Difference between revisions of "Innovation Districts and Housing Discrimination"
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
2) Public institutions due not usually have the same ability to buy adjacent land as private institutions. Many private institutions purchase adjacent real estate as part of endowment investment or to prevent undesirable neighbors. | 2) Public institutions due not usually have the same ability to buy adjacent land as private institutions. Many private institutions purchase adjacent real estate as part of endowment investment or to prevent undesirable neighbors. | ||
| − | 3) Land-grant public institutions were designed to make higher education more accessible to non elite (in most cases, white) students. My argument is that the neighborhoods around segregated southern private schools developed into desirable neighborhoods for high-income residents or in the other cases, these institutions were deliberately placed near the wealthy neighborhoods they drew from. | + | 3) Land-grant public institutions were designed to make higher education more accessible to non elite (in most cases, white) students. My argument is that the neighborhoods around segregated southern private schools developed into desirable neighborhoods for high-income residents or in the other cases, these institutions were deliberately placed near the wealthy neighborhoods they drew from. |
| + | |||
| + | A segregated, all-white institution may have also led to the development of a middle to high income residential area as professors and other professionals bought or built housing nearby. This appears to be what happened near Rice University | ||
| Line 27: | Line 29: | ||
2. McNair Ctr data on indicators of innovation & entrepreneurship in these areas such as clinical trials, patents, NIH, SBIR, VC investment, location of startup firms, etc. | 2. McNair Ctr data on indicators of innovation & entrepreneurship in these areas such as clinical trials, patents, NIH, SBIR, VC investment, location of startup firms, etc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Comparisons== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Specific comparisons might be illustrative. For example, in Atlanta, what are the differences historically and currently about the neighborhoods near Emory and Georgia Tech versus those near Spelman and Morehouse. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Story on Rice Management Co.'s development of Rice Village as high-end retail: https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2017/07/07/retailers-strive-to-be-near-houstons-most-affluent.html | Story on Rice Management Co.'s development of Rice Village as high-end retail: https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2017/07/07/retailers-strive-to-be-near-houstons-most-affluent.html | ||
Revision as of 12:15, 13 July 2017
 | |
| Blog Post | |
|---|---|
| Title | Innovation Districts and Housing Discrimination |
| Author | Anne Dayton |
| Series | Innovation Districts |
| Content status | Idea |
| Publication date | |
| Notes | |
| Image | |
| © edegan.com, 2016 | |
This post posits that historic housing discrimination, particularly "redlining," inadvertently contributed to the development of innovation districts decades later in northern U.S. cities such as Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cambridge, MA, Philadelphia, and Detroit.
This hypothesis is based on the observation that the area immediately surrounding Rice University is a high-income residential area while the areas near "peer institutions" in the midwest and northeast tend to have been low-income residential areas that may have experienced gentrification in recent decades (University of Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University). This gentrification may have contributed to the creation and subsequent success of innovation districts near these locations.
To test this hypothesis, more information about the areas near major research universities, particularly private universities, will be need.
This project will focus on private, top-25 U.S. universities (per U.S. News & World Report) located in urban areas.
I theorize that this phenomenon, if it exists, would not affect public top-25 universities as much because:
1) These universities tend to be land-grant institutions that were created in rural, not urban areas, although the surrounding "college town" may have subsequently become urban or suburban.
2) Public institutions due not usually have the same ability to buy adjacent land as private institutions. Many private institutions purchase adjacent real estate as part of endowment investment or to prevent undesirable neighbors.
3) Land-grant public institutions were designed to make higher education more accessible to non elite (in most cases, white) students. My argument is that the neighborhoods around segregated southern private schools developed into desirable neighborhoods for high-income residents or in the other cases, these institutions were deliberately placed near the wealthy neighborhoods they drew from.
A segregated, all-white institution may have also led to the development of a middle to high income residential area as professors and other professionals bought or built housing nearby. This appears to be what happened near Rice University
Data Needs
1. Demographic and economic information about areas near major private universities.
2. McNair Ctr data on indicators of innovation & entrepreneurship in these areas such as clinical trials, patents, NIH, SBIR, VC investment, location of startup firms, etc.
Comparisons
Specific comparisons might be illustrative. For example, in Atlanta, what are the differences historically and currently about the neighborhoods near Emory and Georgia Tech versus those near Spelman and Morehouse.
References
Story on Rice Management Co.'s development of Rice Village as high-end retail: https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2017/07/07/retailers-strive-to-be-near-houstons-most-affluent.html
