Teaching and Learning Guide for: From Citadels of Education to Cartier Latins (and Back?): The Changing Landscapes of Student Populations in European Cities
Authors: Russo Antonio Paolo , Tatjer Laura Capel 
Published: March 2010

This guide accompanies the following article: Antonio Paolo Russo and Laura Capel Tatjer, ‘From Citadels of Education to Cartier Latins (and Back?): The Changing Landscapes of Student Populations in European Cities’, Geography Compass 1 (2007): 1160–1189, doi: 10.1111/j.1749‐8198.2007.00056.xAuthors’ IntroductionThis article introduces a research theme that is gaining ground in the urban studies literature. The broader context is that of urban development in the age of mobility [defined as a new methodological paradigm in social sciences in recent works by John Urry (See for instance: Sheller, M. and J. Urry (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A 38 (2): 207–226; and Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.)].Among the many forces shaping the development of the economic and social fabric of cities, universities are possibly the most important. Not only because academies produce knowledge, which is the main input for the contemporary information‐based service economy, one that is strongly urban in nature, but also because universities draw to cities large and varied student communities, and increasingly so, as student mobility booms across the world. In general, this is now seen as a highly desirable thing, due to the ‘turn’ in local politics towards the attraction of talent and the nurturing of creative lifestyles.Cities thus develop as ‘temporary playgrounds’ where students not only study and learn, but also perform their peculiar cultural and social life, establishing a rupture with traditional citizenships based on work and permanent residence. They undergo studentification, in the sense of an urban landscape progressively shaped by the practices of students, that is accompanied by more or less overt policy initiatives to accommodate this dynamism as a source of gains to specific sectors of the community (real estate companies, to start with).However, studentification also poses a series of urban management problems, especially in relation to other user groups. This is best analysed making reference to the historical evolution of student settlements, which tend to follow a distinct pattern, framed by the type and location of campus facilities and by changes in the value structure in the city. The end result could be suboptimal, to the extent that the influence of students on the urban economy is underplayed and the conflicts with the local population are maximised.In this article, we propose a simplified ‘model’ for this evolution and address the problems and policies that should steer this development towards a better integration of students in the social and economic fabric of the city. We use the two cases of Barcelona and Lille, cities that have been thriving from the emergence of distinct student landscapes in their recent regeneration, as exemplary illustrations of that development and of mistakes and wise decisions in policy‐making.Author Recommends 1. Allinson, J. (2006). Over‐educated, over‐exuberant and over here? The impact of students on cities. Planning, Practice and Research 21 (1), pp. 79–94, doi: 10.1080/02697450600901541 This article represents a broad analysis of the development of higher education in the UK and of the implications at the local level. It discusses how UK cities have come to absorb the increase in student populations (almost doubled to 1.2 million in the decade of the 1990s as a result of lifelong education policies) in specific urban areas where they produced major impacts, mostly presented in negative terms. It so does by investigating the reasons for the ‘clustering’ of students in certain areas of cities, considering the impacts of studentification on the ‘indigenous population’ of these areas and discussing the implications for the general vitality of those cities. 2. Hubbard, P. (2008). Regulating the social impacts of studentification: a Loughborough case study. Environment and Planning A 40 (2), pp. 323–341, doi: 10.1068/a396 This paper defines studentification as a process by which specific neighbourhoods become dominated by student residential occupation. Outlining the causes and consequences of this process, this paper suggests that studentification raises important questions about community cohesiveness and that intervention may be required by local authorities if social and cultural conflicts are to be avoided. Detailing the social impacts of studentification in Loughborough, a market town in the English East Midlands, the paper accordingly considers recent housing policies designed to prevent the formation of exclusive ‘student ghettos’. The paper concludes by suggesting that the relationship between students and the wider community requires differentiated responses in terms of regulation if town–university tensions are to be effectively managed. The paper also compares the Loughborough case with other UK university towns where the challenges and opportunities associated with studentification have been differently addressed. 3. Chatterton, P. (1999). University students and city centres – the formation of exclusive geographies. The case of Bristol, UK. Geoforum 30, pp. 117–133, doi:10.1016/S0016‐7185(98)00028‐1 This paper analyses critically the presence of students in city centres and the internal articulation of this cohort, the power forces that are responsible for attracting them into cities and developing student‐oriented landscapes, and the forms of exclusion and conflict with original urban functions that result from this development. It especially focuses on infrastructure connected to the middle‐class students’ social activity, which adds up to ‘segregating’ post‐modern trajectories of British (and in general Western) cities. The approach is critical because for this author the ‘studentification’ of cities is vested in the public discourse as a positive, desirable move towards a creative economy. The study is based on a case study of Bristol city centre. 4. Felsenstein, D. (1996). The university in the metropolitan arena: impacts and public policy implications. Urban Studies 33 (9), pp. 1565–1580, doi: 10.1080/0042098966501 Among many other similar research‐based papers, this is possibly the most comprehensive study of the economic impacts of universities in metropolitan areas, as it takes into consideration both expenditure generated by the academic community and knowledge‐related linkages. These impacts can have either positive or negative signs and can operate in both the short and long terms. The article uses a case study of the impacts of Northwestern University on the Chicago metropolitan area. The analysis emphasises the magnitude of the university expenditure links with the metropolitan economy and the importance of scale when comparing these with more localised negative impacts. It then discusses some public policy implications, centred on the role of the university as a non‐profit organisation competing with local businesses and as an export base sector in the metropolitan economy. 5. Florida, R. (2003). Cities and the creative class. City & Community 1 (2), pp. 3–19, doi: 10.1111/1540‐6040.00034 The main persona behind the increasingly popular – and frequently criticised –‘creative class’ concept moves in this paper from the definition and characterisation of this grouping of symbolic mediators and producers, seen as the backbone of (and paradigmatic asset for) urban development in the information age, to the strategies that cities should deploy to attract and retain these human resources, ranging from investments in infrastructure and symbolic capital to softer interventions to strengthen knowledge assets (including top higher education facilities), city image, communication style and integration programmes, to be delivered by coalitions of public and private stakeholders. 6. Hall, P. (1997). The University and the City. GeoJournal 41 (4), pp. 301–309, doi 10.1023/A:1006806727397 In this article, one of the most celebrated scholars in urban studies discusses the historical evolution and the existing models of university campuses as an economic booster for cities and regions. It so does by examining a number of exemplary cases of campus development in various areas of the world and in different periods, and focusing on the role of technical and vocational universities. It then analyses the new challenges facing university planning at the beginning of the information age. 7. Martinotti, G. (1997). Perceiving, conceiving, achieving the sustainable city. Synthesis report. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. This work by the Italian urban sociologist is an extract of his most famous work (only published in Italian) Metropolis. In his works, urbanisation is conceived as the progressive superimposition in the urban space of populations characterised by different ties with place and different space–time patterns in its use. The ‘third‐generation metropolis’ hosts various population groups: the sedentary original residents plus commuting workers, immigrant workers and students, tourists and global business travellers, characterised by increasing levels of mobility and transience in the city, and a different power to mould the values and images of urban landscapes according to their specific performances and lifestyles, sometimes generating conflict and exclusion. The sustainable city is one that manages to accommodate such diversity, building bridges between such groups and deriving strengths from their coexistence. 8. Russo, A. P., van den Berg, L. and Lavanga, M. (2007). Towards a sustainable relationship between city and university: a stakeholdership approach. Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (2), pp. 199–216, doi: 10.1177/0739456X07307208 This article focuses on the relations between the main actors behind the economic dynamics of the triple helix: universities, enterprises and government, and on the urban policies that could fine‐tune their local interests. It does so by adopting a stakeholders’ approach: academies, firms and governments are embodied by communities (respectively the body of lecturers and especially students, entrepreneurs and workers, and original residents) that establish various ties with place and transactions between them. The paper looks into the balance that should be achieved in their search of an ‘optimum’ in their citizenship, accounting for differences in their ties with place and survival strategies, and into the reasons for which this balance could be hampered, and so collective benefits from their collaboration missed. It then proposes a number of policy initiatives that aim at redressing such balance and achieve a knowledge‐based economy more solidly rooted to place. 9. Russo, A. P. and Arias Sans, A. (2009). Student communities and landscapes of creativity: how Venice –‘the world’s most touristed city’– is changing. European Urban and Regional Studies 16 (2), pp. 175–189, doi: 10.1177/0969776409102189 This third article co‐authored by A. P. Russo focuses on students as active agents in cultural production, enhancing the attractiveness of urban areas where they settle for empathic cultural consumers. This is a particularly relevant issue for heritage cities, as most historical university cities around Europe, and especially Venice, the case study treated in this paper. In this city, where mass‐tourism landscapes, residential spaces and student settlements have historically been spatially and temporally segregated, increased student mass is now producing a new dynamics for which some cultural tourists become patrons of student‐oriented activities, breaking up with the spatial and behavioural model of mass tourism. The paper generalises arguing that ‘unbranded’ creative actors are strategically important for the regeneration of mass‐tourism enclaves and argues that in order to stabilise this process, residence and citizenship issues need to be solved.Cities, Universities and Urban Development: Topics for elaboration and discussion 1. The role of universities in urban development Ref.: Hall 1997; Felsenstein 1995

What are the main economic impacts of universities in cities? What types of linkages should be considered in this estimation?
What are the most desirable models of campus development and orientation of academies in order to boost the economic impacts of universities?
What are the relative adavantages/disadvantages of small‐sized, historical city centres in capturing the full range of economic effects from higher education?

2. Students and academic communities in the information age Ref.: Martinotti 1997; Florida 2003

Can you characterise students as a homogeneous or ‘urban population’? What are their main characteristics regarding the spatial and time aspects of their use of the city, differentiating them from other user groups?
Are student populations internally differentiated? Can you identify three main groups of higher education students with different characteristics regarding their relationship with place and their behavioural pattern in cities?
Could all higher education students be considered part of the ‘creative class’? What is their relation with other representatives of the creative class (like symbolic producers and mediators)? What can cities do attract, manage and retain talented students?

3. Patterns and impacts of studentification Ref.: Russo and Tatjer 2007; Allinson 2006; Hubbard 2008

In which areas of the city do students tend to cluster, especially in relation with the location of campus facilities? Can you observe regular patterns in your city/region? Is there an historical evolution in this pattern over the last decades?
Where do students gather and socialise? How could you describe ‘student activity areas’ of your city/region in terms of cost, image, accessibility, openness to other urban actors, centrality in public policy and planning initiatives?
What is the public perception of those areas? Are local residents welcoming or resisting this ‘colonisation’? Is the local government reacting by hindering student concentration, of favouring it, and through what policy initiatives?

4. Studentships, student identities and performances Ref.: Chatterton 1999; Russo and Arias Sans 2009

Can you describe the main identitarian elements of being a university student in your city/region? Is the student community mixed (racially and by class) or segregated? Does it ‘blend in’ with the local population in similar age groups? Are there evident gender differences to that respect? Do students participate in local public (e.g. political, associational) life?
What could be the attitudes of the locals with respect to student areas? Are student areas considered ‘trendy’, ‘exclusive’ or ‘rowdy’ by the locals?
How does student activity (both academic and social) affect the city economy and especially that of the areas more densely populated by the student community? Can you observe evident phenomena of property and commodities’ price increases or slumps in areas which are ‘taken over’ by student populations in your city/regions? Did that imply an inflow/outflow of local residents?

5. Urban management for a sustainable university‐city relationship Ref.: Russo, van den Berg and Lavanga 2007; Felsenstein 2005; Florida 2003; Hubbard, 2008

Should cities favour/hinder the clustering of student activities and campus development in specific parts of the city, according to different urban structures?
What are the main policy initiatives that could be taken at the local/regional level to connect more closely universities with the local economy?
Could/should students be the object of specific policy initiatives by the local government? How can they be led to integrate more closely with the local community?

Online Resources http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/eastmidlands/series5/students_behaviour.shtml A BBC reportage on the studentification and town–gown conflicts in East Midland cities like Loughborough, with plenty of testimonials given by students and residents, and a readers’ forum. http://www.traveldodo.com/tag/student/ A travel website (as many others) with a young audience orientation, providing recommendations of good places for a foreign study experience, based on the readers’ accounts. Notably, these places are advertised as ‘cool city with a university and great facilities for students like nightclubs, cheap bars, friendly locals and best low budget accommodation’ (quality of university being seemingly, the least important issue in this list). An example of new gatekeepers of studentification, based on the Web 2.0 concept? http://www.birminghamliveandlearn.co.uk/ Institutional promotion of Birmingham as a student city. ‘Bars, clubs and attractions’ are always at the forefront. ‘Live’ in general is given much more emphasis (included graphically) than ‘learn’. http://www.manchester.ac.uk/undergraduate/ourreputation/thestudentcity/ A similar (but stylistically very different) web of the University of Manchester. And very politically correct too: in Manchester you easily get both the Kosher food and the Halal food. http://www.habitatgejove.com/webv2c/en/index.htm This website is much used in the Barcelona’s student community. It works like a clearing house between supply and demand of private accommodation in the city, providing guarantees to students and to landlords. Access to this service is restricted to registered students and protects them against the competition of the tourist letting market.