Following the new plan to create a tighter bond between local residents and the University community, it’s important to evaluate whether this will actually lead to any fundamental changes. As reported by Varsity, this proposed framework seeks to open physical, cultural and intellectual spaces, and to promote educational and skills development for local people. Yet, as a student who lives, studies, and socialises in Cambridge I can’t help but wonder whether this will actually lead to helpful innovation or if it is just another attempt to bridge a ‘divide’ without truly understanding what it is.

One thing is for certain; Cambridge is special. Its intellectual history, elegant colleges and grand spires represent a certain academic prestige which it has upheld for centuries. Yet this also borders on exclusivity. The fact that around one in five residents who responded to the consultation “reported little or no connection” to the university is telling of the environment that it creates. Although the ‘town and gown’ divide doesn’t stem from any lack of goodwill, but rather structural inequalities, it is evident that even in 2025 many people still do not believe they belong in Cambridge’s orbit.

“What does the ambiguous mission of “opening up physical, cultural and intellectual spaces” really mean?”

What does the ambiguous mission of “opening up physical, cultural and intellectual spaces” really mean? Is this an endeavour to propose free public lectures, more accessible libraries and a better housing policy, or just generic charity events in the name of “outreach policy”? My fear is the latter. This would lead to the common pattern of local communities being rendered passive recipients of the university’s ‘benevolence,’ rather than becoming active team players with agency. Unless this framework signals a real shift towards structural change, it risks becoming another PR tool rooted in optics rather than reality.

Let’s look at housing for example. Cameron Holloway, Leader of Cambridge City Council, stated that the framework would be a “step towards” confronting housing inequality and access to opportunity. But if Cambridge is truly set on bridging the divide it must focus on issues with housing displacement, rising rents, and the tension between university demand and local affordability. If these fundamental flaws are not tackled, the opening of a few “spaces” will only feel superficial.

At the heart of the debate is the question of who really holds the power within this discussion. On whose term will the civic framework operate? Too often, institutions will focus on a top-down approach for civic initiatives, thus giving locals only a minor role in the changes. If the University is serious about changing its relationship within the city, it must consult the people living in it throughout the process, not just in order to make symbolic gestures. Local residents should be given the opportunity to shape outcomes and influence priorities when it comes to the changes made within Cambridge.

“It should recognise the importance of existing communities within Cambridge”

Moreover, there is another issue with the framework as it emphasises the support of “educational and skills development – particularly for young people” which suggests a narrow view of community value if only the younger generation is to benefit academically. Cambridge is home to a diverse population from all walks of life: elderly locals, tradespeople, unemployed people, families. Therefore community outreach should not just be about training a future workforce, it should recognise the importance of existing communities within Cambridge too. Otherwise, the framework risks sounding like the city’s true value stems from what it can produce for the University, rather than what the University can contribute to the city.

However, this framework is not useless. It is rare for an institution to recognise the divide within its city, let alone to make the effort to bridge the gap. For students, they could gain new opportunities in volunteering or partnership work with local businesses. Yet in order for this to be a true framework, structural change has to occur, not just symbolic gestures.

It is also important to consider the reality that, in the survey, 88% of the participants felt that the University “makes a positive contribution to Cambridge”. Therefore, it is evident that the overall civilian experience does benefit from the academic institution and community within the city. It is essential then that the framework suggested by the University preserves this optimistic outlook, whilst also ensuring that the so-called “positive contribution” is reflected in the daily lives of Cambridge’s inhabitants, not just in the city’s image.

If the civic plan is to succeed, it needs transparent housing policy, genuine investment in local services, ongoing spaces for local voices and a formal mechanism for accountability. Until this happens, the framework feels like another University mission that appears good on paper, whilst doing little to shift the true inequalities.

Cambridge may want to close the ‘town and gown’ divide, but for this to happen, it needs to stop talking about “bridges” and start building the foundations first.