Community Benefits Through an Anchor: Contestations During the Planning of the Obama Presidential Center

With the privatization of urban development, anchor institutions are becoming stakeholders in neighborhood revitalization. Cities are eager for anchors due to their purported benefits, but residents are often wary of negative externalities and push for more accountability. This study uses new urban regime theory and focuses on the contestations during an anchor's planning and analyzes the significance of the contestations’ associated outcomes. I use the case of the Obama Presidential Center and the Obama Foundation's rejection of a community benefits agreement to show how anchors can promote a community vision that supersedes that of residents and local organizations. Interviews with organizational stakeholders and analysis of planning materials reveal competing positions regarding organizational identity, community definitions, and racial legitimacy. Enforcing accountability with anchors will require city governments to critique meanings of neighborhood revitalization, prioritize local voices and consider impacts for all large developments, irrespective of whether they are for-profit or non-profit.