<p>"In the absence of Columbia, manhattanville will remain in the status quo."</p>
<p>That's simply not true. There are no neighborhoods anywhere in Manhattan that have remained the "status quo" for any period of more than a few decades. I restate my earlier argument. As far as the shantytowns in Central Park or the uncompensated removal of tens of thousands of people to build Lincoln Center in the 1960s, those were very different eras. This time the community in that area has a very clear idea of what kind of things they do and don't want to see in that part of their neighborhood. </p>
<p>It doesn't matter if there are other financed proposals on the table or not. There are certainly other ideas - it doesn't matter if they've been drawn by an architect or if they are a figment in the imagination of people living in that neighborhood. When the West Side Stadium was proposed, there were no other financed alternatives either. If the only proposal on the table right now was a 100-story parking garage that would generate X taxes and X thousands of jobs for the City, it doesn't mean it would go forward. People would begin looking for alternatives. And one of the reason there may be fewer proposals than you might expect is because Columbia has been secretly acquiring and land-banking properties in that area, for many years, basically letting the area rot for the precise reason that they hoped people would eventually come along and call the area run-down. In this case, their strategy seems to have backfired. Buying up land all around your neighbors and then letting it fester isn't the nicest thing to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's simply not true. There are no neighborhoods anywhere in Manhattan that have remained the "status quo" for any period of more than a few decades. I restate my earlier argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>that's exactly what denz and others have stated the status quo to be. the existing state of affairs is that gentrification and neglect will change the neighborhood. let's face it, when an institution like columbia gets a hold of land though, that process of constant change halts.</p>
<p>also, posterx, i really want to know something:</p>
<p>how much of a hypocrite are you?</p>
<p>i ask because you DO realize yale has done some horribly shady things in new haven...right? you DO know that yale has massive influence in the city's redevelopment strategy and actively pursues the demolition of low income housing. i'm sure you also know that yale constantly underpays property owners in the city for their land and that it has had both civil and criminal cases brought against it for this...</p>
<p>now, i am completely aware that this topic is about columbia (as it should be since it is in the columbia forums), but you go on here preaching the evils of what columbia is doing and i want to know if you turn a blind eye to what your own alma mater does.</p>
<p>"Ironic that the very "progressives" the university so prides itself on nurturing are now standing in its way of expansion."</p>
<p>Interesting comment. It has happened before. On the Days on Campus tour, they told us that they had to put the Dodge Fitness Center underground because of the large number of protests against putting it in Morningside Park. I wasn't impressed at all by the gym. I wish that they put it above ground somewhere :-/</p>
<p>However, from what i've seen, the progressives arent really against it. I went to the club fair or whatever and the only related student organization was a group that was focused on assisting the displaced people. I didn't pick up on any negative sentiments/protests, only cautiounary ones. Granted, I havent spent much time on campus.</p>
<p>^i think there were 1 or 2 little protests/discussions/whatever put on during the year. they were never really that big tho, it was only thru the super radical on my floor (every floor has one) did i ever hear about them tho</p>
<p>yeah, interesting thing about columbia's politics... in my estimation, about 10% of the campus are off-their-rocker radical liberals, the kind who lead picketing lines and cut class to pass out flyers. Maybe another 70-80% of campus leans democratic or liberal in any of its forms, but think those guys are a little too far off the deep end. The majority of that group pretty much doesn't get too heated up about politics, it doesn't affect their daily lives. And the rest are either totally apathetic or conservative.</p>
<p>But Columbia somehow has the reputation as a school full of screaming, dirty smelly hippies who want to bring down the establishment and bring about La Revolucion. It's those 10% nutjobs who give us that rap, imho.</p>
<p>We have that sort of environment in Canberra as a city.</p>
<p>It slows any kind of progress whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that urbanisation programs and the like are inevitable, and people should really just get over it - haha!</p>
