Thoughts on Manhattanville Expansion

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
21

<p>Allow me to share with you all the text of the editorial that PrezBo mentioned, which I think is a fairly compelling and reasonable argument:</p>

<hr>

<p>Don't Fear Columbia</p>

<p>By DAVID N. DINKINS
Published: May 27, 2007</p>

<p>THIS city has always been a place of constant change, and one of the challenges that we who live and work here face is ensuring that the changes generated by growth and development in the city benefit all New Yorkers.</p>

<p>Columbia University's proposal to develop the old Manhattanville manufacturing zone of West Harlem over the next two decades is the perfect example of a change that will generate growth and benefit all.</p>

<p>Back in the early 1990s, during my administration, the city and the West Harlem community developed plans to attract responsible growth to the blocks between the Henry Hudson Parkway and the area around the subway station on Broadway and 125th Street. Unfortunately, those plans didn't pan out, and employment in the area continued to languish.</p>

<p>Columbia's Manhattanville proposal takes the</p>

22

<p>I am entirely in agreement with Dinkins and support Columbia. Though a cynic and a race-baiter (paging Rev. Sharpton...) could call him an uncle tom.</p>

23

<p>I guess there could have been better community consultation.</p>

24

<p>sorry, here's the rest:</p>

<hr>

<p>Columbia's Manhattanville proposal takes the best of these ideas to gradually create a new kind of open, urban campus that will improve local streets; bring back commercial life to Broadway, 125th Street and 12th Avenue; and better connect the residential areas of Harlem with the waterfront park now under construction along the Hudson River. This kind of long-term institutional growth will provide more jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities, as well as cultural and open space, to the diverse group of people who live in the area.</p>

<p>Of course, town-gown partnerships are not without their stresses and strains, and the relationship between Harlem residents and Columbia has not always been the best. Indeed, I was one of those picketing Columbia back in the 1960s, so I know the history and appreciate the concerns that some Harlem residents may have about the university's plans.</p>

<p>But we should give each other credit where credit is due, and not lose sight of the ways in which the partnership has benefited both groups and provided hundreds of public health and human service programs, educational and cultural exchanges, and workplace experiences and opportunities. For instance, Columbia University Medical Center provides summer research fellowships to minority students from the City University of New York, enabling them to participate in innovative research at Columbia's medical labs and receive mentoring from leading scientists at the College of Physicians and Surgeons.</p>

<p>Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health has a variety of public health clinics, outreach programs and research studies that serve the neighborhood, working with places like Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone, which is also now in an educational partnership with Columbia Business School. The Mailman School has also joined with the Columbia-affiliated Harlem Hospital Center and the Harlem Children's Zone to tackle the problem of asthma among overweight children in the community.</p>

<p>For more than four decades, Columbia's Double Discovery Center has provided on-campus after-school enrichment and college readiness programs to hundreds of local students from low-income families. Double Discovery participants have consistently achieved high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates of 97 percent. These are but a few of the many collaborative efforts that have helped to make the Harlem community and Columbia University institutional partners, and to make friends and neighbors of Harlemites and Columbians.</p>

<p>New York is a gorgeous mosaic, and an institution like Columbia is an important part of the vibrant mix that makes our city unique. The university's expansion project will broaden its mission of teaching and academic research, patient care and public service, and enhance the quality of life for those who live and work in Harlem and across our city. And Columbia University could have no better partners in this venture than the people of Harlem.</p>

<p>David N. Dinkins, the mayor of New York from 1990 to 1993, is a professor of public affairs at Columbia.</p>

25

<p>Personally, I see no problem with this. Columbia has consistantly expanded it's morningside heights campus for more dorms and more buildings, and has vastly improved the neighborhood in the process from being somewhat of a poor slum ridden with crime into a (now) great neighborhood. Now they're looking to build another campus. Likely, it will improve the neighborhood, as more money will come into it. </p>

<p>Moreover, from the city's point of view, this is even more attractive; they can basically grant a lot of economic expansion in the Manhattanville area for no price at all. </p>

<p>Does this mean that people bearly making ends meet will be forced to move out? No question about it, yes. However, this will happen no matter what. Real estate prices in manhattan have (and continue to) steadily rise due to the scarcity of space. The planned Columbia expansion is merely acting as a catalyst for what would have happened anyway.</p>

26

<p>exactly. Nobody has a right to live wherever the hell they want, at whatever price they want, in perpetuity. As our society continues creating more value and expanding the economy, there will be winners and there will be those who don't grow their skills fast enough to keep up. It is less of an outrage to say that someone should be made to move out because they can't pay an increased rent in order to let in someone who can pay, than it would be an outrage to tell someone who can pay (but simply wasn't there first) that there's no room for them and they can't live in manhattan.</p>

<p>Do I believe in public housing for the working poor? Sure. But there's no reason they all need to be in high-rent districts. As long as they can reasonably get to where their jobs are, I don't see the problem. I really just have no idea why so many columbia students (who are fairly entitled themselves) believe so strongly that west harlem residents who aren't property owners have some sort of divine right to remain where they are.</p>

<p>That sounds cold, but the upside is that what's a fairly run-down area right now will almost certainly become very improved and a credit to an already well-run and fairly clean city. I'm normally skeptical of this claim, but it probably will create more jobs in the long run. And those who are property owners can probably expect a premium and nice profit in order to be bought out of their real estate. Almost everyone's a winner here.</p>

<p>I'll never understand the outrage, but then again I'll never understand the people who spend large amounts of their precious time in college handing out flyers for Socialist newsletters.</p>

<p>Sincerely,
A fairly loyal democrat</p>

27

<p>Columbia's small expansion here is nothing - just a few acres. All it will do is displace hard-working families, drive up the cost of housing in the area and pollute the neighborhood around it, create jobs that nobody living in that area will be able to get, and turn people against the school.</p>

<p>Harvard is expanding into a massive complex in Allston. which will feature nearly a million square feet of new laboratories, and Yale just purchased 150 acres nearby as well, which consists of a huge state-of-the-art research complex of over a million square feet which Bayer is leaving in 2008 (so Yale won't even have to spend a dime building it, they can just pump the money directly into research and salaries). Again: Harvard/Yale get hundreds of acres and dozens of new buildings, in some cases for free. Columbia is worrying about just a few here and spending way too much money for it -- money that would be better put to use for education, not real estate purchases. </p>

<p>I think Columbia needs to look somewhere else. Maybe it needs to consider moving to a new neighborhood, just like it has several times in the past to respond to previous constraints (the reason why Columbia doesn't have any older buildings on its campus even though it is an old school). I'm sure they could sell their current complex for a very nice price and find something much larger in the Bronx or Queens. The money from the sale could be used to fund education, which is, after all, Columbia's mission. It's just going to get harder and harder for Columbia to expand in the future.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
Columbia's small expansion here is nothing - just a few acres.

[/quote]

True. And some space is sorely needed. And as you say, every year that goes by makes it harder for columbia to expand. Strike while the iron is hot.

[quote]
All it will do is displace hard-working families,

[/quote]

...with families and students who are worth more to the neighborhood. and who have options to move elsewhere, and PLENTY of lead time to do so, since the university hasn't even really acquired that much.

[quote]
drive up the cost of housing in the area

[/quote]

Money is a proxy for value. The value of the neighborhood will go up, property will be worth more, and the economy will improve. how is this bad? Only those who are total luddites or have no idea about economics think that keeping prices low, at any cost to societal progress, is a good thing.

[quote]
and pollute the neighborhood around it,

[/quote]

have you BEEN there? Dude, take a trip to Dinosaur BBQ. Or go visit Prentiss hall, on 125th right there. Holy s**t is that a creepy area. Here's a hint: in manhattan, property with little capital invested in it (such as gas stations) is usually a sign that that property is of very little value, since nothing higher-value has taken over the space. Those blocks there have not one but two gas stations. Somehow I imagine that a campus that looks anything like the morningside campus will be a vast improvement over the abandoned piers, shuttered buildings, dirty streets without lights, and highway overpasses. Why the hate?

[quote]
create jobs that nobody living in that area will be able to get,

[/quote]

And that's the relentless force of history staring you in the face. When service-sector jobs started being created in cities en masse, they weren't farming jobs that those poor farmers in the country would be able to get. Do you pine for them too? Creating high-value jobs pulls the economy up and increases the number of people who can make a good living. This move won't destroy very many low-value jobs at all, and will almost certainly replace those it does with similar low-value jobs. Does it sound obnoxious to say there will be janitorial jobs? Sure, but the current jobs there (i.e. gas station attendant) aren't exactly prestigious in the first place. The density of jobs-per-acre, if you want to use that metric, will greatly increase.

[quote]
and turn people against the school.

[/quote]

Compared to 1968, this is nothing. The school has consulted with the community for YEARS at this point. Bollinger announced this program in my freshman year, and FIVE YEARS LATER they are now starting to move in on it. They have had relentless consultations, approvals, reviews, open houses, you name it. They have dedicated P.R. people, including a powerful voice of a former-mayor-turned-professor (quoted above). </p>

<p>I'd say they're taking all possible precautions against a public backlash. And if one occurs anyway, it will be the voice of regression and will die out just like the objections to civil rights, global trade, new technology, and democracy. This is progress. It's ugly. There are losers as well as winners. But in the long run, society is a winner. Otherwise we'd all be running around in the woods chasing deer and huddling in caves.</p>

29

<p>It's only "progress" from the point of view of rich, white Columbia. If people in the neighborhood are against it, as they should be, it is not "progress."</p>

<p>The point that the neighborhood is CURRENTLY underdeveloped/gas stations/whatever, which is your only real argument here, is completely and utterly irrelevant. The same argument was made recently for the West Side Stadium, and just look at what happened to that plan (as well as the better things that are coming out of its demise!). Obviously that area is not currently used to its potential, I've been there many times. But that has nothing to do with whether it should be developed as a fortress by Columbia. The neighborhood has many proposals out to redevelop it in a way that they would benefit from, and that do not leave it in the condition it is currently in. Proposals that would even, as you frame it, increase the density of jobs there. The land is valuable and could easily be developed by someone other than Columbia who is more aligned with the community's interests. Perhaps there can be a compromise where Columbia gets to lease some office space and a new dormitory, surrounded by low-income housing, community parkland and light industrial/craft spaces.</p>

30

<p>I agree that 17 acres isn't a vast amount of space, but in Manhattan it's huge, and this expansion is a much better idea than any half-baked suggestions of uprooting the university and moving it to a new neighborhood. The Morningside campus is iconic and historic, and the neighborhood offers proximity to the Jewish Theological Seminary, Union Theological Seminary, St. Luke's, the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, and Barnard (which would not necessarily have to move if the university chose to do so). Ultimately, expanding just to the north is the best move that Columbia can make</p>

<p>It's my understanding that the university will use the property in Manhattanville as a new home for the Business School, the School of the Arts (for the most part), the neuroscience center (for which Columbia received $200 million), and various administrative offices. They could potentially give some more space to SIPA and the Law School as well. (All this info has been in Spec and the Times throughout the past few years.) The land in Manhattanville is an optimal location because its southern border is just three blocks north of Teacher's College, itself the northern-most point of the Morningside campus. This expansion will free up space at Columbia for a long time and will better the neighborhood of Manhattanville as well. Yes, displacement is sad, but in a place like Manhattan, it's also somewhat inevitable. Better to be displaced by an institution like Columbia, which can at least be convinced to sign a community benefits agreement and help locate new housing for the affected residents.</p>

31

<p>The current expansion plan also doesn't create a "fortress" for Columbia. Many of the buildings will be mixed-use, with space for retail; there won't be any gates or walls similar to those that can be found at the Morningside campus; and the streets won't be closed to pedestrian (or, it seems, vehicular) traffic.</p>

<p>You can see the plans for the campus at this site: <a href="http://www.neighbors.columbia.edu/pages/manplanning/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.neighbors.columbia.edu/pages/manplanning/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>There's also a video showing the neighborhood as it is now along with plans for the proposed campus.</p>

32

<p>Great website. Would it be possible to fill in part of the river for more space, i.e., revive Westway?</p>

33

<p>
[quote = posterX]
Yale just purchased 150 acres nearby as well[/]</p>

<p>The whole 150 acres will provide 1.425 million sqaure feet of space.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/07-06-13-02.all.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/07-06-13-02.all.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The 17 acres by Columbia will provide 6.8 million square feet.
<a href="http://www.neighbors.columbia.edu/pages/manplanning/faqs/index.html#N10025%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.neighbors.columbia.edu/pages/manplanning/faqs/index.html#N10025&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

34

<p>And one more thing: if you think Harvard hasn't been met with any opposition or neighborhood concerns in it's expansion, you haven't been following the news there. Community negotiations are totally normal, both in Allston and Manhattanville.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518127%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518127&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518535%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518535&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

35

<p>The 1.425 million is just the space that's already constructed by Bayer AG. Building that from scratch would cost at least $400 million. There's room to add millions more on top of that, obviously. The relevant comparison here is 1.425 million to 0.00, because even the three small "historic" buildings that Columbia plans to re-use will require significant upgrades, basically having to be rebuilt from scratch.</p>

36

<p>posterX...why don't you just come out and say it:
"The ratio of the worth of other comparable schools to Columbia's is 1,000,000 to 1, and keeping in mind that Columbia costs the world X amount of money each year, and is confined in the horrors of NYC, it really should be shut down."</p>

37

<p>Hardly. Columbia is one of the world's great research universities. However, if there's no room to expand over the long term, they should probably consider moving or creating a second campus somewhere farther away. They made the same decision about 100 years ago and it's never easy, but that's what you have to do sometimes if you want to remain relevant. They shouldn't just bulldoze over the concerns of their neighbors. How would you like it?</p>

38

<p>Maybe you should spend some time to read Columbia's website on the proposed expansion before you comment on it. A little reading would have prevented you from making the 0.00 comment.</p>

<p>Yes Yale will add millions upon millions but I don't think it will be 6.8 million. Maybe you should also read building ordinance in New Haven. That will also help.</p>

<p>In NEW YORK CITY, you are allowed to build UP. The acres bought does not matter.The most important thing is the square footage you can cram on the lot.</p>

39

<p>According to that release, Yale is "already committed to building more than 2 million square feet of new facilities" right at its central campus in New Haven just over the next six years. That represents space that's going to be put in place even before you factor in new space at the massive site they just purchased. Harvard is building a similar amount, and has a huge parcel across the river that they've begun developing as well. Not having room to expand is a serious issue for any school. By 0.00 space I mean that Columbia is getting nothing that's already built, like they might be able to do if they moved somewhere. They're getting a small parcel of land with useless buildings, at very high cost, that will then be even more expensive to develop into new facilities.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
It's only "progress" from the point of view of rich, white Columbia. If people in the neighborhood are against it, as they should be, it is not "progress."

[/quote]

History is littered of examples where some measure of human achievement was protested by a bunch of people with some sylvan ideal in their mind. Is the triborough bridge progress? How about the empire state building? Would you call central park "progress", or do you cry for all of the drifters living in tent towns that had to be cleared off the land? It certainly wasn't a good idea from their point of view, but from the view of history I'd say we're much better off with freaking central park than a shanty town, wouldn't you?</p>

<p>Just so with manhattanville. The tides of history are not in favor of underdeveloped neighborhoods with run-down buildings and poor infrastructure. Can you really call preserving that neighborhood a better idea than redeveloping it? Of course the current residents are going to object, but the residents of Spuyten Duyvil objected to the west side highway and henry hudson bridge. C'est la vie. You can't please everyone all the time. What you can do is be humane about it and help people out as much as is reasonable.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The point that the neighborhood is CURRENTLY underdeveloped/gas stations/whatever, which is your only real argument here, is completely and utterly irrelevant. The same argument was made recently for the West Side Stadium, and just look at what happened to that plan (as well as the better things that are coming out of its demise!).

[/quote]

First of all, that logic is flawed. The fact that one argument may not hold water in one case does not automatically invalidate it for another case. It does not follow that because the same argument was made elsewhere and ended up not carrying the day, that it is the argument itself that is flawed.</p>

<p>Secondly, the west side railyards are a totally different ball of wax for two key reasons:
1) Taxpayer money, $600MM of it, was going to go to that stadium. The ad campaign organized against it was mostly based on this public subsidy (i.e., "how many teachers could we hire for $600MM?"). No public money is going to Columbia's development, to my knowledge, aside from the standard research grants.
2) There were many competing proposals for the land use in hell's kitchen. There have been no forthcoming competitive proposals for alternatives for dealing with manhattanville. It is not close enough to the city center to merit that attention. Columbia is essentially the only one who cares about that neighborhood. In the absence of a new Jets stadium, there will be big new developments on the west side. In the absence of Columbia, manhattanville will remain in the status quo.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Obviously that area is not currently used to its potential, I've been there many times. But that has nothing to do with whether it should be developed as a fortress by Columbia. The neighborhood has many proposals out to redevelop it in a way that they would benefit from, and that do not leave it in the condition it is currently in. Proposals that would even, as you frame it, increase the density of jobs there. The land is valuable and could easily be developed by someone other than Columbia who is more aligned with the community's interests. Perhaps there can be a compromise where Columbia gets to lease some office space and a new dormitory, surrounded by low-income housing, community parkland and light industrial/craft spaces.

[/quote]

can you link to any of these proposals? How well financially-backed are they? How many jobs are they proposing to create? What sort of infrastructure and public spaces are they planning to put in?</p>

<p>The next good alternative I hear to Columbia's proposal will be the first.</p>