The Bwog
Manhattanville: The Beginning of the End?

The affordable housing octopus, wherever it is, is probably a happy one right now. Today, the City Planning Commission (CPC) approved Columbia's Manhattanville expansion plan by a vote of 10 to 1, with one abstention. And to make matters more interesting, it also approved Community Board 9's plan. According to Amanda Burden, the Chair of the City Planning Commission, the commission has modified both plans to make them more alike. Read her statement here.

Although this Times article was very polite, you can be sure that the Coalition to Preserve Community and other groups that oppose Columbia's plan caused quite a ruckus today—they're fantastically irritating hissers and booers. And they certainly had time to rally the troops—there wasn't a soul in the city who didn't see this coming. After the CPC's November 13th public review session, Burden's minions issued a statement containing this amazing line:

"While the community board has prepared a highly thoughtful set of recommendations for the area covered by the heart of the Columbia proposal, the Department believes it has a fundamental failing:
It limits the extent and manner in which Columbia can grow."

Yes Amanda...that was kind of the point of the plan.

Here are some of the changes made:

  1. Columbia's proposal included placing six academic research buildings along Broadway. Burden and Co. have trimmed that down to four academic buildings, with the remaining two holding University housing and academic facilities.
  2. The CPC has reduced the height of buildings on the northeast and northwest sides of Broadway from 240 to 120 feet, and from 260 to 180 feet.
  3. Concerning park space—the CPC has modified the design, increasing the width of a public passageway and mandating that it be landscaped and open to the sky. There must also be pedestrian amenities...whatever that means.
  4. And finally, the CPC has modified the zoning such that it will now allow "light manufacturing," which the report describes as a "bakery" or a "graphics firm."

But that is not all. The bathtub is in! CB9's plan has been changed to allow for an underground space that Columbia wants to build to house facilities and service activities.

The lone commission member to vote against the plan, Karen A. Phillips, represents Betsy Gotbaum, the Public Advocate, who quite recently came out with her own list of recommendations for Columbia and who opposes the possible use of eminent domain for businesses.

- AMP

Bwog realizes this was probably emailed to all of you, but for the sake of thoroughness: here's Prezbo's uncharacteristically long missive. Did we mention that it's really fucking long?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear fellow member of the Columbia community:

I want to report that New York's City Planning Commission today voted to approve with modifications Columbia's proposal to rezone 17 acres of the old Manhattanville manufacturing zone of West Harlem for academic mixed-use. This is an important step forward in the extensive public review of the University's long-term plan for a flourishing
center of teaching, research, and scholarship in upper Manhattan.

We are grateful that the City Planning Commission, under the leadership of chair Amanda Burden, has given such careful consideration to how our proposal can be improved and move forward in the best interests of both the University and the local community. This is not only because the Commission's decision is an essential element of the public land use review process, but also because the independent judgments of the Commissioners about how to balance preservation of our City's unique urban fabric with the need for wisely planned growth are so widely respected. The Commission's modifications to our proposal include:

* Modifying the use and reducing the scale of the proposed building at the northeast corner of the project area from academic research to university housing, to make it more consistent with the residential blocks to the north and east;

* Modifying the use and reducing the proposed scale of a building on the eastern end of the block that is now primarily the MTA's Manhattanville Bus Depot, to ensure a smoother transition of physical scale from campus to surrounding communities; and

* Widening the walkway leading to the large square of publicly accessible open space between 130th and 131st Streets, thereby making that large square even more welcoming to all members of the local community.

These modifications are intended to promote the vitality of the Broadway corridor and to help make the plan's open space network an asset for University affiliates and the broader community.

The Commission also voted today to approve the Community Board's 197(a) plan for some 964 acres of Community District 9, not including those provisions that relate to Columbia's proposed 17-acre zone. The Commission noted that it is possible to support both of these proposals, as modified, and that they are largely consistent in their goals.

You may also recall that as part of his official endorsement of Columbia's plan in September, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer proposed his own thoughtful zoning proposal for maintaining the character of upper Manhattan neighborhoods. Through his efforts, the University committed to develop and maintain new public parkland at 125th Street and Twelfth Avenue and to provide $20 million in seed capital for a revolving loan fund to create and preserve approximately 1,100 units of affordable housing within Community District 9.

We have also committed to take a series of further steps to address local concerns about affordable housing, an issue that affects our entire City and region. Columbia has now made a commitment to meet better the projected housing needs of University employees that may result in the adjacent area from the new jobs we create. By providing nearly 1,000 units of housing in the area for University affiliates, Columbia can help ensure that our own long-term academic and job growth minimizes the pressures on the local area's stock of rental apartments and responds directly to concerns about secondary displacement by the year 2030.

In addition, we have agreed to commit $4 million to expand Columbia's existing support for legal aid services to tenants in Manhattanville, including protection from unlawful eviction or harassment. Taken together with the affordable housing fund and our public guarantee that the relatively small number of residents occupying approximately 130 apartments within the expansion site will have high-quality, affordable replacement housing in the community, the University is making a significant contribution to address the challenge of affordable housing locally.

We have also made a commitment to green building design and construction. Specifically, we have committed to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standard in new University buildings. Our urban design plan for Manhattanville was selected earlier this year for a new "smart growth" pilot program
sponsored by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). In addition, Columbia, along with eight other New York City universities, joined as Challenge Partners in Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC 2030 in a commitment to reduce our entire carbon footprint by 30 percent by 2017.

Much work remains to be done. Now that the City Planning Commission has approved Columbia's proposal with these modifications, our rezoning application proceeds to the New York City Council for consideration over the coming two months. We look forward to responding to the Council's questions and to working with its members.

As I have stated before, in any major public decision, especially one that concerns the future of Manhattan's scarcest resource -- land -- there will always be a diversity of thoughtful and sometimes passionately felt positions. How we respond to these discussions and challenges will be as important as anything else we do in the process
of creating a new campus for Columbia. Wherever possible we have tried to listen carefully to the needs and aspirations of our neighbors and to integrate these thoughts and ideas into the planning process. At the same time, we have tried to make the case as strongly as possible for the reasonable needs of Columbia, an institution with a singular
history of service to the public good and with an equally bright future. To date this has been a highly beneficial process, and we have every reason now to expect it to continue in that way.

We continue to negotiate with the West Harlem Local Development Corporation on a Community Benefits Agreement that will help determine how the University will expand its partnerships with and investments in the people who live and work in West Harlem. We look forward to reaching common ground on a variety of new commitments bringing
together campus and community in mutually beneficial ways.

As ever, it remains my firm belief that New York City needs thriving universities in its midst, including a thriving Columbia, as a critical source of intellectual, cultural, scientific, and medical creativity. But the City also needs flourishing universities because they provide the range of good, moderate-income jobs that are the backbone of the City we have had and the City we want. We are, therefore, glad and proud that the City Planning Commission has endorsed the value of Columbia's carefully planned long-term growth to
all New Yorkers.

I will report back to you on the next steps in this important public review process before the City Council.

Sincerely,

Lee C. Bollinger


Posted by huzzah: #1 · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 9:46 PM
manifest destiny a go-go!
Posted by wtf: #2 · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Why do they want Columbia to reduce the HEIGHT of the buildings they've planned to build? Are we in violation of Harlem's air-space? Are local businesses currently floating in mid-air?
Posted by well: #3 (in reply to #2) · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 9:55 PM
having 6 instead of 4 story buildings would have ruined the "community" feel of the 20-story housing project towers across the street.
Posted by Tom DeLaughter: #4 · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 10:26 PM
is spinning in his grave right now
Posted by took 3rd grade math: #5 · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 10:28 PM
half of 260 is not 180.
Posted by 12308123: #6 · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Fuck no! Build them high! Let's be the only Ivy League to have real skyscrapers.

Actually, the bedrock of uptown is not suitable for skyscrapers. Then again, you got the Projects.
Posted by Columbia Skyscrapers: #7 · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 10:41 PM
[external link to www.wikicu.com]

[external link to www.wikicu.com]
Posted by The King of Spain: #8 (in reply to #6) · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Actually, bedrock is not in any way related to skyscraper construction. There are many, many ways to get around it in marshlands, like Chicago.

But this is generally good.
Posted by redskins: #9 · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 11:23 PM
get well Sean Taylor! Come back to hit another day!
Posted by agreed: #10 (in reply to #9) · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 11:34 PM
God bless you 21. You are a role model to everyone.
Posted by I think: #11 · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 11:46 PM
it is ridiculous that university housing is being built. if current residents are to be relocated, it should at least be to make space for academic or research facilities that must be in that location. removing community residents in order to replace them with university residents is simply ridiculous, and entirely unjust.
Posted by anonymous: #12 (in reply to #11) · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 11:53 PM
"Unjust" = "I don't like it!!!"

Right?

Since our tax money is paying for a good portion of the rent for most people in this area (directly through public housing, somewhat less directly through subsidized housing and rent control, etc.), it is ridiculous to whine about "injustice".
Posted by John Cleese: #13 (in reply to #12) · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Justice doesn't enter into it, my lad! This area's stone dead!
Posted by higher: #14 · reply · track
November 26, 2007 at 11:58 PM
The lower they build, the more space they will have to occupy. The higher they build, the lesser the chances that they will feel the need to expand even further in a short period of time.
Posted by I think: #15 (in reply to #12) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:00 AM
replacing community residents with university residents is unfair...

And I like Rawls' idea of jusice as fairness...thus by a shaky leap of logic and an entirely non-thorough understanding of Rawls...

replacing community residents with university residents is unjust.

and i believe rawls would have some nice criticisms to your seeming dislike of tax money going to public housing.
Posted by higher: #16 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Although they don't exactly fit into the neighborhood, I for one would love to see them construct tall buildings. But I don't see that happening.
Posted by justice: #17 (in reply to #15) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:05 AM
I don't think it's inherently any more unjust than replacing residents with research labs. University housing is crucially important.
Posted by I think: #18 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:06 AM
I also hope we don't lose the Eritrean Community Center of Greater New York...that place is sweet.
Posted by development: #19 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:10 AM
I think that the Manhattanville protestors are more concerned about economic improvement ("gentrification") than displacement. That's why they are trying to cap the amount of development that will occur on the University's future properties.
Posted by Here's the flaw: #20 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:13 AM
with Rawls.

Say you're stuck on a lifeboat with a number of other people after your ship sinks. Your supplies of food and water are such that not everyone would survive until help comes.

Under a Rawlsian system of justice, it is only "just" if everyone dies. In other words, it would be "Rawlsian unjust" for some to live and some to die in this case.
Posted by well: #21 (in reply to #19) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:13 AM
i'm more concerned with displacement. economic improvement is fine with me...just don't be kicking residents out against their will!
Posted by Meh: #22 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:14 AM
I really don't give a shit about what the community (soon to be ex-) residents feel about it. It's our land and we are now free to develop it as we please. Just please, Columbia, make it look good. Don't make the development into a hodgepodge of glassy rectangular modernity.

And for the leftists who will lash out at me for that opening comment: Boo-frickety-hoo. You guys and your silly cause lost; Columbia will expand; deal with it.
Posted by well: #23 (in reply to #20) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:16 AM
not necessarily...it could be that the original position for your situation would be that the people agree to some sort of fair lottery system to allow some people to live, and others to die, instead of letting all die.

i could be very wrong though...am i?
Posted by crymsk: #24 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Evil administrators, if you ever knock down Uris (or at least when it finally crumbles), please build this:

[external link to www.wikicu.com]

As for Manhattanville, maybe we can build everything with super-pillars, like Dodge. Then sometime in the future we can build all those extra floors we originally wanted, and more.
Posted by Oh It's Cool: #25 (in reply to #22) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:27 AM
No worries. You "lost" on that whole Major Cultures thing. That is, if we're actually getting to the point where we're chalking one up to our respective sides.
Posted by W. C.: #26 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:41 AM
No, Bwog. It is not the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Posted by The other flaw: #27 (in reply to #20) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:54 AM
with Rawls:

His books have bad arguments in them.
Posted by crymsk: #28 (in reply to #25) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:54 AM
huh?

what has manhattanville got to do with major cultures?

oh, so because he/she wants manhattanville expansion to go ahead, he/she must be a racist, and must surely want to oppress minorities and colonize the core curriculum.

i learned one thing during the hunger strikes...

fuck you!
Posted by anonymous: #29 (in reply to #15) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 1:13 AM
I know Rawls pretty well, and your understanding of "justice as fairness" doesn't have that much to do with what he means by it. But that's not really relevant because:

1) It isn't clear, just because you state that it is true, that "replacing community residents with university residents is unfair...".

and, more importantly,

2) Citing what some guy thought about justice doesn't make you right - I could just as easily cite other people (more famous philosophers, if that makes a difference to you - it doesn't to me) who have entirely different conceptions of justice.

Posted by ???: #30 (in reply to #15) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 1:13 AM
Replacing community residents with university residents? Let's phrase that properly. Columbia doesn't propose to evict more than 60 residential tenants. But university housing will hold hundreds.

Also, Columbia owns the land. They can have anyone they want live there. You know... property? And all the existing residents are being relocated at what are no doubt generous terms, given CB9's propensity for shrieking.
Posted by The King of Spain: #31 (in reply to #24) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Really? You think that dark monster beats Uris because it has pilasters. New York city is full of horrifying beaux-arts skyscrapers covered with distorted pilasters. Only Art Deco and a few Modern styles are able to address the verticality of NYC. People don't even try to look at things, they just see what they already like and assign beauty based on signifiers. God bless you Robert Venturi.
Posted by Uris hater: #32 (in reply to #24) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 1:22 AM
Unless they decide to open the fire exits on the north side of Uris library on a permanent basis, I cheer the demolition of Uris.
Posted by Empire State north: #33 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 1:25 AM
Imagine what kind of view you would be able to get from the top of the dark monster. The University would be able to open an observation deck, and charge exhorbitant fees to throngs of refugees from the Empire State building...
Posted by The King of Spain: #34 (in reply to #30) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 1:30 AM
There are around 400 people from 132 units that will be given better housing that they can eventually buy, all on Manhattan, and not far from the site.

You have no right to stay in a rented building, and you have no right to block development simply to keep the apartment. It is a pragmatic consideration necessary to maintain a stable society and maintain some semblance of society to offer affordable housing. It's neccessary, it's good, but it's not a moral right.
Posted by ccc: #35 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 1:35 AM
here's more cool stuff they should have built:

islamic towers:

[external link to www.wikicu.com]

riverside stadium:

[external link to www.wikicu.com]

[external link to www.wikicu.com]

residential colleges south of butler:

[external link to www.wikicu.com]
Posted by numbers???: #36 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 1:59 AM
So the numbers of displaced residents are 60, 400, etc, according to some of these comments. Can someone tell me where in the blue fuck are these protesters getting the number 5000 from? I'm not saying 60 or 400 are accurate or even ballpark numbers (I really have no idea), but they seem to be on a much more plausible order of magnitude than 5000. Especially since in PrezBo's email he said Columbia would be expanding into the manufacturing zone (which I take to mean mostly non-residential zoning, but I could be wrong). I am honestly curious as to why all these estimates are so vastly different.

Also, before I get shouted at, you better have some links to back your shit up. I'm not going to believe something just because you'll say I'm racist if I don't.
Posted by Andrew: #37 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 1:59 AM
Here are my takes on this.

Firstly, in *theory* replacing academic buildings with housing for students is not a negative step - the more affiliates that are housed on campus, the less will seek housing in the areas immediately surrounding the project area, which will lessen the immense displacement pressures facing West Harlem slightly. Again, Columbia will try to exploit this fact in its PR in attempting to do less than its fair shake in mitigating its impact by the funding of affordable housing, but it's not a negative thing. Remember that the displacement that people are most worried about is the indirect sort that will affect thousands of people.

I personally am confident that Columbia will relocate the tenants in the project site to comparable housing and take the university at its word. What I do not believe, however, is that the university will care to actually get the consent of the tenants that are involved, because it has the political capital to cut agreements with the owners of the residential properties, which is HPD in one case and two non-profits in the others. If you look carefully, that was one of the points we brought up with Ms. Griffith a couple weeks ago, and I think that to be only fair.

We activists are by no means as simple-minded as Bwog seems to believe we are. There is not a single one of us that assumed that any significantly different result was going to come through the ULURP process given the immense political capital the university has invested in the project. The process is, like almost any city process, an expression of existing power relations with a facade of democracy that is more than transparent. We tried to appeal to its sense of morality - that ignoring and refusing to negotiate with the Community Board of those most effected was wrong and not the way an institution of higher learning should behave. Obviously, they chose to power through the process, as they had the agency to do so, and they got their desired result.

The moral struggle that remains is getting the university to mitigate its presence via the CBA, in areas including but not limited to housing. The 20 million dollar plan agreed to with Stringer is shameful - crumbs from the table that amount to roughly 1/350th of the total cost of the project. It sets an extremely low floor for further negotiations and Columbia needs to do signficantly more.

The message is not, and has never been, that Columbia should not expand. The message is that if Columbia wants to expand, it should play by the rules set by the community it seeks to expand into. If it cannot even do that, if it cannot even *negotiate* with those it is affecting in good faith, then it needs to be pressured into doing so by all forces that exist - community activists, students, faculty, etc... The strength of our argument is that the university, as a PR-sensitive, wealthy institution is *not* an evil monolith and can be pushed to be responsible. It is not, however, acting responsibly of its own accord, and that is why we felt and continue to feel the need to act concertedly and drastically. It is the least we can do concerning an expansion that, after all, is being carried out in our names.
Posted by lame: #38 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 2:01 AM
i just like the idea of an octopus slithering around somewhere on campus.
Posted by Andrew: #39 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 2:04 AM
Oh, and the number 5,000 comes from Columbia's Environmental Impact Statement. The actual number is 5,035, and refers to the number of people living in subsidized housing within a half-mile radius of the expansion zone that would be at risk of displacement from rising rents.

Columbia's estimate for actual potential displacement figures in the absence of an affordable housing program are lower but still extremely high - 3,293 within a 1/4 mile alone within 20 years. It's all in the documents.

And yes, dearest naysayers, gentrification is happening all over Harlem, not just because of Columbia. The fact that Columbia would accelerate such trends in West Harlem beyond existing market conditions for the zoning that exists is acknowledged forthrightly by Columbia's own Environmental Impact Statement.
Posted by beautification: #40 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 2:17 AM
I'll bet that most of the new buildings will look like the ugly north-west science building that will be completed some time in the next two years (i.e. a 14-story version of Lerner hall, with an escalator instead of ramps).
Posted by manufacturing zone: #41 (in reply to #36) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 2:21 AM
Columbia is expanding into the manufactoring zone? Leave it to the "multiversity" to multi-task. I thought we had a few pretty good departments, but heck, why not try something new.
Posted by John Rawls: #42 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 2:32 AM
Stop putting words in my mouth.
Posted by crymsk: #43 (in reply to #42) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 3:30 AM
Fuck you, commie.
Posted by Reply to many: #44 (in reply to #11) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 7:26 AM
Before you whine about how community residents are being replaced to make way for university faculty, it is best to remember a few things:

1) Housing for faculty has become a bigger and bigger problem in the last few years. If we all admit (and I think we have to) that one of the biggest draws of coming to Columbia (perhaps one of the only draws) is being able to live in New York City on the cheap (whether that means coming as a grad student or as a hired faculty member). Columbia no longer has anywhere to put its teachers, which means that increasingly, it has to turn them away from the subsidized housing that is almost always part of the deal at universities. A lot of this has to do with the fact that senile widows of dead professors are living in sprawling floor-through apartments in pre-war buildings that they refuse to give up, even though the apartments aren't technically theirs, but that's another story for another day.

2) As many on this board have said, Columbia owns the land and can do what it wants with it. Nuff said.

3) The people in Harlem (and the Columbia students against the expansion) actually seem to believe that this is their ultimate fight, and a fight worthing fighting. What they're forgetting (or denying), however, is that even if they got Columbia off their backs, other developers would be right on their heels. Like it or not, the area we've decided to call Manhattanville is "ripe" for gentrification (and God do I hate it when that phrase is used but so be it; it works), and sooner or later, whether Columbia is responsible or not, that area will look like a verifiable city of those awful glass-and-steel condos that just went up on Broadway and 99th St. If the Manhattanville residents think that they'll get off scott-free and be able to go on living in their neighborhood as the rest of gentrification closes in around them, then they are in for quite a rude awakening. They'll be kicked out, whether it's Columbia that does it or some greedy outside developers; although the latter, as has again been pointed out a trillion times, will have no reason whatsoever to even try to be nice to them.

They've been fighting a losing battle, as I'm sure some of them secretly admit to themselves, and Columbia is not only their best bet, but really the only one to go with.
Posted by alexw: #45 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 9:02 AM
As a civil engineer entering the work force in the near future, I highly encourage Columbia University to build as tall as possible as many times as possible.
Posted by anonymous: #46 (in reply to #39) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Gentrification = neighborhoods becoming nicer places to live.

So hooray for Columbia's plan.
Posted by regarding rawls: #47 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 11:02 AM
You are all mischaracterizing "justice as fairness." It was intended to describe a system of distributive justice, not a comprehensive normative principle. It doesn't tell you what to do in a boat. It does tell you how a society should assign rights and goods.
Posted by please: #48 (in reply to #38) · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I resent these biased and unfounded attacks on octopi. they do not "slither"; they are graceful, magnificent creatures who waft through water.
Posted by erm: #49 · reply · track
November 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM
LEAVE COLUMBIA ALONE
Posted by Yikes: #50 (in reply to #44) · reply · track
November 28, 2007 at 6:12 PM
"A lot of this has to do with the fact that senile widows of dead professors are living in sprawling floor-through apartments in pre-war buildings that they refuse to give up, even though the apartments aren't technically theirs, but that's another story for another day."

Ah, compassionate conservativism.
Posted by Communist: #51 · reply · track
December 1, 2007 at 3:15 AM
"Ah, compassionate conservativism."

Actually, no. It's more like what we social engineering, property distributing, utopian types believe.
Name:
Email:
Reply to:

Describe this color in one lowercase word.

About Us

Bwog is compiled by the staff of The Blue and White, Columbia University's undergraduate magazine.

Contact Us

Please send tips to bwgossip@columbia.edu.

Questions or concerns? Email bweditors@columbia.edu.

Bwog is always looking for new writing talent. Email bwog@columbia.edu.

In Print

Search

Comment Policy

Our Favorite Comments

don't worry...: [read]
"this is columbia: your virginity will grow back"
omg: [read]
"I understand nothing about money except that I need to marry rich, but I love Jim Cramer"

Bwogroll

Technical

Our headlines are syndicated through Atom.
This site is powered by the Publicate Content Management System, which is available for free.
Our interface icons are from the free Silk set.