The expanding role of universities in a city’s long-term success
Cities face some complex and pivotal challenges on the horizon.
Four big ones that immediately come to mind, in no particular order: 1) affordable housing, 2) transportation, 3) air pollution and 4) data ethics.
We can always throw in a few more: 5) education, 6) taxes, and 7) jobs. The list goes on and we could debate rankings and split hairs until the cows come home.
Whatever list we assemble, it presents a diverse, abstract, far-reaching, and even daunting set of issues for city leaders to grapple with.
To have the best hope for long-term economic growth and sustainability city leaders need to approach these challenges strategically and creatively, with the long game as the priority. Sometimes this means making tough decisions that cause pains today in hopes of gains tomorrow — let’s call these tough decisions bitter pills.
Conversely, many city officials are incentivized to think in the short term and take the path that will give them the best odds of getting elected.
Thus, the path of least resistance is probably an uncontroversial choice between business as usual and the flavor of the month.
The conflict arises when the best long-term move for the city is a bitter pill, but it’s in the decision maker’s best interest to opt for the path of least resistance.
If city leaders lack the motivation, foresight or fortitude to recognize and choose the bitter pills then either 1) the problems don’t get resolved, 2) the problems resolve themselves (for example, maybe there wasn’t a problem to begin with), or 3) the bitter-pill moves are made through alternative channels.
For the sake of conversation, let’s drill down on the third scenario:
Bitter pills through alternative channels.
Developers and lobbying efforts from outside interests could fall into that alternative channel category. However, those influencers seem more like business-as-usual.
The charter cities idea is one example that I think fits that category better.
The smart city pilot, like Sidewalk Labs in Toronto, is another.
For a more tangible, and probably more likely, example of an alternative channel for urban design and policy influence, consider the university.
Universities are already like cities within cities.
They have their own housing, transit, law enforcement, governance, infrastructure, sports teams, etc. University students are like citizens who pay really high taxes in the form of tuition.
As cities spin their wheels and drag their heels contemplating how to adapt to the changing landscape, universities can move faster and take on the risk associated with early adoption. For example:
- How universities resemble smart cities
- Are university campuses turning into mini smart cities?
- University of Arizona tracks student ID cards to detect who might drop out
- Arizona State University Embeds Sensors Deep Into Student Life.
Because Arizona State University (ASU) is my alma mater and in my backyard (and admittedly because they support my point!) I’ll expand with their example, primarily through the lens of urban design.
ASU’s campus has terrible and expensive parking; congested traffic; pedestrians, bicycles and scooters everywhere; walk-only zones; multiple public transit stops nearby; shops, restaurants, resources and facilities within walking distance; and regular opportunities for serendipitous social interactions.
It’s essentially a walkable mini-city; a pocket of real density within the sprawling metropolis of digital density that is metro Phoenix (my hometown and favorite city punching bag; confirmation bias, recency bias and availability bias all acknowledged).
To me, this aligns with their new charter (emphasis my own):
ASU is a comprehensive public research university, measured not by whom it excludes, but by whom it includes and how they succeed; advancing research and discovery of public value; and assuming fundamental responsibility for the economic, social, cultural and overall health of the communities it serves.
A recent in-depth AZcentral.com article calls the ASU President Michael Crow “the eternal disruptor,” and quotes him as follows: “We’re in the birthing process of ASU as a world-class, globally impactful, unique American model of an absolutely fantastic university.”
Admittedly, the ASU Empire is a pretty extreme (and convenient) example of a bold and transformational university that wields heavy influence on the urban landscape and surrounding communities. For example, from that ASU Empire link, Jon Talton says, “Crow speaks the language of developers, an invaluable skill in a state where real estate is the No. 1 industry.”
Granted, ASU is a state university and they answer to the Arizona Board of Regents, whose members are appointed by the governor. However, ASU decision makers may not be as influenced by short-term election cycles as city officials might be.
And to be sure, the City of Tempe has done a lot to strengthen its urban core alongside ASU (see Tempe Rising). In addition, I’m sure many people across the Valley disagree with many of ASU’s moves and avoid Tempe for many of the same reasons that make it relatively walkable.
Further, ASU is still littered with stuff that makes being a pedestrian dangerous and unpleasant: prominent parking garages, wide lanes, drag-racing, long blocks lined with empty, faceless sides of massive buildings. Maybe that stuff doesn’t matter. I think it does.
My point here isn’t necessarily that ASU is doing it right.
My point is that ASU is doing it.
So what? Some suggestions and ideas:
Cities should act more like universities, in terms of walkable urban design, and in terms of bold, creative moves toward long-term gains.
The cities best positioned for long-term, sustainable economic growth are the ones with strong, influential and innovative universities.
Universities should take more responsibility for their cities and surrounding areas, and use their influence to push cities to implement walkable principles of urban design (namely in the realm of streets, transportation and general mobility strategy).
Similarly, universities should work closely with cities to design policies on looming abstract issues like data ethics, or AI. This could be a way for city officials to walk the tightrope and make unpopular essential moves without losing votes — throw the university under the bus!
Maybe this is too much power for universities?
Maybe this is already common knowledge?
Maybe this is a bitter pill?