<p>@History1: I think the first article captures the situation relatively fairly and makes clear what we have been saying: that Cornell was the superior proposal, negating any non-factual claims suggesting it was up to Stanford to decide whether they would win or lose.</p>
<p>^ it also validates the other points made about Stanford refusing to cave on stringent conditions and thus walking away. Cornell/Technion just said “yes, yes, yes, whatever you like,” so in that sense, they were above and beyond the best choice: agreeing to take the hit if there’s toxic waste, agreeing to take the hit if that causes delays, etc. But in terms of what they had to offer originally, it’s unlikely that Cornell/Technion and Stanford/CCNY had proposals of very different quality. That’s why Bloomberg said in a speech that because the proposals were so competitive, the EDC was going to go back and renegotiate with each to get more out of them. Stanford didn’t cave, Cornell did.</p>
<p>So basically, every side of this debate was right one way or another.</p>
<p>history1,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You accuse 4thfloor of ignoring evidence, and then you do it yourself. As the article states, most of the universities still in the running were wary after the EDC started laying down new conditions. Cornell/Technion was the only one to cave.</p>
<p>@phantasmagoric, by saying every side of the argument is correct, you ignore the statements by the mayor’s office and development office that said Cornell’s was the best proposal received. Period. </p>
<p>And I in no way ignored any evidence provided. Contrary to what 4thfloor did, I actually responded to a point in the article, expressing my skepticism at some points made. As someone in the legal field who has studied contracts, I can tell you that the attorneys quoted are seriously incorrect in their statements and analogies. And given that SU was the only university not to “cave” (although there is no credible evidence to show that any of the other universities “caved” . . . statements from SU administrators on the matter don’t exactly count for much), further doubt is thrown on some of the arguments being made on your side and in the article. You can try to say that SU didn’t win because it was unwilling to go along, but the facts that we have do not support such an assertion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you can’t take it at face value: the mayor could have been referring to the modified proposal, in which Cornell caved on all the restrictions in the negotiations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly what the facts are supporting. They’re also supporting that Cornell ultimately had a better proposal since after incorporating the additional conditions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Statements from every side have to be taken with a grain of salt - this is politics!</p>
<p>I take it at face value because the official statements by Bloomberg and the development office (and the unofficial statements made anonymously by others involved in the decision-making process) don’t support any other conclusion. To suggest otherwise, you need to provide credible evidence to back your argument for a different interpretation of the remarks. As applejack has written, you try to make your points by providing your own interpretation to statements made. Might these statements in question ultimately mean what you claim they may? Perhaps. But without more to go off of when you’re providing your own alternative meaning to them is not adequate enough. </p>
<p>Statements from SU administrators don’t count for much as SU was not privy to the other proposals nor to negotiations between the city and other competitors. SU’s statements are, thus, pure speculation; I don’t rely on any statements made by Cornell officials for the exact same reason. The statements by Bloomberg and other officials involved in the decision making process are, for the opposite reasons, more solid as evidence to come to a conclusion as to what went down.</p>
<p>Not to mention that, due to the lack of knowledge of the official campus proposals from the different universities, I don’t see how you can say that there were no significant differences between SU’s and Cornell’s proposals. By writing this, you also (again) ignore some of the key differences that we know did exist between the proposals as were explained at Bloomberg’s press conference. Saying Cornell “caved” is no more supported than any of your other arguments.</p>
<p>General response to the articles: I think David Pakman is right that NYC needed Stanford more, and it’s a big loss to NYC tech not to have Stanford there, for many reasons. To cultivate something like a tech industry, there are many factors:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Engineering/CS prowess. Stanford has a critical mass of the top professors (e.g. 5x the NAE members), who attract the best grad students, researchers, etc. as well as more funding for fundamental research (hence why, for example, Stanford has about 2x the amount in research expenditures, despite have 1/3 fewer faculty than Cornell). These people are the ones who found spin-out companies from the research done at the university. Cornell’s one of the best in this criterion, but Stanford’s still far ahead.</p></li>
<li><p>The ability to build cutting-edge facilities to foster this research. I think Cornell/Technion and Stanford would have been equally capable here.</p></li>
<li><p>Support for entrepreneurship/tech ventures and the ability to create a culture of entrepreneurship. Stanford has this down pat - its main claim to fame, the cornerstone of the university, etc. The Office of Technology Licensing and the Stanford Technology Ventures Program are among the oldest and most successful, and are the “model” for other universities. Even MIT copied Stanford’s OTL model. I think Cornell can get the support part down, but it’s difficult to create a culture.</p></li>
<li><p>The availability of venture capital funds. You can’t start a company without money. Cornell’s offering $150 million in venture capital, but if you look at the portfolios of the VC companies that Stanford is connected to (esp. the ones that line the side of campus on Sand Hill), $150 million is peanuts. For Series A funding, that’d support about 15 companies, and considering that most companies fail, this isn’t much. In 2003 Stanford’s venture capital investments were valued at about $2 billion, and given that its 10-year annualized return rate on private equity has exceeded 10%, it’s likely that its VC portfolio is much, much larger now.</p></li>
<li><p>The ability to attract people, tech companies, and venture capitalists to a central area. I think both would be able to do this, but Stanford would find it easier and might end up being more successful with it, given its prestige and its role in Silicon Valley now and before (e.g. it could bring VCs over to NYC with it). Bringing in outsiders is what created SV in the first place.</p></li>
<li><p>A concentrated area of buildings dedicated to incubating startup companies. This would be difficult for either Stanford or Cornell, because NYC is so condensed. Stanford had the 700-acre research park, which was instrumental in creating SV.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I think that Cornell/Technion will be able to do this better than most. But NYC isn’t done after handing the project to them: NYC still needs to create a large area for the ‘incubation’ part and it needs to figure out a way to get more VC funding to the area. Cornell/Technion can help only with the latter.</p>
<p>As for the second article, I don’t think that innovation is leaving the “technological” behind and shifting toward “cultural” as the author suggests, and even if it is, Stanford isn’t losing out on culture by not being in NYC. The SF Bay Area is very culturally rich (I’d say second only to the NYC area), not that you even need the proximity of culture to be able to innovate in more social/cultural ways. The engineers that Stanford produces are often “culturistas,” or they know how to collaborate with such people. This might have something to do with the heavy integration of the d.school with the rest of Stanford’s engineering. Just look to Product Design, a popular major that’s in the department of mechanical engineering. Stanford has been innovating without being in NYC and it will continue to do so, especially considering how dynamic and flexible Stanford and SV are. They aren’t going to simply “react” to a shift in the requirements of innovation; they are going to drive that shift, if such should actually occur.</p>
<p>Wow I had no idea this banter was still going back and forth…</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Why are we splitting hairs over this? This was never really a competition, it was just a great initiative that will provide an amazing opportunity to Cornell and NYC.</p></li>
<li><p>After reading everything, it seems to me that the following is what happened:</p>
<ol>
<li>Bloomberg wanted an engineering school to recreate Silicon Valley in NYC. Stanford was his model - when Stanford joined the competition, it was the immediate frontrunner.</li>
<li>Once proposals were submitted, Cornell’s was more attractive. They were willing to go further than Stanford, as they really wanted this opportunity. This made the decision harder for Bloomberg - Cornell had the better proposal, but in truth, he wanted Stanford as they had already proven they could create the sort of tech-business spurring environment that he wanted. </li>
<li>Now torn between Cornell and Stanford, the negotiations began with both schools. Cornell, having already dealt with building an extremely successful large scale satellite campus in NYC (Weill Cornell), was more willing to take on some of the more arduous tasks involved and was considerably less worried about the demands of NYC. Stanford, not familiar with NYC, was more critical of the demands Bloomberg and the city required, and less likely to go along with them. What Cornell saw as part of the territory when building in NYC actually spooked Stanford a little bit - the liability just seemed too much. </li>
<li>Torn between the two schools, Bloomberg decided to go with Cornell when it became apparent Stanford was simply less willing to take on all of the liability he was asking. It was a smart move on Stanford’s part - if they were unfamiliar with the process, it was dangerous for them to risk so much money and commit to a contract like this. It became obvious to Stanford that NYC was unwilling to back down and that further negotiations were pointless when the city could just go with Cornell, so they pulled out.</li>
</ol></li>
</ol>
<p>So bottom line is this: it doesn’t matter! It’s over, let’s forget it. It’s kind of bizarre that people are still debating this. It seems we were both right - Stanford’s reputation in the area Bloomberg desired surpassed Cornell’s, yet Cornell’s more ambitious proposal and familiarity with doing business/building in NYC helped push the school over the top. </p>
<p>Regardless of the method used to reach this decision, however, I think we CAN all agree that this is an amazing opportunity for Cornell. If successful, Cornell’s reputation will increase several fold as major tech companies are founded at and remain connected to the university. This project could do for Cornell what Silicon Valley did for Stanford, and bring Cornell’s engineering/CS programs to preeminent positions.</p>
<p>@DarkIce: I generally agree with what you’ve written. As for me, I have no problem engaging in conversation with another. These posts only take a few minutes to write. As they say where I come from, “a little banter never hurt anyone” :)</p>
<p>You are also selectively ignoring evidence from the articles to spin the result in Cornell’s favor. The initial proposals were likely equally competitive, which is exactly what gave Bloomberg and the EDC the leverage to renegotiate. Cornell’s proposal became more attractive after Bloomberg went back and renegotiated with the universities. During this, Stanford became less attractive because it didn’t agree to the conditions. Also during this, Cornell became more attractive because it agreed to the conditions. Walking out of negotiations is common when one side simply doesn’t agree to the deal. That’s what happened with Stanford. However, Cornell probably would have been chosen regardless of how Stanford acted - because it agreed to the conditions. Thus you can interpret it either way: Stanford, whether it publicly stayed in competition or not, was “out” because it refused the conditions. Cornell’s proposal was ultimately the best, because the renegotiation led to a stronger proposal from Cornell.</p>
<p>You just want to see it as Cornell “beating” Stanford. The fact that you derive such pleasure from this thought is rather pitiful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cornell anticipated many of the development procedures, like the ULURP (although Stanford has long had to deal with something similarly difficult in Palo Alto). But it definitely didn’t anticipate that there might be toxic waste under the hospital and if there were, that NYC would expect Cornell to foot the bill for it, and that if it caused a delay in construction, Cornell could be taken to court for it, etc. Despite these stringent conditions, Cornell still caved.</p>
<p>Are you reading what you’re writing? First you say that I am ignoring evidence from the article, then you go on to assume that the Cornell and SU proposals were “likely” equally competitive and that Cornell’s proposal only ultimately won after SU refused to accept some of what the City was asking for. For the love of all things good, I will write again that the credible facts do not support this! This is an interpretation that you are giving to a narrative that you want to exist. This narrative is not supported by facts. I have explained many times over what the information we have available to us is, and what we can take from that information. If you cannot understand that SU’s suggestion that Cornell won because they agreed to everything the city wanted (the only basis to support the bulk of your claim) is not sufficient evidence as it comes from a party that was not privy to negotiations between other parties and did not know the full details of each of the applicants’ proposals, then I don’t know what to do. FYI, pointing out why speculative statements made by SU administrators are not credible evidence to support your conclusion is not ignoring evidence. It is, unlike your continuous decision to completely disregard facts that don’t support your narrative, honestly confronting points in the article and explaining their use. Plain and simple. The only evidence we have from people who were actually involved in the decision-making process are statements that Cornell’s proposal was the best that came in. Period. Saying otherwise and claiming that I’m ignoring evidence (assuming that you are referring to me) in the articles to support your narrative does not make it so. Are the posters on this thread reaching the same conclusion pleased that Cornell won? Without a doubt. That said, this conclusion is the only one supported by available facts and not speculation (either by a poster or by administrators at SU) as to what occurred. It is sad that you cannot accept that a school you obviously consider inferior beat out SU in the NYC tech campus competition, and have turned to falsely quoting the EDC’s director’s statements regarding the best proposals, ignoring and completely disregarding evidence that does not support your conclusion, reinterpreting that evidence to fit your narrative without any evidential basis to do so, using speculative statements from a party not involved in the decision making process to support your narrative, and, finally, making personal attacks to support your claim. Your push back against available facts and mission to alter the only narrative coming from people actually involved in the decision making process without credible evidence to support this alteration is not normal behavior. This is what is pitiful.</p>
<p>And round and round it goes. I’ll conclude with the observation that this is not cut and dry and all comes down to a difference in interpretation; some are willing to take the words at face value, others take some at face value and some not, and others are attempting to read between the lines of a carefully-worded press release. Some see certain statements as ambiguous, while others as quite clear. It’s all dependent on your own interpretation.</p>
<p>My reasoning is that a) there are many gaps in what’s actually known, 2) the statements of any official, from any party, have to be taken with a grain of salt and scrutinized to ascertain their true meaning, and 3) because of these uncertainties, you have to rely on other facts which in and of themselves are not necessarily indicative of any particular interpretation but which, when considered as co-occurrences, increase the likelihood of a given interpretation.</p>
<p>For example, in considering the equality of the initial proposals: fact 1, Stanford and Cornell would spend comparable amounts, had roughly the same timetable, had roughly the same # faculty, students, etc., had roughly the same GSF, were committed to highly sustainable buildings, etc. - but still not necessarily indicative of the quality of their overall proposals; fact 2, Bloomberg says both are desperate (the implication being that they’re neck-and-neck by that point) and as a result the EDC would be renegotiating with them and other universities - not strong evidence in favor of ‘equality’ but extremely suggestive of it; fact 3, the tense renegotiations, the dropping out of Stanford, and the selection of Cornell who accepted the new terms, along with the announcement that Cornell now definitely has the best proposal (which was never the case before) - right after negotiations - suggests that Cornell was chosen because its proposal was better - specifically, its proposal post-negotiations was better. Again, we don’t know whether any of this is truly what happened, but given the facts, there’s a high probability that this is more or less true. Statements from officials, early and recent media reports, and speculation from various communities all lend credence to this interpretation. Each one in and of itself doesn’t mean much, but when considered in concert with all the other facts, it leads you inevitably toward certain conclusions. You can’t reach these conclusions simply by looking at the statements of Bloomberg.</p>
<p>
No, it actually doesn’t go round and round. You keep building fantasy dissertations around baseless beliefs like this gem quoted. Seeming to believe that your belief combined with many words makes for truth, you force posters who would have happily moved on pages ago to chime back in to correct your falsehoods. You should found a religion.</p>
<p>This long ago stopped being about Cornell/Stanford and became about faulty argumentation structure. I’d suggest checking your ego and letting it go. DarkIce captured the scope well and all issues have been settled with known evidence.</p>
<p>[Bloomberg</a> Gives The Back Story on Cornell’s Winning Bid | PolitickerNY](<a href=“http://www.politickerny.com/2011/12/23/bloomberg-gives-the-back-story-on-cornells-winning-bid/]Bloomberg”>http://www.politickerny.com/2011/12/23/bloomberg-gives-the-back-story-on-cornells-winning-bid/)</p>
<p>Kind of goes along with what I said, straight from Bloomberg’s mouth. Stanford was expected to win, Cornell’s proposal was extremely attractive, and the tie-breaker was simply Cornell’s willingness to accept a very stringent contract.</p>
<p>In addition, to spin Cornell’s willingness to accept the contract as desperation is yet another attempt to discredit the university. Why don’t we flip this around: Cornell administrators weren’t worried about the fines for not meeting deadlines because they’re confident enough to know they will meet them. Stanford, on the other hand, were more unsure of themselves, and weren’t willing to take the gamble for this amazing opportunity.</p>
<p>I can play the game too, see? It’s easy to try to infer the reasons behind a school’s actions and make them seem bad. As I have no issue with Stanford, I don’t need to try to invent reasons to make it sound inferior - which is exactly what you, phantasmagoric, have repeatedly tried to do with Cornell.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing this, DarkIce and for your input! As I’ve written before, I agree with your analysis generally. I will say that the article is a bit misleading as to what Bloomberg said. The article quotes Bloomberg as saying “I don’t think anybody thought they would be the winner. It’s just not the political zeitgeist.” One can easily (and I think that is the author’s intent as is evidenced by what he writes directly following that point) come to the conclusion based on the incomplete statement alone that Cornell’s ultimate win of the competition was a shock to those involved in the process. However, the article leaves out the full part of the relevant statement. Bloomberg says: “We didn’t go in thinking day one. I didn’t think anybody thought they would be the winner . . . I kept saying to them, nobody’s got a lock. Everybody’s got a chance to compete and compete equally and they did.” The first part of that statement makes a big difference in terms of trying to interpret the meaning of the statement as a whole. I’m not arguing that techies did not think that one university was a front-runner, but statements by Bloomberg and EDC officials say they were ultimately more pleased with Cornell’s proposal and, indeed, more pleased with what Cornell had to offer at the end of the day. </p>
<p>Here is the link to the radio show segment: [Mayor</a> Bloomberg’s Weekly Radio Address 12/23/11](<a href=“http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2011b/media/12-23-11-worrs.asx]Mayor”>Mayor Bloomberg's Weekly Radio Address 12/23/11) </p>
<p>Bloomberg starts talking about the tech competition a little under a fifth of the way into the segment.</p>
<p>By the way, I often find it necessary to check for myself statements that some (in this case, the “PolitikerNY”) attribute to others as they are often misleading. I typically don’t find any problem with the more respected, better known publications as they tend to operate at a higher reporting standard than other publications.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Straight from the mouth of a politician is such a stamp for accuracy and truthfulness! And an NY politician to boot! </p>
<p>/end sarcasm</p>
<p>And, fwiw, the winning bid by Cornell and its Israeli partner is good for Cornell and the State of New York. And, in many ways, much better news for Stanford.</p>
<p>That last article supports the point that I’ve been making… “Stanford and some of the other schools did in fact get cold feet when they realized that the contract seemed unusually strict and the penalties overly severe.” Stanford’s proposal was about the same as Cornell’s beforehand. In fact, I’m pretty certain it was better, given that Stanford was spending 25% more and has a plethora of advantages over Cornell (the only advantage Cornell had was location and alumni presence). The rengotiations caused many, including Stanford, to back off. You are free to interpret this in any way that favors Cornell. This is going in circles.</p>
<p>As an aside, you can tell that Bloomberg is trying to write off Stanford, probably out of bitterness. “Mr. Bloomberg added that although Stanford is well-known as being a hub for social media, the high-tech campus won’t just be about social media.” Stanford is well-known for being a hub for virtually all sectors of high tech. Recently, there’s been a lot of social media, but companies like HP, Cisco, Yahoo, and myriad others go much further back than any of the social media companies. Also, in the last 20 years, the two technologies that have brought Stanford the most in royalties fall under biotechnology and Internet services. Stanford said it would focus on a variety of IT (not simply social media).</p>
<p>I don’t mean this as an insult, but you might be a victim of narcissism. Many are in today’s generation. How many times can we point out that your conjecture doesn’t begin to counter documented statements from multiple sources claiming Cornell had the better proposal in all regards? This time you came with:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it wasn’t. No one denies Stanford got cold feet. Their lack of experience dealing with big city politics that Cornell, Columbia, and NYU understood made them gun shy. When Cornell partnered with Technion, they wiped out any clear advantage. When Stanford partnered with CCNY the impact was negligible. </p>
<p>I don’t begin to care about this topic nearly as much as it seems, but your persistent distortions to hold to your defeated position is just perplexing. Let it go already.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, the irony.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have no real evidence that the initial proposals put Cornell ahead. Cornell was better after the negotiations. And if you take every party’s statement at face value, you are naive. I don’t mean that as an insult.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, this is why I doubt your viewpoint. You have no reason to believe this, yet you state it because CCNY isn’t as prestigious as the Technion. You’re hypocritical, subscribing to the same reasoning that you’re condemning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I’ve read more about this than most, have followed it for months, and have a good guess of the politics behind it. You, on the other hand, have stated multiple times that you don’t care and are stepping out of this discussion yet keep coming back just to put others down and have the last word. Really, it’s pathetic. Just stop.</p>
<p>As an addition to DarkIce’s post,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I promise you that I’m not trying to discredit Cornell. Every university has a “holy grail” that they would kill to reach. Stanford’s is building in its foothills (which would allow it to build tons of faculty housing and thus steal faculty from any university, and to build a solar farm which would allow it to expand its academic buildings with fewer concerns over environmental impact, i.e. it’s Stanford’s golden ticket to surpassing Harvard et al). Cornell’s would be moving more of the university to NYC. Each one has a to-die-for goal, for which it will be desperate to get.</p>
<p>Thus, it’s a big deal that Cornell has edged toward its goal - sincere congrats to Cornell. However, it doesn’t make sense to spin the entire situation in Cornell’s favor and against Stanford and the other competitors. There is no shame in admitting that certain ambitious goals imply an amount of desperation. I would tell you to ignore the desperation and to celebrate the success, but really, it’s because of the desperation that you’re able to celebrate the success. It paid off, so be happy with the results without attempting to spin the situation so that Cornell seems “superior.”</p>
<p>FWIW, for a while I was very opposed to Stanford moving to NYC, and eventually decided that the competition was a rare opportunity. But over time I was ambivalent, because while it was rare, it didn’t coincide with a time that’s opportune for Stanford, as xiggi may have been suggesting. Now Stanford - in harmony with the desire of most affiliates - can focus more on issues that require attention on its main campus, of which there are a great many. Right now, Stanford should and is desperate to fix those. Once those are taken care of, the next “desperate goal” likely will be establishing campuses in vibrant areas like the East Coast.</p>
<p>Something is wrong. This is crazy. It is not naive to take a statement at face value when there is nothing from the same source that warrants interpreting the statement any other way. It is, however, ridiculously foolish to use non-evidence to try to mold an interpretation that is inconsistent with official statements/evidence from the people actually involved in the decision making process. As is the case in a court of law, a judge and jury are not allowed to interpret otherwise clear evidence differently without credible evidence to support a different interpretation. Speculative statements from officials not involved in the decision making process are not credible evidence. The same basic concept applies to analyzing the statements made by decision makers in this process.</p>
<p>And applejack’s statement regarding CCNY is the reason why you doubt his viewpoint? Get out of here. This is the first time I recall this point even being made. You’re doubting this viewpoint because you are unwilling to accept the statements from the decision makers in this process at face value. The funny thing is even if you believe the Stanford officials’ speculation about what went down, I don’t see how you can reasonably give such speculation more weight than the clear statements from the official decision makers in this process. I guess that is because your viewpoints are not reasonable and are not based on credible evidence, but are simply how you want the process to turn out.</p>
<p>For the record, it is no secret that the Technion partnership was a major game changer for Cornell’s proposal; this is information coming straight out of the decision-makers’ mouths. Based on the official statements by those involved in the decision-making process, apparently the CCNY partnership did not help out SU’s proposal much, or at least enough to surpass the Cornell/Technion partnership. And for someone who has read more about this “than most,” your ignorance of certain key facts, willingness to misquote important statements by the EDC director, and desire to reinterpret the official narrative without any credible basis to do so is mind-boggling. </p>
<p>It is foolish and naive to attempt to write a different narrative–one that contradicts the official narrative from the official decision makers–based on your gut feeling and speculative statements from parties not in the know. If you notice, our main disagreement with you is not necessarily over why SU withdrew from the competition, but the notion that Cornell won only because SU withdrew. As we’ve shown time and time again, that conclusion is not supported by the available, credible facts. Get over it.</p>