A Typology on Responses to Studentification in Ontario, Canada
November 19, 2024
Authors: Nick Revington and Alexander James David Wray
Published Online: 27 Jul 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2022.2093939
Published Online: 27 Jul 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2022.2093939
Land-Use Planning to Address Student Housing Concerns in Ontario, Canada
How and where to house students is a question facing university communities around the world. Yet there remains little research on how land use policy has addressed this question. Nick Revington and Alexander James David Wray’s article, “Land-Use Planning Approaches to Near-Campus Neighborhoods and Student Housing Development Patterns in Ontario, Canada,” builds upon analysis of land use policies in fifteen different Ontario municipalities to develop a typology of four different land use approaches to student housing: restriction, diversion, intensification, or limited intervention.
Studentification and Ontario, Canada
Studentification, or the development or transition of residential and commercial areas for student use, is a phenomenon with both negative and positive aspects. On one hand, complaints from the local community about noise, littering, parking, vandalism, and violations of open container drinking laws are common (Hubbard, 2008; Munro & Livingston, 2012; Sage et al., 2012; Smith, 2005; Woldoff & Weiss, 2018). The neglect of student rental units by both tenants and landlords is a cause for concern (Brookfield, 2019; Miessner, 2021), as is the displacement of families and older or poorer residents as public services cater to students instead (Lager & van Hoven, 2019; Laidley, 2014; Munro & Livingston, 2012; Pickren, 2012; Sage et al., 2012). On the other hand, students create cultural capital, provide financial support for local businesses, and stimulate investment in the public services that cater to them (Allinson, 2006; Kemp, 2014). Localities have taken a wide array of approaches to student housing. Some cities allow the development of PBSAs, or purpose-built student accommodations, which are multi-bedroom private apartments with amenities for the student lifestyle (Fincher & Shaw, 2009; Hubbard, 2009; Kenna, 2011; Miessner, 2021; Revington, 2021; Smith & Hubbard, 2014). Some create bureaucratic barriers to prevent the conversion of single rentals into student housing by requiring licenses, registrations, and provisions (Frierson, 2005; Hubbard, 2008; Munro & Livingston, 2012). Some rely upon “town and gown” committees involving both campus officials and local townsfolk and officials to integrate students into the community, and hold universities responsible for providing a certain percentage of on-campus housing. Ontario, Canada, home to twenty public universities in fifteen college municipalities, is no stranger to studentification. There is high demand for off-campus housing among upper-year students. Student-oriented land development also falls into the larger policy question of growth management that the Ontario government contends with. The Greenbelt Act and the Places to Grow Act are policies set at the provincial level that intend to limit development in ecologically sensitive areas, identify high-density areas for redevelopment, and designate areas to grow jobs and commerce (Hodge et al., 2017)–all policies that affect the question of studentification. Within the context of Ontario’s higher education system and its policies regarding land use and growth, many different approaches emerge to address studentification.
Methods and Findings
Revington and Wray examined the official land-use and development plans of fifteen Ontario municipalities, including secondary plans, community improvement plans, strategy documents, zoning by-laws and university master plans regarding community development, as well as zoning maps. Based on this content analysis, they developed a four-part typology of different city planning approaches to student housing development.
1. Restriction: Restriction is defined as prohibiting the development of student housing in many city areas. London, hosting Western University, restricts student housing development by designating large swathes of real estate as unusable for student housing by virtue of historical preservation policies and prohibiting secondary dwellings.
2. Diversion: Diversion is defined as redirecting student housing development away from established residential areas. In Niagara Region, which is home to Brock University, an expressway and a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve adjacent to campus, all of which have caused students to seek housing farther afield. To counter the studentification of these more distant neighborhoods and promote economic development, regional and local policies encourage redevelopment of a nearby business park as mixed-use PBSA.
3. Intensification: Intensification is defined as increasing student housing development in place rather than diverting it elsewhere. Waterloo, hosting both Wilfrid Laurier and the University of Waterloo, has intensified the development of high density dwellings, including PBSAs, in one of its formerly low-density, middle-class neighborhoods to support both students and a wider population.
4. Limited Intervention: Limited intervention involves limited or undefined city policies regarding student housing development. Thunder Bay, a city with slow growth with a small university, has little pressure on the housing market from students. As a result, Thunder Bay, taking a limited intervention approach, has no official designation of any area enabling or restricting student use and redevelopment.
The authors also found that municipalities’ inclusion in larger growth management policies might affect municipalities’ approach towards student housing: all communities with diversion or intensification policies were subject to density requirements to manage growth, while nearly all communities with restriction policies were not included in the provincial growth plan.
Conclusion
This typology may be useful in examining the issue of student housing on a more international level and may serve as a framework for future policymakers to consider. By considering the relationship of both policy and development, the researchers hope future policymakers can examine the role and implications PBSAs have in their own communities and better understand how to address studentification.
Citations
Allinson, J. (2006). Over-educated, over-exuberant and over here?
The impact of students on cities. Planning Practice and Research, 21(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450600901541
Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37(8), 1175–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.016
Brookfield, K. (2019). Studentified areas as contested heterotopias: Findings from Southampton. Area, 51(2), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12458
Fincher, R., & Shaw, K. (2009). The unintended segregation of transnational students in central Melbourne. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(8), 1884–1902. https://doi.org/10.1068/a41126
Frierson, J. S. (2005). How are local governments responding to student rental problems in university towns in the united States, Canada, and England? Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, 33, 497–542.
Hubbard, P. (2009). Geographies of studentification and purpose-built student accommodation: leading separate lives? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(8), 1903–1923. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4149
Kenna, T. (2011). Studentification in Ireland? Analysing the impacts of students and student accommodation on Cork City. Irish Geography, 44(2–3), 191–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00750778.2011.618073
Kemp, R. L. (2014). Town and gown relations revitalize America’s downtowns. National Civic Review, 103(2), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21190
Lager, D., & van Hoven, B. (2019). Exploring the experienced impact of studentification on ageing-in-place. Urban Planning, 4(2), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i2.1947
Laidley, T. M. (2014). The privatization of college housing: Poverty, affordability, and the U.S. Public University. Housing Policy Debate, 24(4), 751–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2013.875053
Miessner, M. (2021). Studentification in Germany: How investors generate profits from student tenants in Goettingen and the impacts on urban segregation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 28(2), 133–154. https:// doi.org/10.1177/096977642093485
Munro, M., & Livingston, M. (2012). Student impacts on urban neighbourhoods: Policy approaches, discourses and dilemmas. Urban Studies, 49(8), 1679–1694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011419237
Pickren, G. (2012). “Where can i build my student housing?” The politics of studentification in Athens-Clarke County. Southeastern Geographer, 52(2), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2012.0019
Revington, N. (2021). Age segregation, intergenerationality, and class monopoly rent in the student housing sub market. Antipode, 53(4), 1228–1250.
https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12710
Sage, J., Smith, D., & Hubbard, P. (2012). The diverse geographies of studentification: Living alongside people Not like Us. Housing Studies, 27(8), 1057–1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2012.728570
Smith, D. P. (2005). ‘Studentification’: The gentrification factory?. In R. Atkinson & G. Bridge (Eds.), Gentrification in a global context: The new urban colonialism (pp. 73–90). Routledge.
Woldoff, R. A., & Weiss, K. G. (2018). Studentification and disorder in a college town. City & Community, 17(1), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12279
How and where to house students is a question facing university communities around the world. Yet there remains little research on how land use policy has addressed this question. Nick Revington and Alexander James David Wray’s article, “Land-Use Planning Approaches to Near-Campus Neighborhoods and Student Housing Development Patterns in Ontario, Canada,” builds upon analysis of land use policies in fifteen different Ontario municipalities to develop a typology of four different land use approaches to student housing: restriction, diversion, intensification, or limited intervention.
Studentification and Ontario, Canada
Studentification, or the development or transition of residential and commercial areas for student use, is a phenomenon with both negative and positive aspects. On one hand, complaints from the local community about noise, littering, parking, vandalism, and violations of open container drinking laws are common (Hubbard, 2008; Munro & Livingston, 2012; Sage et al., 2012; Smith, 2005; Woldoff & Weiss, 2018). The neglect of student rental units by both tenants and landlords is a cause for concern (Brookfield, 2019; Miessner, 2021), as is the displacement of families and older or poorer residents as public services cater to students instead (Lager & van Hoven, 2019; Laidley, 2014; Munro & Livingston, 2012; Pickren, 2012; Sage et al., 2012). On the other hand, students create cultural capital, provide financial support for local businesses, and stimulate investment in the public services that cater to them (Allinson, 2006; Kemp, 2014). Localities have taken a wide array of approaches to student housing. Some cities allow the development of PBSAs, or purpose-built student accommodations, which are multi-bedroom private apartments with amenities for the student lifestyle (Fincher & Shaw, 2009; Hubbard, 2009; Kenna, 2011; Miessner, 2021; Revington, 2021; Smith & Hubbard, 2014). Some create bureaucratic barriers to prevent the conversion of single rentals into student housing by requiring licenses, registrations, and provisions (Frierson, 2005; Hubbard, 2008; Munro & Livingston, 2012). Some rely upon “town and gown” committees involving both campus officials and local townsfolk and officials to integrate students into the community, and hold universities responsible for providing a certain percentage of on-campus housing. Ontario, Canada, home to twenty public universities in fifteen college municipalities, is no stranger to studentification. There is high demand for off-campus housing among upper-year students. Student-oriented land development also falls into the larger policy question of growth management that the Ontario government contends with. The Greenbelt Act and the Places to Grow Act are policies set at the provincial level that intend to limit development in ecologically sensitive areas, identify high-density areas for redevelopment, and designate areas to grow jobs and commerce (Hodge et al., 2017)–all policies that affect the question of studentification. Within the context of Ontario’s higher education system and its policies regarding land use and growth, many different approaches emerge to address studentification.
Methods and Findings
Revington and Wray examined the official land-use and development plans of fifteen Ontario municipalities, including secondary plans, community improvement plans, strategy documents, zoning by-laws and university master plans regarding community development, as well as zoning maps. Based on this content analysis, they developed a four-part typology of different city planning approaches to student housing development.
1. Restriction: Restriction is defined as prohibiting the development of student housing in many city areas. London, hosting Western University, restricts student housing development by designating large swathes of real estate as unusable for student housing by virtue of historical preservation policies and prohibiting secondary dwellings.
2. Diversion: Diversion is defined as redirecting student housing development away from established residential areas. In Niagara Region, which is home to Brock University, an expressway and a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve adjacent to campus, all of which have caused students to seek housing farther afield. To counter the studentification of these more distant neighborhoods and promote economic development, regional and local policies encourage redevelopment of a nearby business park as mixed-use PBSA.
3. Intensification: Intensification is defined as increasing student housing development in place rather than diverting it elsewhere. Waterloo, hosting both Wilfrid Laurier and the University of Waterloo, has intensified the development of high density dwellings, including PBSAs, in one of its formerly low-density, middle-class neighborhoods to support both students and a wider population.
4. Limited Intervention: Limited intervention involves limited or undefined city policies regarding student housing development. Thunder Bay, a city with slow growth with a small university, has little pressure on the housing market from students. As a result, Thunder Bay, taking a limited intervention approach, has no official designation of any area enabling or restricting student use and redevelopment.
The authors also found that municipalities’ inclusion in larger growth management policies might affect municipalities’ approach towards student housing: all communities with diversion or intensification policies were subject to density requirements to manage growth, while nearly all communities with restriction policies were not included in the provincial growth plan.
Conclusion
This typology may be useful in examining the issue of student housing on a more international level and may serve as a framework for future policymakers to consider. By considering the relationship of both policy and development, the researchers hope future policymakers can examine the role and implications PBSAs have in their own communities and better understand how to address studentification.
Citations
Allinson, J. (2006). Over-educated, over-exuberant and over here?
The impact of students on cities. Planning Practice and Research, 21(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450600901541
Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37(8), 1175–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.016
Brookfield, K. (2019). Studentified areas as contested heterotopias: Findings from Southampton. Area, 51(2), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12458
Fincher, R., & Shaw, K. (2009). The unintended segregation of transnational students in central Melbourne. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(8), 1884–1902. https://doi.org/10.1068/a41126
Frierson, J. S. (2005). How are local governments responding to student rental problems in university towns in the united States, Canada, and England? Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, 33, 497–542.
Hubbard, P. (2009). Geographies of studentification and purpose-built student accommodation: leading separate lives? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(8), 1903–1923. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4149
Kenna, T. (2011). Studentification in Ireland? Analysing the impacts of students and student accommodation on Cork City. Irish Geography, 44(2–3), 191–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00750778.2011.618073
Kemp, R. L. (2014). Town and gown relations revitalize America’s downtowns. National Civic Review, 103(2), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21190
Lager, D., & van Hoven, B. (2019). Exploring the experienced impact of studentification on ageing-in-place. Urban Planning, 4(2), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i2.1947
Laidley, T. M. (2014). The privatization of college housing: Poverty, affordability, and the U.S. Public University. Housing Policy Debate, 24(4), 751–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2013.875053
Miessner, M. (2021). Studentification in Germany: How investors generate profits from student tenants in Goettingen and the impacts on urban segregation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 28(2), 133–154. https:// doi.org/10.1177/096977642093485
Munro, M., & Livingston, M. (2012). Student impacts on urban neighbourhoods: Policy approaches, discourses and dilemmas. Urban Studies, 49(8), 1679–1694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011419237
Pickren, G. (2012). “Where can i build my student housing?” The politics of studentification in Athens-Clarke County. Southeastern Geographer, 52(2), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2012.0019
Revington, N. (2021). Age segregation, intergenerationality, and class monopoly rent in the student housing sub market. Antipode, 53(4), 1228–1250.
https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12710
Sage, J., Smith, D., & Hubbard, P. (2012). The diverse geographies of studentification: Living alongside people Not like Us. Housing Studies, 27(8), 1057–1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2012.728570
Smith, D. P. (2005). ‘Studentification’: The gentrification factory?. In R. Atkinson & G. Bridge (Eds.), Gentrification in a global context: The new urban colonialism (pp. 73–90). Routledge.
Woldoff, R. A., & Weiss, K. G. (2018). Studentification and disorder in a college town. City & Community, 17(1), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12279
|
Whether you're an author, a practitioner, a student, or just someone who cares about housing - we would love to hear from you.
Email us at [email protected]. |
FOLLOW HPD:
|