Mid tier universities may be in more trouble than I realized

The university campus in Syracuse, N.Y. TED SHAFFREY/AP

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on Syracuse University ("Why Syracuse Can’t Attract the Students It Needs to Pay the Bills"). 

In general, colleges these days are facing the demographic cliff of fewer students.  

That's especially affected small private colleges with high tuitions.  This has been a particular issue in New England, which the Boston Globe has covered in depth, to the point that they've just started a weekly newsletter on the topic.  This is the first edition, "These Mass. colleges’ finances are full of red flags."  From the article:

More than two dozen colleges in New England have closed since 2015, and almost all of them enrolled new students shortly before announcing their closures. Parents and faculty members from shuttered campuses have told me about the supposed reassurances they received from school administrators before the end came.

Colleges are required to post annual financial statements online, so one might think that it would be easy enough to identify a school in trouble. I am here to tell you that it is not so easy.

A college’s net assets may increase from one year to the next, but that does not necessarily mean all is well. On the other hand, a one-time operating deficit is not necessarily a crisis. Prospective students and their families do not have the time and the know-how to pore over institutional finances during the already complicated and stressful process of applying to college.

And that can have disproportionately negative impact on cities ("Small college economic issues threaten their ability to function as a community asset"), like the closure of in Albany, or Birmingham-Southern College in Birmingham, Alabama, or the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

This blog entry started a few years ago, wrt the closure or merger of arts-related colleges ("Revisiting entries: Should community culture master plans include elements on higher education arts programs?,").  But the point should be extended to master planning more generally, to be aware of the economic health of institutions in your community, with a plan to act if circumstances become negative.

While most cities require colleges to do and update master plans, usually on a ten year cycle, that's more about building, not reaping more economic value from them, which aligns with my point that DC in particular doesn't do a very good job leveraging the economic development potential of universities.  

-- "Better leveraging higher education institutions in cities and counties: Greensboro; Spokane; Mesa; Phoenix; Montgomery County, Maryland; Washington, DC" (2016)
-- "HBCUs and the city: Relocating Cheyney University to Philadelphia" (2021)
-- "The other George Miller idea: creating multi-college innovation centers in (cities) Philadelphia | Creating public library-college education centers as revitalization initiatives" (2021)
-- "Freeman Hrabowski and 'urban universities" (2021)
-- "Universities as elements of urban/downtown revitalization: the Portland State story and more" (2014)
-- "President of Washington State University dies: fostered development of the "University District" adjacent to Downtown Spokane" (2015)

-- "John Fry, president of Drexel University, and universities and cities" (2022) -- since his tenure conditions for DU have deteriorated, now he's the president of Temple University, which has its own problems

-- "Morgan State University should move their architecture and planning school to Downtown/Station North Arts District" (2014)

But those aren't the only schools at risk.  In Michigan, the three top tier universities, Michigan, Michigan State, and the urban Wayne State University in Detroit continue to maintain or add enrollments ("UM Ann Arbor remains largest university in state as competition to get in intensifies." Detroit News), while the other state schools are losing enrollment ("Michigan college enrollment rate slips, despite $1B in state scholarships," Bridge Michigan), and smaller colleges are closing.

• It's accentuated by the anti-immigrant focus by the Trump Administration, which has resulted in a 10% across the board reduction in international student enrollment with disproportionate impact on some schools more than others
• Foreign students mostly pay full tuition, so the economic impact is greater than the number of students.
• Northern colleges are losing students to southern colleges
• Limits on the total amount of money that can be lent in federal student loan programs

The new dorms at Michigan look like they could be from the 1930s, another period of large growth for the university and the construction of multiple dormitories.  Architect: Robert A.M. Stern and Associates (RAMSA).

Meanwhile the Ivies and the premier public universities do well, grabbing more students.  Many like the University of Michigan, are opening new dorms ("Take a look inside University of Michigan’s new Wolverine Village," Detroit Free Press).

Urban design initiative.  In 2017 I mentioned an interesting initiative by Syracuse University in the context of the Purple Line series, about how they were investing in making better urban design and other connections between the campus and the core city.  Apparently, it hasn't been enough.

From the 2017 entry:

The Syracuse Connective Corridor is a wide-scale approach on improving the connections between the campus of Syracuse University and the city, while simultaneously emphasizing sub-districts within the city center ("Is Syracuse's Connective Corridor work transforming downtown?" and "Syracuse's Connective Corridor: 2 miles long, $47 million better," Syracuse Post-Standard; "The Connective Corridor – a message from our Publisher," Syracuse New Times).

Although there is some criticism that the project is shaped more to benefit the university, which is the primary funder.

The description of the Connective Corridor in promotional materials sums up the elements that comprise a "Signature Street" or sustainable mobility district:

The Connective Corridor is a collaboration between Syracuse University, the City of Syracuse and Onondaga County to connect University Hill with downtown Syracuse. The project includes new streetscapes to make the city more pedestrian and bike-friendly, a free public transportation system with smart bus technology, a network of green infrastructure, public art, wayfinding systems, façade improvements and innovative illumination projects that highlight Syracuse’s beautiful historic buildings and public spaces. The Corridor also connects the city’s vibrant arts and cultural district, as well as downtown dining and the great local food scene. Take the bus, walk or ride your bike...

Part of the Connective Corridor.  The Sheraton Hotel next to campus became a student residence hall. Debra Millet/Alamy

What the WSJ says about Syracuse.  Besides the problems of declining college aged students and the fall off of international student enrollment,  

• It's not an Ivy League school and they can't market themselves like they are
• It's got a lot of debt from their construction program, which besides replacing older buildings less well equipped for today's needs, built more besides, and the enrollment and research funding hasn't kept up (West Virginia University overbuilt too, leading to major problems ("West Virginia University makes wide-ranging cuts to academic programs and faculty," AP)
• The past history of having good football and basketball teams is old news.  As the teams flail, the  marketing value of (un)successful sports teams has diminished 
• Winter weather is not a draw
• Decline in federal research funding due to the Trump Administration's hatred of knowledge
• That its urban peers--NYU, Boston University, Northeastern University--are doing better and have double the number of students paying full tuition
• They have cut low enrollment academic programs
• Still have many highly rated programs
• the safety rating of bonds issued by the university is okay but declining
• Need to improve recruitment, post-admissions communications, and financial aid offers to increase enrollment yield, to get more students who've been admitted to actually enroll

From the article:

Syracuse’s competitors can concentrate their financial-aid budgets on a smaller percentage of students, while Syracuse has to spread its allotment over a broader pool. That means that for students who get some sort of financial aid, Syracuse costs thousands more than its competitors.

Moderately selective private colleges are caught in the middle. They aren’t elite enough to dictate the market, and they attract a student-body that is still concerned about the price tag, said Robert Kelchen, a professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who specializes in education finances.

“The stream of students willing to pay something closer to full price is drying up,” Kelchen said. “Even if they’re not terribly concerned about how much it costs, they know that they can shop around and get a better deal.”

Boston Globe indicators.  The paper published an article, "Worried your college could close? Higher ed watchers say to look for these warning signs," listing the factors that students and parents (and communities) should look out for in assessing the financial stability of a college.

1. Low enrollment.  Small endowment.
2. Financial reports don't make sense for an institution that claims to be stable.
3. The college has a plan but no long term strategy.
4. The campus looks empty or shabby.
5. Cuts are continuous.
6. Making decisions and creating initiatives out of desperation.
7. Land is for sale
8. Financial aid awards are especially generous
9. Recruitment is over-eager.

Cities need to pay attention and monitor the health of higher education institutions.  To reiterate the point above, yes, cultural master plans should include an element on higher education programs in the arts.  But city economic planning should monitor the economic health of higher education institutions more closely as well.

Land redevelopment/How to revivify institutional campuses?  This is especially important because colleges tend to have a large contiguous piece of land that is best suited for institutional use, but it's much harder to find appropriate users, and redevelopment is likely necessary.  And just as hard because it requires zoning changes, community input, etc.

-- Town–Gown Collaboration in Land Use and Development, Lincoln Land Institute

Marygrove University in Detroit dissolved, but the Kresge Foundation stepped in to assist in transitioning from a college campus to a community nonprofit campus ("Interesting community initiative in Detroit: Marygrove Conservancy," "Big Plan on Campus: At a Shuttered Detroit College, a Community Development Experiment Takes Root," Lincoln Land Institute).  Most communities won't have that as an option.

In Albany, New York, the county created the Pine Hills Land Authority to buy and redevelop the College of Saint Rose campus.  But at 23 acres, it isn't a hugely difficult problem, and many of the campus blocks are integrated into the city.

The Birmingham-Southern College campus was purchased by the federal government and is now an training center for the US Coast Guard.

In Massachusetts, Hampshire College is dissolving and private equity gave the school a loan to finish its last semester and work towards dissolution ("A Boston-based LLC is lending Hampshire College $29.5m to finish the fall semester — and plan for what comes next," Boston Globe).  PE probably then gets the campus.  The campus is about 1.3 square miles.

Cy pres.  Cy pres is a legal doctrine where the State AG has a say in how assets are distributed, and the nonprofit uses preserved when a nonprofit institution closes ("When governments sell land always put in clawback provisions").  

This has been a particular issue with the dissolution of the University of the Arts in Philadelphia ("University of the Arts’ $77 million endowment remains mired in court proceedings two years after the school closed," Philadelphia Inquirer) and also in Philadelphia, how Drexel University has taken over troubled cultural institutions but now finds it doesn't have enough money to improve facilities and or maintain these programs ("Closing a 200-year-old institution will wound both the city and science," Philadelphia Inquirer).

Ah, the H Street Community Development Corporation

The Washington City Paper reports that the former director of the H Street CDC paid himself more than $1 million of unjustified bonuses, without notifying the board ("Former Housing Nonprofit Director Found To Have Diverted Funds for Six-Figure Bonuses").  

This was complicated by the fact that a long time ago, the CDC created a for profit division which allowed them more shenanigans with little oversight.  A previous director had created a janitorial service which got the contract to maintain facilities, but as the potential conflict of interest was disclosed, it was allowed, etc.  So top staff were able to generate additional revenue streams beyond their paychecks.

The DC Superior Court ruled that Kenneth Brewer, Sr. has to return more than $1.2 million.  Looking over the board members mentioned in the article, and on their website, I recognize a bunch of the names still, not all, even though that was 20+ years ago.   And I think it's interesting that on the current board there are no white people to reflect neighborhood demographics.

But as the neighborhood improved, the HSCDC could no longer compete in the market for property, so it moved to doing projects in still distressed areas of the city.

Things haven't changed much from 20 years ago.

=====

Community development corporations were created in the 1960s to stabilize inner city neighborhoods  in the face of outmigration.  Back then cities had two main types of neighborhoods: 

-- areas that could be stabilized: those with building stock that was attractive and that in turn attracted "urban pioneers,"-- basically white people willing to live in the center city when housing choice trends favored the suburbs.  Interest rates were high, neighborhoods were run down, city services constrained, and overall the city faced a loss of population.  Historic preservation efforts were the primary tool for neighborhood stabilization.

Preservation had the benefit of being low cost to cities.  Some regulation and staff time--supported in part by the federal government, and some investments in elements like brick sidewalks and historic facsimile light poles.  Otherwise the residents bore the costs of rehabilitation.

-- more distressed areas with a lot of population leakage and a preponderance of low income residents.  Cities tended to put their limited resources in these areas on equity grounds.  But the return on investment was minimal.

The areas were CDCs were directed to act were istressed and challenging economically. This was complicated/accentuated by and in areas of cities that experienced riots.  Riots decimated commercial districts especially, destroying the local micro economy.  A lot of housing stock deteriorated.

CDCs were created to address these issues in distressed areas, but mostly focused on what I call "building housing for poor people." Great on equity grounds, but didn't have much positive effect on the micro economy.

Some addressed commercial district issues but mostly focused on housing.

DC did create historic districts in two historically black areas of the city, one East of the River, that remains impoverish, and Le Droit Park, which is better situated in the NW quadrant is pretty central, abuts Howard University and became "gentrified" by income if not originally by race.

Lack of accountability.  Many CDCs lacked accountability and much success.  Although to be fair, CDCs were given difficult areas to try to fix.  The New York Times Magazine ran a cover story, "The Myth of Community Development" in 1994, in excoriating CDCs as an economic lever.

Some were good, some places had too many, there was always more demand for action than money, and the process of financing these kinds of deals was hard, even though back then the US Department of Housing and Urban Development actually provided money to cities for these purposes, which is a far cry from how it's been the last 20 years.

Leinberger's book made the point that before the change in attitudes, 70% of people wanted to live in the suburbs.  With the change, it was 30% cities, 30% suburbs, and 40% either.  That's changed though since covid.

Times changed: c. 2000 and the new demand for urban living.  OTOH, with the change in willingness to live in cities around 2000, momentum from private investment of large real estate developers and individual households reached a point of critical mass and was self-replicating.  Although distressed areas still lagged, and needed city and other subsidies to fund improvements.

Improvements also came through gentrification and displacement, where relatively low cost housing was bought by people with more money--they weren't necessarily rich but they definitely had more money than the people they may have replaced.  

For a long time you didn't see displacement in DC, because with the exception of converting four unit apartment buildings to condos, a lot of the housing that was acquired and renovated had been vacant.  After all, the overbuilding of housing in the suburbs left a massive inventory of vacant housing in the cities.  

But this started to change after 2000.  For example, one subsidized development in Columbia Heights with great views was warehoused to be able to upscale it ("HUD Set To Seize D.C. Housing Complex," Washington Post).  I visited that complex as a Census worker in 2000 and I was astounded at the number of vacant units. And the beautiful hill over the city from being on the hill of the escarpment.  From the article:

U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros announced plans yesterday to seize ownership of a federally subsidized apartment complex in Northwest Washington that he said is one of the 100 worst-maintained developments in the country.

There was a reason  Now it's a fine example of a market rate development

CDCs are a mixed bag.  An organization created in response to urban poverty, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, was created by the Ford Foundation to provide technical support and access to funds.  In some cities, LISC branches were robust and demanded accountability.  In other cities LISC was so so and definitely not pushing internal improvement.

Buildings weren't valuable.  Design wasn't valuable.  Only the ability to assemble land.  When I started getting involved, the H Street Community Development Corporation was the primary revitalization actor in the neighborhood.  The leadership didn't see any value in the historic building stock and the attractive architectural design it represented, either in the commercial district or the neighborhood, even though just a few blocks south, Capitol Hill was revitalizing because of people attracted to the "pretty buildings" and proximity to the US Capitol Complex and Downtown.   

H Street NE from the top of the Hopscotch Bridge (over the Union Station railyard.

Flickr photo by Mr. T in DC (he's in Maryland now).

They tore down one of the oldest and most historic buildings to build a s**** looking 3 bay retail unit.  And the strip shopping center, now replaced with an amazing building, was typical crap.  None of the buildings they constructed were designed sensitively in a manner that would complement and extend the historic architecture of the commercial district and the neighborhood.

It wasn't pretty, but this similar building in Brooklyn that tends to be a restaurant on the ground floor with apartments above show that rehabilitation was possible.  The building that replaced it is terrible, and the "second floor" is fake, it's just an extended facade.  In fact, I came across that building when it was the Hope & Anchor Diner, and I immediately thought it was relevant to the 8th and H Street NE intersection

Two more examples of historic preservation driven rehabilitation.  The now defunct Taylor deli on the 1200 block of H Street NE and a corner building at 7th Street and New York Avenue NW.

H Street Connection has since been replaced with...

The Avec Apartments on the 800 and 900 blocks of H Street NE.  

Now the corner space is operated by an Aldi Supermarket.  

Interestingly, Aldi still operates its first DC store which is just over one mile to the east.

Live Baltimore used to run ads in the Express, making the point that Baltimore houses were often bigger, but definitely cheaper, compared to rising prices in DC.

The Greater H Street neighborhood had the same conditions, except for poorer residents, and at the time maybe it could have flourished with a residential recruitment program like Live Baltimore, but it would have come with displacement.

In any case, the H Street CDC only saw value in the opportunity to capture and assemble land for bigger projects, and they rebuilt housing that had been frame (worth a lot more today) in 1980s style rowhouses in a number of places around the neighborhood, helped fund a suburban style shopping strip, etc.  

Houses built by the H Street CDC on the 700 block of 8th Street NE.  While I think they're ugly, some have an asking price of $1+ million.  Maybe I'm the person whose position is wrong-headed.

They did buy and hold the Atlas Theater, but they wanted to convert the interior to parking, or to build a roller rink.  Creating an entertainment focus for the business corridor never crossed their minds.

So when we created the historic preservation focused Main Street commercial district revitalization program for the corridor, complemented by a revitalization plan commissioned by the rejuvenated Office of Planning, we were at odds.  

(I wrote about this tension on the anniversary of LISC, "The community development approach and the revitalization of DC's H Street corridor: congruent or oppositional approaches?," in 2013, in response to a laudatory op-ed, "The seeds of the H Street ‘miracle’," in the Post.)

Banner from the Montana Community Development Corporation.

I thought CDCs sucked by definition ("The Community Development Corporation Model of Urban Redevelopment: A Political Economy Critique and an Alternative").  

But then I went to the National Trust for Historic Preservation conference in Cleveland in 2002, and their CDCs blew me away.  It turns out that the philanthropic community joined together to demand accountability and for a bunch of the CDCs to merge, since they covered similar areas, and would have more heft.  Funding was dependent on these changes.

That never happened in DC.  LISC was weak.  A couple CDCs did some decent work, but even then they had a hard time showing quantum improvement.

The Washington Post did a hard hitting series in 2002 ("Falling up -- Accountability and DC Community Development Corporations").  We thought we were vindicated but nothing came of it.  And this was when the Post was still doing important local coverage and investigative reporting.

-- "Federal Money Flowed With Little Oversight: City Promises to Cut Off Ineffectual Groups"
-- "D.C. Revitalization Promised, Not Delivered: Nonprofits Collect Millions as Work Goes Undone, Neighborhoods Left With Eyesores"
-'"Risky Ventures, Little Accountability: After Years of Public Funding, Nonprofits Have Completed Few Projects"
-- "Blighted Sites May Revert To D.C.: Revival Has Stalled Under Nonprofits"
-- "$100 Million Down the Drain" [Editorial]
-- "D.C. Housing Authority Fines Nonprofit: Development Group Sold Two Row Houses, Meant for Individuals, to Investor"

I guess that's when I learned that $100 million didn't go very far anyway, let alone when grift and graft is involved. 

Conclusion.  A few years later the groups won awards from the DC Building Industry Association.  And in 2011 the Post ran similar stories ("(Some) Community Development Corporations still screwing up").

Now in 2026, we basically have embezzlement.  That's 39 years of experience all right.

All the stuff I've experienced gets referenced in my thinking.  The point about accountability mechanisms that I wrote about in terms of best practice revitalization, was based on good and bad examples in Europe in a series I wrote for the EU National Institutes of Culture Washington Chapter on culture based revitalization in Europe.

From "Updating the best practice elements of revitalization to include elements 7 and 8 | Transformational Projects Action Planning at a large scale":

1. A commitment to the development and production of a broad, comprehensive, visionary, and detailed revitalization plan/s (Bilbao, Hamburg, Liverpool);
2. the creation of innovative and successful implementation organizations, with representatives from the public sector and private firms, to carry out the program. Typically, the organizations have some distance from the local government so that the plan and program aren't subject to the vicissitudes of changing political administrations, parties and representatives (Bilbao, Hamburg, Liverpool, Helsinki);
3. strong accountability mechanisms that ensure that the critical distance provided by semi-independent implementation organizations isn't taken advantage of in terms of deleterious actions (for example Dublin's Temple Bar Cultural Trust was amazingly successful but over time became somewhat disconnected from local government and spent money somewhat injudiciously, even though they generated their own revenues--this came to a head during the economic downturn and the organization was widely criticized; in response the City Council decided to fold the TBCT and incorporate it into the city government structure, which may have negative ramifications for continued program effectiveness as its revenues get siphoned off and political priorities of elected officials shift elsewhere);
4. funding to realize the plan, usually a combination of local, regional, state, and national sources, and in Europe, "structural adjustment" and other programmatic funding from the European Regional Development Fund and related programs is also available (Hamburg, as a city-state, has extra-normal access to funds beyond what may normally be available to the average city);
5. integrated branding and marketing programs to support the realization of the plan (Hamburg, Vienna, Liverpool, Bilbao, Dublin);
6. flexibility and a willingness to take advantage of serendipitous events and opportunities and integrate new projects into the overall planning and implementation framework (examples include Bilbao's "acquisition" of a branch of the Guggenheim Museum and the creation of a light rail system to complement its new subway system, Liverpool City Council's agreement with a developer to create the Liverpool One mixed use retail, office, and residential development in parallel to the regeneration plan and the hosting of the Capital of Culture program in 2008, and how multifaceted arts centers were developed in otherwise vacated properties rented out cheaply by their owners in Dublin, Helsinki, and Marseille).
7. commitment and time.  Revitalization is a forever process that takes a long time to begin to see results.  It needs to continue beyond the vicissitudes of changing political administrations.
8. adaptive management. Visionary revitalization requires continuous process improvement.  Other ways to think about it are using the design method or adaptive management instead of remaining static.  Programs can always be improved and should be.

But we have plenty of our own good and bad examples in the US. DC CDCs and the H Street CDC in particular.  Fleetwood Mac sang the song, "You can go your own way."  That hasn't worked out so well for DC ("Urban economic development best practice is not found in DC").

Church and social spaces: grant opportunity

Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church in Duquesne, Pennsylvania. Photo: Matthew Christopher, Abandoned America.  From "Why Are There So Many Abandoned Churches?," Atlas Obscura.

My writings on churches have been somewhat negative, shaped by my agnosticism-atheism, and my experience in DC, where many churches built large property portfolios that they didn't take care of, bought buildings to tear them down for parking, and the phenomenon of urban church closure, abetted by the high cost of maintenance and repair, alongside neighborhood change and suburban outmigration, etc.  

-- "Churches, community, religion and change," 2012/2015

Note that Washington Post columnist Perry Bacon Jr. lamented not wanting the religious part of church but still wanting the connection ("I left the church — and now long for a ‘church for the nones’" and letters to the editor, "Perry Bacon is not alone in his search for connection without church").

I am not religious, but I definitely respect the social justice strain of Christianity.  In DC, there is the Sojourners group, and also Luther Place Memorial Church (Evangelical Lutheran), which in the 1980s started leveraging their property portfolio on Thomas Circle to house people in need. There are probably more positive examples than I realize, and that's the case in many cities across the country.

Sign on what is mutual aid at the Steinbruck Center for Social Justicer at Luther Place.

I've written about third spaces ("Third Place Issues," 2024), including how church social halls helped the nascent DC punk music scene develop in the 1970s and 1980s, where social halls were the venue for all ages concerts.

Last year, Eerdman's published Gone for Good: Negotiating the Coming Wave of Church Property Transition. It asks the very good question about what do you do with church spaces, especially those serving community purposes, when a church closes?  Who picks up the slack, if anyone? (Interview)

Note that there is the phenomenon of the "non church" ex-religious building still used for community events, like the 6th and I Synagogue in DC ("Born Again," Washingtonian).  This, the Atlanta Freethought Society ("Smyrna Atheist Helps Revive 140-Year-Old Primitive Baptist Church," Patch), and the Washington Ethical Society, an offshoot of the Unitarian-Universalist Church, is probably what Perry Bacon is looking for.

That's a provocative question, making me more aware of my previous bias.  

I realized that my thinking about "the church in the city" was too narrow, and at the same time, how to translate the idea or concept of social infrastructure as laid out by Eric Klinenberg in Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life could use examples of religious facilities as part of the exploration into facilities and programming that could make social infrastructure real.  This is a long term writing project.

The idea of facilities and programming isn't different from my writings on how to support the development and maintenance of a local arts ecosystem.

-- "Reprinting with a slight update, 'Arts, culture districts and revitalization'," 2009/2019

Church Brew Works, Pittsburgh.

Note that one trend in church recapture in the face of abandonment has been conversion to housing ("These old Maine churches are being transformed into homes," Bangor Daily News, although DC has had instances of this since the 1980s) or other types of for profit development ("As Hundreds of Churches Sit Empty, Some Become Hotels and Restaurants," New York Times).

Like the Church Brew Works in Pittsburgh (which is pretty cool--but its creation led the Cardinal of the Milwaukee diocese to put strict restrictions on what could go into sold off church property, "What to do with a closed church? Why, you sell it, of course," AP); and we stayed in an airbnb in a converted church in Savannah once, as well).  Also see "What should we do with all of those empty churches?," BigThink.

=============

Because time is of the essence, I thought it would be worth bringing this up even though I'm nowhere near the stage of a review because the National Fund for Sacred Places has a small grant fund:

Apply by Mar 15, 2025 

to provid[e] technical and financial support for congregations to repair or improve the functionality of their community spaces. To apply for the grant, the space must have been originally built to be a house of worship and owned by a faith community; the congregation must be at least three years old; the property must possess historical, cultural, or architectural significance; and the congregation must be community-minded and serve nonmembers, among a few other considerations.

Scattered site buying of houses in high cost neighborhoods doesn't seem to be a good way to develop scale for a community land trust

The Douglass Community Land Trust in DC was created to ward off gentrification in Ward 8 that was predicted to occur as a response to the creation of the 11th Street Bridge Park connecting East and West of the Anacostia River.

Personally, I don't see the bridge park as a likely high velocity augur of gentrification because it isn't located near housing, on either side of the river.

It will be a trek to get to.  I think it's cool and disclosure, I was on the Design Review Committee for its initial development, but it's a lot of money and because of locational issues, isn't likely to have the impact that is predicted.

In general, my criticism of land trusts is they need to be created long before the velocity of community change is heightened and demand has been stoked in neighborhoods once ignored, like 15 years ago at least, not 5 years ago.  And that's my criticism of cities (and DC) and housing policy more generally.

There needed to be a plan, and a lot of money to fund it, around 2000, not many years later.  Although to be fair, DC has funded a fair amount of housing through its Housing Production Trust Fund.

Anyway, the Washington Post has an article, "A ‘clerical error’ could cost D.C. 65 new units of affordable housing," that the Douglass Community Land Trust is in danger of losing a $2 million grant, because of errors on the part of the DC government.

Within the article there is an interesting subsection, about how the Trust is buying high cost houses, albeit for less than market value, West of the River, as a way to build their portfolio.  I understand the sentiment, but it seems like mission creep of massive proportions, and a poor use of scarce funds.

From the article:

To provide permanent affordable housing, the trust acquires homes at a below-market rate and sells them to households earning 80 percent or below the median family income, Executive Director Ginger Rumph said. The trust also creates affordable homes by purchasing land and leasing it to developers, establishing co-op housing and partnering with construction companies. Using these methods, Rumph said, the council’s $2 million award would have financed the creation of 65 affordable units. 

With Douglass’s mission in mind, Ed Lazere, a former D.C. Council chair candidate, and his wife went to the trust in September 2022 to sell it the Brookland home they purchased in 1992. “We wanted to pass our home to someone that was like we were — people early in their career, moderate income — rather than be a part of gentrification in Brookland,” Lazere said. 

But the city didn’t disburse the $2 million as promised in March, Rumph said, and the land trust couldn’t immediately complete the sale. “It wasn’t clear to us that [the sale] was going to happen,” Lazere said. “We were prepared to sell the house at market rate.” 

The trust ended up taking out a loan to finance the purchase, Rumph said, on top of another loan it took out to buy a property in Northwest Washington. The sellers in that case were also private citizens who agreed to a sale price well below market rate because they wanted to help preserve affordable housing. The two purchases left the trust $1.2 million in debt. 

A couple million for two houses, versus what they say, that $2 million could leverage 65 houses in Anacostia.

FWIW, the book Streets of Hope: the Fall and Rise of an Urban Neighborhood, published in 1999, describes the creation of a community development corporation/land trust in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston.  Over 30 years, the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative has developed not quite 300 units of housing.  That doesn't seem like a lot to me.

Pittsburgh developer backs down on opposition to ticket fee for concerts, to be used for area improvements

In my writings on stadiums and arenas ("Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities"), I was intrigued by how a community organization in the Hill District of Pittsburgh had proposed a surtax on parking at NHL hockey games, to support community improvements, as a way of mitigating the negative effects resulting from an arena in their community.

It was never approved, but I put that in the framework, as something that should be pursued everywhere.

The Hill District was "abandoned" by the Pittsburgh Penguins for a site in Downtown, but they still own and are redeveloping the property.  One of the elements will be a concert venue, and Hill District groups proposed a ticket fee for community improvements, which the developer opposed, as I wrote about in October:

-- "Parking fees/admissions fees for arenas, stadiums, concert facilities to fund neighborhood improvements: Fee proposal for Live Nation Pittsburgh opposed by developer"

Now, they've agreed to it, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Penguins propose $2 ticket surcharge for music venue events at former Civic Arena site."  From the article:

In addition to the letter touting the ticket surcharge and other investments related to the arena redevelopment, the package included a 101-page response to concerns that had been raised by an executive management committee that makes sure that Penguins live up to the promises and commitments they made to the community as part of the $1 billion arena redevelopment. ...

Before Tuesday, the Hill Community Development Corporation had been pushing for the $2 ticket fee as well as a $2 surcharge on each vehicle parked in the garage as a way to help fund infrastructure improvements and development activities in the neighborhood.

Buccini Pollin and the Penguins have flatly refused to impose a parking surcharge, stating it could put the garage at a “competitive disadvantage” particularly given that many such facilities are still struggling to attract customers in the age of COVID-19.

But in its letter Tuesday to the commission and others, including Mayor Ed Gainey, the team and its developer said they “are prepared to deliver an exciting new recurring revenue stream” in the form of the $2 ticket surcharge.

The letter stated that the money would be deposited into the same Hill District reinvestment fund that was the conduit for nearly $7.2 million in anticipated tax revenues advanced by First National Bank as part of the construction of a new 26-story office tower to be anchored by FNB. The money is to be used to help build up other parts of the Hill.

This is an important precedent that can be referenced by other communities.

2.  Related are admissions taxes on tickets more generally.  Groups always fight them, including nonprofit groups receiving subsidies.  They say it will discourage attendance.  I think they are a reasonable fee for the privilege of receiving public monies for the development of such facilities.

And sometimes they are the only way communities get anything back financially from arenas and stadiums.  For example, the admissions tax on the Washington Commanders NFL games is the only revenue that Prince George's County generates from the FedEx Stadium presence.

3.  General discussion about the progress of the redevelopment in dealing with community development concerns.  Interestingly, the article discusses the back and forth between the community and the development group on their provision of various community benefits, which the community says has been laggard.

The documents submitted to the Planning Commission included a 101 page response.  I haven't tracked it down yet.  It probably makes interesting reading.

4.  Privately managed public spaces.  Concern was also expressed by the community in terms of management of the public spaces on the site, which the developer plans to put into a third party nonprofit conservancy. It would be interesting for the community to suggest that the conservancy be run by the community development corporation, not the developer.

See:

-- "The layering effect: how the building blocks of an integrated public realm set the stage for community building and Silver Spring, Maryland as an example," 2012

Other models are community improvement districts and public improvement districts such as the Green Benefits District in San Francisco and other types of special assessment districts for community improvement.

The Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority outbids Wall Street to buy houses in Cincinnati

Arts and retail focused community development corporations.  In "Revisiting stories: cultural planning and the need for arts-based community development corporations as real estate operators" I argue that to best buy, hold, develop, and maintain arts-related uses you need an arts and culture focused community development corporation (or the city or county government) to act at the city-wide/county scale.  

The Pittsburgh Cultural Trust, the Playhouse Square Development Corporation, and Jubilee Housing of Baltimore (focused on live work housing) are particularly good examples.

In "The SEMAEST Vital Quartier program remains the best model for helping independent retail," I state that SEMAEST in Paris is probably the best example of a city-chartered authority doing this.  Their focus is on maintaining independent retail.

Transit and real estate appreciation.  Transit focused community development corporations.  Similarly, in the face of real estate price increases in response to new transit infrastructure, I've suggested that a CDC could operate similarly, wrt both commercial and residential property, specifically for the Purple Line in Suburban Maryland ("Purple Line Corridor Coalition study: Same Old, Same Old | Gentrification will result from investment in transit infrastructure"). 

Sadly, wrt the Purple Line I first suggested this in 2007.  Fifteen years later, still no action.

Historic preservation.  Same for historic preservation.  The best way to arrest the possible demolition of a property is to buy it.  Having revolving funds and other mechanisms to be able to respond quickly to do so solves the problem ("Saving urban corner stores needs public assistance: Mott's Market on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC ").  

In Cleveland, not so much lately, the Cleveland Restoration Society was a leader in buying properties, sometimes using receivership statutes to cure notorious nuisances, rehabilitating them, and selling them at a loss if necessary, as a stabilization measure. Other preservation groups have done this similarly in places like Macon, Georgia, and Galveston, Texas. 

Serendipity and opportunity. And in my writings on "transformational projects action planning," one of the points about successful wide-scale revitalization programs is that there needs to be serendipity and the ability to seize opportunities as long as they fit within the outline of the master plan ("Why can't the "Bilbao Effect" be reproduced? | Bilbao as an example of Transformational Projects Action Planning").  

1. A commitment to the development and production of a broad, comprehensive, visionary, and detailed revitalization plan/s (Bilbao, Hamburg, Liverpool);
2. the creation of innovative and successful implementation organizations (Bilbao, Hamburg, Liverpool, Helsinki);
3. strong accountability mechanisms that ensure that the critical distance provided by semi-independent implementation organizations isn't taken advantage of in terms of deleterious action;
4. funding to realize the plan;
5. integrated branding and marketing programs to support the realization of the plan (Hamburg, Vienna, Liverpool, Bilbao, Dublin);
6. flexibility and a willingness to take advantage of serendipitous events and opportunities and integrate new projects into the overall planning and implementation framework (Bilbao, Liverpool, Helsinki).
   

Two examples of serendipity come from Bilbao.  First, in getting the Guggenheim Museum to open there, after Graz, Austria rejected their proposal.  Second, once the Museum opened recognizing that in addition to the subway, they need better surface rail transit (tram/streetcar) to serve the Museum District, and they got it running within a few years--one-third of the time it took DC to open a streetcar line.

Bias for action.  I guess this presupposes that the agency is predisposed to act instead of sit around.  I've written "bias for government inaction" is a problem, that government agencies aren't always that proactive, and tend to not have much of "a sense of urgency" when it comes for a need to act.  

Winston Churchill is famous for the quote:

You can always trust America to do the right thing... after she has exhausted all other alternatives.

Now, the bias is to not act, often because of ideological grounds, and an unwillingness to come up with the money for the change, even if the cost of not acting is much more expensive.

Housing market, venture capital and single family housing as rentals.  Since the 2008 Recession, Wall Street venture capital firms have developed large portfolios of single family housing, converting the properties to rental from owner occupied.  This was facilitated by banks wanting to simplify their REO (real estate owned) portfolios created by rampant foreclosures.

Because financiers have quick access to large amounts of capital, they can generally offer better terms than any individual or small company.  This has changed the nature of the real estate market in many communities, especially weaker markets.

A home recently purchased by The Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority.Jeff Dean for NPR.

Cincinnati.  The Port Authority in Cincinnati, recognizing that it is chartered as a community development corporation, realized it could step in and compete against venture capital and acquire REO portfolios ("It's harder to buy a house. This city fought back by outbidding corporate landlords," NPR).  From the article:

So when that California company, Raineth Housing, went under, the Port moved to buy up its properties scattered around Cincinnati. It's a first — she doesn't know of any other public agency like hers in the U.S. that's done it — and it's risky.

Brunner says the agency outbid 12 other investors, taking on $14.5 million in debt for those 194 homes. It has since paid $2 million more toward fixing them up.

Because large institutional owners are not usually committed to local communities, they may run the properties poorly (some do, others don't), so local ownership can also be an opportunity to improve the house and stabilize the neighborhood. ...

It's a challenge to fix up homes and keep sales prices low

The Port's purchase price per home averages out to roughly $78,000. But the amount it will sell them for depends on how much it has to spend to fix them up. And once the agency was able to look inside all 194 homes, it was clear many needed a lot more work than expected.

Their intent is to keep the properties as affordable, and that ideally they can sell them to tenants.  But this is complicated by the poor condition of many of the properties.

Conclusion.  The Port Authority in Cincinnati illustrates my points about having a (1) community development corporation or similar entity already created (2) that is ADEQUATELY CAPITALIZED, (3) with the wherewithal to act when important, transformational opportunities are presented.

Parking fees/admissions fees for arenas, stadiums, concert facilities to fund neighborhood improvements: Fee proposal for Live Nation Pittsburgh opposed by developer

Updated 1/11/23 here, because the developer has acquiesced to the imposition of a ticket fee to support community improvements in the Hill District of Pittsburgh

=========

Marimba Milliones is president and CEO of the Hill Community Development Corporation. (Photo by Maranie Rae Staab/PublicSource)

The African-American neighborhood of the Hill District ("The Story Of The Pittsburgh Neighborhood That Inspired "Fences"," NTHP, "The Hill District, a community holding on through displacement and development," Public Source) in Pittsburgh was ripped apart by urban renewal.  

One of the projects was an arena for the Pittsburgh Penguins, called the Civic Arena, which opened in 1967 and was torn down in 2010.  

Wikipedia photo.

At one time, it was proposed a new sports arena would be built there, but instead other development plans are moving forward.

But at the time of the second arena proposal, in 2015, the Hill District Consensus Group made a startling proposal, that there should be a parking fee/tax on each car parked for events, as a form of mitigation, with the monies to be used for improvement projects elsewhere in the community ("A dollar a car for the Hill," Hill District Consensus Group).

It wasn't approved, but it's a concept that I refer to in "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities" as one of many mitigation steps that should be adopted in developing broader community improvement programs associated with such facilities. 

The Hill District Community Development Corporation is proposing something similar in association with a concert facility proposal run by Live Nation ("Hill District group pitching a plan for parking and ticket surcharges at former Civic Arena site ," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) but the developer is opposed ("Developer rips proposal for $2 parking surcharge at former Civic Arena site," PPG).  From the second article:

Mr. Buccini’s comments came in response to a proposal by the Hill Community Development Corporation to impose a $2 surcharge on each car parked in the garage and another $2 surcharge on each ticket sold at the music venue.

The Hill CDC wants to see the revenue generated by the fees redirected to other parts of the neighborhood to fund infrastructure improvements and development activities.

Craig Dunham, senior vice president of development for the Pittsburgh Penguins, who hold the development rights to the 28-acre lower Hill site, said a parking surcharge at one time was considered as a way of generating revenues for other parts of the Hill.

But he added that idea eventually was replaced by a plan to divert tax revenue generated by development on the lower Hill property to other parts of the neighborhood.

The parking surcharge could create a “competitive disadvantage” for the garage, Mr. Dunham said.

The same thing comes up all the time with such facilities.  Owners-developers oppose ticket or parking taxes saying it will reduce patronage.  Well, that's a great way to build a source of funds for mitigation, unless the owner-developer wants to pay separately, which they rarely do.

Interestingly, if Prince George's County Maryland didn't charge an admissions tax on tickets for the Washington Commanders football team they would get zero revenue from games.

As it is, concert goers pay exorbitant fees on tickets ("Why Ticket Service Fees Are so Annoyingly High — and How to Avoid Them," Money Magazine).  The likelihood of the fee being a significant hindrance is minimal, especially as it should be built into the cost of the ticket.  The big issue is the cost of tickets generally ("Collier’s Weekly: Concert Ticket Inflation Is Out of Control," Pittsburgh Magazine).

Community benefits agreement.  From the first PPG article:

The Hill CDC also is pushing for a benefits agreement known as the Community Collaboration and Implementation Plan, or CCIP, to be incorporated into the formal preliminary land development plan for the venue.

The $4 in proposed surcharges would be in addition to a proposal by the Penguins and developer Buccini Pollin Group to divert an estimated $8.2 million in parking tax revenues to other parts of the Hill to support housing stabilization efforts.

Ms. Milliones did not have an estimate on how much the surcharges would generate. But she said such funding is needed because it can cost as much as $40 million to develop just two blocks in the Hill.

She noted that the one-block New Granada Theater redevelopment on Centre Avenue will cost about $60 million. What’s more, there are about 600 acres of vacant land in an 1,100-acre neighborhood, Ms. Milliones explained.

“We have major infrastructure issues,” she said, adding that the recent award of a $11.3 million grant to refurbish the Centre business district and several nearby streets “will not fix everything.” ...

Ms. Milliones noted that the CCIP calls on the Penguins to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to identify potential revenue streams that could lead to additional reinvestment in other parts of the Hill, including a $1 per car surcharge on structured parking.

The Middle and Upper Hill already are expected to benefit from more than $7 million advanced by First National Bank in anticipation of tax revenue to be generated by development at the arena site. FNB will anchor the 26-story office tower currently being built there.

That money is to be used for projects in other parts of the Hill. But Ms. Milliones noted that the funding is not a “generous contribution” from the Penguins but a transfer of tax revenue that otherwise would have gone to the city, county, and school district.

 A Community Collaboration and Implementation Plan has been developed for the Lower Hill District.

 -- document

A similar plan was developed in association with the new Atlanta Falcons football stadium.  It's not miraculous, but it does a bunch of interesting things ("Building a Stadium, Rebuilding a Neighborhood," New York Times).

Purple Line Corridor Coalition study: Same Old, Same Old | Gentrification will result from investment in transit infrastructure

This is in response to this Washington Post article, "Purple Line study: Without help, light-rail line will bring gentrification." From the article:

The 16-mile light-rail line that will connect Montgomery and Prince George’s counties — the first direct suburb-to-suburb rail line in the Washington region — is designed to help revitalize older, inner-ring suburbs while providing faster, more reliable mass transit. Some local officials and community leaders have long worried that, without attention, rising land values and rents around the 21 stations will price out business and residents, particularly in lower-income communities in Prince George’s international corridor.

Communities most at risk include Long Branch, Langley Park and Riverdale Park, study leaders said.

 

Poster board from the 2014 meetings.

The study came from the public-private Purple Line Corridor Coalition, a group composed of government officials, community activists, nonprofits, companies and academics. The group organized in 2013 to try to prevent the kind of displacement that has traditionally followed many Metro stations and new transit lines across the country.

 Um, duh.  Transit, like roads, is designed to promote real estate intensification.  It's what you call a "priming effect."  And you want that to happen, since you're spending billions of dollars on it.  

Also see "Op-Ed in Washington Post about preserving affordable housing in the Purple Line corridor (Department of Duh)" from earlier in the year on the same topic.

 

CAF Urbos light rail vehicles will be used for the Purple Line.

This entry summarizes the transit and land use recommendations I've made over the years wrt the Purple Line, but not the CDC-related one, or the need to have a preservation initiative for existing businesses.

-- "Codifying the complementary transit network improvements and planning initiatives recommended in the Purple Line writings," 2022

In 2014, the University of Maryland College Park Public Policy School sponsored a couple of conferences about Purple Line related issues.  

The Purple Line will be a light rail connecting the east and west legs of the Red Line, north leg of the Green and Yellow Lines, and east leg of the Orange Line Metrorail lines, as well as (through transfers) the Penn, Camden, and Brunswick lines of the MARC commuter railroad.

I was kinda surprised about the conference, because they were big on examples from Minneapolis and Denver, which have light rail lines or networks, and not the DC area, which has Metrorail and at the time, almost 40 years of experience with transit oriented development.

When they discussed affordable housing initiatives in those cities I wasn't particularly impressed, both because the projects weren't all that big (especially by comparison to Greater Phoenix, also home to light rail, ("Light rail housing fund spurs 15 projects in metro Phoenix" and "Why you don't see more vacant lots along light-rail route," Arizona Republic) or well funded, not to mention that the DC area doesn't have a particularly powerful philanthropic community--the wealthy tend to focus on projects meaningful to themselves, not others, although these days, surprisingly, Amazon--developing a headquarters in Arlington County ("Crystal City Arlington as Amazon one-half of HQ2," 2018), has committed significant sums to the preservation of affordable housing ("Bowser’s affordable housing push gets a $147M boost from Amazon," "Amazon helps nonprofit purchase Arlington building for affordable housing," Washington Post).

Anyway, my initial response--which was not acted upon--is that if you want to address affordable housing in substantive ways, you need to create a bi-county community development corporation acting in the transit shed of the Purple Line in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, to buy, hold, preserve, develop and fund affordable housing.

-- Purple line planning in suburban Maryland as an opportunity to integrate place and people focused initiatives into delivery of new transit systems"
--  "Quick follow up to the Purple Line piece about creating a Transportation Renewal District and selling bonds to fund equitable development").  

And it turns out I had written something similar in 2007!!!!!!

-- "It's time to create the "Port Authority" of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties"

That was true in 2014 and 2007, and is still true in 2022.

The biggest thing I learned from my involvement in DC urban revitalization matters was that once the velocity of development starts to change and revs up, it's too late to come up with plans, you need plans beforehand, otherwise you are reactive, not proactive and can never catch up.

The second biggest thing I learned was the need for focused and effective implementation organizations.  CDCs can be such a tool.  

On effective CDCs and economic development organizations see "The Howard and Lincoln Theatres: run them like the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust/Playhouse Square Cleveland model," 2012, and the discussion of "transformational projects action planning," "Why can't the "Bilbao Effect" be reproduced? | Bilbao as an example of Transformational Projects Action Planning." 2017.

Granted for the most part DC proper doesn't have great CDCs ("The community development approach and the revitalization of DC's H Street corridor: congruent or oppositional approaches?," 2013) with the exception of Jubilee Housing ("Building stronger community support for public/social housing," 2012) although some of the area housing CDCs, such as in Arlington and Montgomery Counties are reasonably effective.