TY - JOUR
T1 - Neighborhood Revitalization and the Anchor Institution
T2 - Assessing the Impact of the University of Pennsylvania’s West Philadelphia Initiatives on University City
AU - Ehlenz, Meagan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, © The Author(s) 2015.
PY - 2016/9/1
Y1 - 2016/9/1
N2 - Universities are increasingly faced with central city decline; anchored by their assets—primarily real estate—and, sometimes, institutional missions, many have felt threatened by neighborhood deterioration. In response, several universities have intervened in neighborhood decline over the last two decades, initiating revitalization and physical improvement strategies. Since 1996, the University of Pennsylvania has been a leader in this work, investing in the West Philadelphia Initiatives (WPI) to address safety, vacancy, and disinvestment concerns. This study utilizes Census data to evaluate changes in the character of University City between 1990 and 2010. Analysis suggests that, contrary to popular belief, the neighborhood improved but did not gentrify. The story, however, does not end there. While the neighborhood did not gentrify as a whole, the portion served by the Penn-sponsored public K-8 school experienced drastic change. As the blocks inside the school’s catchment grew wealthier, more homogeneous, and more educated, these upward trends masked continued socioeconomic decline in the remainder of the neighborhood.
AB - Universities are increasingly faced with central city decline; anchored by their assets—primarily real estate—and, sometimes, institutional missions, many have felt threatened by neighborhood deterioration. In response, several universities have intervened in neighborhood decline over the last two decades, initiating revitalization and physical improvement strategies. Since 1996, the University of Pennsylvania has been a leader in this work, investing in the West Philadelphia Initiatives (WPI) to address safety, vacancy, and disinvestment concerns. This study utilizes Census data to evaluate changes in the character of University City between 1990 and 2010. Analysis suggests that, contrary to popular belief, the neighborhood improved but did not gentrify. The story, however, does not end there. While the neighborhood did not gentrify as a whole, the portion served by the Penn-sponsored public K-8 school experienced drastic change. As the blocks inside the school’s catchment grew wealthier, more homogeneous, and more educated, these upward trends masked continued socioeconomic decline in the remainder of the neighborhood.
KW - anchor institution
KW - neighborhood change
KW - university-led revitalization
KW - urban revitalization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84982957789&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84982957789&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1078087415601220
DO - 10.1177/1078087415601220
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84982957789
SN - 1078-0874
VL - 52
SP - 714
EP - 750
JO - Urban Affairs Review
JF - Urban Affairs Review
IS - 5
ER -