Stanford changes its mind about NYC

[phantasmagoric]

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>It is naive to look at the explicit statements of officials on any side and believe them without condition. Really, how experienced are you with politics and university development?</p>

<p>

And applejack’s statement regarding CCNY is the reason why you doubt his viewpoint? Get out of here.

</p>

<p>No, of course not - I just think it’s hypocritical to decide that Cornell was “wiped out any clear advantage” when it partnered with the Technion, yet when Stanford partnered with CCNY, “the impact was negligible.” You Cornell supporters claim that we are “picking on” Cornell because it isn’t prestigious, yet you make claims like the above. Do you not see this disparity?</p>

<p>

because you are unwilling to accept the statements from the decision makers in this process at face value

</p>

<p>No, it’s because I have the perspicacity not to be naive about these sorts of political involvements. ;)</p>

<p>

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

</p>

<p>I’m not. I’ve stated many times that I take every official’s statement with a grain of salt, yet you still cling to this. When will you actually *read *what I’m writing?</p>

<p>

It is foolish and naive to attempt to write a different narrative

</p>

<p>There is no narrative to be re-written. That’s because the uncertainty of the events meant no narrative could be constructed reliably. As I’ve said time and time again, what we do know - based on the articles and such - is that the course of events is largely open to interpretation. As a result, there’s truth to both sides of this argument. You’re the one who’s unwilling to admit that there’s any truth to points that disagree with yours; you and applejack (among others) prefer to believe only in those conclusions that coincide with your own. I and others have conceded many of your claims regarding the superiority of Cornell in this, yet you still don’t give up.</p>

<p>Then you state you’re finally leaving, going back into your hole, leaving the Stanford forum, and not ■■■■■■■■ anymore. Then you reply again. Really, can we get an ETA on when we can be rid of you?</p>

[datalook]

<p><a href=“http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111219/EDUCATION/111219897[/url]”>http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111219/EDUCATION/111219897&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The inside story of Cornell’s tech campus win
How the underdog from Ithaca prevailed over mighty Stanford University in the Bloomberg administration’s competition for a new applied sciences graduate school on Roosevelt Island.
Print Email Reprints Comment
By Daniel Massey @masseydaniel
December 19, 2011 8:48 a.m.</p>

<p>A rendering of Cornell’s winning tech campus proposal on Roosevelt Island.
Also SeeFeds charge WTC truckers with massive scamAqueduct casino workers unionizePositive signs from Europe send stocks soaringFed to probe Verizon Wireless over cable dealsVerizon, Cablevision settle Internet ad suitIn stunner, Stanford yanks tech-campus bidTutu backs Occupy’s push for downtown homeCity unemployment ticks up Updated: December 19, 2011 10:22 a.m.
Cornell University completed its unlikely climb to the top of the city’s tech campus competition Monday as Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the Ithaca-based institution as his choice to build a $2 billion applied sciences school on Roosevelt Island.</p>

<p>Cornell, which is teaming up with Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, emerged as the frontrunner Friday when Stanford University withdrew. As recently as Thursday, Stanford was the mayor’s preference, a source familiar with the process said, but negotiations faltered and the Palo Alto-based engineering giant bowed out.</p>

<p>“Out of all the applications we received, Cornell and the Technion’s was far and away the boldest and most ambitious,” Mr. Bloomberg said at a press conference Monday afternoon. “Today will be remembered as a defining moment.” </p>

<p>It’s still possible that the administration could make a deal for one or more additional tech campuses. The city is continuing to negotiate with New York University, Columbia University and Carnegie Mellon University, Mr. Bloomberg said. </p>

<p>A consortium led by NYU proposed a campus at 370 Jay St. in downtown Brooklyn, a city-owned building leased by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Columbia wants to build a campus as part of its expansion in Morningside Heights. Carnegie Mellon’s bid was in partnership with Steiner Studios for a site at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.</p>

<p>But Cornell is clearly the big winner in the competition. It will receive all of the $100 million the city had set aside for infrastructure improvements at the winning project or projects, leaving any other winner to find alternative ways to fund such work.</p>

<p>Cornell’s financial obligations, though, are substantial. The school, which formed a 50-50 partnership with Technion, is assuming financial responsibility for the construction of the campus. The project is expected to cost about $2 billion and will require substantial fundraising. </p>

<p>When Stanford announced Friday that it was withdrawing, the mayor’s representatives—perhaps sensing Cornell’s newfound leverage—moved quickly to sew up a deal, finalizing an agreement over the weekend.</p>

<p>Cornell and Technion plan to start a new full-scale campus beginning in 2012, either in leased space or existing Cornell facilities in the city. The 11-acre Roosevelt Island campus would eventually grow to more than 2 million square feet and accommodate some 2,500 graduate students and 280 faculty members by 2043. As part of the proposal, Cornell committed to launching a $150 million stat-up financing fund, and to create programs that will reach 10,000 New York City students and 200 teachers per year. </p>

<p>The project is expected to create 20,000 construction jobs, 8,000 permanent jobs and result in the spin-off of some 600 companies over the first 30 years. It’s expected to generate $23 billion in economic activity and $1.4 billion in tax revenues over the first three decades. The academic program will be centered around three hubs: connective media, healthier life and the built environment. </p>

<p>“We are not going to have an extension of the Technion or Cornell,” said Technion President Peretz Lavie. “We are going to have something new, something that will energize this city.” </p>

<p>From the start of the competition, Cornell was viewed as an underdog to mighty Stanford, which is richer and more prestigious in technology and academic circles. The mayor wants to create Silicon Valley 2.0 in New York City, and Stanford had already played a vital role in the growth of the original tech hub on the West Coast.</p>

<p>But Cornell outhustled its West Coast rival. From the get-go, Cornell took aggressive steps to try to close the gap, hiring powerhouse public relations firm BerlinRosen and Suri Kasirer, the highest grossing lobbyist in the city. Cornell packed a Crain’s luncheon last summer, at which the mayor kicked off the competition, with notable alumni and top-level faculty.</p>

<p>It organized several packed forums where senior faculty drummed up support for the proposal among alumni, resulting in an online petition backing the bid that amassed more than 21,000 signatures. Cornell officials met with and won support from local groups like the Queens Chamber of Commerce for its plan to spin off companies in western Queens. And it announced its campus would include the largest net-zero energy building in the eastern United States.</p>

<p>While Stanford trumpeted a partnership with the City University of New York, Cornell one-upped its competition, forging an alliance with Technion that chipped away at Stanford’s advantage as a creator of startups. Cornell President David Skorton described an “economic miracle” in Israel based in large part on Technion’s role in giving birth to technology companies.</p>

<p>“I think the secret weapon here is Technion, one of the premier engineering schools in the world,” said Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban planning and policy at New York University. “The combination of Cornell and Technion is very, very hard to equal.”</p>

<p>Once formal negotiations began, it was Stanford that had to play from behind. Stanford “could not or would not keep up” with Cornell in the negotiations, and the administration grew concerned about the feasibility of the school’s project and its financial commitment, according to a city official familiar with the negotiations.</p>

<p>Cornell, which has experience building complex projects in the city, appeared more comfortable and familiar with the city’s negotiating style. But, more importantly, sources familiar with the negotiations said, the Ithaca-based institution seemed more driven than Stanford. One observer familiar with the process compared Cornell to a baseball team willing to spend whatever it took to reel in a high-priced free agent.</p>

<p>“Stanford wanted it only if made sense to Stanford,” one close observer said. “Cornell wanted it at any price.”</p>

<p>As late as Thursday, Stanford remained the mayor’s top choice, a source familiar with the negotiations said, but Stanford officials began to take issue last week with some of the city’s negotiating tactics and its lawyers would not sign off on promises the city was seeking.</p>

<p>Stanford sensed a “bait and switch” was in the works, according to a source familiar with the school’s decision to withdraw. The source said Stanford was asked to do without the $100 million in public funding the city had set aside; to accede to penalties for construction delays, regardless of cause; and to indemnify the city and take full responsibility for environmental remediation of the site.</p>

<p>But city officials said Cornell had already become the frontrunner. A city source familiar with the negotiations said both schools wanted the full $100 million and that neither was asked to pass up the funds, though smaller requests would have been viewed more favorably. And on Monday the mayor said that there were no big environmental problems with the site. </p>

<p>It does appear Cornell was willing to go further than Stanford to lower the city’s costs and risk, but on Monday city officials said they simply chose the best bid.</p>

<p>“What we were really drawn to here was that of all the proposals that were submitted…this was the proposal with the most students, this was the proposal with the most faculty, this was the proposal with the most square footage, the proposal with the most aggressive timeline, the most money for startups, the most money for building and the partnership of two world class institutions that had experience in New York and had experience developing entrepreneurship,” said Economic Development Corp. President Seth Pinsky. </p>

<p>Hours after Stanford bowed out, Cornell played a trump card, announcing a gift of $350 million toward its project from The Atlantic Philanthropies, the largest donation in the school’s history. The one-time underdog had become the overwhelming favorite. </p>

<p>Read more: <a href=“The inside story of Cornell's tech campus win”>The inside story of Cornell's tech campus win;

[phantasmagoric]

<p>It’s interesting that Skorton considers the Technion/Israel tech scene an “economic miracle.” Don’t get me wrong, Technion has had great success in spin-out technology, like Cambridge (among others), but there are many similar [tech</a> areas](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_with_‘Silicon’_names]tech”>List of technology centers - Wikipedia), of varying success. None of them, including Silicon Wadi, can even compare to the success that Stanford has had with Silicon Valley. SV dwarfs all others in various measures - tech jobs per 1000, average salaries, venture capital expenditures, total revenues/profits/assets, market caps, GDP, # startups, # companies, # deals (mergers/acquisitions), # IPOs, and a lot more. Tech scenes around the world are a far cry from the “tech capital” that is SV.</p>

<p>On the other hand, those who spin out of the Technion supposedly tend to focus more on research and innovation than on business and marketing, so most of their startups get bought up by large international corporations. One article says “Israel is mainly an exporter of start-ups, and thus an R&D centre for large technology firms.” In that sense, I could see why Skorton considers it an economic miracle. It’s like Cornell’s backup: if Cornell can’t produce enough spin-out companies, they can tap an additional spin-out resource (of course, the Technion would probably be contributing regardless). This also explains why Cornell is taking responsibility for the $2 billion campus - Cornell will have the campus, and it will rely on the R&D/startup resources that the Technion can offer. I think this will be important, since the initiative expects Cornell/Technion to spin out 600 companies in 30 years, or 20 per year.</p>

[history1]

<p>@Datalook, very interesting article. It basically confirms the narrative from the city officials on the matter. It makes no sense to continue arguing with phantasmagoric, who is creating a modified narrative (regardless of what he calls it) to support his contention of what he thinks went down, about the importance of evidence that has already been hammered out. Yes, it gives another narrative, the one supported by phantasmagoric, as well, but this narrative, just like phantasmagoric’s portrayal of what went down, does not come from people involved in the decision-making process.</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>Is that a broken record I hear?</p>

<p>The facts are there, and my points still stand. So either you’re misinterpreting my points or misinterpreting the facts, one or the other.</p>

[history1]

<p>@DarkIce and applejack: In case you haven’t read: <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/education/in-cornell-deal-for-roosevelt-island-campus-an-unlikely-partnership.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/education/in-cornell-deal-for-roosevelt-island-campus-an-unlikely-partnership.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I found this to be a good read. Enjoy.</p>

[applejack]

<p>Thanks, history1. A solid refutation of any fanciful claims that both proposals were ever equal. Nothing more need be said:</p>

<p>

By the time Stanford shocked everyone involved by dropping out Dec. 16, city officials said, Cornell and Technion had all but won. Mr. Bloomberg made it official three days later.

</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>And where in the article does it say that the proposals upon submission were not equal, or that Cornell’s was better than Stanford’s initially? In fact, it implies that they weren’t - and that Cornell recruited the Technion to shore up its weaknesses and compete better with Stanford. (Cornell would never have won by itself against Stanford. It had no choice but to recruit a school like the Technion so that it could have a fighting chance.)</p>

<p>Cornell did indeed win by the time Stanford had dropped out - but that was because it had agreed to additional conditions, whereas Stanford and others didn’t. Are you ignoring this in the article?</p>

[history1]

<p>No prob, applejack. Glad to share. It is important to note that the Cornell-Technion union was already in place before the city’s official deadline for proposals arrived, a point that only adds to statements made by city officials about the strength of Cornell’s proposal. The union wasn’t made after proposals had been submitted because Cornell wanted to strengthen its chances after the fact to compete with the likes of SU, but rather before the deadline for those reasons. Thus, any analysis of Cornell’s proposal from the time that official review of the different proposals began must take into account the partnership with Israel Technion. This article makes it crystal clear (although this point was already clear from previous statements from officials involved in the decision making process) that Cornell would have won the competition even if SU had not withdrawn (I really don’t understand why there was ever disagreement about that point).</p>

<p>No one is arguing that negotiations didn’t take place after proposals were submitted (that’s what happens with these types of things . . . no shock), but there is no credible evidence to suggest that some of the things occurred that people not in the know speculate occurred in regards to the proposals. That’s the whole point.</p>

[applejack]

<p>I just realized that in phantasmagoric’s mind, all the pre-proposal hype about Stanford is what matters.</p>

<p>Of course Cornell was the known underdog before proposals were due, but the fact that you didn’t even know they partnered with Technion long before proposals were due - or even before Stanford agreed to collaborate with CCNY to shore up some of their weaknesses - reveals the level of knowledge we’ve been dealing with.</p>

<p>If it makes you feel better to keep saying that Cornell wouldn’t have won without Technion, go for it. No argument from any of us. I’m sure now that you know the facts you can see why it and a strong negotiation plan are irrelevant to your core false claim that Cornell won because SU dropped out (though will still work with CCNY in some capacity to fulfill their partnership agreement).</p>

<p>Suffice to say, game over.</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>It isn’t the pre-proposal hype that I’ve been indicating. As the article notes, the Technion had nothing to do with the proposal itself; Cornell bears the responsibility for the proposed campus. Rather, its partnership was* in addition* to the proposal that Cornell was submitting. That’s what gave Cornell/Technion the edge. Otherwise Cornell would have lost, since it doesn’t have the tech spin-out experience that Stanford and, to a lesser extent, the Technion have.</p>

<p>

If it makes you feel better to keep saying that Cornell wouldn’t have won without Technion, go for it. No argument from any of us.

</p>

<p>That’s what the article suggests. It’s what every other source suggests as well. If it makes you feel better to pretend that without any additional incentive, Cornell would be far more appealing than schools like Stanford, then feel free.</p>

<p>

your core false claim that Cornell won because SU dropped out

</p>

<p>And I didn’t say that. That’s just a projection of your inferiority complex. Please re-read my posts admitting Cornell’s victory and its ultimate superiority in this competition.</p>

[datalook]

<p>I feel it is fair to say the following.</p>

<p>1) if Cornell hadn’t partnered with Technion, Stanford had won.</p>

<p>2) if Stanford had been as cooperative as Cornell/Technion in the final negotiations, by signing off some of the conditions that NYC wanted, Stanford had won.</p>

<p>3) To some degree, at the end, Stanford and NYC are both losers. </p>

<p>I would love to see Stanford come to NYC to help the high tech on the east coast. Currently, the east coast falls behind California in high tech. I wish Cornell + Technion will help the east coast to close the gap.</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>I think the Cornell+Technion partnership will do a good job of spurring tech growth in NYC. But in terms of competing with (much less overcoming) Silicon Valley, they likely won’t be successful, for two reasons. One, they have to attract significant VC funding, since companies can’t start without some kind of funding (and most VC firms prefer to be in close proximity to the companies they’re funding). Two, they have to overcome the “network effect” of SV. For this same reason, the financial sector is unlikely to shift away from NYC: the draw of a locus of industry in a specific area will alone promote the success of the area. Many cities and countries have tried to create a “tech valley” that will surpass or at least compete with SV; none so far have succeeded. NYC probably stands the best chance, but they still need to figure out a way to keep the VC-funded companies nearby, a feat that’s significantly difficult without land/buildings dedicated to tech companies and startups. It’s important for NYC and many other cities to at least build a viable tech scene, as the US can’t rely on a single area like SV to be its main source of tech innovation.</p>

[4thfloor]

<p>How would you compare the cost of living between Silicon Valley and (Greater) New York City area, for the young people/families working in these start-ups? Neither seems particularly cheap or low-tax.</p>

[applejack]

<p>Oh my God, phantasmagoric.
You’re simply factually wrong, which has nothing to do with different views. </p>

<p>Cornell and the Technion formally submitted a joint proposal. They are officially 50/50 partners in the project with Cornell managing the campus and the Technion focused on working with them on curriculum / business development / faculty. They forged that partnership in the summer, not as an add-on to Cornell’s bid. Cornell never submitted an independent bid and they both established their partnership before the original expression of interests.</p>

<p>I even said Cornell’s partnership with Technion BEFORE the bids were submitted was key to victory. I said that no one disagrees with that point. Why do you keep bringing it up? </p>

<p>I’m not sure why you think it’s such a feather in your cap to say Stanford didn’t need a partner beyond CCNY (obviously they needed something more). Of course Cornell lags behind in business incubation due to their isolation.</p>

<p>That’s why they fought so hard for this campus and brought an experienced business incubation partner on as a 50/50 collaborator.</p>

[history1]

<p>That’s right. The Technion ultimately had everything to do with the proposal as it was part of the only proposal that Cornell submitted. You cannot separate the partnership when talking about Cornell’s proposal and analyzing it relative to other proposals. Knowing this, I don’t see how anyone can say that Cornell’s and SU’s proposals were = at the start of things. Of course, and consistent with a point I made earlier, it would ultimately be a stretch to arrive at that conclusion anyway based on the parts of the proposals made public as there was obviously so much more to the proposals (keeping certain aspects of the proposals out of public releases is how these universities kept their competitive edge against each other). Thus, the reasons for my earlier reliance on several statements made by Bloomberg and Company, as they knew of the details behind each of the proposals. For the opposite reasons, I was unwilling to give much weight to speculative comments made by others not in the know. </p>

<p>But, as applejack and datalook pointed out, I think it is fair to argue (all of the evidence points this way and this hasn’t really been the point of contention) that Cornell would not have won if the Technion had not been a part of its proposal.</p>

<p>For the record, I have no comment on the campus’ prospects for success over all. I think time will tell what happens with that. I will say that I don’t think VC funding will ultimately be a problem and “close proximity” in a city like NY takes on a different meaning due to how nearly everything in NYC is connected via a good subway system. We’ll see, though. But, given that this project has the possibility of being the one thing Bloomberg can truly base his legacy on, I would not be surprised if the campus received additional “anonymous” funding for VC and other needs coming from Bloomberg himself. </p>

<p>Also, phantasmagoric, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but applejack’s point about your argument that Cornell won only because SU dropped out has nothing to do with an “inferiority complex,” but with your attempt to downplay Cornell’s win because you feel SU was beat out ultimately by a school you feel is inferior. I first got this sense when, earlier in the thread, you begin to list the ways that Stanford was “superior” to Cornell, even thought that had nothing to do with the conversation. I’ve mentioned several times in past posts that Cornell would have won even if SU stayed in the game, and you took issue with that. </p>

<p>In all seriousness, if, for argument sake, Cornell did win because it was willing to accept more of what the city requested (although the evidence is not clear as to how large of an impact this would have actually had on the final decision), one can give credit to Cornell for that. Contrary to your point about other schools not wanting to “cave,” one can spin things and say that Cornell won because it was more ambitious and hungry for the site. Alternatively, borrowing something from an earlier poster, one can say that SU lost because it was too timid and not willing to take a bold risk in this instance. Instead of putting a positive spin on matters (or even just leaving it alone for that matter), however, you have consistently sought to count that point as a negative against Cornell (and with nothing based on credible evidence to do so). For the record, Bloomberg mentioned on his radio show a few days after the winner was announced that the issue of toxic waste at the site was no real issue at all as nothing really had ever been built on that part of the island (apart from the hospital) to contaminate the site. As for my other points about restrictions in the contract, you’ve already read what I have to write about that.</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>applejack,</p>

<p>

They are officially 50/50 partners in the project with Cornell managing the campus and the Technion focused on working with them on curriculum / business development / faculty. They forged that partnership in the summer, not as an add-on to Cornell’s bid.

</p>

<p>This is simply semantics: one could say that the partnership with the Technion is part of the proposal, or you could say that what Cornell drew up for a campus is the proposal.</p>

<p>

I’m not sure why you think it’s such a feather in your cap to say Stanford didn’t need a partner beyond CCNY

</p>

<p>You’re confusing who made what points. And I’m not sure why it’s such a feather in your cap that we aren’t praising Cornell on our hands and knees, or why you keep coming back to argue even after you’ve stepped out.</p>

<p>

Of course Cornell lags behind in business incubation due to their isolation.

</p>

<p>See, I don’t think it’s an “of course.” Stanford was a rural school when it was founded (“the farm”). You couldn’t even really call it “suburban” by the 1940s given its isolation and pastoral quality. Stanford needed its graduates to have jobs, so that’s why the university (esp. Fred Terman) decided to build up industry around it: by starting the Stanford Industrial Park (now the Stanford Research Park), wooing outsiders to come and set up business near Stanford, and encouraging its graduates to found companies. The result was a snowball effect, and that’s how we have SV today. </p>

<p>Perhaps the reason Cornell couldn’t also do this is that having NYC only a few hours away pulls all the industry away. (After all, both the Stanfords were from NY, though they chose to found a school on the West Coast.)</p>

<p>history1,</p>

<p>

Knowing this, I don’t see how anyone can say that Cornell’s and SU’s proposals were = at the start of things.

</p>

<p>That’s really what I’ve been talking about throughout this entire discussion; by “proposal,” I’ve been mostly indicating the campus, as that’s been the use of the term since the start of this whole process a year ago. More recently, with the strategic partnerships, startup funds, etc. I can see how you’d combine it all as the proposal itself.</p>

<p>I think there were enough details released to know that the proposals in this sense were relatively equal, as they called for about equal numbers of everything (although Stanford proposed to spend more). The nitty-gritty details of the campuses are not likely to significantly change the relative quality of proposals at this level.</p>

<p>

that Cornell would not have won if the Technion had not been a part of its proposal.

</p>

<p>Of course it’s fair to argue that. Bloomberg has more or less stated that: “Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg made it clear that the synergy between the two institutions was a critical factor.”</p>

<p>

I will say that I don’t think VC funding will ultimately be a problem and “close proximity” in a city like NY takes on a different meaning due to how nearly everything in NYC is connected via a good subway system.

</p>

<p>If the VCs are in NYC, then sure, that would be “close proximity.” But my point is that the VCs won’t be in NYC. Part - or most - of the reason for this is as I stated, the network effect. There’s a critical mass of tech industry in SV and for even large VC firms, it’s not worthwhile to set up an office elsewhere to be close to the tech industry there, which is likely dwarfed by SV. NYC has some 316,000 tech jobs, compared to SV’s 225,000, although the latter is far more concentrated. If Cornell/Technion are truly going to add 30,000 jobs, do you think that having 346,000 tech jobs would be more likely to attract VCs from SV? I seriously doubt it. But many VCs had already stated they’d follow Stanford to NYC. So IMO, because of this, the city really shot itself in the foot.</p>

<p>There’s a reason that even the most prestigious and wealthy VC firms like KPCB, Sequoia, and Mayfield don’t have offices outside of Sand Hill Road, and if they do, it’s in Shanghai or Beijing, not NYC.</p>

<p>

your argument that Cornell won only because SU dropped out has nothing to do with an “inferiority complex,” but with your attempt to downplay Cornell’s win because you feel SU was beat out ultimately by a school you feel is inferior.

</p>

<p>That’s not what I’ve been saying. As I’ve said many times, Cornell (with Technion) was ultimately the more attractive one, and it had won before Stanford walked out. But Stanford would have walked away regardless, considering that the negotiations had never worked out. I will repeat what I said before: “Cornell did indeed win by the time Stanford had dropped out.”</p>

<p>

you begin to list the ways that Stanford was “superior” to Cornell, even thought that had nothing to do with the conversation.

</p>

<p>What are you referring to? Post #86? If so, that was a listing of how tech industry is cultivated. Stanford is indeed superior to Cornell in this; this is uncontested. It also had everything to do with the conversation: we were discussing two recent articles that datalook had posted. One article brought up who is losing out more on this, NYC or Stanford. I had a more general response to the articles (as I stated) and had taken a specific viewpoint on this. (Notice in that list, I also brought up areas in which Stanford and others would do equally well, or in which Stanford and others would have equal difficulty.)</p>

<p>But if you have an inferiority complex, I can see how you could misconstrue this as a drive-by attack on Cornell to make students feel bad.</p>

<p>

by a school you feel is inferior

</p>

<p>That, again, is your inferiority complex at work. I do not think that “Cornell” is inferior. I’ve stated several times I don’t think it makes sense to compare universities on the whole at this level. Rather, Cornell’s ability to be successful with this immense project is inferior, relative to Stanford. Even the articles note that the Technion was necessary to shore up Cornell’s inferiority to Stanford in this. By “this,” I mean “creating a tech industry.”</p>

<p>

one can spin things and say that Cornell won because it was more ambitious and hungry for the site. Alternatively, borrowing something from an earlier poster, one can say that SU lost because it was too timid and not willing to take a bold risk in this instance.

</p>

<p>Exactly - as I’ve said several times, much of it is open to interpretation given the gaps in knowledge (although how many gaps you perceive depends on how gullible you are in politics). You mostly have to base it on the probability of certain realities.</p>

<p>

Bloomberg mentioned on his radio show a few days after the winner was announced that the issue of toxic waste at the site was no real issue at all

</p>

<p>Well, of course Bloomberg would say that. (They don’t know how bad the toxic waste is, which is what the whole contention was. Nobody can say until they tear down the current buildings and see. As articles stated, Stanford was scared of being liable if toxic waste held back construction; Stanford wanted more certainty in the contracts.)</p>

[history1]

<p>Nope, read further back. You’ll see the other posts I’m referring to. You made mention several times of SU’s “superiority.” Your argument now (it has changed quite a bit since this thread began) would only make sense if someone on the thread was claiming that Cornell was better than SU, vice versa. That point wasn’t being made, yet you felt the need to point to areas where SU is stronger than Cornell in trying to downplay Cornell’s win. The argument was not about SU v. Cornell, but about the strength of the proposals put forth by the two schools. Period. </p>

<p>And here we go again with your “of course Bloomberg would say that.” You’ve made that argument earlier when trying to reinterpret previous statements by Bloomberg, but without any real reason or credible evidence to support that reinterpretation. Having done some work in historic preservation and related fields, I know the entire building does not need to be taken down for officials to get a sense of the toxicity levels at the site. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, my point has been vindicated. And while your argument as it is in the most recent post is not so disagreeable, your argument has been modified over the course of this discussion. Take a look at your past posts. Its like reading opinions from three or four different authors. Your evidence is continuously exposed for its shortfalls, yet you, without skipping a beat, simply pick yourself back up and continue with a modified narrative without acknowledging the evidence’s shortfalls (or just the fact that the evidence has been debunked, so the speak).</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>

Nope, read further back. You’ll see the other posts I’m referring to.

</p>

<p>Again, what are you referring to? If you have something to quote and don’t quote it, then say the post #.</p>

<p>

And here we go again with your “of course Bloomberg would say that.” You’ve made that argument earlier when trying to reinterpret previous statements by Bloomberg, but without any real reason or credible evidence to support that reinterpretation

</p>

<p>The real reason? I’m not gullible.</p>

<p>

your argument has been modified over the course of this discussion.

</p>

<p>How? I think your understanding of my argument has changed, as you had made assumptions about the extent of certain claims of mine, which I would then clarify. (Yet Cornell supporters would still misinterpret my points.) In fact half of this discussion seems to be willful misinterpretation of my points, with Cornellians like you reading further into them than is warranted. And your reason? You think that I’m only making them for “political reasons,” as it were (affiliation with Stanford and so on). Newsflash: I’m not a politician like Bloomberg. ;)</p>

[history1]

<p>Again, its one thing to be skeptical of statements made by politicians, but another thing to create an altered narrative from these statements without sufficient reason/evidence to do so. Questioning statements from politicians (and, this case, politicians charged with overseeing a multi-billion dollar land/school deal which ultimately will face public scrutiny from other politicians and community officials and the press), while relying on narratives pushed by those who are not in the know and have their own reasons to push a certain narrative, isn’t gullible. Its plain foolish. Having no reason to question the truthfulness of Bloomberg’s and other officials involved in the decision making process (nor reasonable evidence to support any such questioning), I rely on what was reported by the decision makers. This is the best evidence we have. You take the opposite approach. That is a major difference we have on remaining issues. Do note that you’re very selective and inconsistent with taking statements made by politician decision-makers at face value, as you’ve have accepted such statements when they’ve suited your narrative. You are attempting to have it both ways.</p>