Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know most if not all large metro areas have at least one university but for smaller cities and even towns that is not the case. I live in Pueblo and we have a university that is growing, Colorado State University - Pueblo, and I have always wondered why some cities get major universities and some do not as they seem to have a direct impact on the regions growth. What do you guys think the reasons are?
It all comes down to where powerful state legislators lived when the addition of a state university was being discussed. Since they're the classic high wage-high skill enterprise, almost everyone would welcome one in their town. Look at the Upper Peninsula of Michigan- middle of last century, there were only about 400K people living there (about 5% of the state's population) but it ended up with 3 different state universities during that time because certain UP legislators had huge amounts of political power in the Michigan state House and Senate.
All of that makes sense. Now maybe we can change this to the kind of impact a major university will have on the urban environment of a city and region. I know CSU Pueblo is causing the north east part of Pueblo to devlop a walkable urban area. Is that common for all colleges and universities in a city?
No. Many colleges are commuter schools--they are built horizontally, with huge parking lots, in greenfield areas. All of the small vocational colleges, junior colleges and state universities where I live are commuter schools in suburban neighborhoods or low-rise office parks--even one that is near-legendary for its bikeability has huge parking lots for students who live in nearby cities and commute by car.
It all comes down to where powerful state legislators lived when the addition of a state university was being discussed. Since they're the classic high wage-high skill enterprise, almost everyone would welcome one in their town. Look at the Upper Peninsula of Michigan- middle of last century, there were only about 400K people living there (about 5% of the state's population) but it ended up with 3 different state universities during that time because certain UP legislators had huge amounts of political power in the Michigan state House and Senate.
I agree with this statement. It's political. Gov. Brown Sr. pushed to get colleges in Santa Cruz and Irvine to change the political environment there. Santa Cruz changed, but Irvine and the Orange Curtain did not.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
During the second period of adding public universities (around 1906) in Kentucky often towns would hold fundraisers to land the new universities, the town that raised the most got the school. That's why Murray has a university but Paducah (historically much larger/ important) doesn't.
For the original land grant act (1865) in Kentucky Lexington got the flagship school (UK) because Louisville already had a large university (U of L). It's odd that in one of America's most rural states the two main research universities are located in the state's two largest cities!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
