Are For-Profit Developments Consistent With the Values of a Public University?
This article was originally published on Common Edge.
A generous donor saved the old Berkeley Art Museum building, creating the Baker BioEnginuity Hub. The donor understood the value of this architecturally significant building, designed by Mario Ciampi, which was too expensive and difficult for the university to renovate. Its use as a private company incubator, however, despite its programs for student engagement, might best be described as mission-adjacent and its dramatic interior spaces and lovely garden are no longer accessible to the public. This closing night of the old museum. Image © Bruce Damonte
This article was originally published on Common Edge.
I am by no means an expert on public-private partnerships. But for about 10 years, as the University of California Berkeley’s campus planner and then campus architect, I watched these developments play out in higher education—sometimes from a front-row seat, sometimes as a participant. During that time, this strategy, promoted with great enthusiasm and optimism, was touted as the answer to whatever problem arose. And yet the definition of a public-private partnership was slippery. The concept itself seemed to be all things for all people, depending on what was needed, who was recommending it, and what equivalents (if any) existed outside the university. The bandwagon continues to play today, making it ever more important to nail down the pros and cons of this development strategy, not only for colleges and universities, but for all public decision-making.
What's Your Reaction?
