The research presented here aims to explore the perceived Quality of Life (QoL) and perceived accessibility among varying demographic and socioeconomic groups in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. A relationship between perceived QoL and perceived accessibility was further investigated. The data was collected through the Phoenix Area Social Survey (PASS), which sent randomized surveys to 496 people in the Phoenix region. The survey’s response rate varied, from a low of 22.2% in one of the lowest-income neighborhoods and a high of 55.6% for a middle-income neighborhood. Results were obtained through statistical analyses, such as correlations, chi-squared tests, and t-tests. Results for income, gender and ethnicity indicated similar and comparable perceived QoL and perceived accessibility in the Phoenix area. The data did not reveal a relationship between perceived QoL and perceived accessibility; however, accessibility did increase with increasing income. A striking finding revolved around disparities in access to walkability and transit across all income, genders and ethnicities. This presents implications for built environment and resource allocation planning in order to enhance the lives of residents in the Valley. Future research and investigation into the objective indicators of QoL and impacts of culture on QoL should be pursued.
As Durham’s economy collapsed in the mid-1990s, Duke established a plan to intervene. Its actions aligned with anchor institution models at many universities; its approach, however, was unique: In a city where Duke was a fixture, university leadership understood a top-down approach was not viable. Instead, administrators launched a community-led model intended to change the “story [from] look at what Duke did,” to “can you imagine what’s happened in Durham?”. I use a longitudinal case study to examine Duke’s anchor institution model in 12 Durham neighborhoods. The research considers Duke’s approach from the mid-1990s to present, drawing from: interviews with Duke administrators, community organizations, and neighborhood representatives; newspaper articles and reports; and a descriptive analysis of neighborhood change. This case explores an anchor model that engages non-profit partners and community development strategies. Findings show the potential for a multi-partner anchor model that cultivates neighborhood improvement and minimizes (to an extent) gentrification pressures that can arise from anchor investment. Duke’s anchor model offers a unique perspective on university-community engagement, partnerships and neighborhood investment.
Duke’s case offers insights for how major institutions—from university anchors to local government—can recast their roles in communities; it also offers a roadmap for how institutions can engage (and benefit) neighborhoods in meaningful ways. Informed by a collaborative anchor model, Duke empowered residents to identify their own neighborhood priorities and partnered with local community organizations to meet those aims. This anchor model reveals a powerful role for intermediaries, including planners and community organizers, to connect institutional resources with neighborhood priorities. Supported by a participatory planning process, there are opportunities to realign anchor institution strategies and tools with neighborhood priorities to move towards mutually beneficial outcomes.
This article reviews the concept of shared equity homeownership (SEH) in the United States. The review examines the origins of the SEH model and its historic precedents. It considers the impetus for SEH, setting the discourse within the context of US housing policy and, specifically, low-income homeownership research. Subsequently, the review assesses the current state of SEH research, including the evidence associated with SEH as an affordable housing strategy, its application and challenges in the field, and gaps in the scholarly discourse.
Town-gown engagement has evolved over several eras, most recently embodying the anchor institution model. The post-1990 scholarship suggests a distinct shift, describing a new framework for the ways universities engage with neighborhood space. This paper tests this approach, using a survey of universities to question several assumptions about town-gown engagement in the 21st century. While the conceptual definition and stylistic approach to engagement has changed, there appears to be less differentiation from earlier models than one might expect. The study offers a typology of university revitalization strategies and contributes a new perspective to the anchor institution discourse.