Uptown Report Executive Summary Romanos et al 2006_McGirr

Executive Summary University of Cincinnati redevelopment initiatives in the Uptown area For the last ten years, the University of Cincinnati has been shifting its focus from a purely in

UC/Community Interactions and

Collaborations

A Study of Peer Institutions

Executive Summary

A research project funded by

the University of Cincinnati

Office of the President

By

Michael Romanos, PhD, AICP

Professor of Planning and Economic Development

David Edelman, PhD, AICP

Director and Professor of Planning

Mahyar Arefi, PhD

Associate Professor of Planning and Urban Design

University of Cincinnati School of Planning

November 2006

Executive Summary

University of Cincinnati redevelopment initiatives in the Uptown area

For the last ten years, the University of Cincinnati has been shifting its focus from a purely institutional-centric point of view to a perspective that more and more takes into account its surrounding community context The impetus that inspired this transition was,

on the one hand, declining student attendance rates, a deteriorating urban environment around the campus, declines in safety conditions in the proximity of the university and low faculty/staff interest in living near the campus; and on the other hand the realization that improving the quality of life in and for the communities neighboring the university was part of the social obligations of the university as a good citizen and a good neighbor, while improved environmental, design and safety conditions in the area of the campus would enhance the local and national image of the university and would make the institution more appealing to excellent faculty and high quality students

Since then, the University has embarked in a sincere dialogue with the surrounding neighborhoods and their councils, out of which a number of physical improvement decisions were initiated for the benefit of these communities, and has been instrumental

in establishing the Uptown Consortium, a partnership among the largest institutions in the Uptown area – the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, Children’s’ Hospital Medical Center, the Health Alliance, and TriHealth Inc, in addition to the University of Cincinnati which has subsequently been responsible for a series of redevelopment and rehabilitation initiatives, the impact of which is expected to be broad and long-lasting

Purpose and focus of the study

As the Consortium is now moving into the second and major phase of its redevelopment activities in the Uptown region, the present study was commissioned by the University of Cincinnati with the dual objective of (a) outlining and documenting the development partnerships, initiatives and investments of the University of Cincinnati within its surrounding communities and the conceptual model of the intervention followed in the process, and (b) studying, assessing and comparing the University of Cincinnati model to those of a number of select US and some Canadian – academic institutions and drawing some lessons that could be used by the University as it reassesses its local development initiatives in the future

To accomplish these objectives, two parallel studies were undertaken by this research

project team: The first study was an examination of the University of Cincinnati model of community collaborations, partnerships, interventions and investments The second study

surveyed twenty one US – and some Canadian academic institutions located within major urban/metropolitan areas and recognized as significantly involved with their communities in various programs of community enhancement, rehabilitation or redevelopment The universities, and their major community partnerships initiatives, are: University of Akron: University Park Alliance

Boston College University Partnerships

Duke University: the Duke-Durham Neighborhood Partnership

Georgia Tech University: Blueprint Midtown

Johns Hopkins University: East Baltimore Biotech Research Park

Louisiana State University: The LSU Community University Partnership

McGill University Community Partnerships

Ohio State University: Campus Partners for Community Urban Redevelopment

San Diego State University: College Community Redevelopment Project

Simon Fraser University Community Partnerships

University of Pennsylvania: West Philadelphia Initiatives

University of Pittsburg: Community Partnerships

University of Victoria Community Partnerships

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee: Community Partnerships

University of British Columbia Community Partnerships

University of California at Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Community Partnerships University of California, San Diego: Community Development Initiatives

University of Illinois at Chicago: UIC Neighborhoods Initiative

University of Louisville: Signature Partnership Initiative and SUN

University of Southern California: USC Civic and Community Relations

The case studies of these universities are presented in summary form and are discussed in chapters 9 and 10 of the Main Report, and are compared to the University of Cincinnati initiatives and model in chapter 11 of the same document The detailed case studies are contained in Appendices 1 to 21

The Uptown area and its characteristics

Uptown is one of the major economic engines of the city It houses five of the top ten largest employers in the tri-state region: the University of Cincinnati, the Health Alliance, Children’s Hospital, the TriHealth and the Cincinnati Public Schools The direct economic impact of the Uptown area is only second to downtown Seven neighborhoods constitute the Uptown area: Avondale, Clifton, Clifton Heights, Fairview, Corryville, Mt Auburn and University Heights

These neighborhoods are primarily residential but have changed over time They were once home to wealthy professionals who moved to the suburbs in the suburbanization wave of the 1960s-1980s and were occupied by middle and low income households who moved from the downtown by choice or were displaced residents of the I-75 construction

of the West End neighborhoods Part of their housing, which originally was mostly single-family units, was gradually subdivided and transformed into multi-family residences Demographic characteristics, housing conditions, income levels, racial makeup and other social factors today make each of these neighborhoods unique

Suburbanization, construction of I-75 and other factors contributed to sweeping changes

in the demographic characteristics of the city, and reached a racial tipping point with the violent racial riots of the 1960s Since then, safety in the Uptown area has declined steadily, as has the condition of its housing On account of these two problems, by the 1990s there was a perception that the Uptown area was not as desirable a community as it had been in the past and that, as a consequence, the University of Cincinnati was not as desirable an institution as it should be

The University of Cincinnati initiatives

The University of Cincinnati initiated its involvement in the revitalization of its surrounding neighborhoods by forming community development corporations (CDCs) in the Uptown area It invested considerable effort in confidence building among these neighborhoods, and focused on large-scale projects that could combine urban design and economic development Initiatives taken by the University include improving the technological and physical infrastructure of the campus, preparing a master plan of the campus within the context of the surrounding neighborhoods, improving the immediate surroundings of the university, embarking on social infrastructure projects such as the Corryville Community Center, pursuing on-campus and off-campus rehabilitation projects, etc The formation of the Uptown Consortium, an umbrella organization consisting of the five major employers listed above and serving as a sponsor of the individual community development corporations, gave direction to these efforts

Consortium organizational structure, decision-making and agenda

The Uptown Consortium was formally created in the early summer of 2003 to direct the investment of its members in the Uptown region To achieve this objective, it has lobbied for, and has leveraged additional local, state, and federal public resources, grants, credits,

as well as private financing commitments Its policies are based upon two core principles: (a) active community involvement in the planning of economic development processes,

and (b) allocation of resources to spur both supply and demand in the Uptown area The

Consortium was established as a public-private organization with a simple structure Headed by a CEO, the organization is led by a policy-making committee composed of the presidents and chief executive officers of the five partners The policy-making committee is chaired by the University of Cincinnati (as the dominant economic force in the area and principle source of funds) with equal representation from each of the participants At the second tier, a set of high-ranking individuals from the partner organizations contributes thoughts and ideas toward policy making A “third tier” of professional staff is directly employed by the Consortium to coordinate and promote Consortium activities This group is also charged with implementing policies and programs formulated by the first and second tiers, while at the same time providing inputs into the policy-setting process The Consortium communicates regularly with the leadership of each of its members and enjoys easy access to skilled professionals internal

to each organization for consultation and collaboration on setting policy and implementing programs

The Consortium’s general objectives are divided into several categories: public safety, transportation, housing, economic development, and general neighborhood services for

local residents The goals are translated into programs that seek to improve the quality of

life for area residents by addressing the specific problems of the area: low home-ownership rates, impacted transportation, declining commercial zones, the perception of poor safety, and the lack of regional identity Programs and studies undertaken to date include The Neighborhood Investment Program, The Uptown Mortgage Fund (originally Walk to Work program), The Uptown Transportation Study, The Public Safety Initiative and The Wireless Cloud Network Special attention was given to communications, both

internally and externally Summits, design seminars, public meetings, committee

meetings and other events have been used as means of communication The Uptown

Cincinnati Strategic Opportunity Plan, prepared by the Consortium in December 2004,

has brought together under one strategic plan all the diverse elements of these efforts

This Uptown redevelopment plan has taken three main issues under consideration: (a) Access and Connectivity, (b) Permeability and (c) Expansion into the Surrounding Areas

To achieve these three targets, the plan aims to develop nearly 400,000 sq ft of retail space, containing 150,000 sq ft of new retail space, 100,000 sq ft of rehabilitated retail space and 100,000 sq ft of small business and business incubator space Five significant redevelopment projects worth $1.2 billion have been undertaken in the Uptown area (See Table 1)

Real estate development, housing and commercial markets

The majority of the Uptown Consortium initiated or supported redevelopment activities

in the Uptown area are real estate oriented, and thus have to compete with the larger real estate market area of Greater Cincinnati But new demand for real estate currently occurs mostly in suburban areas of the region Hence the Uptown projects have to provide a niche that will make them successful in their competition as a potential residential and

commercial investment destination

The housing stock in the Uptown area, before redevelopment, comprised of 26,138 units

of different types, generally small and predominantly multi-family This stock has been old and investment in its upkeep has been low Owner-occupied units comprise 23 percent of the homes in Uptown, 15% below that rate for the City of Cincinnati The rental units are predominantly occupied by students and employees of the five major employers Mean home prices range widely among neighborhoods, with the highest found in Clifton ($202,000) and the lowest in Corryville ($62,000) Monthly rentals range from $375 to $525 for a one-bedroom apartment and from about $525 to $750 for a two-bedroom apartment and their distribution among neighborhoods is similar, with the highest rentals found in Clifton and the lowest found in Corryville The 2006 median family income of Uptown residents was $27,532 (CPI adjusted figure) indicating that a large number of local households could not afford quality housing

Newer housing units in the Uptown area are mostly market rate and do not address the prevailing Uptown demographic and economic characteristics described above Hence they are beyond the purchasing power of most local residents The expected population likely to invest in the planned Uptown Consortium developments would be combination

of empty nesters, young couples, single professionals and employees of the Uptown’s institutions, including UC faculty and staff members

Commercial retail space in Uptown largely serves local needs It includes fast food, bars and nightclubs, apparel shops, specialty retail, café/pastry/ice cream parlors, casual dining, restaurants, groceries, bookstores and music stores Commercial spaces are concentrated in six locations: Ludlow Avenue in Clifton, Burnet Avenue in Avondale, Calhoun/McMillan Avenues in Clifton Heights and Jefferson Avenue, Short Vine and

Table 1: Redevelopment projects in the Uptown Area

Redevelopment Project Key Partners/ Developers Salient Features of the Project Budget Completion

Date

The Burnet Avenue

Renewal Plan

• Avondale Community Council

• Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

• The Health Alliance

• Cincinnati Zoo/Botanical Gardens

• Local business community

• 450 housing units

• 20 infill housing units

• Retail, and open space

$20 million November 20,

2017

The Calhoun Street

Marketplace

• The Clifton Heights Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation

(CHCURC)

• The Clifton Heights Business Association

Already completed

• 505 bed student housing

• 40,000 sq ft N Calhoun retail

To be undertaken

• 200 bed student housing

• 45 apartment/condo housing

• 55,000 sq ft S Calhoun retail

$125 million End of 2007

The Stratford Heights

Complex

• University of Cincinnati

• Univ Heights Com Council

• The Greek Affairs Council

• Univ Heights Com Urban Redevelopment Corporation (CHCURC)

• 700 bed high quality student housing $50 million Completed

August 2005

The Uptown Crossing • University of Cincinnati

• Cincinnati Zoo/Botanical Gardens

• TriHealth

• The Health Alliance

• The communities of Clifton, Corryville and Avondale

• 200,000 sq ft of office space

• 30,000 sq ft of retail

• 20,000 sq ft of administrative space

• 10,000 sq ft of daycare

• 250 - 280 housing units

$100 million Not yet

specified

The University Village • The City of Cincinnati

• University of Cincinnati

• The Corryville Com Council

• The Univ Village Association

• The Corryville Community Development Corporation

• Corryville residents

• 500 bed student housing complex

• Improving safety

• Increasing pedestrian traffic

• Encourage business growth

• Creation of stronger connections

$60 million Not yet

specified

University Plaza in Corryville The neighborhoods of Mt Auburn and Fairview Heights

do not have concentrated retail areas Present commercial space in Uptown stands at

443,000 sq ft, down from 533,000 sq ft in the past Average occupancy of existing retail

spaces was 91 % in 2004 but declined to 84% by 2006, a full 5.4 percentage-points below

that of the Greater Cincinnati region Commercial rental prices in the Uptown area are

comparatively low In the current economic environment, it is not profitable for upscale

retailers to locate in Uptown The existing retail areas in Uptown have smaller trade

areas than many other retail business districts in Greater Cincinnati Future planned retail

developments in Uptown would have to be supported by not only the existing Uptown

residents but also from the residents of nearby communities attracted to the new retail

merchandising opportunities, as well as by the new homeowners and renters of the

planned new housing stock

The planned new residential developments and improved neighborhoods have a number

of characteristics that are expected to make them attractive to new buyers and renters,

including (a) the mixed residential and retail development, (b) the availability of a larger

“captive customer” base, (c) quality construction, (d) flexible design, and (e) potentially

safe pedestrian shopping areas and high quality streetscapes that will make commercial

spaces attractive to new businesses

Typically, large scale real estate developments have significant “externality” effects on

their surroundings, by instigating further private sector developments, increasing the

value of real estate, crating more demand for new developments, and improving the

quality of life in their area For example, the “clustering effect”, under which similar

businesses agglomerate in order to benefit from each other, would also increase the real

estate value of the Uptown region Such developments can also trigger “spill-over”

effects on their broader regions, by making the region more attractive to investors and

residents, and by helping the region to compete more effectively with suburban

developments

Impacts of interventions on the broader urban system The economic impact of the five

major employers is given in Table 2

Table 2: Economic impact of the five major employers in the Uptown area

Impact (Direct and Indirect)

Children's Hospital and Medical Center $3.59 billion

TriHealth Inc $1.15 billion1

Health Alliance $ 657 million1

University of Cincinnati $4.00 billion

Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens $ 90 million

1 Estimated figures based on Premier Health Partners (2005) figures because of

similar size and nature of operations

The annual economic impact of household spending by students and employees in Uptown is estimated at $185 million on existing housing and $334.4 million on existing retail Since the development activities of the Uptown Consortium are on-going and as yet incomplete, any assessment of their effectiveness and impacts would be premature What we know is that the Uptown Consortium has planned an investment of over $500 million in the Uptown area, and that the economic impact of its construction-related activities alone is estimated at about 1 billion

The post-construction economic impact of the new retail spaces and homes in Uptown is estimated in two different scenarios, optimistic and pessimistic The optimistic scenario annual economic impacts are estimated at $155 million in retail sales The Uptown Consortium neighborhood services initiative could be quantified in terms of local job opportunities for communities generated because of better access to education and skills Increased safety will attract people to live and buy in the Uptown area, and thus creating demand for real estate and an increase in property values The housing market would also

be positively affected The increase in demand for housing will give rise to increased housing values and rents, which in turn will increase investments in the new and existing housing stock The clustering of mixed use activities, if successful, will make Uptown a major retail destination offering a variety options There will be increased trade because

of the increased customer base (new residents), which will improve business potential and thus sales volume, leading to an increase in revenue, increased demand for retail space and hence higher rents This will also lead to increased spending on retail and increase in employment opportunities for the local communities The economic impacts

on existing businesses will be mixed, with some retailers gaining business, while some others would be losing out However the new competition will induce higher productivity, efficiency and higher returns to the existing retail owners The expected increased customer base will increase business potential for both the existing retailers and the new merchants All of this taken together will contribute positively to the economy The pessimistic scenario impacts are not monetarized but are estimated in terms of the negative implications of the development if it fails to takeoff as desired, which are: exacerbation of blight, negative impact of vacant properties on the rest of the real estate, and declines in rents and other returns

The overall aim of the Uptown Consortium is not only to improve socio-economic conditions in the Uptown but also in its surrounding areas It is important that the effect

of the Consortium’s redevelopment extends to its broader region However, if businesses move from downtown to Uptown it would be a zero sum game for the larger region Thus, the focus should be on attracting new businesses as well as residential options

Community Development

The central idea of community development is to improve local economic and social conditions through collective action This is one of the overarching goals of university-community partnerships But often these partnerships can be subject to misinterpretation and confusion because of the lack of clarity of purpose and possible ambiguities associated with the partners’ roles, relationships, and expectations This is also the case of

the University of Cincinnati, which has partnered with local communities in the Uptown development efforts but has had mixed responses from them on redevelopment projects One of the visible issues that have stood on the way of the partnership is the gap between housing supply and housing affordability Some believe that the planned additions to the housing stock would potentially lure many new residents to the Uptown area, while others fear that the new, more upscale housing market might inadvertently result in the displacement of a portion of the local population who has been long-term resident of the Uptown neighborhoods

A second community development issue confronting UC in its community partnerships is the intent with which each of these partnerships is formed and the mechanisms through which the goals of the partnership are expected to materialize For example, current partnerships have been successful in community development, but community organizing and capacity building have been lacking behind To address this issue, the emphasis of the UC community partnerships is gradually shifting from building more housing to helping local residents in fostering a sense of safety, and with engagement in property management Involving the local residents in the decision-making process and policy formulation aimed at restoring the communities’ self-confidence and self-reliance is also being emphasized more, and more responsibilities are being relegated to local residents Social participation by respecting and celebrating diversity is being encouraged However, community building takes time and requires attention and constant open dialog among all parties involved

A third community development concern is the potential overstock of retail and new businesses in the Uptown area, wherein absorption rates would not be meeting expectations In this context, the expectations of the partnership itself are being questioned by the neighborhoods, as is the decision-making process being followed by the university Past experiences in which the University, as the large investor of the area, made decisions not necessarily promoting the neighborhoods’ interests and priorities, continue to create suspicions and undermine the success of the partnerships initiated by the University and the Consortium

A fourth issue has to do with diversification of Consortium involvement in capacity-building activities other than housing and real estate, such as job formation, supporting business start-ups, self-help, and community policing, activities aimed at improving the general conditions of the neighborhoods and the quality of life of their residents For now, the Consortium is focusing on carrying out physical improvements prior to building human capacity and social capital Particular attention is being paid to identifying and capitalizing on local social assets and leadership which could enhance people’s participation in making local decisions

Concomitant with university involvement in local community development efforts is recognizing that these areas of local concern help raise awareness and promote understanding between the University and its partner communities