have excluded them
from my research. Alternatively, private universities usually have to comply with all
local zoning regulations. Residents living around a university are often able to form
strong unified political coalitions using a zoning issue as the central issue to organize
Page | 35
around.
75
These community coalitions can focus public feelings against pro-
development zoning decisions making redevelopment projects like university expansion
almost impossible to achieve. In the zoning arena, these coalitions can lobby the local
government and interact with the university as a strong and powerful bargaining unit.
Opposition at zoning hearings is the most common method community residents use to
slow or stop university campus expansion projects.
76
Community coalitions can also
enter into community benefits agreements with universities and local government to
resolve zoning conflicts.
The tax-exempt status of universities can cause tension between government and
universities. When land is acquired by a university, it is removed from the local tax roll
and is no longer subject to property taxes as a result of the tax-exempt status of the
university. The removal of university owned property from local tax rolls results in the
university’s tax free use of city services like sewer, police and fire protection. Local
governments usually fund many key services like primary education, sewer operations,
police protection and fire protection through property tax revenues. When you consider
the size of university campuses and the cost of providing city services to these campuses
like police and fire protection, you can understand how the loss of property tax revenues
associated with university owned property can be a large concern for a local
government. For example, in 2007 public and private universities and colleges owned
approximately 40% of the land in the city of Providence, Rhode Island.
77
Some
universities have attempted to offset this cost by government by making direct payments
to government for these services.
78
For example, Brown University makes annual
voluntary tax payments to the city of Providence to cover its use of city services.
79
Page | 36
Financial Impact of Universities on Local Governments
Today, universities play an enormous role in the economies of American cities.
Universities drive advancements in varies areas of society including science, technology,
engineering, healthcare, business, law, education, and the arts. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 expenditures colleges and universities
located in the United States equaled 3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.
80
This figure does not take into consideration the economic benefit that results from
university research projects that have resulted in some of the most valuable inventions
in history. Also, as a group, universities are some of the largest employers in the United
States. For example, Washington University in St. Louis is 1 of only 7 private employers
who employ 10,000 or more individuals in the St. Louis Metro Area.
81
The University of
Southern California is 1 of only 5 private employers who employ 14,000 or more
individuals in the Los Angeles Metro Area.
82
Boston University is the 3rd largest private
employer in the Boston Metro Area employing over 9,000 individuals.
83
Emory
University is the 4th largest private employer in the Atlanta Metro Area employing more
than 13,000 individuals.
84
In the large population centers in the western region of the
United States (Los Angeles), the southern region (Atlanta), the mid-western region (St.
Louis) and the north eastern region (Boston), a university is one of the largest private
employers in the entire metro area. In addition to being employment centers, some of
the largest hospital complexes, libraries, and museums in the United States which are
open to the general public are owned and operated by universities.
There is a great quote by Daniel Patrick Moynihan about the development of New
York City into one of the world’s great cities which states “If you want to create a great
city, you should create two great universities and wait 200 years”.
85
This quote describes
Page | 37
the importance of universities to the growth of cities. In particular it illustrates the role
of universities as economic development catalysts. Both as creators of new technology
and real estate developers through their campus expansion projects, universities have
improved the economies of local communities, cities, states and the nation at large.
There is no better example than the evolution of the technology industry in the United
States. The technology industry which was greatly developed by universities has long
been dependent on universities for new philosophies and educated workers.
86
Look no
further than the relationship between Stanford University and Silicon Valley. Some of
American’s largest technology companies like Apple, Google, Yahoo and HP where
either founded by individuals educated at Stanford, operated their first business offices
in subsidized office space owned by Stanford or were funded by direct investments from
Stanford or from venture capitalist educated at Stanford. Similar correlations can be
drawn to the growth of technology and medical companies in North Carolina within the
area known as the Research Triangle which is the area bordered by Duke University,
University of North Carolina and North Carolina State University as well as the growth
of technology companies in Austin, Texas in the area surrounding the University of
Texas. Likewise the University of California has created enormous economic growth
within the communities surrounding it’s campuses throughout California over the last
several decades. In 2010, one in four biotech companies in the United States were
located within 35 miles of a University of California campus, while one in six biotech
companies was founded by a scientist located at one of the University of California
campuses.
87
Universities have even become the catalyst for the revitalization of decaying and
declining cities in the United States. The University of Pennsylvania is a prime example
Page | 38
of the impact a university can have on the turnaround of a deteriorating city. The
university which recognized its future was tied to the success or failure of the economy
of Philadelphia deployed its vast resources to improve the city’s economy and the lives
of its residents especially those residents who live near the university. Through
University of Pennsylvania’s direct efforts over a ten year period, the university was able
to reduce the crime in the neighborhood surrounding its campus by 31 percent while
reversing the trend of residents relocating out of the area, attracting new shops and
higher income residents to the area which spurred new business development in the
area surrounding the university.
88
The area surrounding the University of Pennsylvania
was one of the highest crime areas in Philadelphia before the university became
involved. Now the area is one of the most vibrant areas in Philadelphia. Another
example of the use of universities to revitalize decaying cities is that of Tulane
University. Before Hurricane Katrina, Tulane University was one of the largest private
employers in New Orleans.
89
After Hurricane Katrina, the university and its president,
Scott Cowen, focused its resources to rebuild New Orleans. Scott Cowen stated that
“Our commitment to the revival of New Orleans has to extend beyond areas that
impacted Tulane as an institution, such as housing, healthcare, and public schools. To
truly invest in the city’s renewal and instill in our students a passion for social
change…this commitment had to be strategic priority for the entire university and an
integral part of our daily lives.”
90
The actions of Tulane University are credited with
being an integral piece in the successful reconstruction and rebirth of New Orleans post
Hurricane Katrina.
Universities have become new and important fee revenue sources for local
governments. By law, universities do not have to pay either income taxes or property
Page | 39
taxes due to their tax-exempt status. This is an enormous loss of tax revenue for local
governments when you consider the size of major research universities. Harvard
University owns over 600 acres of land with millions of square feet of academic building
space on which it does not have to pay property taxes to the City of Boston or
Cambridge. The University of Southern California, while being one of the City of Los
Angeles’ largest private employers, owns over 300 acers of land within the city for which
it does not pay any property taxes on due to the university’ tax-exempt status. As a
result of the tax-exempt status of universities, local governments have developed new
methods to generate revenue from universities which call their cities home. Many cities
have developed volunteer programs which ask non-profits to pay a reduced tax to help
fund city operations. Through the City of Boston’s PILOT Program, Boston’s city
government receives over $30 million in annual volunteer tax payments from non-
profits.
91
Harvard University pays over $5 million in annual volunteer tax payments to
the City of Boston and Cambridge.
92
The growing trend of university campus
expansions has become a revenue boom for many cities. While universities don’t have
to pay income or property taxes, they do have to pay city permit fees when they execute
construction projects. The University of Southern California estimates it will pay over
$2.8 million in one‐ time construction fees to the city government of Los Angeles for the
construction of its new University Village Project.
93
In 2007, Harvard University paid
over $5 million in one‐ time construction permit fees to the city government of Boston to
begin construction of its new Allston campus.
94
Local governments also benefit from the sale tax revenue generated by university
related activities and direct spending of universities within the local community.
Through their healthcare operations and entertainment operations including sporting
Page | 40
events and music concerts both public and private universities are direct generators of
meaningful sale tax and fee revenue for local governments. In addition, many
universities send a large percentage of their annual operating budgets locally. For
example, in 2013 Harvard University spent $1.3 billion on construction, goods, and
services to run the university in the state of Massachusetts of which $709 million was
spent with companies located in Boston and $125 million with Cambridge located
companies.
95
The Harvard University’s economic importance to its local government is
not an isolated situation. Atlanta, Los Angeles, Boston, Austin, St. Louis, Pittsburg, and
Phoenix are just a few examples of cities where universities are importance contributors
to local government revenues. As such, the important of universities as revenue
generators for local governments must be considered when examining the topic of
university campus expansion.
City governments have also begun to require universities to execute community
benefits agreements in exchange for the government’s approval of their university
campus expansion projects which also serve as a new revenue stream for government.
Columbia University’s community benefits agreements valued at over $80 million
dollars which was required by the city government of New York City for the approval of
the university’s new West Harlem Campus Expansion Project required the university to
make over $20 million dollars in payments to the city government of New York City to
cover the cost of certain city services provided to the university and the construction of a
new elementary school in West Harlem.
96
The land for the new elementary school in
West Harlem was also donated by Columbia University. The University of Southern
California was required to donate $20 million to endow a city fund for affordable
housing and pay for the construction of a new fire station in exchange for the city’s
Page | 41
approval of its new University Village Project.
97
Finally city governments have begun to
ask universities to cover the direct cost of city services it feels the university uses but
does not pay for as a result of its non-profit status. For example, many universities
cover a large portion of the direct cost of police operations incurred by city governments
in the community surrounding their campuses. City governments around the country
have become depended on these new university related revenue sources. Without these
new university related revenue sources many city government budget deficits would be
much larger!
Page | 42
Chapter 3 – Harvard University Case Study
Overview of Harvard University
By vote of the court of the Colony of Massachusetts, Harvard University was
founded in 1636. Founded over 130 years before the Declaration of Independence,
Harvard University is the oldest university in the United States.
98
The university was
named for John Harvard, Massachusetts resident and the university’s first benefactor.
99
John Harvard left his large book collection and half his estate to Harvard at his death in
1638.
100
Harvard has grown from less than 10 students at its founding to a current
enrollment of more than 19,000 students, including both undergraduate and graduate
students with over 2,400 faculty members.
101
The university has more than 360,000
living alumni in more than 190 countries.
102
While Harvard was initially formed as a corporation, the university is now a
501(c) (3) nonprofit organization. One of the university’s governing boards maintains
the university’s original corporate charter. Harvard’s corporate charter was issued on
June 9, 1650 by the Colony of Massachusetts. Harvard is the oldest corporation in the
United States.
103
Some of Harvard’s bylaws are even written into the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
Harvard University is comprised of both an undergraduate college and several
graduate schools as well as numerous research related institutions. Harvard does not
have a formal mission statement. The university’s unofficial mission is to be the
premier research university in the world. Currently, Harvard University is ranked first
in the world by US News & World Reports in the magazine’s ranking of global
universities.
104
Harvard University, Cambridge University, Yale University and Oxford
University have fought for title of world’s best university for the past 250 years. At its
Page | 43
core, Harvard University strives to create a research environment where top students
and faculty can do extraordinary work. Harvard spends the majority of its
approximately $4.4 billion operating budget to maintain, expand and improve its
academic research environment with the objective of producing the world’s best
scholars and academic research which will in turn allow the university to achieve its
unofficial mission of being the premier research university in the world.
105
At its core, Harvard University is a school which educates undergraduate and
graduate students. Harvard University has 12 degree-granting colleges.
106
The 12
degree-granting colleges conduct academic research, offer academic courses and award
academic degrees. Harvard’s secondary purpose is produce world renowned academic
research through its undergraduate and graduate colleges as well as its numerous
research centers and affiliated institutions.
Harvard University has had two governing boards which include the Board of
Overseers and the President and the Fellows of Harvard College. The President and the
Fellows of Harvard College is also known as Harvard Corporation.
107
Both boards work
in partnership and basically perform the normal duties generally associated with the
board of trustees of a major research university. According to the university’s bylaws,
the President and the Fellows of Harvard College has total responsibility for the
university’s academic, financial, and physical assets
. 108
The President and the Fellows of
Harvard College are comprised of Harvard’s President and Treasurer as well as the other
members of the board known as Fellows.
109
The President and the Fellows of Harvard
College currently has seven members but is in the process of expanding to thirteen
members. The President and the Fellows of Harvard College tends to focus its attention
on long-range strategy, policy, and planning activities. The board’s key duties include
Page | 44
the approval of the university’s operating budget, capital budget, management of the
endowment, and tuition levels. Fellows do not have set terms and can service as long as
the university’s president and other fellows see fit. In accordance with Harvard
University’s bylaws, consent of the Board of Overseers is required for the election of any
new fellow.
110
Potential fellows can only be recommended for consideration by
university degree holders, current students, faculty, current fellows or current Board of
Overseers members.
The Board of Overseers is comprised of thirty-two members including thirty
elected members as well as the university’s president and treasurer.
111
Board members
have six-year terms and can only me elected by vote of Harvard University degree
holders.
112
The Board of Overseers is the more powerful of the two boards. The broad
has broad influence over the strategic direction of the university through its power of
consent over many important actions of the President and the Fellows of Harvard
College. The board also oversees the university’s visitation process which is how the
university examines the quality of its academic programs and research.
113
The board
fulfills its duties mainly through the management of numerous subcommittees of the
board. Each subcommittee reports to the board in its entirety.
114
Potential board members can be recommended for consideration by only university
degree holders, current students, faculty, current fellows or current Board of Overseers
members.
Harvard University’s primary stakeholders include university degree holders,
current students, faculty and the university’s underlying degree-granting schools. The
most powerful of Harvard’s stakeholders are the university degree holders. The
university degree holders (Harvard Alumni Association) elect the Board of Overseers
Page | 45
and have a lot of influence on the strategic direction of the university and the selection
of the university’s senior positions including the presidency of the university. It is
largely believed that the replacement of Lawrence Summers with Drew Gilpin Faust as
Harvard University’s 28th President was largely driven by university degree holders’
dislike for the conservative views of Lawrence Summers and his lack of connection with
undergraduate students. The degree holders of Harvard University are viewed as one of
the powerful and active alumni associations in the world. The university views degree
holders as the owners of the university who are act more like shareholders than
stakeholders of the university. The university also places extreme importance on the
happiness of current students and faculty. The majority of the university’s budget is
spent on financial aid for current students or on activities to improve the academic and
physical environment for both students and faculty. Unlike a lot of universities,
Harvard’s underlying degree-granting schools have a lot of financial and strategic
independence from the university’s central administration. Each of Harvard’s degree-
granting schools has almost complete control of its own operating budget including the
real estate each school occupies and all revenue each school generates including the
revenue generated by each schools portion of the university’s endowment. Each school
is required to pay a tax to the university’s central operating unit which is based on each
school’s endowment and budget size. The funds generated by the tax goes to cover the
university’s central administrative operating cost, large university wide capital projects
and fund schools which can’t generate enough revenue to cover their operating cost.
Harvard University has one of the strongest financial foundations within the non-profit
sector. Harvard has a strong diverse set of revenue sources. For Harvard’s 2014 fiscal
year which ends on June 30
th
, the university generated $4.4 billion in total revenue.
115
Page | 46
The university generated $419 million in gifts comprising 10% of the university’s total
revenue.
116
The largest source of revenue for the university was the revenue generated
from the university’s endowment which represented 35% of the university’s total
revenue.
117
The endowment generated a return of 15.4% in the 2014 fiscal and the
endowment’s value increased from $27.6 billion to $36.4 billion from the end of fiscal
year 2010 to the end of fiscal 2014.
118
Only 20% of the university’s income was
generated from student related tuition and fees.
119
In the 2014, 20% of the university’s
total revenue came from sponsored support which was comprised of $819 million in
sponsored funding from the federal government with the remainder of the funding
coming from non-federal sponsors.
120
Harvard’s total revenue has increased by 38%
from $3.2 billion in 2007 to its current level of $4.4 billion in 2014.
121
Harvard’s gift
revenue only increased 4% from 2007 to 2014 increasing from $616 million to $639
million.
122
Harvard’s endowment has almost recovered the losses it absorbed during the
global economic downturn of 2008.
123
Harvard’s endowment which reached a high of
$43 billion in 2008 and a low of $31 billion in 2009 is now at a level of $36.4 billion at
Harvard’s 2014 fiscal year end.
124
Harvard’s endowment is the largest endowment held
by a university in the world.
125
In fiscal year 2014, operating expenses equaled $4.4 billion, which was a 5%
increase over fiscal 2013.
126
Compensation expenses salaries comprised almost half of
the university’s total operating expenses in fiscal 2014.
127
Compensation increased by
6% equaling $1.6 billion from fiscal year 2013 to 2014.
128
The university’s remaining
expenses are comprised on various activities.
129
Scholarships and other student awards
comprise only 3% of the university’s operating expenses while the university’s real
estate, supplies & equipment related expenses comprise 13% of the operating expenses
Page | 47
of the university in 2014.
130
6% of the university’s operating expenses were spent on
interest payments tied to the university’s debt obligations.
131
Harvard’s operating
expenses increased 38% from 2007 to 2014 increasing from $3.2 billion to $3.9
billion.
132
Harvard University’s strong financial positon, unique history, and singular focus
on achieving its core mission give it power not possessed by many private institutions.
In addition, the university has one of the wealthiest and most powerful living alumni in
the world. From world leaders like the former President of the United States to financial
leaders like the former head of the World Bank and the current head of Goldman Sachs
to numerous corporate leaders like the CEO of Facebook, HP and General Electric, the
living alumni of Harvard University couple with the university’s endowment provide the
university with an unmatched pool of financial resources and influence to develop and
execute almost any strategic activity in pursuit of its core mission without the support of
non-Harvard stakeholders. This freedom and independence is the university’s most
valuable asset.
Motivation Behind Harvard University’s Decision to Expand its Campus
Under the leadership of Harvard University’s 25th president Derek Bok, the
university’s physical planning committee determined in the late 1980s that as early as in
15 years or as late as the year 2020 the university would be completely out of space at its
main campus in Cambridge based on the university’s foreseeable classroom, housing
and research space needs.
133
When you factored in the growing needs of Harvard’s
recreational facilities like those located in Harvard Square and the expansive network of
university museums with their related collections, it was thought by several university
administrators that the university’s physical planning committee estimates were too
Page | 48
conservative. Also at this time, there were several graduate schools within the university
including the law school, education school, divinity school and the government school
which would need more space in the coming years. In addition in the 1980s, the
university’s undergraduate program (Harvard College) which houses the university’s
largest student population was rapidly running out of space. With no land available for
expansion in Cambridge currently or for the foreseeable future, the university would not
be able to expand its main campus to meet any future needs of the university.
134
As
such, Harvard would have to expand its campus somewhere other than Cambridge. Mr.
Bok was president of Harvard from 1971 t0 1991 during a time of enormous growth for
the university, which gave him a true understanding of the expanding needs of the
university that created the need for a larger campus. With the findings of the
university’s physical planning committee and at the direction of President Bok, Harvard
begin acquiring land in the Boston neighborhood Allston in the late 1980s near
Harvard’s graduate business school campus and athletic fields.
135
The primary motivation behind Harvard University’s decision to expand its
campus in Boston was its goal of maintaining its position as one of if not the best
research universities in the world. While the Harvard does not have an official mission
statement for over 300 years its unofficial core mission has always been to be the
world’s top institution of higher learning. The leadership of Harvard, including its
president, felt the university’s inability to expand its main campus in Cambridge,
coupled with the university’s determination that it would run out of space in the coming
years in connection to the growing needs of the university, all threatened the university’s
ability achieve its core mission. When you consider that one of Harvard’s chief rivals,
Stanford University, has a campus comprised of over approximately 8,000 contiguous
Page | 49
acres of land containing over 700 buildings, you can understand why Harvard’s
leadership was gravely concerned regarding the threat the lack of expansion space posed
to the university.
136
Even after Harvard completes its expansion activities the size of its
three campuses located in the Boston-Cambridge Metro Area (Cambridge, Allston and
Longwood) will still less than a 1,000 acres, which still will be smaller than its chief Ivy
League rival, Yale University (over 1,100 acres in size). In short, how could anyone
arguably the world’s most renowned university could maintain its position without any
new classroom, research, office or housing space to expand into considering their
campus was already smaller than a lot of their competitors? Harvard’s core mission, its
identity was at stake as a result of its lack of campus expansion space. This is the
fundamental question that faced Harvard University. In short, the leadership of
Harvard University felt strongly that its back was up against the wall facing the potential
long-term decline of the university as a result of its lack of expansion space with the only
option but to act boldly to address this challenge. Alternatively, it is unclear whether
Harvard’s fear of losing its place among the top research universities due to lack of
expansion space was founded when you consider Harvard’s enormous financial
resources.
Harvard University considered two Boston neighborhoods, Allston and
Longwood, for the location of its new campus. With its expansive graduate business
school campus which is home to 34 academic buildings containing over 1.7 million space
feet of space located on 40 acres of land and the university’s athletic facilities already
located in the Boston neighborhood of Allston just cross the Charles River from the
Cambridge main campus, Harvard’s decision to expand its campus in Allston was
predictable.
137
Allston is a working class community that is approximately 3.6 square
Page | 50
miles in size and contains about 50,00o residents. Allston is primary a residential
community comprised of single family homes with some small multi-family, retail and
commercial properties. The relative frequency for which properties were put up for sale
in Allston made the community a perfect location for Harvard to expand. Harvard’s
medical school campus which is comprised on 26 buildings situated on approximately
21 acres of land is also located in Boston within the Longwood neighborhood.
138
The
Longwood neighborhood is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the Allston
neighborhood. The Longwood community did not serve as a good place to expand for
several reasons. First, the medical school campus is located within the heart of Boston’s
medical community which meant that there was very little available properties for the
university to acquire to expand and what properties were available would be extremely
expensive to purchase due to the growing demand for medical space from Boston’s ever
expanding medical and biotech communities. Secondly the separation of the medical
school campus in Longwood from the Allston and Cambridge campuses by over 2 miles
also made this option less desirable as students would have to ride the subway for
several stops or drive to attend classes at both campuses on the same day. Allston and
Cambridge campuses are only separated by the Charles River, so students could walk
between the campuses in 5 minutes using several foot bridges across the river
constructed by the university. The availability of properties for sale, the large footprint
the university already owned in the community and the close proximity of the
neighborhood to the university’s main Cambridge campus made the decision to expand
in Allston an easy one after the need to expand was determined by the university’s
physical planning committee.
Page | 51
Harvard University Campus Expansion Project Overview
In 2001, Harvard University announced its plan to expand its campus in the Boston
neighborhood of
Allston on over
350 acres of land
the university
owned in the
area.
139
Over the next 50
years, Harvard
would like to
institute a master
plan that would
result in a score of new academic, athletic, and residential facilities as well as several
new museums, a hotel & conference center, science complex, retail outlets, and parks.
The project would also include new walking bridges over the Charles River and a new
tunnel for approximately 800 feet of the Soldiers Field Road to travel under a new
riverside park to be created for students and residents of Allston. While the Allston
property is currently home to Harvard Business School, Harvard Business Publishing
and the university’s undergraduate athletic fields and stadiums, the majority of land is
either industrial, retail or residential properties acquired by the university over 15 years
beginning in the 1980s.
140
Harvard purchased a large portion of the land in secret using
a shell company to acquire properties in Allston.
141
Harvard’s Allston campus will be a
Figure 1 - Map of Harvard Owned Property in Allston (359 Acres)
Source: Zezima, Katie. “Harvard Outlines Plans to Expand Campus Across the
Charles River.” The New York Times. Web. 12 Jan. 2007.
Page | 52
massive expansion of its campus as the new Allston campus will be over 100 acres larger
than the university’s Cambridge main campus and its medical school campus located in
the Longwood community of Boston.
Harvard’s new multi-billion campus when completed will be home to the
university’s
education and
public health
schools. The
business school
campus will be
expanded to include
more classroom
space, a conference
center with a hotel
and more office space for professors. A new science complex will constructed on the
new campus and will be home to the university’s newest college the school of
engineering and applied sciences founded in 2007. A new retail complex entitled
“Barry’s Corner” to resemble the Harvard Square shopping district with restaurants and
retail shops will be constructed on the new campus to provide a recreational area for
students and faculty. Several new residential complexes will be built throughout the new
campus to house current students and provide space for an expanded student body if
the university decides to increase student enrollments. With the completion of phase
one of their new campus, Harvard will be able to offer on-campus housing to all its
undergraduate and graduate students. Several parks and museums will be constructed
Figure 2 - Drawing of Proposed New Allston Campus in 2050
Source: “Harvard – Allston Campus” BHP Development Word Press. 10
Oct. 2011. BHP Development.
Page | 53
as part of the new campus, including the university’s first natural history museum. The
athletic facilities will be upgraded including the construction of a new basketball area,
aquatics center, soccer fields and tennis courts as well as the renovation of Harvard’s
football stadium. The university plans to add two pedestrian bridges across the Charles
River and an additional 5,500 underground parking spaces to accommodate the
transportation needs of the new campus. The new campus will be constructed in two
phases with the first phase lasting 1o to 15 years and the second phase last lasting 30 to
40 years. Construction of phase one of the project began in 2013 under the university’s
institutional master plan which was approved by the City of Boston.
Harvard University operates under a total inclusion model as it relates to the
distribution of goods and services to its students. For example, Harvard provides on
campus subsidized housing including both dormitory units and apartments, medical
services, travel, lodging and food services including both very low cost cafeterias as well
as upscale restaurants for all its undergraduate and graduate students. As a result,
students do not have the leave Harvard’s campus to obtain the majority if not all the
goods and services they need to survive. Harvard’s new Allston campus would be
constructed using this same total inclusion model as the new campus will include
several types of student housing, retail outlets, outdoor open space, conference space,
office space, lodging and restaurants to fulfill all its students’ needs on campus. The
example of this model is the Innovation Lab which was build next to the business school
campus in Allston to provide undergraduate and graduate students with low cost on
campus office space to launch their new startup companies. As a result of this model,
the vast majority of undergraduate and graduate students live in university owned
housing during their matriculation through Harvard.
Page | 54
Harvard University Campus Expansion Execution Strategy
Harvard University’s strategy to expand its campus within the Boston
neighborhood of Allston can be broken up into 3 parts: stealth land acquisition,
winning the support of the city government of Boston for the project, and crafting a
community benefits agreement that addresses the concerns of local Allston residents
and the city government of Boston at a minimal cost to the university.
The most important aspect of Harvard’s strategy was the approach the university
took to acquire the land necessary to build their new campus. Harvard decided
approach to acquire property in Allston through a third party, Beal Properties, to hide
Harvard’s identity.
142
This is a very common tactic used by real estate developers when
assembling land for a large scale project. For example, the Disney Company used shell
companies to secretly acquire the over 30,000 acres the company needed to build
Disney World in Orlando, FL to avoid land speculators in the late 1960s.
143
This
decision allowed the university to quietly acquire property in Allston at fair market
values.
144
This step prevented property owners in Allston from asking Harvard for
above market prices for their properties because of their knowledge of the university’s
intentions in the Allston area. It also prevented real estate speculators from buying up
properties in Allston to later sell them to Harvard at an inflated price. Most
importantly, it prevented community activists or the City of Boston from blocking
Harvard from buying properties in Allston by pressuring property owners not to sell
their properties to the university or the university to not buy properties in the area. It
was the leadership of university’s feeling that community activists would have done
everything in their power to prevent the university from buying land in Allston. Due to
the loss of property tax revenue, the university felt the City of Boston might have taken
Page | 55
action to prevent to university from expanding its footprint in Allston as well. Using this
approach the university was able to acquire 52 acres of land comprised of 14 parcels for
only $88 million without the knowledge of the local community or the City of Boston
from 1988 to 1994 before having to disclose their actions publicly without disclosing
why the university was buying land in Allston.
145
The other aspect of Harvard’s land
acquisition approach was to use its enormous financial resources when necessary to
outbid other potential land buyers in the area. For example when the Massachusetts
Bay Transportation Authority put up 48 acres of land in Allston up for sale by blind
auction, Harvard bided $151 million while the next highest bidder only bided $26
million for the property.
146
Harvard felt’s land acquisition approach was the only way
the university would have been able to assemble the land necessary to make their new
Allston campus a reality.
Harvard’s second strategy was to win the support of the city government of
Boston for their project. Harvard started this strategy when the City of Boston learned
of the university’s secret land purchases in Allston. The initial focus of the university’s
strategy to win the support of the city government of Boston was to demonstrate to the
city how having Harvard University as an active member of the Boston community was
an asset to the city. Having the enormous financial and academic assets of Harvard
concentrated on the City of Boston would be a benefit to the residents as well as city
government. To demonstrate this point to the City of Boston, Harvard began making
large donations to local Boston charities as soon as it discovered that the university has
been making secret land purchases in Allston. For example the university invested $20
million in a 20-year affordable housing program in Boston.
147
A Harvard official stated
in a newspaper article regarding the $20 million investment by the university that
Page | 56
“There’s an element of altruism, but I don’t mind admitting that it’s very much in
Harvard’s institutional self-interest to be doing things like this, because there’s a very
direct connection between the health of the university and the condition of our cities”.
148
Harvard also donated land for a new library as well as renovated a shopping center in
Allston.
149
After demonstrating its financial commitment to the Boston community,
Harvard turned its attention to illustrating to government officials how Harvard’s new
Allston campus would transform the area from an industrial blighted area to an state of
the art economic center for Boston generating new high paying jobs, increased sales tax
revenue from the new shopping district planned by the university as well as increased
property values in the area helping city government who would benefit from the
increase in property tax revenue. Harvard estimated to the City of Boston that phase
one of its campus expansion project would generate over 14,000 new permanent jobs in
Allston, which was an important positive outcome of the project for the city.
150
Harvard
also offered to pay for public area improvements in the area surrounding its new Allston
campus including road, sidewalk, park and general landscaping improvement which
would normally be the responsible of the city. This would mean that the City of Boston
would not have any direct financial expenses as a result of Harvard’s new campus. In
addition, the university was able to demonstrate that the new economic activity
generated by the new campus would more than offset any loss of property tax revenue
due to Harvard’s increased land ownership in Boston.
Finally to formalize the process of discovering and addressing the concerns of
both the City of Boston and of the Allston community regarding Harvard’s new Allston
campus, Harvard proactively proposed a series of community benefits agreements to the
Harvard-Allston Task Force and Boston Redevelopment Authority for their
Page | 57
consideration. The first community benefit agreement was executed in April of 2008 in
exchange for the approval of Harvard’s new science complex located on the university’s
new Allston campus. The agreement was executed between the Boston Redevelopment
Authority and Harvard University with the support of the Harvard-Allston Task Force
and outlined a series of new community programs and neighborhood improvements
funded by the university for the benefit of the residents of Allston. The negotiation of
community benefits agreement provided a formal process for Harvard to understand
and address any concerns local residents had regarding its new proposed campus. Since
Harvard and the City of Boston were in constant contact regarding the university’s new
campus, the negotiation of the community benefits agreement just served to finalize
their understanding of how the university would address the concerns of community
residents, address any tax revenue loss by the City of Boston as a result of Harvard’s
expansion into Allston and provide funding for social programs desperately needed by
Allston residents. Local residents used the negotiation of the benefit agreement to speak
directly to Harvard and the City of Boston regarding their concerns related to Harvard’s
proposed Allston campus as well as how they wanted the university to address these
concerns. This process allowed Harvard to streamline the approval of its new campus
by forcing both the City of Boston and local residents through the Harvard-Allston Task
Force to formalize their demands of the university in exchange for approval of its
institutional master plan for its new Allston campus.
The initial 2008 community benefits agreement was valued at $25 million and
included funding for an education center for Allston residents, public realm
improvement projects in Allston, and workforce development programs for Allston
residents.
151
This agreement allowed Harvard to begin construction of the science
Page | 58
complex aspect of its new campus in Allston. Since the 2008 agreement, two more
community benefit agreements have been negotiated, approved and signed by the
Boston Redevelopment Authority and Harvard University. Each new agreement was an
update to the initial 2008 agreement. The second agreement was very small in value
and not a material change to the initial 2008 agreement.
152
In 2009, Harvard
University suffered a histrionic financial loss within its endowment which forced the
university to put the entire Allston campus expansion project on hold until 2014.
Valued at $43 million, the third community benefits agreement executed in 2014
outlines in detail specific programs and community improvements Harvard University
must fund and execute for the benefit of the Allston community in exchange for the City
of Boston’s approval of phase one of the university’s campus expansion project in
Allston detailed in the university’s institution master plan covering the next 10 to 15
years of development.
153
The programs and community improvements outlined in the
most recent $43 million agreement funded by Harvard include:
154
o $9.75 million in funding for public realm projects including street
improvements, sidewalk construction, park development and landscaping
improvements.
o $4 million in funding for educational programs for Allston residents.
o $500,000 in funding to the Boston Public Schools for the Gardner Pilot
Academy in Allston.
o $4 million in funding for workforce development programs for Allston
residents
o $3 million contribution to the city's housing trust fund to promote home
ownership and market stabilization in Allston.
Page | 59
o $500,000 contribution to the Harvard-Allston Partnership Fund.
o Donation of the Brookline Machine Site by Harvard to the City of Boston
valued at $2 million.
o $8.25 million in funding for a transformative project which will be the
construction and operation of a community portal offering education and
training, health and wellness, and arts and culture programming for Allston
residents.
o $11 million in funding to be paid to the City of Boston to fund the
development of projects linked to housing.
The university and the Boston Redevelopment Authority will negotiate one last update
to the community benefit agreement when the university submits an updated
institutional master plan for approval phase two of its campus expansion project.
Local Government’s Reaction
The City of Boston’s initial reaction was outrage when they learned of Harvard’s
strategy to secretly acquire land in the Boston neighborhood of Allston surrounding its
business school campus to create a new mega campus larger than its Cambridge
campus. The mayor of Boston’s stated that the land purchases showed Harvard’s
arrogance when he learned of the university’s secret land purchases in 1997.
155
The
city’s initial concern was the substantial loss of property tax dollars as Harvard take title
to its substantial real estate holdings in Boston which due to its non-profit status
exempting it from having to pay property taxes. The city’s other major concern was for
the residents and businesses of Allston who would be evicted from Harvard owned
properties and for other residents who might be forced out of the area as housing cost
rose due to gentrification caused by Harvard’s campus expansion project.
156
Page | 60
Following the 1997 disclosure of Harvard’s secret land acquisitions in Allston, the
university made a strong effort to rebuild its relationship with the City of Boston.
157
In
1997, Harvard first made a public announcement that their actions as it related to the
university’s secret purchase of land in Allston was a breach of trust and promised to
never acquire land again in Allston secretly.
158
Harvard then hired Paul Grogan as the
university’s vice president of public affairs. Paul Grogan was a long time employee of
the City of Boston and personal friend of the mayor of Boston. Mr. Grogan primary
focus was repairing the university’s relationship with the City of Boston. He first
focused the city’s attention on the advantage of having someone with the wealth of
Harvard University owning property in an area of Boston that has been underdeveloped.
Mr. Grogan was able to demonstrate to City officials the economic opportunity that
would be created for the city by now having Harvard University as large and involved
land owner within the City of Boston. Mr. Grogan and Harvard highlighted to City
officials the increase in sales tax revenue generated by the increase in taxable sales
resulting from the new economic activities generated by the university’s new expanded
campus. They also highlight the new jobs estimated at approximately 12,000 on the
new campus during phase one of the project and the increase in property tax revenue to
the city as land values increased in Allston due to Harvard’s new expanded campus.
Harvard also took direct action to demonstrate the positive impact the university could
have on the City of Boston by donating land for an Allston Branch of the Boston Public
Library, $5 million dollars to a Boston after school program and $25 million dollars to a
20-year affordable housing program in Boston.
159
Harvard’s action even caught the
attention of City officials from Cambridge who complained that the university was
abandoning the city it had called home for over 300 years. The City of Cambridge did
Page | 61
not like to prospects of its largest institutional resident focusing its financial resources
on another city for the next 50 years. Harvard’s actions as well as the work of Mr.
Grogan quickly won over City officials including the mayor, who became supports of
Harvard’s expansion into Boston.
160
Finally to address the remaining concerns of the
city, Harvard proposed a community benefits agreement valued at over $40 million.
161
Harvard structured their proposal to address the lost revenue of the city by agreeing to
pay for infrastructure improvements including sidewalks, park space, street and
landscaping improvements within Allston around the university’s new campus. In
additional the agreement included millions of dollars of investment in workforce
training, housing assistance and educational advancement for local residents of Allston
to address the gentrification concerns raised by City officials and local residents.
Following the discovery of Harvard’s secret land purchases in Allston in 1997, the mayor
of Boston asked the university to fund a neighborhood planning process that would
coordinate with Harvard as the university began to develop a master plan for its new
Allston campus. Harvard officials met monthly with the mayor-appointed task force of
residents over several years. These monthly meetings led to the creation of the North
Allston Neighborhood Strategic Plan in the summer of 2004. The North Allston
Neighborhood Strategic Plan primarily focused on maintaining affordable housing,
creating new park space and in general beautifying the Allston neighborhood. The plan
was well received by both residents of Allston and Boston government officials.
162
The
purpose of the strategic plan was to serve as a framework for Harvard’s new Allston
campus. The strategic plan was not a binding agreement between the university and the
community. Boston’s mayor created a new task force, Harvard-Allston Task Force, to
work with the university and the Boston Redevelopment Authority as the university
Page | 62
prepared its institutional master plan for its Allston campus for submission to the
Boston Redevelopment Authority in January 2006. By late 2005, Harvard’s real estate
holdings in Allston had increased to more than 300 acres.
163
The purpose of this new
task force was to provide the Allston community with formal voice in the review process
of Harvard’s campus expansion proposal. The new task force was comprised of
seventeen local residents of the Allston community.
164
The residents on the task force
were comprised of both renters and property owners.
165
In additional, some of the
residents on the task force owned businesses in the Allston community.
166
Currently,
the task force has thirteen members.
167
Of the thirteen members, eleven are property
owners who resident in Allston and two members are business owners in Allston but live
outside the community.
168
Longtime member, Jim Montgomery, is currently recognized
as the unofficial leader of the task force by government and university officials as well as
the other members of the task force.
169
Individuals can only be appointed to or removed
from the task force by the mayor of Boston. The individuals who now comprise the
taskforce are all longtime residents or business owners of the Allston community. The
Boston Redevelopment Authority is the city agency responsible for overseeing all
economic development and planning activity in Boston. The Authority was responsible
for the review and approval of all large-scale development projects in the city including
Harvard’s project. The Boston Redevelopment Authority has broad power including
zoning approval authority, property tax concession authority, community benefits
agreement negotiation authority and the ability to invest city funds directly into
redevelopment projects. Officials from the Boston Redevelopment represented the City
of Boston’s interest to the task force as well as medicated strong difference between the
university and the task force. For example when several task force members demanded
Page | 63
that Harvard pay for the construction of a subway stop in Allston as part of any
community benefit agreement the authority informed the members that their demand
for a subway stop was improper and would not be part of any community benefits
agreement with the university. The authority also make it clear to Harvard that the
university would have to come to an agreement with the task force on a community
benefits agreement before the city would approve its institutional master plan for its
Allston campus putting pressure on the university to negotiate fairly with the
community. In 2008, the Harvard-Allston Task Force, Harvard University and The
Boston Redevelopment Authority came to agreement on a community benefits
agreement which was valued at $25 million which allowed Harvard to begin
construction of the science complex aspect of its new campus. In 2013 after an initial
mandatory one year public review period and Harvard’s multi-year delay of the entire
Allston campus expansion project due to the impact of the financial downturn of 2009,
the Harvard-Allston Task Force approved a community benefits agreement with
Harvard totaling $43 million in benefits to the City of Boston and the residents of
Allston. The Boston Redevelopment Authority approved Harvard’s institutional master
plan and community benefits agreement for the development of phase 1 of its new
campus in Allston shortly thereafter Harvard-Allston Task Force’s approval of the
benefits agreement.
Local Community’s Reaction
Like the City of Boston, local residents were outraged when they learned of
Harvard University’s secret land deals in Allston as well as its plan for a new campus.
170
Local residents fumed when they learned of the secret real estate transactions brokered
by Harvard for over a decade in Allston which allowed university to assemble the land
Page | 64
necessary for their campus expansion project without any government or local
community oversight. Local residents already had feelings of mistrust towards Harvard
prior to the secret land deals and its plans for a new campus coming to light. Harvard’s
land acquisition strategy just made the relationship worse. Harvard was not an active
member of the Allston community and at times the university isolated itself from the
Allston community which was the initial cause of local residents’ mistrust of the
university. The only interaction community members had with Harvard was with the
small number of the university’s students primarily from Harvard’s graduate business
school who lived in Allston. The creation of the initial task force and later the Harvard-
Allston Task Force was the first opportunity the community had to interact with
Harvard. Through the community’s direct participation as members of the mayor’s task
force as well as their indirect participation by attending the numerous public meetings
held by the task force, the community loudly voiced several concerns with Harvard’s
proposed new Allston campus. Those concerns included Harvard’s clearing of its newly
acquired properties in Allston, Harvard’s approach of circumventing the normal process
for the approval of new developments in Boston when the university sees fit to do so to
achieve its own institutional objectives and finally the university’s failure to
communicate with a large enough segment of the residents of Allston regarding the
plans for its new campus in Allston. While the Harvard-Allston Task Force was able to
come to agreement with Harvard and the City of Boston on several community benefits
agreements to benefit local residents as well as support the university’s institutional
master plan which was approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, community
feelings toward the university, while improved, are still strained.
171
Page | 65
The most visible or noticeable issue raised by local residents of Allston was
Harvard University’s practice of clearing properties in Allston after the university
acquired them. A 2006 Boston Business Journal article noted that Harvard owned over
a million square feet of commercial space in Allston and that half that space was
vacant.
172
Many local businesses were forced to relocate as a direct result of Harvard’s
land purchases in Allston. A Volkswagen dealership, the Charlesview Apartment
Complex, Boston Public Broadcasting Television Station Studios, a Star Market
Shopping Center, Conrail Warehouse, Boston Metro Transportation Authority Tractor
Trailer Depot and several auto repair shops were all forced to relocate as Harvard
acquired the properties
they rented and did not
review their leases to
make way for their new
campus.
173
The most
noticeable vacancy
occurred during the
summer 2006, when
Kmart vacated the
Brighton Mills
Shopping Center which is owned by Harvard following the departure of several other
stores including the Fashion Warehouse and OfficeMax.
174
The university had taken the
Kmart Corporation to court to evict them by not renewing their lease.
175
The Kmart
Corporation and Harvard settled the matter out of court with the retail chain agreeing to
vacate its Allston area location.
176
Even the City of Boston noticed the large number of
Figure 3 – Photo of Harvard Owned Vacant Shopping Center in Allston
Source: Goodnough, Abby. “Harvard Expansion Slowed.” The New
York Times. Web. 8 June 2009
Page | 66
blighted properties in Allston. They began to investigate the matter, which is how City
officials discovered that Harvard was secretly acquiring land in Allston using a shell
company. Allston small businesses were also negatively impacted by Harvard’s actions.
After the closure of a Pepsi warehouse to clear space for Harvard’s new science complex
and the relocation of the WBGH TV Station for the construction of Harvard’s new
Innovation Lab, a local restaurant lost over 40 percent of its business according to the
restaurant’s owner.
177
Many local residents feel that they are being held hostage by
Harvard’s campus expansion project as their neighborhood has become an island
separated from the rest of Boston by Harvard’s vacant real estate holdings. The anger of
the Allston community grew as Harvard delayed its Allston campus expansion project
for several years after the 2008 recession and allowed its real estate holdings in Allston
to remain vacant or unfinished in the case of the new science complex as the university
tried to recover financially. In short, local residents felt that Harvard was turning
Allston into a ghost town of vacant properties waiting for the university to build its new
campus over the next 50 years.
Another issue Allston residents had with Harvard was the university’s willingness
to use their relationship with the City of Boston or their superior knowledge of the city’s
approval process for new developments to circumvent the objections of the local
community regarding the university’s campus expansion plan. For example, when
Harvard was not happy with the pace of the approval process for its new institutional
master plan for its new Allston campus as a result of objections to the plan by the local
community, the university filed for an amendment with the city to their existing
institutional master plan for its business school campus and athletic facilities to begin
construction of its new science complex on its new Allston campus. The university cited
Page | 67
its urgent need for new science research space as the justification for their actions and
did agree to a community benefits agreement valued over $43 million to offset
community concerns regarding its actions. This request, which was approved by the
City of Boston, angered local residents who felt Harvard was rushing the process and
circumventing the community’s input, especially that of the Harvard-Allston Task Force,
into the approval process.
Another example which infuriated community residents stemmed from Harvard
straying away from some of the building design limits spelled out in the North Allston
Neighborhood Strategic Plan developed by the university and the initial community task
force created by Boston’s mayor. When Harvard disclosed its initial institutional master
plan to the Harvard-Allston Task Force, it included buildings which were taller than the
building height limit included in the North Allston Neighborhood Strategic Plan.
Harvard’s response to the Harvard-Allston Task Force’s issue with the new taller
buildings was that the North Allston Neighborhood Strategic Plan was just a framework
and was not designed to be a binding guideline for the university’s campus expansion
plan. Gerald Autler, the senior project manager at the Boston Redevelopment Authority
for Harvard’s project at the time, agreed with the university’s position as it related to the
nature of the North Allston Neighborhood Strategic Plan.
178
Also, community members of the Harvard-Allston Task Force accused Harvard of
continuing to acquire property in a less-than-transparent manner after the university
had promised to be completely open regarding its real estate practices in Allston.
179
University officials denied this accusation. While City officials shared the Harvard-
Allston Task Force’s prospective on the university’s real estate practices in Allston they
did nothing to stop Harvard from acquiring more land in Allston.
180
It was clear to the
Page | 68
community that the City of Boston and Harvard had developed a strong working
relationship in support of the university’s new Allston campus which placed local
Allston residents in the positon of the odd man out in disputes with the university.
Finally, Harvard’s method and breadth of communication to the Allston community has
caused issues with local residents. Many residents of Allston feel that communication
from the university is limited and unintentionally excludes certain segments of the
Allston community. In an article in the Harvard Crimson, an Allston resident stated
that “Barriers continue to impede engagement from minorities, non-native English
speakers, low-income residents, and residents who are less knowledgeable about
Harvard’s relationship with Allston”.
181
Harvard’s primary method of communication
with the Allston community is through online updates on the university’s webpage and
presentations at public hearings of the Harvard-Allston Task Force. Many residents of
Allston question whether meetings of the Harvard-Allston Task Force are accessible to
all segments of the Allston community. Local residents have complained that meetings
of the Harvard-Allston Task Force regularly conflict with other important community
meetings held by other community originations. In addition, for Allston residents
without access to the internet, updated information on Harvard’s new campus
expansion project appears to be not readily accessible. Harvard’s post all developments
regarding the university’s new Allston campus on its website and Facebook page. The
university does not regularly provide hard copies of any of its updates at public hearings
or through direct mailings. “It’s not like everybody has a computer in Allston; many of
the people in Allston are blue-collar. If they do Internet-only, they don’t hit many
people—once in a while, we get a postcard, and that’s not enough.” Renny McKinney
said in a 2015 Harvard Crimson article.
182
Harvard’s communication issues are
Page | 69
compounded due to the high percentage of renters who live in Allston, who are less
likely to participate in public hearings like the ones held by the Harvard-Allston Task
Force. A 2011 newspaper article noted that less than 11 percent of housing units in
Allston were owner-occupied.
183
While it is debatable whether the issues local residents
have with Harvard’s communication strategy are actually the university’s fault, it can’t
be argued that the strategy has strained the relationship between the two parties.
Page | 70
Chapter 4 – Research Conclusion
Through effective long-term planning, superior execution and adapting to
changing conditions, Harvard University was able to secure government approval for
one of the largest campus expansion projects within an urban American city in history.
Several important lessons can be learned from Harvard University’s approach which can
be used in the planning and execution of future large scale redevelopment projects. In
addition, there are limitations to Harvard’s approach which have to be taken into
consideration when examining the success of the university’s campus expansion project.
This chapter will detail the wisdom of Harvard’s strategy which can be repeated in the
future by a broad range of institutions who choose to embark on a large scale
redevelopment project within an urban setting as well as the boundaries of the strategy
that are limited to only Harvard’s unique capabilities and resources.
Lessons Learned From Harvard University’s Campus Expansion Project Case Study
Harvard University’s initial decision to purchase all the land it needed to build its
new campus while keeping the majority of its land purchases secret by using shell
companies to hid its activities as well as hiding the university’s goal of expanding its
campus from the public was in my analysis the key factors, in allowing the university to
achieve its objecting of expanding its campus in Boston. It is clear from my research
that if Harvard would have announced their intentions to expand its campus in Allston
before having secured the land it needed, it would have faced strong objections from
many community regarding the size and scale of the proposed project. At best, Harvard
would have received support for the project from the City of Boston will facing grossly
inflated real estate prices as it approached property owners regarding its interest in
acquiring their properties. It is highly more likely that community groups in Allston
Page | 71
would have galvanized to stop Harvard’s expansion by putting pressure on local
property owners not to sale to the university and on the Boston Redevelopment
Authority to reject the university’s campus expansion proposal. This fact was clear from
my review of the literature detailing Harvard’s campus expansion project as well as my
direct interviews with officials from Harvard University, Harvard-Allston Task Force
and Boston Redevelopment Authority. In addition, you can also draw this conclusion
from a review of other campus expansion projects that have been attempted around the
county.
In 2003, Columbia University announced a large scale plan to expand its campus
in New York City. The large scale project will cost $6.3 billion and add new buildings
containing teaching and research space on 17 additional acres of land next to Columba’s
Manhattan main campus located within the Harlem neighborhood over 25 years.
184
Using a direct approach, Columbia was able to purchase the majority of the 17 acres it
needed to build its new campus. The remaining property owners who owned the
remaining land Columbia needed refused to sell their properties to the university. At
great political and monetary public expense, the Empire State Development
Corporation, using the state of New York’s eminent domain laws, took the remaining
land Columbia needed to complete its project from the property owners who refused to
sale to Columbia University. The impacted property owners sued the Empire State
Development Corporation and Columbia University to keep their properties and stop
the state’s use of eminent domain, but lost in the New York Court of Appeals. The
Empire State Development Corporation which backed Columbia’s project along with the
City of New York is a state of New York agency which has the power to condemn
properties, grant tax concessions, issue tax exempt & nonexempt bonds, waive the
Page | 72
application of local codes, invest in real estate development projects, acquire land
through eminent domain, and seek federal funding with the goal of encouraging
commercial and residential development in the state. The US Supreme Court declined
to hear the case as they had already decided this issue in a previous case. Due to the
public outcry and legal delays which greatly slowed Columbia’s land acquisition efforts,
the project did not receive final government approval until May of 2009. If Columbia
would have employed Harvard’s approach of maintaining complete secrecy of its land
acquisition activates and its campus expansion objectives until after it owned the
necessary land it is much more likely that Columbia would have been able to purchase
all the land it needed to build its new campus without the additional public outcry,
inflated real estate prices or legal expenses the university had to sustain to complete its
project. In addition, Columbia was forced to agree to a community benefits agreement
by the City and State of New York in exchange for approval of its project as well as the
remaining land it need to complete its project which will cost the university over $100
million which seems excessive when you consider the smaller size of Harvard’s
community benefits agreements in connection to its project and the size of Harvard’s
project which is over 300 acres compared to Columbia’s 17 acre project.
185
The size of
Columbia’s community benefits agreement can be directly tied to the public outcry from
property owners who refused to sale their properties to Columbia and the legal expense
endured by the government agencies who supported Columbia’s project. It is clear from
my research that if Columbia would have used Harvard’s approach, they would have
lowered the cost of their project to themselves and their government agency partners as
they would lowered their land purchase cost and probably their legal expenses as more
property owner would have sold their properties to someone other than Columbia.
Page | 73
Several of the properties who refused to sale their properties to Columbia did not want
an expanded university campus within their community because they felt the new
campus would destroy their businesses.
186
In a similar case, the University of Southern California (USC) in 2008 announced
its plan to build a new retail & student housing mixed use complex “University Village”
on land the university already owned. The site of the proposed development was home
to an outdoor retail mall which was in decline. The development is projected by USC to
cost the university over $1 billion to construct and add 12,000 new jobs to the local Los
Angeles economy.
187
University Village will site on a 35 acre site and contain over
350,000 square feet of academic, retail and commercial space as well as housing for
approximately 1,800 students.
188
University Village would be located across the street
from USC’s main campus. Both the University Village project and USC’s campus are
located within the South Central area of Los Angeles historically an area primary
comprised of low income residents. University Village is small part of a larger master
plan that USC is in the initial phases of executing which would more than triple the size
of its campus by the year 2030. While USC has released very preliminary information
on its master plan for the expansion of its campus, the university has not acquired all
the land it needs to execute its master plan and more importantly it has not begun the
formal process of getting its master plan approved by the City of Los Angeles. USC
decided to first seek government approval for the construction of its University Village
instead of waiting and seeking approval for its entire campus expansion master plan.
When USC announced its plan for the construction of University Village, there was a
large negative outcry by local community groups who feared that the project would
accelerate gentrification which was occurring in the area surrounding USC.
Page | 74
After 4 years of combative public hearings and negotiations with government officials
and local community groups, in 2012 USC finally received government approval for the
construction of University Village. In exchange for City of Los Angeles’ approval of
University Village, USC had to agree to a community benefits agreement which will cost
the university approximately $40 million.
189
By seeking government approval for only
University Village and not also seeking approval for its overall master plan, USC has
greatly increased the cost of its future redevelopment projects. USC has set a precedent
that anytime it intends to execute a redevelop project of any size that expands its
existing campus, it would be willing to negotiate and fund a community benefits
agreement. When you consider the number of redevelopment projects USC will need to
execute to complete its plan to triple the size of its campus by 2030, the university could
be looking at several hundred million dollars in community benefits agreement cost if it
does not change its approach. This added cost would jeopardize USC’s ability to execute
broader campus expansion plan by 2030. If USC would change its approach and adopt
Harvard’s approach and negotiate one community benefits agreement exchange for the
City of Los Angeles’s full support and approval of their broader 2030 campus expansion
plan, USC would dramatically lower its community benefits agreement cost as my
research of the Harvard campus expansion project shows. In addition, USC may face
above market real estate cost as local property owners now know the university’s
campus expansion intentions in the area surrounding its main campus.
Another important decision by Harvard University was their decision to clear
newly purchased properties prior to announcing its intention to expand its campus or
seek government approval for its project. As Harvard purchased properties for its
campus expansion project, it systematically did not renew leases of existing tenants or it
Page | 75
bought existing tenants out of their lease. Harvard even located new comparable
housing for and paid for the relocation of displaced tenants of an affording housing
apartment it purchased as part of its campus expansion plan. Harvard worked
extremely hard to be fair with tenants when negotiating with existing tenants regarding
the ending of their leases. While there were newspaper reports that Harvard was heavy
handed with tenants when terminating their leases the Boston Redevelopment
Authority officials confirm that the university was more than generous with vacating
tenants.
190
Harvard also refuted these allegations.
191
By relocating existing tenants
from newly acquired properties, Harvard eliminated a stakeholder who could have
opposed their campus expansion project and put pressure on the Boston
Redevelopment Authority to help them stay in their existing buildings within the Allston
community. Existing tenants partnered with local residents who are consumers and
employees of these tenants can be a powerful opposition force against campus
expansion projects. For example, USC faced enormous opposition from existing tenants
and their customers who were local residents of its existing shopping center who feared
they would not be invited to lease spaced in USC’s new University Village complex due
to the upscale nature of the new development. Many local residents who partnered with
several existing tenants to oppose USC’s project also feared that existing tenants who
catered to local residents who were primarily low income would be replaced with more
upscale tenants who would cater to the university’s students who are more upscale
which they felt would accelerate gentrification already occurring in the community.
Existing residents tried to put pressure on USC and Los Angeles city officials to keep
many of the existing tenants on the grounds that more upscale tenants would accelerate
gentrification in the community. If USC would have followed Harvard’s approach they
Page | 76
could have eliminated the existing tenants of its existing shopping center from the
debate regarding the construction of University Village. USC could have just closed the
existing shopping center and bought tenants out of their leases as well as not renewing
expiring leases over a period of years prior to announcing plans for University Village.
In addition, government officials are much more respective to the construction of new
buildings on vacated sites than occupied sites due to the political concerns of relocating
existing tenants and the increase of sales tax revenue as a vacant site becomes occupied
generating sales tax revenue for the city. This fact would have helped USC in its
negotiations of it community benefits agreement with the City of Los Angeles if they
would have adopted Harvard’s approach to their project.
Why Harvard University had no control over this aspect of the process, it is
important to note the local government’s decision to create a task force , Harvard-
Allston Task Force, mostly comprised of residents to represent the community interest
and the existence of an experienced central government agency, Boston Redevelopment
Authority, to work with Harvard to develop a master plan for its new campus that
balanced the university’s needs and rights to control its property with the objective of
improving the lives of local residents though the expansion of the university’s campus in
Boston. The Boston Redevelopment Authority is well positioned to oversee a project
like Harvard’s campus expansion project due to its wide range of powers as well as its
many years of institutional experience overseeing major redevelopment projects
including the reshaping of Boston’s highway system known as the Big Dig. The Boston
Redevelopment Authority has broad power including zoning approval authority,
property tax concession authority, community benefits agreement negotiation authority
and the ability to invest city funds directly into redevelopment projects. The Boston
Page | 77
Redevelopment Authority is very experienced at examining the merits of large
redevelopment projects and weighing the needs and rights of the developer with the
impact a proposed project will have on a local community as well as the economic
impact on the bottom line of city government. The Boston Redevelopment Authority
was able to use its power and more importantly its institutional experience to work with
both Harvard University and the Harvard-Allston Task Force to create a project that
fulfilled the needs of Harvard while addressing the concerns of local residents and even
improving the lives of local residents by creating opportunities for local resident to
obtain needed services from Harvard through the creation of the university’s new
campus. For example, when Harvard restated its campus expansion project after
putting the project on hold for several years with a very scaled back master plan
proposal for its new campus, the Boston Redevelopment Authority instructed Harvard
to scale up its project to incorporate improvements to community open greenspaces and
roadways which it felt would be needed to support the new campus.
192
Whether it was
through direct private meetings with Harvard University, city government leadership or
public meetings with the Harvard-Allston Task Force, the Boston Redevelopment
Authority worked to assure the project would move forward and win government
approval for the benefit of Harvard University, local residents of Allston and the city
government of Boston. While a university can’t change the government agency who is
charged with examining the merits and approving or rejecting its campus expansion
project, it should have a firm understanding of how that agency works and as well as
how the agency will view its project and the concerns of local residents. Harvard’s
campus expansion strategy was driven by its deep knowledge of how the Boston
Page | 78
Redevelopment Authority functions and Harvard’s good long standing working
relationship with the agency.
In addition to the role of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city’s creation
of the Harvard-Allston Task Force was an important factor in the success of Harvard
University’s campus expansion strategy. The existence of the task force, created a
structured process for Harvard to hear the concerns of the local community and present
changes to its campus master plan to address those concerns. It also provided a
structured process for the Boston Redevelopment Authority to air its concerns regarding
the project as well as address any community demands that it felt were unreasonable to
both the community and the university in a formal setting which was open to the public.
For example when community groups demanded that Harvard fund an extension of
Boston’s subway system to include a new Allston station, the Boston Redevelopment
Authority quickly informed community groups that their demand of Harvard to fund an
Allston subway stop was not appropriate. The task force met regularly more often than
a city agency could meet allowing community members more opportunity to weigh in on
the project. Also, there were many smaller meetings comprised of individual members
of the Harvard-Allston Task Force, Harvard University and the Boston Redevelopment
Authority to work through varies issues impeding the progress of the project.
193
One of
the biggest problems universities face when considering largescale redevelopment
projects is how to communicate with the local community to determine the true
concerns of local residents regarding their project. Usually special interest community
groups usually rise up to represent a community to either oppose or support a
redevelopment project in zoning meeting and public hearings which was the case in Los
Angeles with USC’s project. It’s unclear whether these special interest groups truly
Page | 79
represent the concerns of local residents or just the interest of their respective
organizations. Any university implementing Harvard’s strategy to execute a campus
expansion project should consider asking its respective local government to create a task
force comprised mostly of local residents to represent local residents in negotiations
with university and government officials regarding the plans for the redevelopment
project as well as any community benefits agreement related to the project. The
creation of a community led task force will make the task of local governments and
universities of identifying and addressing the concerns of local residents more
manageable and save time in the long run when considering a campus expansion
project.
While we can learn a lot from the successful aspects of Harvard University’s
campus expansion strategy, we can also gain a lot from where Harvard’s strategy failed.
Harvard had one major setback which extended the approval process and increased the
cost of its campus expansion project. In 2008, Harvard executed a community benefits
agreement with the Boston Redevelopment Authority with the support of the Harvard-
Allston Task Force. Harvard begun construction on the science complex a small portion
of its larger campus expansion project which it received government approval to begin.
Harvard’s master plan was still under consideration by the Boston Redevelopment
Authority but was close to being approved. In 2009, Harvard University suffered a
dramatic financial loss within its endowment which forced the university to stop
construction of its science complex and withdraw its master plan from consideration by
the Boston Redevelopment Authority in early 2010. The land which Harvard purchased
for its new campus sat vacant, including the unfinished buildings of its science complex
for several years until Harvard restated the project in 2014. This delay angered both
Page | 80
government officials and local residents due to the amount of vacant land and
unfinished buildings which sat undeveloped in the small community of Allston for
several years while Harvard got its financial house in order. In 2014, Harvard executed
a third community benefits agreement almost double in size to the value of its initial
community benefit agreement in 2008 to finalize approval of the master plan for its new
campus and restart construction. While it is unclear whether Harvard would have
needed to execute a second community benefits agreement in 2008 to receive final
approval for its master plan of its new campus, it is clear that the size of that agreement
would have been much smaller than the 2014 agreement. Harvard had to craft and
execute a substantial third community benefits agreement to repair their relationship
with the local community and Boston Redevelopment Authority which was damaged by
the long delay in the university’s project. Harvard’s lack of planning for a financial
shortfall caused by a major recession resulting in a drop in the university’s endowment
income resulted in a several year delay in its campus expansion project which then
resulted in the increase in cost associated with community benefits agreements. In
addition, the lack of goodwill Harvard had with the local community as a result of its
land acquisition strategy also inflamed the situation. Harvard should have better
planned for an economic downturn negatively impacting its endowment income so it
would have not had to delay the project for almost four years. In addition, Harvard
should have looked for ways to improve its relationship with the local community while
executing its campus expansion strategy. As a result of the expected negative
performance of its endowment in 2009, Harvard has now limited the use of leverage
within its endowment to improve investment performance. In addition, Harvard has
used the Harvard-Allston Task Force as a vehicle to improve its relationship with the
Page | 81
local community. As other universities look to use Harvard’s strategy for executing a
campus expansion project, they should examine its financial plan for funding the cost of
the project to determine how changes in the economy will impact the university’s ability
to continue funding a university campus expansion project. In addition, a university
considering using Harvard’s strategy should also look for ways to improve its
relationship with the local community while executing its campus expansion strategy.
As Harvard learned, an extended delay in a major redevelopment project can be costly
as it relates to the funding of community benefits agreements especially when you don’t
have a good relationship with the local community.
Limitations of Harvard University’s Campus Expansion Project Case Study
There are three limitations which must be taken into consideration when
considering the findings from the case study analysis of Harvard University’s campus
expansion project. With an endowment totaling more than $35 billion, Harvard
University has the largest endowment owned by a university in the world. In addition,
through the enormous individual wealth of the university’s alumni, Harvard’s ability to
fundraise is unmatched. In September of 2013, Harvard launched a capital campaign
with a goal of $6.5 billion, the largest ever attempted by a university. By early 2015,
Harvard had already raised $5 billion of its $6.5 billion goal.
194
With the exception of a
handful of universities, no university can raise the amount of capital at the level of
Harvard. Harvard’s endowment coupled with its fundraising capacities allow the
university to have an annual operating budget exceeding $4 billion where over 30% of
the budget is funded from investment returns from its endowment and over 3% is
funded by charitable gifts to the university. Harvard’s financial resource gives the
university the freedom to execute its educational mission on its own terms without very
Page | 82
few restraints. For example, when Harvard decided to expand its campus into Boston, it
had the financial resources to undertake its campus expansion project in its entirety
without having to break it up into smaller projects for financial reasons, hire the
necessary real estate professionals to execute its land acquisition strategy including
relocating existing tenants from acquired properties, make millions of dollars of
donations to Boston based charities to win favor for its campus expansion project with
the general public, hire the project management professionals to manage the project
including designing the master plan for the new campus along with preparing
documentation necessary for government approval and funding several community
benefits agreements which were very attractive to the city government of Boston as well
as to local residents allowing the project to be approved. As a university looks to apply
the lessons learned from the Harvard case study, they must consider their ability to self-
fund the activities necessary to execute their campus expansion strategy in a manner
similar to Harvard’s approach. For many universities, this would not be possible and as
a result Harvard’s strategy would not be appropriate. As such, Harvard’s strategy for
executing a campus expansion project is only appropriate for the top private liberal arts
colleges and research universities who have the financial resources necessary to execute
the strategy.
Harvard University’s financial strength provides the university with another
advantage which would serve as another limitation for another institutions in employing
Harvard’s campus expansion strategy. That strength is Harvard’s enormous operational
resources. Harvard has some of the preeminent operational departments among
universities in the world. For instance, Harvard Management Company which manages
the university’s endowment is widely viewed as one of the top asset management firms
Page | 83
in the world regularly out performing many Wall Street investment management firms.
Also, Harvard Real Estate which manages the university’s real estate holding including
its campuses and Harvard University Housing which manages the university’s
residential buildings are viewed as cutting edge within the real estate industry. For
example, Harvard Real Estate has created a master planning process which develops a
100 year plan for Harvard’s campuses which has be emulated by many other
universities. The capabilities of a university’s real estate management group can play a
very important role in the success of a campus expansion project
195
. All of Harvard’s
operational departments are staffed with only university employees who only work to
achieve the university’s operational goals. In short, Harvard’s financial resources allows
the university to build industry best operational groups internally where many
universities have to outsource many of this operational functions. This limitation must
be considered when examining the case of Harvard’s campus expansion project.
Harvard Real Estate developed the master plan for the university’s new campus in
Allston as well as developed and executed the university plan to acquire the land
necessary to construct its new campus under the direction of Harvard’s office of the
executive vice president. Harvard’s office of the executive vice president oversees the
entire campus expansion project. In short, Harvard was able to plan and execute its
campus expansion strategy without having to hire any new employees or outsourcing
largest aspects of the project to outside firms. In addition, when asked by the City of
Boston and local residents to create educational opportunities for the community as part
of one of its community benefits agreements, Harvard was able to create the Harvard Ed
Portal which is housed in a newly constructed building next to the university’s new
campus in Boston with existing resources of the university. The Harvard Ed Portal
Page | 84
provides educational programming in performing arts, science & technology, wellness &
recreation, job training, and professional development for local residents. The Harvard
Ed Portal is viewed by local residents, city officials and Harvard officials as a hug
success and the crown jewels of the community benefit agreement between the City of
Boston, Harvard and local residents. Very few universities would have the operational
capability to execute Harvard’s campus expansion project without hiring many experts
in varies fields or outsourcing large aspects of the project to non-university owned
private firms. For many universities the cost of expanding their operational capabilities
internally or hiring experts to execute a campus expansion strategy would be financially
impossible. As a result, Harvard University’s strategy for executing campus expansion
projects is only appropriate for the most operationally and financially sound liberal arts
colleges and research universities.
Finally, the size of Harvard’s project is another limiting factor of this case study.
At over 300 acres, there are very universities located within an urban setting that could
acquire the land necessary to complete a project of this size. As urban communities
become more densely populated due to the continued migration of residents from
suburban communities back to centrally located urban communities, the ability of real
estate developers like universities to acquire large tracts of land will become difficult. In
addition as the cost of real estate in urban communities continues to increase due the
increased demand brought on by new wealthier residents relocating to urban
communities from the suburbs, acquiring large tracts of land will become cost
prohibitive to large real estate developers like universities. Universities considering
campus expansion projects on the scale of Harvard’s project may have to consider
Page | 85
constructing satellite campus not adjacent to the universities’ main campus due to the
lack of available land and the higher cost of land within many urban communities.
The enormous size of Harvard’s project also impacted the level of support the university
received from local government and the surrounding community. This is important to
note when considering Harvard’s strategy for winning government approval and local
community support for its project. Local government are more incline to support and
devote more resources to larger redevelopment projects due to size of the potential
economic gain resulting from the project. Also, local community residents are more
incline to not support larger redevelopment projects due to the level of disruption
caused by these projects during the project’s construction phase and the transformation
impact of these projects resulting from increased levels of gentrification which can
results from these types of projects. In short, smaller campus expansion projects will be
viewed very differently by the local government and community and as such a different
approach will be needed than used in the Harvard case study to win government and
community support for a smaller project.
Research Areas Necessary of Further Study
The analysis of university campus expansion is a new area of academic research.
There are many aspects of these types of projects which I think are worthy of additional
academic research but I have identified 3 key areas which I feel are the most important.
The key areas I believe are the most worthy of further research are the differences
between public and private universities as it relates to the ability of the university to
expand its campus, the effectiveness of formal community benefits agreements between
universities, community groups and local governments in limiting gentrification of
existing residents while improving there day to day lives, and the long term economic
Page | 86
impact of both large public and private research universities on the economies of cities
with an emphasis of the impact of the size and make up of a university’s campus on the
local economy of a city. I believe academic research in these key areas will generate data
which would be extremely valuable to city governments, local community groups and
universities. The data generated from research in three areas would allow city
government and local community groups to better evaluate large-scale university
campus expansion projects like the one occurring at Harvard University. Data from
research in these key area would also help universities better plan their campus
expansion projects.
Understanding the differences between public and private universities as it
relates to campus expansion projects is an important area which needs further academic
research. The majority of academic research on university campus expansion only
addresses projects occurring at private universities. Very little has been written about
the unique challenges public universities encounter when attempting to expand their
campuses as well as the advantages public universities have when executing these types
of projects. While private universities in general are wealthier than public universities,
they are much smaller as it relates to their physical campus size and enrollment. For
example Ohio State University has a total enrollment of over 50,000 students
(undergraduate & graduate students) with a campus stretching over 2,000 acres while
Harvard University has a total enrollment of approximately 20,000 students with a
campus stretching over only approximately 600 acres. Even Stanford University who
has one of the largest campuses by acreage in the world only has a total enrollment of
less the 25,000 students. You can find many public research universities around the
county like the University of Florida, University of Michigan and Pennsylvania State
Page | 87
University just to name a few which have enrollments total and campus sizes approach
that of Ohio State University. There is only a hand few of private universities which
have a total enrollment of over 20,000 students with a physical campus size
approaching that of the large public research universities. Due to their size both in
enrollment and campus acreage, public universities have an enormous impact on the
local communities and broader regions they call home when they decide to expand their
campuses on a large scale. In addition, public universities are extensions of state
government which give them unique powers as it relates to expanding their campuses.
For example because public universities are a part of state government, they have the
ability to use eminent domain laws in some cases to expand their campuses which
private universities do not unless they partner with a local government to execute their
project like the Columbia University example mentioned earlier in this paper. In
addition, public universities have the ability to issue state backed municipal bonds to
finance their campus expansion projects which dramatically lowers the project cost of
these projects over what a private university would have to pay to use bond or loan
financing to fund a similar project. In short, the overall impact of the enormous
physical campuses of large public research universities like UCLA, University of
Minnesota and University of North Carolina have on the economics of the local
communities, cities, states and regions where the universities reside is unclear based on
the current academic body of research. The topic of university campus expansion in
general and that particularly executed by large public research universities is worthy of
further academic research and necessary to understand the full impact universities have
on American cities both large and small.
Page | 88
The effectiveness of formal community benefits agreements between universities,
community groups and local governments related to campus expansion projects is
another area I believe needs further academic research. The creation of formal
community benefits agreements through legally binding contracts between universities,
community groups and local governments is a new trend in the area of government,
community and university relationships. Specially, these agreements are becoming the
foundation for partnerships between communities, universities and local governments.
As mentioned earlier in this paper, Harvard University, Columbia University and the
University of Southern California all executed formal community benefits agreements
with local governments and community groups related to their campus expansion
projects. In many cases, community benefits agreements has become the defining
document in outlining the relationship a university is going to have with the local
community which surrounds its campus. In addition, local governments are
increasingly requiring the execution of community benefits agreements by universities
in exchange for their approval of large scale redevelopment projects like campus
expansion projects. Harvard University, Columbia University and the University of
Southern California were all required by their local city governments to execute a
community benefits agreement in order to obtain city approval for their respective
campus expansion projects. Currently there is little academic research on the
effectiveness of these types of agreements when involving universities. It is unclear
whether these agreements really benefit local residents or just the local governments as
a new revenue stream. Many in government feel that community benefits agreements
will finally force universities to participate in partnerships with community groups in
addressing the issues impacting local residents that government is unable to solve. But
Page | 89
there is growing evidence that these agreements actually limit partnerships between
universities and community groups. As these agreements narrowly define and quantify
in monetary terms the relationship between a government, university, and local
community groups, universities have begun to define, narrow and manage their
relationship with the local community as defined in their community benefit
agreements. In short, if universities are required to spend millions of dollars as
required by community benefits agreements as in the case of Harvard University,
Columbia University and the University of Southern California, what incentive do these
universities have to interact with or assist local communities outside of these
agreements? The answer is the universities do not have any incentive to have a
relationship with a local community outside of its community benefits agreement. The
argument can be made that universities should not interact with communities outside of
these agreements due to the massive cost of some of these agreements. It could be
augured that it would not be financial responsible for a university to do anything more
than what is required in one of these agreements. From the community prospective, if
they negotiate a bad agreement with a university their opportunity to revisit the
agreement may not come around again for over a decade if the agreement is tied to a
university campus expansion project as community groups would not have any leverage
to bring the university back to the bargaining table. More academic study needs to be
conducted on these agreements to determine if they help or hurt local residents and
create the partnerships between communities and universities government is seeking
through these agreements.
No one can question the fact that large public and private research universities
have a measureable impact on the economics of American cities. The size and scope of
Page | 90
that impact is unclear. In short, there is not much academic research on how much of
an impact research universities have on the economics of cities. From New York to Los
Angeles to Atlanta, universities are major contributors to the employment base of the
cities they call home. Numerous research universities employ more than 10,000
employees making them major employers in a lot of mid-sized and large cities around
the county. Also, with annual budgets exceeding $3 billion many research universities
are large direct contributors to local and regional economics. In addition, when you
consider the individual spending power of the student populations of research
university, which can be as small as 15,000 at private research universities or as large as
60,000 students at public research universities, the economic impact of research
universities is considerable when compared to other large institutions which comprise
the economics of local cities and larger regions. While we know that these universities
are impacting their local communities, there is little academic research on what the long
term economic impact of universities is on the local cities and regions they call home. In
addition, there is no academic research on the impact of the size and composition of a
university’s campus on the local economy or the region where the university is located.
Would New York City have development into the business and cultural capital of the
United States without Columbia University and New York University? Would Chicago
be the one of the largest corporate business hubs in the world without the help of the
University of Chicago and Northwestern University? Would Pittsburg’s economy have
survived the loss of the steel industry without the help of the University of Pittsburg and
Carnegie Mellon University? Would the economy of St. Louis have survived the loss of
the auto industry without the help of St. Louis University and Washington University?
Would Austin, Texas be evolving into the next Silicon Valley without the presence of the
Page | 91
University of Texas? Until you can answer these questions, you can’t truly determine the
true economic impact of universities on cities. In addition without being able to answer
these questions, it’s difficult for city governments to determine how they should evaluate
the growth of universities within their cities. For example, should the City of Los
Angeles plan the city’s growth around the future growth of UCLA and USC due to the
two universities’ economic impact on the city? If more academic research were
conducted on the economic impact of universities and their campuses on cities a lot of
these questions could be answered. In addition, city planners and city policy makers
could use the data created from type of academic research on the economic impact of
universities to more effectively plan and manage a city’s economic growth. In
conclusion, the actual value of a university to a city can’t be truly determined without a
full understanding of the full economic impact that university has on that city. Without
knowing the economic value of a university to a city, it is extremely difficult to truly
examine the impact an expansion of a university’s campus will have on a city or a
broader region.
University Campus Expansion Methodology
Through my academic research as presented in this dissertation, I have
developed a campus expansion methodology for universities to implore when explore
when executing a large campus expansion within an urban community. The
methodology should service as a road map to universities in efficiently executing a
campus expansion project in the most cost effective manner. The methodology goes as
follows:
1 A university should attempt to secure 100% of the land necessary to execute a
proposed campus expansion project in secret not disclosing the university’s true
Page | 92
identity when purchasing the land or the university’s long term intentions for the
land. This conflict avoidance approach will allow the university to purchase the
land it needs for its campus expansion project at the market price for the land
without obstructions from community groups and local governments.
2 The university should next negotiate lease buyout agreements with all existing
tenants from purchased properties. This process should be completed before
local community groups and government become aware of the university’s
activities. This process should be completed prior to approaching local
government for their support for the proposed campus expansion project. By
buying out the existing tenants of acquired properties, the university eliminates
a group of harmed citizens who could put pressure on government officials to
force the university to provide them with financial compensation for their loss or
block the project all together. Simply, it is easier and in a local government’s
financial interest to support the development of a collection of vacant properties
as opposed to approving a project which would require the eviction of local
residents and businesses.
3 A university should next secure full support of the local and state government (if
necessary) for the proposed campus expansion project through private
negotiations. The university should present the entire campus expansion plan
for consideration and push for a full approval of the entire project contingent on
the university obtaining community support for the project. This will force
government officials to consider the economic benefits of the entire project and
not just a portion of the larger project when considering what if any direct
Page | 93
financial concessions by the university to local government will be required to
obtain government support and approval for the project.
4 After the university has secured government support for its campus expansion
project, the university should next begin to build broader support of the general
population of the city at large for their project. Through a focused marketing
campaign, the university should highlight to the general public of the city its
financial contributions to the broader community as well as the positive
economic impact the university and the new project will have on the city at large.
A university should also consider making financial contributions to local non-
profit originations to gain broad support for its project. Harvard made over $20
million in charitable contributions to local Boston based charities related to an
affordable housing program to introduce itself to the community of Boston.
196
This action got the Boston community and city government excited about the
possibility of Harvard investing in Boston and not its home City of Cambridge
over the next 30 years as it builds out its new campus. By building wide spread
support for the project with the broader community of a city, it makes to more
difficult for local government officials as well as local community groups within
the area of the city where the project is going to take place to oppose the campus
expansion project.
5 After the university has built broad based support for its project with the general
population, the university should next begin direct negotiations with local
community groups regarding obtaining their support for the proposed campus
expansion project. If possible, a formal process or task force should be
established for negotiating with local community groups which would include
Page | 94
the involvement of local government like the Harvard-Allston Task Force. Any
formal agreement with community groups should be documented through a
legally binding community benefits agreement between the university, local
government and local community groups. With the support of local government,
the land necessary for the project already secured and the support of the broader
community, the university will be in a strong bargaining position with local
community groups for their support of the project. With this leverage in place, a
university will be able to negotiate a favorable community benefits agreement
with local community groups which would not jeopardize the financial viability
of the campus expansion project. Also if legally possible, any financial
concessions that are being demanded by local government of the university in
exchange for the approval of the project should also be included as part of the
community benefits agreement. The community benefits agreement should be
contingent on the university receiving full approval for its campus expansion
project from local government and state government if necessary.
6 Finally after the university has secured the support of local community groups
through an executed community benefits agreement, the university should
submit its campus expansion proposal in its entirety to local government for
formal approval.
The university campus expansion methodology should be used as a high level
blueprint when examining how to approach a campus expansion project. Before a
university implores this methodology, it should examine several factors to make sure
the methodology is the most appropriate strategy in executing a proposed campus
expansion project. First, a university should examine its operational and financial
Page | 95
resources to determine whether it has the capability to execute this methodology.
Secondly, a university should also examine the structure and approval process of the
local government who will reviewing the university’s campus expansion proposal to
determine how the methodology may have to be adjusted to accommodate the local
government’s policies and procedures related to the approval of the university’s
campus expansion project. Finally, the methodology should not be used for a single
development project involving a portion of a larger project. The methodology is best
used for a large scale development project like a campus expansion project similar in
scope to projects occurring at Harvard University or Columbia University.
Page | 96
Appendix
End Notes
CHAPTER 1
1
Steve Cohen, “Oh, That’s Why College is So Expensive,” Forbes, 28 August 2012,
www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2012/08/28/oh-that-why-college-is-so-expensive/.
2
Larry Gordon, “USC Plans $900-Million Shopping and Residential Upgrade,”
Los Angeles Times, 3 July 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/03/local/la-me-
uscvillage-20100703.
CHAPTER 2
3
Wim Wiewel, Kara Kunst, and Raymond Dubicki, University Real Estate
Development: Campus Expansion in Urban Settings (Cambridge, Mass: Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy Working Paper, September 2007), 1.
4
Shawn Abbott, “The Good, Bad and Ugly of Campus Expansion: Two Case
Studies of Urban University Campus Expansion Initiatives In Boston and New York”
(Ed.D. diss., Columbia University, 2010), 29.
5
Ibid., 31.
6
Ibid., 180.
7
Larry Gordon, “USC Plans $900-Million Shopping and Residential Upgrade,”
Los Angeles Times, 3 July 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/03/local/la-me-
uscvillage-20100703.
8
Matthew F. Quirk, “Harvard’s New Frontier,” Harvard Crimson, 7 June 2001,
www.thecrimson.com/article/2001/6/7/harvards-new-frontier--before-a-crowd/.
9
Mark Winkeller, University Campus Expansion in Urban Neighborhoods: An
Exploratory Analysis (Boston: Brandeis University, 1971), 106.
10
“UT Longhorns Top Nation in Football Revenue,” Houston Business Journal, 6
September 2011, Morning Edition,
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2016/01/08/gridiron-goldmine-longhorns-
top-nation-again-in-football.html.
11
Ben Mangrum, “Is College Football Profitable for Universities,” Ethos, 27
March 2014, www.ethosreview.org/intellectual-spaces/is-college-football-profitable.
12
Nicolas A. Lewis, “Killing UAB Football Is Part of A Larger Plan For The
Alabama Board of Trustees,” Underdog Dynasty (blog), May 7, 2015,
http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2015/5/7/8496321/uab-football-the-machine-
alabama-board-of-trustees-paul-bryant.
Page | 97
13
Associated Press, “Baylor’s Stadium Makes its Debut Against SMU,” New York
Times, 30 August 2014,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/sports/ncaafootball/baylors-stadium-makes-its-
debut-against-smu.html.
14
Wiewel, “University Real Estate Development,” 8.
15
Ibid., 26.
16
Abbott, The Good, Bad and Ugly, 160.
17
Ibid., 87.
18
Jaimie Oh, “100 Top Grossing Hospital in America” Becker’s Hospital Review.
29 August 2011, http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/100-top-grossing-
hospitals-in-america.html.
19
Edward T. Chambers and Michael A. Cowan, Roots for Radicals: Organizing
for Power, Action, and Justice (New York: Continuum, 2003), 113.
20
Manuel Pastor Jr., Marta Lopez-Garza, Peter Dreier, and J. Eugene Grigsby III,
Regions That Work: How Cities and Suburbs Can Grow Together vol. 6 of
Globalization and Community (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), 85-
96.
21
Ibid., 85-96.
22
Mark Warren, Dry Bones Rattling: Community Building to Revitalize
American Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 30-39.
23
Abbott, The Good, Bad and Ugly, 90-93.
24
Ibid., 90-93.
25
Wiewel, “University Real Estate Development,” 20.
26
Ibid., 20.
27
Bonnie Laing, “Organizing Community and Labor Coalitions for Community
Benefits Agreements in African American Communities: Ensuring Successful
Partnerships,” Journal of Community Practice 17, iss. 1-2 (2009): 122.
28
Erualdo Romero, “The Grassroots and New Urbanism: A Case From a
Southern California Latino Community,” Journal of Urbanism: International Research
on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 5, iss. 2-3 (2012): 235.
Page | 98
29
The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Community Benefits Agreements: The Power,
Practice, and Promise of a Responsible Redevelopment Tool, Neighborhood
Development Monograph Series, (Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007), 12.
30
Laing, “Organizing Community,” 122.
31
Stephen Ceasar, “$1-Billion Village at USC Approved by L.A. Council Panel,”
Los Angeles Times, 10 October 2012,
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/10/village-at-usc-project-moves-
forward.html.
32
Julian Gross, “Community Benefits Agreements: Definitions, Values, and Legal
Enforceability,” Journal of Affordable Housing 17, no. 1-2 (Fall 2007/Winter 2008): 36.
33
Ibid., 37.
34
Ibid., 37.
35
Ibid., 39.
36
Ibid., 37-38.
37
Laing, “Organizing Community,” 122.
38
Gross, “Community Benefits,” 40.
39
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York's Land Use Subcommittee,
The Role of Community Benefits Agreements in New York City’s Land Use Process,
(New York, 2010), 40.
40
Ibid., 37.
41
Ibid., 38.
42
Gross, “Community Benefits,” 48.
43
Ibid., 47.
44
Lance Freeman, There Goes the 'Hood: Views of Gentrification from the
Ground Up (Philadelphia: Temple University, 2006), 3.
45
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Health Effects of Gentrification,
21 August 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm.
46
Maureen Kennedy, Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on
Gentrification and Policy Choices (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Center
on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, April 2001), 5.
Page | 99
47
Ibid., 14-24.
48
Peter Moskowitz, “Philadelphia Universities’ Expansion Drove Wider
Gentrification, Tension,” Al Jazeera America, 31 December 2014,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/31/philadelphia-
universitiesexpansiondrovewidergentrificationtensio.html.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
Ibid.
52
Wiewel, “University Real Estate Development,” 20.
53
Ibid., 20.
54
Kennedy, Dealing, 25.
55
Ibid., 47.
56
Bruce London and J. John Palen, Introduction: Some Theoretical and
Practical Issues Regarding Inner City Revitalization, Gentrification, Displacement, and
Neighborhood Revitalization, SUNY Series in Urban Public Policy, (New York: SUNY
Press, 1984), 15.
57
Ibid., 1.
58
Ibid., 1.
59
Ibid., 14.
60
Ibid., 16.
61
Ibid., 2.
62
Ibid., 19.
63
Ibid., 22-23.
64
Kennedy, Dealing, 52.
65
Lawrence Martin, Hayden Smith, and Wende Phillips, “Bridging Town & Gown
Through Innovative University – Community Partnerships,” Public Sector Innovation
Journal 10 no. 2 (2005), 1.
Page | 100
66
Ibid., 2.
67
Ibid., 2.
68
David Nusbaum, “2015 Largest Employers,” Los Angeles Business Journal, 1
September 2015.
69
Martin, “Bridging Town & Gown,” 4.
70
Wiewel, “University Real Estate Development,” 20.
71
Ibid., 21.
72
Ibid., 20.
73
Ibid., 20.
74
Ibid., 20.
75
Ibid., 20.
76
Ibid., 20.
77
Ibid., 20.
78
Ibid, 21.
79
Ibid., 21.
80
Robert Berdahl, Leslie Cohen Berlowitz, Jared Cohon, John Sexton, and Ruth
Simmons, The University and the City, Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences 17 no. 3, 4.
81
Greater St. Louis Regional and County Profile, St. Louis Regional Chamber &
Growth Association, 1 December 2011, http://www.stlrcga.org/x1044.xml.
82
Nusbaum, “2015 Largest Employers.”
83
The Largest Employers in The City of Boston, Boston Redevelopment
Authority, 1 March 2011,
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/PDF/ResearchPublications/theLargest
EmployersinBostonFINAL.pdf.
84
Largest Employers in Atlanta, Atlanta Workplace Examiner, 6 February 2013,
http://www.metroatlantachamber.com/docs/resources/top-employers-.pdf?sfvrsn=0.
85
Berdahl, “The University,” 6.
Page | 101
86
Ibid., 8.
87
Ibid., 9.
88
Ibid., 10.
89
Ibid., 10.
90
Ibid., 10.
91
City of Boston, FY15 Second Half PILOT Status Report, 7 July 2015,
http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/FY15%20PILOT%20Results%20for%
20Web_tcm3-51686.pdf.
92
Ibid.
93
Ceasar, “$1-Billion Village.”
94
Quirk, “Harvard’s New Frontier.”
95
Harvard University Public Affairs & Communications, Harvard and the
Massachusetts Economy Facts & Impact (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2013), 13.
96
Timothy Williams, “In West Harlem Land Dispute, It’s Columbia vs.
Residents,” New York Times, 20 November 2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/nyregion/20columbia.html?fta=y.
97
Ceasar, “$1-Billion Village.”
CHAPTER 3
98
The Office of Institutional Research, Harvard University Fact Book Year
2010-11, Impact (Cambridge: Harvard University Holyoke Center, 2012), 44.
99
Ibid., 44.
100
Ibid., 44.
101
Ibid., 44.
102
Harvard University, Harvard at a Glance, accessed 1 December 2015,
http://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvards-leadership/president-and-fellows-
harvard-corporation.
103
Harvard University, President and Fellows (Harvard Corporation), accessed
1 December 2015, http://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvards-
leadership/president-and-fellows-harvard-corporation.
Page | 102
104
Thompson Reuters, “Best Global Universities Rankings,” U.S. News & World
Report, 27 October 2014, http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-
universities/rankings.
105
Harvard Financial Administration, Harvard University Financial Report
Fiscal Year 2014, (Cambridge: Harvard, 2014), 5.
106
The Office of Institutional Research, Harvard University Fact Book Year
2010 -11 (Cambridge: Harvard University Holyoke Center, 2012), 14.
107
Harvard University, Harvard’s President & Leadership, accessed 1 December
2015, http://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvards-president-leadership.
108
Ibid.
109
Ibid.
110
Ibid.
111
Ibid.
112
Ibid.
113
Ibid.
114
Ibid.
115
Harvard Financial Administration, Harvard University Financial Report
Fiscal Year 2014, (Cambridge: Harvard, 2014), 5.
116
Ibid., 5.
117
Ibid., 5.
118
Ibid., 5.
119
Ibid., 5.
120
Ibid., 5.
121
Ibid., 5.
122
Ibid., 5.
123
Ibid., 8.
Page | 103
124
Ibid., 8.
125
Ibid., 3.
126
Ibid., 6.
127
Ibid., 6.
128
Ibid., 6.
129
Ibid., 6.
130
Ibid., 6.
131
Ibid., 6.
132
Ibid., 6.
133
Matthew F. Quirk, “Harvard’s New Frontier,” Harvard Crimson, 7 June 2001,
www.thecrimson.com/article/2001/6/7/harvards-new-frontier--before-a-crowd/.
134
Ibid.
135
Ibid.
136
Stanford University, Introduction: Stanford University Facts 2015, accessed
31 August 2015, http://facts.stanford.edu/.
137
Richard Melnick, Harvard Business School Annual Report 2013, Harvard
University, 2013, 27.
138
Harvard University, Institutional Master Plan Notification Form For
Renewal of the Harvard University Longwood Campus Institutional Master Plan,
2013, 1.
139
Quirk, “Harvard’s New Frontier.”
140
Ibid.
141
Ibid.
142
Ibid.
143
Steve Mannheim, Walt Disney and the Quest for Community (Aldershot,
England: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2002), 70.
Page | 104
144
Marika Reuling and Harris Band, telephone interview by author, 20 October
2015.
145
Quirk, “Harvard’s New Frontier.”
146
Ibid.
147
Ibid.
148
Ibid.
149
Ibid.
150
Katie Zezima, “Harvard Outlines Plans to Expand Campus Across the Charles
River,” New York Times, 12 January 2007,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/education/12harvard.html?_r=0.
151
Nan Ni, “Harvard Signs Benefits Accord,” Harvard Crimson, 9 April 2008,
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/4/9/harvard-signs-benefits-accord-after-
more/.
152
Reuling, telephone interview.
153
Marco J. Barber Grossi, “Allston Task Force Approves Benefits Package,”
Harvard Crimson, 14 November 2013.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/11/14/allston-task-force-benefits/.
154
Ibid.
155
Quirk, “Harvard’s New Frontier.”
156
Gerald Autler, telephone interview by author, 20 October 2015.
157
Reuling, telephone interview.
158
Quirk, “Harvard’s New Frontier.”
159
Ibid.
160
Autler, phone interview.
161
. Barber Grossi, “Allston Task Force.”
162
Laura A. Moore, “Living Up To the Town Gown Promise,” Harvard Crimson,
17 April 2007, www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/4/17/living-up-to-the-town-gown/.
163
Ibid.
Page | 105
164
Autler, phone interview.
165
Ibid.
166
Ibid.
167
Ibid.
168
Ibid.
169
Ibid.
170
Jim Montgomery, telephone interview by author, 20 October 2015.
171
Ibid.
172
Brian Kladko, “Allston Fear: Harvard is Creating a ‘Ghost Town’,” Boston
Business Journal, 6 November 2006,
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2006/11/06/story1.html?b=1162789200%
25255E1370489.
173
Quirk, “Harvard’s New Frontier.”
174
Kladko, “Allston Fear”
175
Ibid.
176
Ibid.
177
Andrew Ryan and Vivian Yee, “Allston Skeptical of Harvard’s New Vision,”
Boston Globe, 17 June 2011,
www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/06/17/allston_residents_sk
eptical_of_harvards_revived_vision/.
178
Moore, “Living Up.”
179
Ibid.
180
Ibid.
181
Ignacio Sabate and Luca F. Schroeder, “An Incomplete Partnership,” Harvard
Crimson, 28 May 2015, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/5/28/allston-task-
force-communication-problems/.
182
Ibid.
Page | 106
183
Ibid.
CHAPTER 4
184
Corey Kilgannon and Stacey Stowe, “State Officials Approve Expansion by
Columbia,” New York Times, 19 December 2008,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/nyregion/19columbia.html
185
Tasha Moore, “Harlem and the Columbia Expansion.” Harlem Times, 1 July
2013, http://theharlemtimes.com/online-news/harlem-columbia-expansion.
186
Timothy Williams, “In West Harlem Land Dispute, It’s Columbia vs.
Residents,” New York Times, 20 November 2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/nyregion/20columbia.html?fta=y.
187
Stephen Ceasar, “$1-Billion Village at USC approved by L.A. Council Panel,”
Los Angeles Times, 10 October 2012,
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/10/village-at-usc-project-moves-
forward.html.
188
Larry Gordon, “USC Plans $900-Million Shopping and Residential Upgrade,”
Los Angeles Times, 3 July 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/03/local/la-me-
uscvillage-20100703.
189
Jeffrey Wigintton, “Urban Universities Campus Expansion Projects in the 21st
Century: A Case Study of the University of Southern California’s ‘Village at USC’ Project
and its Potential Economic and Social Impacts on its Local Community to Provide a
Template for Future Expansion Projects” (Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California
2013), 73.
190
Gerald Autler, telephone interview by author, 20 October 2015.
191
Marika Reuling and Harris Band, telephone interview by author, 20 October
2015.
192
Autler, interview by author.
193
Jim Montgomery, telephone interview by author, 20 October 2015.
194
Theodore Delwiche and Mariel Klein, “Capital Campaign Reaches $5 Billion
Mark,” Harvard Crimson, 9 February 2015,
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/2/7/capital-campaign-reaches-5-billion/.
195
David C. Perry and Wim Wiewel, The University as Urban Developer
(Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2005), 305.
196
Matthew F. Quirk, “Harvard’s New Frontier,” Harvard Crimson, 7 June 2001,
www.thecrimson.com/article/2001/6/7/harvards-new-frontier--before-a-crowd/.
Page | 107
Bibliography
Abbott, Shawn. "The Good, Bad and Ugly of Campus Expansion: Two Case Studies of
Urban University Campus Expansion Initiatives In Boston and New York." Ed.D.
diss., Columbia University, 2010.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Leading Change for Healthy
Communities and Successful Land Reuse. Chamblee, Ga.:U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, November 2010.
Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Power, Practice, and Promise of a Responsible
Redevelopment Tool. Monograph series on Neighborhood Development.
Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007.
http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-communitybenefitsagreements-
2007.pdf.
Associated Press. "Baylor’s Stadium Makes its Debut Against SMU." New York Times,
2014 August 30.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/sports/ncaafootball/baylors-stadium-
makes-its-debut-against-smu.html
Barber Grossi, Marco J. "Allston Task Force Approves Benefits Package." The Harvard
Crimson, 14 November 2013. http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/100-
top-grossing-hospitals-in-america.html.
Berdahl, Robert, Leslie Cohen Berlowitz, Jared Cohon, John Sexton, and Ruth
Simmons. The University and the City, Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences 17 no. 3 (2011): 4-18.
Boston Redevelopment Authority. The Largest Employers in The City of Boston. 1
March 2011. http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org.
Ceasar, Stephen. "$1-Billion Village at USC Approved by L.A. Council Panel." Los
Angeles Times, 10 October 2012.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/10/village-at-usc-project-moves-
forward.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Health Effects of Gentrification. Updated
21 August 2013, accessed 15 January 2016.
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm.
Chambers, Edward T, and Michael A. Cowan. Roots for Radicals: Organizing for
Power, Action, and Justice. Continuum. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 2003.
Cohen, Steve. "Oh, That’s Why College is So Expensive." Forbes, 28 August 2012.
Page | 108
Delwiche, Theodore, and Mariel Klein. “Capital Campaign Reaches $5 Billion Mark.”
The Harvard Crimson. 9 February 2015.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/2/7/capital-campaign-reaches-5-
billion/.
Freeman, Lance. There Goes the 'Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up.
Philadelphia: Temple University. 2006.
Gordon, Larry. “USC plans $900-million shopping and residential upgrade.” Los
Angeles Times. 3 July 2011. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/03/local/la-
me-uscvillage-20100703.
Gross, Julian. "Community Benefits Agreements: Definitions, Values, and Legal
Enforceability." Journal of Affordable Housing 17, no. 1-2 (Fall 2007/Winter
2008): 37-51.
Harvard Financial Administration. Harvard University Financial Report Fiscal Year
2014. Cambridge: Harvard University, 2014.
Harvard Planning & Project Management. Institutional Master Plan Notification Form
For Renewal of the Harvard University Longwood Campus Institutional Master
Plan. Cambridge: Harvard University, October 2012.
Harvard University Public Affairs & Communications. Harvard and the Massachusetts
Economy Facts & Impact. Cambridge: Harvard University, 2013.
Houston Business Journal. "UT Longhorns Top Nation in Football Revenue." Morning
Edition, 6 September 2011.
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2011/09/ut-longhorns-top-
nation-in-football.html.
Kennedy, Maureen. Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification
and Policy Choices. D.C.: Brookings Institution, April 2001.
Kilgannon, Corey, and Stacey Stowe. “State Officials Approve Expansion by Columbia.”
New York Times. 19 December 2008,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/nyregion/19columbia.html.
Kladko, Brian. "Allston Fear: Harvard is Creating a ‘Ghost Town'." Boston Business
Journal, 6 November 2006,
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2006/11/06/story1.html?b=116278
9200%25255E1370489.
Laing, Bonnie. "Organizing Community and Labor Coalitions for Community Benefits
Agreements in African American Communities: Ensuring Successful
Partnerships." Journal of Community Practice 17, no. 1-2 (2009): 120-139.
Page | 109
"Largest Employers in Atlanta." Atlanta Workplace Examiner, 6 February 2013,
http://www.metroatlantachamber.com/docs/resources/top-employers-
.pdf?sfvrsn=0.
Lewis, Nicolas. “Killing UAB Football Is Part of A Larger Plan For The Alabama Board of
Trustees.” Underdog Dynasty (blog). 7 May 2015,
http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2015/5/7/8496321/uab-football-the-
machine-alabama-board-of-trustees-paul-bryant.
London, Bruce, and John J. Palen, Eds. Gentrification, Displacement, and
Neighborhood Revitalization. SUNY Series in Urban Public Policy. Albany:
SUNY Press. 1984.
Mangrum, Ben, "Is College Football Profitable for Universities." Ethos, 27 March 2014.
www.ethosreview.org/intellectual-spaces/is-college-football-profitable.
Mannheim, Steve. Walt Disney and the Quest for Community. Aldershot, England:
Ashhate Publishing Limited, 2002.
Martin, Lawrence, Hayden Smith, and Wende Phillips. "Bridging Town & Gown
Through Innovative University – Community Partnerships." The Innovation
Journal: the Public Sector Innovation Journal 10 no. 2 (2005): 1-16.
Harvard Business School. Annual Report 2013. Cambridge: Harvard University. 2013
Moore, Laura A. "Living Up To the Town Gown Promise." The Harvard Crimson, 17
April 2007. www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/4/17/living-up-to-the-town-
gown/.
Moore, Tasha. “Harlem and the Columbia Expansion.” The Harlem Times, 1 July 2013.
http://theharlemtimes.com/online-news/harlem-columbia-expansion.
New York City Bar, Association of the Bar of the City of New York's Land Use
Subcommittee. The Role of Community Benefits Agreements in New York City’s
Land Use Process, 8 March 2010.
Pastor Jr., Manuel, Marta Lopez-Garza, Peter Dreier, and J. Eugene Grigsby III.
Regions That Work: How Cities and Suburbs Can Grow Together. Globalization
and Community 6. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 2000.
Thompson Reuters. "Best Global Universities Rankings." U.S. News & World Report, 27
October 2014, http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-
universities/rankings.
Moskowitz, Peter. "Philadelphia Universities' Expansion Drove Wider Gentrification,
Tension." Al Jazeera, 31 December 2014,
Page | 110
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/31/philadelphia-
universitiesexpansiondrovewidergentrificationtensio.html.
Ni, Nan. "Harvard Signs Benefits Accord." The Harvard Crimson, 2008 April 9,
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/4/9/harvard-signs-benefits-accord-
after-more/.
Nusbaum, David. "2015 Largest Employers." Los Angeles Business Journal, 1
September 2014: 82.
Office of Institutional Research. Harvard University Fact Book Year 2010 -11.
Cambridge: Harvard University Holyoke Center, 2012.
Oh, Jaimie. "100 Top Grossing Hospital in America." Becker’s Hospital Review, 29
August 2011. http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/100-top-grossing-
hospitals-in-america.html.
Quirk, Matthew F. "Harvard’s New Frontier." The Harvard Crimson, 7 June 2001,
www.thecrimson.com/article/2001/6/7/harvards-new-frontier--before-a-
crowd/.
Perry, David C. and Wim Wiewel. The University as Urban Developer. Armonk, New
York: M.E. Sharpe. 2005.
Romero, Erualdo. "The Grassroots and New Urbanism: a Case from a Southern
California Latino Community." Journal of Urbanism: International Research on
Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 5, iss. 2-3 (2012): 219-239.
Ryan, Andrew, and Vivian Yee. "Allston Skeptical of Harvard’s New Vision." Boston
Globe, 17 June 2011,
www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/06/17/allston_reside
nts_skeptical_of_harvards_revived_vision/.
Sabate, Ignacio, and Luca Schroeder. "An Incomplete Partnership." The Harvard
Crimson, 28 May 2015, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/5/28/allston-
task-force-communication-problems/.
Stanford University. Introduction: Stanford University Facts. 13 March 2015.
http://facts.stanford.edu.
St. Louis Regional Chamber & Growth Association. Greater St. Louis Regional and
County Profile. 1 December 2011, http://www.stlrcga.org/x1044.xml.
Warren, Mark. Dry Bones Rattling: Community Building to Revitalize American
Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2001.
Page | 111
Wiewel, Wim, Kara Kunst, and Raymond Dubicki. University Real Estate Development:
Campus Expansion in Urban Settings. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy. September 2007.
Wigintton, Jeffrey. "Urban Universities' Campus Expansion Projects in the 21st Century:
A Case Study of the University of Southern California's 'Village at USC' Project
and its Potential Economic and Social Impacts on its Local Community to
Provide a Template for Future Expansion Projects." Ph.D. diss., University of
Southern California, 2013.
Williams, Timothy. "In West Harlem Land Dispute, It’s Columbia vs. Residents." New
York Times, 2006 November 20,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/nyregion/20columbia.html?fta=y.
Winkeller, Mark. University Campus Expansion in Urban Neighborhoods: An
Exploratory Analysis. Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1971.
Zezima, Katie. "Harvard Outlines Plans to Expand Campus Across the Charles River."
New York Times, 2007 January 12,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/education/12harvard.html?_r=0.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Community development agreements: addressing inequality through urban development projects
PDF
The film industry and urban development in metropolitan Los Angeles, 1920-1975
PDF
Urban universities' campus expansion projects in the 21st century: a case study of the University of Southern Calfornia's "Village at USC" project and its potential economic and social impacts on...
PDF
The interactions between housing and business
PDF
Technological innovation in public organizations
PDF
Do sustainability plans affect urban sustainability outcomes in Santa Monica, San Francisco, and San Jose?
PDF
China-Africa cooperation: an assessment through the lens of China’s development experience
PDF
An exploratory case study on the social viability of Alvarado Street Bakery’s employee-owned cooperative model
PDF
Using innovative field model and competency-based student learning outcomes to level the playing field in social work distance learning education
PDF
Conditions for an app serving unplanned urban communities: integrating cell phones into health promotion messaging
PDF
Environmental justice in real estate, public services, and policy
PDF
Avoiding middle-class planning 2.0: media arts and the future of urban planning
PDF
Health impact assessment, the concept, science, and application in China
PDF
Constructing the achievement index: an assessment to help people achieve high-performance leadership in the workplace
PDF
Workplace conflict and employment retaliation in law enforcement; an examination of the causes, effects and viable solutions
PDF
A time of crisis: the Australian experience and what can California learn?
PDF
A framework for good local governance: achieving prosperity in an increasingly complex environment
PDF
The role of public policy in the decisions of parents and caregivers: an examination of work, fertility, and informal caregiving
PDF
Unraveling decentralization of warehousing and distribution centers: three essays
PDF
Choice neighborhoods: a spatial and exploratory analysis of Housing Authority City of Los Angeles public housing
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hollins, Gerard William, Jr.
(author)
Core Title
University campus expansion: an analysis of Harvard University’s expansion into Boston, Massachusetts
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development
Degree Program
Policy, Planning, and Development
Publication Date
09/26/2016
Defense Date
06/10/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,university campus expansion
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Schweitzer, Lisa (
committee chair
), Natoli, Debbie (
committee member
), Painter, Gary (
committee member
), Sloane, David (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ghollinsjr@gmail.com,gwhollin@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-306324
Unique identifier
UC11281255
Identifier
etd-HollinsGer-4806.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-306324 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-HollinsGer-4806.pdf
Dmrecord
306324
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Hollins, Gerard William, Jr.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
university campus expansion