The university as a catalyst for city developement

MADE IN SANDNES

III. AN ESSAY

The steps of Girona, Spain.*

*An image from one of the many steps in the “university-city� of Girona outside of Barcelona, Spain.

Students give new life to the old city.

INDEX

Prologue

page 4 - 5

The X-factor in gentrification

page 6 - 21

The origin and history of gentrification - The typical examples of gentrification - The brownstoning movement The different factors of gentrification - The sosial actors in the gentrification process - The gay communities and gentrification Students as a part of the city development, is it only a problem?

The university and the city

page 22 - 31

- The first universities - The “Town-Gown� relationship - The different interrelations of the university and the city - The integration of the citizens and the student

Conclution

page 32 - 33

- The integrated university as a catalyst for urban developement

Selected readings

page 36 - 37

Studentlife in the city centre of Bergen, Norway.*

*From the start at the semester fall 2009.

Prologue The city is a living organism, made out of a numerous of elements, processes and interrelations. They are all co dependent on each other, and it is hardly possible to understand them all, simultaneously.

The only way to get an insight of what the city really is would be to extract a fraction of this complexity, and then explore how this specific element works, and coexist with its tangent elements.

Our field of interest lies within the process of when a space changes from one identity to another.

What makes a place for someone suddenly change into a place for someone else?

Or when a place becomes unbalanced, what happens then?

Will it balance itself, yet again, or spin out of control?

And how can different actors in the urban environment interrelate and benefit from each other?

Our goal is to understand some specifics in this process, and then, hopefully, have a deeper understanding of the city as a whole.

Gentry gen·try [jen-tree] noun - wellborn and well-bred people.

- (in England) the class below the nobility.

- an upper or ruling class; aristocracy.

- those who are not members of the nobility but are entitled to a coat of arms, especially - those owning large tracts of land.

- ( used with a plural verb ) people, especially considered as a specific group, class, or kind: The polo crowd doesn't go there, but these hockey gentry do. gentry —n - persons of high birth or social standing; aristocracy - ( Brit ) persons just below the nobility in social rank - informal , derogatory often people, esp of a particular group or kind [C14: from Old French genterie, from gentil gentle ]

Word origin and history c.1300, from O.Fr. genterise, variant of gentilise “noble birth, gentleness,” from gentil (see gentle). Gentrify “to renovate inner-city housing to middle-class standards” is a 1972 formation. In Anglo-Ir., gentry was a name for “the fairies” (1880), and gentle could mean “enchanted” (1823).

Gentrify Verb (gentrifies, gentrifying, gentrified) [with object] - renovate and improve (a house or district) so that it conforms to middleclass taste.

- (usually as adjective gentrified) make (someone or their way of life) more genteel: a gentrified Irish American. derivatives -gentrification -noun, -gentrifier -noun.

*Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

The X-factor in gentrification.

What are the different factors of gentrification?

What are the benifits and problems of this urban phenomenon?

Could gentrification be a part of a positive urban developement?

Dr.Dan explains gentrification in this cartoon by Garry Trudeau.*

*Found at page 2 in the book “Gentrification” by Loretta Lees, Tom Slater and Elvin Wyly.

The origin and history of gentrification The word gentrification derives from the word English word gentry: a word used to describe the higher class of society.

Today it is used as a description on the process in city development, turning lower class areas into higher class areas.

Even though the word itself is relatively new, this process of developing and upgrading urban areas has been a well known process in the history of urban development. This process has later been described in various ways by several social scientists.

The first introducer of the word was the British sociologist Ruth Glass, in her discussion on gentrification; “London: Aspect of change” from 1964.

She uses the word to describe the process of when the working-class or low-class areas of a city is transformed into higher class areas, mainly by the middle class, and the original residents are displaced. Her definition of the term is today called classical gentrification. Ruth Glass was a Marxist and a refugee from Nazi-Germany, and as a pioneer of urban social studies in Europe, She uses the word gentrification in a mainly social manner; “gentry-fiction”; where the existing population is replaced by gentry (upper class person).

She investigated a phenomenon that occurred in the inner parts of London in the late 1950’s giving a description of the classical gentrification; “One by one, many of the working class quarters of London have been invaded by the middle classes-upper and lower. Shabby, modest mews and cottages- two rooms upp and two down- have been taken over, when their leases have expired, and have become elegant, expensive residents. [...]Once this process of “gentrification” starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working class occupiers are displaced and the social character of the district is changed.”* It is against this form of gentrification all other types of gentrification are compared.

*From Ruth Glass discussion on gentrification; “London: Aspect of change” from 1964.

The boulevards of Paris*

*Photographed by Eivor Davidsen from “The Arch de Triomph” in Paris, 2007.

The typical examples of gentrification Ruth Glass used London and the urban development of the central areas as a case study of the process of gentrification.

“London may soon be faced with an “emberasse de richesse” in her central area-and this will prove to be a problem too.”* Ruth’s prediction of the gentrified London is today proven to be right; Most of London’s central area has been transformed into exclusive and expensive areas, while most of the working class has left the inner city.

London is not alone; many western cities have in the resent years experienced a similar process.

Areas like Harlem in New York, The Latin Quarter in Paris, Mission District in San Francisco, Trastevere in Rome, Indian Bazaar in Canada, Prenzlauer Berg in Berlin, Södermalm in Stockholm, and Grünerløkka in Oslo are all areas of gentrification. These cities have all different variables in both the origin and the consequences of their gentrification. This gives the expression “gentrification” a new meaning as a word describing more than just a specific social change in an area, but more of a expression of a complex and multifaceted process.

Even though the expression is relatively new (1960) gentrification has occurred in the urban development, long before the phenomenon was given the name “gentrification”.

One quite famous example is the master plan of the modern Paris.

Baron Haussmann displaced the poor residents of the central Paris to the outskirts of the city, so that they could demolish the old buildings, and build the now famous wide boulevards, and a new exclusive residential area.

In the post-war urban renewal of cities in both Europe and the States, the renewal of the city often meant the demolishing of poor neighbourhoods to then move in the upper and lower middle class, and turning the poor areas in to the exclusive areas, pushing the poor people out of the city.

This type of gentrification can be seen in urban development even today; authorities moving the poor people from rundown areas, for then to rebuild or restore the area into a area of higher value (both economical and cultural). * London: Aspect of change, by Ruth Glass 1961.

The Brownstone newsletter*

*The Brownstoner from 1984, a newsletter on gentrification as a good thing; Gentrification is not “genocide” but “genesis”.

The brownstoning movement In the 1980*s a new phenomenon occurred, in Brooklyn, New York. The Brownstoning movement, lead by the brownstone revival committee*, argued for the gentrification of the “brownstone houses” as a way to rehabilitate this area. They wanted to preserve the beautiful, brown, sandstone constructed buildings, and not to demolish the area.

“I think one should approach the acquisition of a brownstone, the way one goes into a love affair: eyes open, but half closed too.... Pipes can be fixed, cracked walls repaired [...]. Those are only incidentals. What really counts is love....To the non-lover it is merely a row house. To the brownstone connoisseur, it is part of an architecturally homogeneous cityscape, scaled perfectly for its function, housing many but offering each person space and privacy and a civilized style of living.”* The brownstoners got involved with the politics of gentrification, by spreading the news(bronestone newsletter)relating the brownstone houses and their gentrification. They invested time and energy to advocate the brownstone living, by providing historical analyses and rehabilitation tips.

This called for a broader meaning of the term gentrification and in 2000 Neil Smith defined gentrification accordingly: “ Gentrification The reinvestment of CAPITAL at the urban centre, which is designed to produce space for a more affluent class of people than currently occupies that space. The term, coined by Ruth Glass in 1964, has mostly been used to describe the residential aspect of this process but this is changing, as gentrification itself evolves.”

Smith sees gentrification as a primarily capital movement where the people then follow the money. This definition pin points the “capital” as the vital factor in the gentrification of an area, claiming gentrification to be an economical issue rather than a social one. There is of course some truth to this, in the sense of the economical issues one piece of the gentrification puzzle. *Baron Haussmann; an architect for Napoleon III of France. * Brownstone revival comittee; a progentrification group,founded in New York City in 1968,

by Everett Ortner( a pioneer gentrifier in Park Slope, Brooklyn). * Extraction of“The Brownstoner” published in 1969, reprinted in 1991.

Södermalm*

*An example on “Scandinavian” gentrification; Södermalm in Stockholm, Sweden.

The different factors of gentrification One of the most common theories on the economically charged gentrification is the theory of “the rent gap”. The gap we are talking about is the gap between the present rent of an area and the potential rent that area could have if the land would be put in its best use. The higher the gap, the more likely is the gentrification.

“Gentrification derives much of its significance from its links to the process of urban restructuring and uneven development. The rent gap hypothesis is useful in understanding gentrification not because it provides precise prediction [...] but because it provides a theoretical link between gentrification and these larger processes.”* “The value gap” is another, complementary theory on “the rent gap”. It bases the gap on the value a property would have for a landowner to rent out, and the value the same piece of property would have if sold to an individual home owner. If this gap rises and the individual owners’ value is more attractive, the market opens up for a change where the landowners move out and the home owners move in.

These theories could explain the gentrification being based on the market forces, but in the examples of “Scandinavian” gentrification, as in Södermalm in Stockholm, the social democracy gives a different economical frame to the urban development, and the gentrification seems to be a more non-market based processes. In Scandinavia the state is a big factor in the urban development with e.g. the housing allocation policies*, which then intervene with the private market and makes the theory on “gentrification based on capital” more blurry. Trying to fit gentrification into only an economical process might not be the most beneficial way of looking at this phenomenon.

There is definitely a social side of the gentrification as well, where you might say that there is a chance of the process actually being the reverse as earlier stated; that gentrification is a process not of capital, but people and the money follows. Someone need to be the first pioneers, someone need to be the gentrifier, and that might not just be the developer or the government, it might also be the “young adults”; the artist, the hipsters, the musicians, the gay communities. *Stated by Dan Hammel, and recited in the book “Gentrification” by Loretta Lees, Tom Slater and Elvin Wyly. *Housing allocation policies

Hipster* noun - informal - a person who follows the latest trends and fashions.

Derivatives -hipsterism -noun Origin: 1940s (used originally as an equivalent term to hepcat): from hip3+ -ster

Hepcat noun - informal, dated - a stylish or fashionable person, especially in the sphere of jazz or popular music: it’s rock’s most waggish hepcat, on the third of his nine showbiz lives Origin: 1930s: from hep + cat

Word origin and history* Hipster, as used in the 1940s, referred to aficionados of jazz, in particular bebop, which became popular in the early 1940s. [...]The words hep and hip are of uncertain origin, with numerous competing theories being proposed. In the early days of jazz, musicians were using the hep variant to describe anybody who was “in the know” about an emerging culture, mostly black, which revolved around jazz. They and their fans were known as hepcats. [...]

Subsequently, around 1940, the word hipster was coined to replace hepcat[...].

In early 2000, both the New York Times and Time Out New York ran profiles of Williamsburg, Brooklyn, without using the term hipster; the Times refers to “bohemians”and TONY to “arty East Village types.”By 2003, when The Hipster Handbook was published by Williamsburg resident Robert Lanham, the term had come into widespread use in relation to Williamsburg and similar neighborhoods.

The Hipster Handbook described hipsters as young people with “mop-top haircuts, swinging retro pocketbooks, talking on cell phones, smoking European cigarettes... strutting in platform shoes with a biography of Che Guevara sticking out of their bags.”

*Definition on the word hipster and hepcat from oxford dictionary online, at www.oxforddictionaries.com *Wikipedia on the term Hipster.

The sosial actors in the gentrification process Ruth Glass focused on gentrification as a process where the working/ lower class where displaced from their housing areas in the central parts of larger cities, and how the areas inhabitants is replaced by the middle class.

However, the typical suburban middle-class is not the gentrifier. Looking at the social aspect of gentrification it usually is initiated by the “hipster”, a young person with low income, but a cultural capital (a student on the way to a career or young entrepreneurs on their way to successful business). This “first gentrifier” is eager to live at the city centre, and is willing to accept a less comfortable lifestyle, due to the situation of being on the way to a higher status. They will start by “intruding” the poorer central areas/ghettoes. ”You can see how hipster neighborhoods are crossroads where young people from different origins, all crammed together, jockey for social gain.”* And when the number of these young hipsters is high enough, the gentrification proceeds by business pioneers, in the form of bars, galleries, cafes, restaurants, trendy shops etc. With this buisness pioneers follows the investment capital, increasing the value of the local properties. This seems to be the exact description of the current situation of Williamsburg in Brooklyn, New York; birthplace of the modern “hipster”. Williamsburg is at the state where bars, cafes, music studios, architectural offices, and independent shops have crowded the streets, and the capital investment in the area has begun.

The next step in the process of gentrifying an area is usually divided into two general outcomes. One of the common consequence is often that the “first gentrifier”, when a full gentrification of the area is reached, will be “evicted” from the area by higher rent, property taxes etc. But there are also examples where the “first gentrifier” seems to reach a higher status simultaneously with the area, and continues to live in the same spot, like “Grünerløkka” in Oslo as an example.

*by Mark Greif, from the article about hipster on wikipedia.

Bedford Avenue*

*Bedford avenue, in Williamsburg New York

The gay communities and gentrification Manuel Castell worked on a theory about the gay & lesbian communities as a catalyst for gentrification. He used San Francisco and the gay community there as a case study on how their life situation was working as an important factor for the gentrification here. He based the study on the fact that most of the gay (& lesbian) communities in The States had a similar life situation: “many gays were single men, did not have to raise a family, were young, and connected to a relatively prosperous service economy”. His researches lead to the term gay village, describing these types of areas of gentrification. And the term today often associated with the phenomenon of gentrification. ”A gay village (also known as a gay neighborhood, gay district) is an urban geographic location with generally recognized boundaries where a large number of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people live or frequent. Gay villages often contain a number of gay-oriented establishments, such as gay bars and gay pubs, nightclubs, bathhouses, restaurants, and bookstores.[…]. However, these neighborhoods are also often found in working-class parts of the city, or in the neglected fringe of a downtown area – communities which may have been upscale historically but became economically depressed and socially disorganized. In these cases, the establishment of a gay community may eventually turn these areas into more expensive neighborhoods, a process known as gentrification – a phenomenon in which gays often play a pioneer role.”* These social studies of the gentrification process add a new layer to the theory of it beeing purely an economical movement. Maybe it’s not just the rent or the value gap that is the background for these types of processes. Maybe you need the “right” types of people as well.

There are examples of areas where there is a value or rent gap, and still gentrification actually does not happen. Usually this is in places where the general inhabitants are all middle class; in the suburbs, or in smaller cities. In these cases it might not be rundown areas, or high crime rates that are the urban problematic issues. The problems in these areas are more often of a social nature. As the lack of a community identity. The lack of public activities to connect the people, and give them a common identity. Another issue might be the case of the city being a so called “sleeping city”, where people only spend time to do their dinner shopping on their way home and eventually to bed, and instead use the neighboring city for work, and in some case also pleasure.

*Wikipedia on Gay Village.

Studentification* - The phenomenon in which a growing student population move in large numbers to traditionally non-student neighborhoods

Word origin and history* The term studentification was coined by analogy with gentrification, a term used in the 1960s to refer to a middle-class invasion of areas which were formerly thought of as rundown, thereby causing the displacement of many working-class families. Among the first to use the term studentification was Dr Darren Smith of the School of Environment at the University of Brighton, who in 2002 undertook a groundbreaking study of the phenomenon in the Headingley area of Leeds. Smith argues that, with appropriate planning strategies, studentification could in fact have a positive impact in the regeneration of particularly undesirable areas.

Though the verb gentrify exists, there is as yet no substantial evidence for an analogous verb studentify or participle adjective studentified.

*From wikipedia, on the word studentification. *From the macmillan dictionary; a webdictionary at the adresse www.macmillandictionary.com

Students as a part of the city development, is it only a problem?

In the “sleeping cities” of the towns, the suburbs or the smaller cities, there have been examples of an “intrusion” of these “right” types of peoples. In these cases it has been students that are looking for cheap areas of housing, and are therefore pushed out of the city centres and into the suburbs. In these cases the outcome is often not so positive, and the term “studentrification” is therefore, as the word gentrification, associated with a negative ring to it.

Studentification is new term in the process of one social class taking over a society. In the case of studentification, it is first mentioned by Darren Smith to describe the issues of suburbs (in this case in England) being over crowded with students, leading to many social and physical issues of the area. One of the major problems was that areas would start to lose the public services directed toward the non-students, as kinder gardens and schools. This makes the area even more unattractive to non-students and results in a mono-cultural society, consisting of “student ghettos” in the suburbia. The students are not permanent residents, so they lack the sense of ownership for the houses and the neighbourhood, which results in houses being neglected and worn down.

Smith points to the fact that these issues are problems caused by a lack of planning, and not the students themselves, and that if planned well, students could actually improve the suburbs or smaller cities.

As in the term of studentification, so should also gentrification be understood. To not just acknowledge and understand the negative issues of this process but also to understand the positive effects. The lack of gentrification might also mean a lack of a diverse multicultural area of creative and resourceful people, engaged in their community, with the means to change it. It might also mean that you lack the catalyst for a “organic” or “natural” way of rehabilitate the city, where the pioneer gentrifies moves from one part to another in the long run. In the early face on an area being “gentrified” you might find old and young, immigrants and natives in the same street. Without the “gentrifier” you might just end up with a rundown area being rehabilitated without the social friction that might not only be negative, but also give back to the society at a whole. it seems to be an x-factor in the process of gentrification, where the social aspect of the phenomenon might be of help.

Could the students or the “first gentrifier” be the x - factor of the gentrification? Are they the important ingredient for a benefitial urban gentrification process? And could this process then be planned?

University University [yoo-nuh-vur-si-tee] Noun - institution of higher education - An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master’s degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor’s degrees.

- The buildings and grounds of such an institution.

- The body of students and faculty of such an institution.

Synonyms -academy -college -educational institution

Word origin and history The word college comes from Latin collegium,’association, partnership,’ from collega, ‘partner in office.’ The word university is from Latinuniversitas, ‘the whole,’from universus, ‘combined into one.’ The difference between a college and a university is that a college offers degrees in one or a few specific areas, while auniversity is a collection of colleges.

* The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.

The university and the city How do the university and the students affect an urban situation?

How do the different university typologies relate to its context, and what are the consequences?

Three of the worlds oldest universities*

*Three of the worlds oldest universities; Bologna, Paris & Oxford University.

Here represented by their coat of arms.

The first universities The University began its history in the change between the 11th and 12th century in Bologna, Paris and Oxford independently. It derived from the cathedral schools or monastic schools, led by monks and nuns.

The definition of university is closely linked to the academic freedom.

The University of Bologna adopted an academic charter, the Constitutio Habita*, in 1158 which guaranteed the right of a traveling scholar to unhindered passage in the interests of education.* There differences in the relation between the city and the university has been there from the beginning of universities. The University in Bologna was established as a university in a medium-sized city, the University in Paris (Sorbonne) as a university in a big city emerging as a European capital, and the University of Oxford in a small city with proximity to a large city (London). The universities have shown an extremely good ability to survive and it is the longest living institution in the western world except the Catholic Church.

It has been one of western civilization’s key institutions. It is seen as a significant source of received knowledge, and as the main arena for intellectual debates. It is an incubator of revolutions in science and technology. Just as important, the university is considered a center of culture, aesthetic direction, and the moral forces shaping the society.

It has been and still is a big contributor to the economic health and the physical development of cities.

From the beginning, one can see that there are different thoughts and ideas about how the city and the university should relate and co-exist.

The situation in Bologna, Paris and Oxford was very different when the universities were established. At the same time as the university was looked upon as a great contributor for developing the social formations in a city, it has always had some ambiguity connected to it.

Especially in Paris it seems that the university looked upon itself as a mobile institution not dependant on the city of Paris.*

*the contitutia habita means *(Wikipedia - “University” - Malagola, C. (1888), Statuti delle Università e dei Collegi dello Studio Bolognese.) *(University and the city - From Medieval Origins to the Present – Thomas Bender).

The battle of St. Scholastica’s Day, 1355*

*The illustration is from the “Daily Info, Oxford” showing the battle of St. Scholastica’s Day, the 10th of February, 1355

The “Town-Gown” relationship This duality in the relation between the city and the university has existed from the beginning and still exists. The universe has often seen itself as an enclave, which needs to be removed enough from the surroundings to produce the knowledge and information to understand society. This could be an intellectual and organizational distancing form the city, or as a physically disconnected, anti-urban institution.

The duality is explained in the phrase “town-gown” relations, “town” being the non-academic population and “gown” being the university community. The gown comes from the academic long gown worn by students from the middle ages, and has become a tradition in many universities. The gown also served as a social symbol, as it was impractical for physical manual work. With their clothing, the students were set apart from the citizens of the town. The universities were formed as guilds from the beginning. The scholars of a university would negotiate with the city about renting lecture halls and other licenses.

Since they did not have any investments in physical campus they could threaten to move to another town, if the rent was too high or if they had other disagreements. This happened in Paris in 1229 after a riot started by the students, and the university moved out of Paris for two years.

Medieval students were protected legally from the civil law. They could only be tried in a church court under Canon law. As a result, students could break secular laws that led to criminal behavior among students, which made the “town-gown” relations worse.

Another example is the Battle of St.Scholastica Day, the 10th of February,1355 at the University of Oxford; a two-day battle over the legal differences between “town” and “gown” resulting in 63 students getting killed. Other examples are Yale College and the residents of New Haven, Connecticut who have had indifferences since the establishment of the college in 1716 to the student riots in the 1960’s.

The student riots in the 1960’s led by the civil rights- and free speech movements had some terrible outcomes as well e.g. the riot at Kent State University in Ohio resulting in the National Guard killing four students.

City Centre

University

City Centre University

Stavanger & Bergen, & the different physical relation between university and the city centre.*

*From the top; Stavanger city centre, and the location of the university. * At the bottom; Bergen city centre, and the location of the university.

The different interrelations of the university and the city The original European universities were situated in both small and large cities of the time which were all small compared to the cities of today.

The 19th century government established national universities and large individual cities started to establish their own universities to achieve progress and fame.

In the United States there was a major development of the campus university even in cities. A campus including student accommodation, teaching- and research facilities, administration and leisure all in one place. The idea is to create a community of learning removed from the distractions of the city, an environment with the safe and calm life of the suburbs. Examples are Arizona State University, University of Central Florida, Ohio State University, University of Minnesota, and University of Texas at Austin. All of these Universities hold more than 50,000 students each. In Norway, the universities of Oslo, Trondheim and Stavanger is examples of the campus university. The University in Bergen have a different organisation. The 15,000 students are spread out in the city in 6 different faculties. This is more equal to the tradition in the University in Oxford, Columbia University in New York, University of Chicago, University of Pennsylvania and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) The Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities suggests several criteria applying to such institutions in the United States: 1. Location in a major metropolitan area 2. Dedication to achieving excellence through teaching, research, and public service 3. A diverse student body reflecting the demographic composition of the region 4. Responsiveness and service to the local region as part of the university’s mission 5. Serves the region not only by providing an educated citizenry and workforce, but also as a cultural and intellectual resource 6. Engages in partnerships with other local organizations 7. Uses practical experience in the urban setting to enhance students’ education

University

City Centre

Orlando in Florida, & the physical relationship between the university and the city centre.*

*Orlando city centre, and the location of The central Floridas university.

The integration of the citizens and the student The term urban Universities has been, at least in the US, associated with a large number of part-time and commuter students. Therefore it has been associated with relatively low academic standards because of students having low-income and studying part-time. This seems to be untrue. In the US-News ranking in 2012, using the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education 2010, Columbia University, University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania are in the top ten of Universities in the US. The idea that a protected university campus that distances itself from the city is the ideal solution for an academic environment is becoming replaced by a more “city-friendly” theory, grounded in the history of the first universities (Paris and Oxford). It argues that the university is a product of its relationship with the city and its urban surroundings.

It’s a university of the city, not just in the city. The knowledge that is taught at the university comes from outside of the university, and the knowledge that is produced is not only for the university exclusively.* One example of this interrelation between University and city is told by Thomas Bender (The University and the city: From Mediaeval Origins to the Present) on the Rodney King trial and the following riots: “The absence of a public space and public culture in Los Angeles is notorious. Most discussions of the riots following the Rodney King trial [...], noted the absence of a public culture capable of sustaining a serious political discourse capable of incorporating the sub-cultures of difference that has become manifested in such an explosive way, Yet in the aftermath of the tragedy many noticed that there in fact was an inclusive place for very important, if obviously insufficient, political talk. At UCLA, a great urban public university, in its classes and public fora, there existed an opportunity for serious talk across difference. During that period I was in Los Angeles and was regularly on the UCLA campus, and one heard constant political discussions, and faculty felt the presence of these issues in many class discussions [...] Almost on a daily basis, whether in the classroom, in the campus cafeterias, or on the steps in front of buildings, a metropolitan university provides such a place for diverse society to form itself into public culture, even if only as a temporary creation. “ From the article “From Campus to City” in the book “The University as urban Developer”

by David C. Perry and Wim Wiewel.

An article from the newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad, fall 2011*

*This article is an inteview of the student organisation leaders in the Stavanger region.They explain, amongst other things, the lack of student culture in the city as a result of the University’s placement outside of the city centres of both Sandnes and Stavanger.

Conclution - The integrated university as a catalyst for urban developement Thomas Bender argues that the university is an essential site for democratic debate. It provides the centre for and the engagement with strangers. To maintain this role, the university need to stay away from the tendency towards suburbanisation.

It must include a larger community.

The university and the city have clear benefits from being co-existing in the same arena, both intellectually and physically.

The university is an institution for studying and researching the world and society it is placed in, and should therefore represent the society and have a conscious relation to its surroundings. The urban city is benefiting from the student initiative in the cultural scene; holding public debates, lectures concerts etc.

The city is also dependant on a cheap workforce that can work part-time.

In Bergen, as an example, the students contribute with over 3000 manyears, and the service- and commerce sector is absolutely dependant on the students, especially for holidays as Christmas and summer holiday* In the same way, the students are dependent on a part-time job to be able to pay their rent and living-expenses. This is a benefit of the urban university that can be difficult to obtain in a campus university-setting.

The University of Stavanger, a campus university, has the highest amount of student living with their parents, in Norway. This because of lack of reasonable priced housing both in the city centre and at the student campus. This leads to a decrease of student community and student culture. There are complaints from the students, in the Stavanger region, that there is a lack of student services and student culture* The combination of expensive housing and expensive public transport to the campus area, forces the students out of the city and the student culture is weakened. The University in Trondheim is now trying to make a strategy on how to integrate the university in to the city, because of many of the same issues as in Stavanger * If one is aware of the positive aspects of the urban university, it might be easier to plan for an integrated university that benefits both the students and the citizens.

*From an article in Bergens Tidende the 14th of November, 2006. *From an article in Stavanger Aftenblad the 3rd of september, 2011. * From the municipality report “Trondheim 2020-byen og universitetet�, 2011.

Selected readings Articles: “Trondheim 2020 – byen og univeritetet”

by Trondheim Municipality and Skaarup & Jensen Architects, 2005 “In the face of gentrification: Case studies of Local efforts to mitigate displacement”

by Diane K. Levy, Jennifer Comey, Sandra Padilla, 2006 “Gentrifisering på norsk – teori og empiri“

by Torkel Bjørnskau and Randi Hjorthol, 2002 “Gentrifisering på norsk – urban livsstil eller praktisk organisering av hverdagslivet?”

by Torkel Bjørnskau and Randi Hjorthol, 2002 “Byutvikling og gentrifisering i Oslo indre øst”

by Oddrun Sæter, juni 2003 “Balanced communities & studentification – Problems and solutions” by the National HMO (houses in multiple occupation) Lobby, 2008 “Studentification: a guide to oppurtunities, challenges and practice” by the Universities UK, 2006 Books: “ Gentrification ”

by Loretta Lees, Tom Slater and Elvin Wyly. “ The urban design Reader” edited by Michael Larice and Elisabeth Macdonald “ Tøyengata, et nyrikt stykke Norge ”

by Tone Huse “ Arkitektur og sosiologi i Oslo ”

by Dag Østerberg “ ecstaCity ”

by Erling Fossen “The University as urban Developer”

by David C. Perry and Wim Wiewel, 2005 “The urban university and its identity – Roots, locations, roles”

by Herman van der Wusten, 1998 “The University and the City: From Mediaeval Origins to the Present”

by Thomas Bender, 1988 “Gentrification in a global context: the new urban colonialism”

by Rowland Atkinson and Gary Bridge, 2004 “Global universities and urban development: case studies and analysis“

by David C. Perry and Wim Wiewel, 2008 Web: www.wikipedia.com www.oxforddictionaries.com