Weaving Urban and Ivy:

Columbia Universitys Role in Transforming West Harlem

!

Ambar Paulino

Research Assistantship 490 Advisor: Professor Davarian Baldwin

04/14/2015

Manhattanville 1, 2008. Photo by Daniella Zalcman, Flikr Creative Commons

Abstract

Columbia University (CU) faced controversy in 2003, after announcing their plans to expand their main campus, into the Manhattanville neighborhood located in West Harlem. Fueled by the need to remain competitive with its Ivy League Peers, CU considered expansions parameters, that unbeknownst to local residents, would lead to the complete redevelopment of Manhattanville. For decades, CU has struggled to maintain steady relations with the surrounding communities, trailing a history of protests, violent demonstrations, and public disagreements in regards to the matters of public land acquisition for personal benefit. This thesis provides an in-depth look into the events that led to the announcement of expansion in 2003, and the steps CU has taken to implement their development plan, which is expected to complete by 2030. Unlike existing literature, Weaving Urban and Ivy takes into consideration the perspectives of residents and community leaders directly affected by this plan. Through their reflections, I am able to challenge the idea that Columbia is not inherently responsible for the displacement of tenants from Manhattanville, and furthermore suggest that the institution should be held responsible for the noticeable physical and cultural alterations of West Harlem.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 4 Introduction: All Out, Nos Quedamos, We Will Remain! 5 Literature Review 9 Methodology 11

Chapter One: White Harlem: The Columbia Factor 14 Harlem: A Legacy of Racial and Class Conflict and Inequity 20 Chapter Two: Weaving Urban and Ivy: The Larger Columbia Master Plan 34

Chapter Three: Iron Fist in a Velvet GloveTheyve found a way to kick us out! 54

Epilogue: The Bodega Memoir: Morphing Identity of the West Harlem Area 74

Bibliography 77

Addendum 81

Acknowledgements I would like to send a special thanks to the following people: Professor Andrea Dyrness,

Professor Rachel Leventhal-Weiner, and Professor Jack Dougherty, for encouraging me take

on this project and supporting my decision to create a senior schedule that worked around

this developed interest. To my thesis adviser, Professor Davarian Baldwin, for his dedication

and knowledge on urban America, as well for teaching me the importance of these issues

that have been plaguing city landscapes in my own backyard and around the world.

Professor Baldwin encouraged and challenged me in unimaginable ways during the duration

of this project. There is absolutely no way I could have completed a project of this

magnitude without his unwavering patience and guidance. To Professor Milla Riggio and

Professor Prakash Younger as well, for supporting my academic interests outside of the

magical realm of English Literature. To my friends and family, for listening to me when I

most needed it, and stepping up to the plate when I asked for additional readers. Last but

not least, I extend my gratitude to those resilient Manhattanville, Hamilton Heights, and

Morningside Heights residents for proving to me that activism in our local communities

matter.

4

Introduction All Out, Nos Quedamos, We Will Remain!

On June 8th 2006, an email was sent out to

members of the West Harlem community encouraging

residents and other supporters to come out and join the

march against displacement. The organizers, The Coalition to Preserve Community,

Project Remain/Nos Quedamos, and the Harlem Tenants Council had little knowledge

that the march, which took place two days later, would catalyze local activism and shed

light on a seemingly growing problem affecting all of West Harlem. We urge everyone

to come out this Saturday and rally for affordable housing and legal services to defend

tenants who are being driven out by landlords and developers, said the e-mail. Angry

residents living in the West Harlem neighborhoods of Manhattanville, Hamilton Heights,

Figure'1:'Harlem'Tenants'United'Against'Gentrification'marching'to'Nos$Quedamos$Rally.'Photo'by'Steven'Gregory.'2006.'

5

and Morningside Heights, decided to rally and march against what community-based

organizations called a growing spate of strong-arm tactic by landlords to evict low-

income tenants,1 which they claimed had risen after local Ivy League institution and

titanColumbia University announced their 17-acre plan to expand their Manhattanville

campus into an area bound by 125th and 133rd Streets. What was assumed to be a small

demonstration against Columbia Universitys expansion plan and other housing woes

soon turned into a historic display of over 1,000 Black and Latino residents demanding

justice.

The official e-mail correspondence sent out to community leaders on June 8th,

asked those interested to meet at the Riverside Park Community (3333 Broadway), an

apartment complex, which houses over 1,190 families, many of whom were affected by

the rent increase and displacement contingently caused by Columbias expansion. This

rent increase affects everyone...I live in one of the biggest housing developments with

over 3,000 people, and we are on the verge of being displaced. People have had to move

because the rent is so high...you just cant do that to people,2 said Marlene Petty, former

Vice President of 3333s Tenants Association. Columbia Professor Steven Gregory

suggests that this rally gave those interested the opportunity to voice their concerns

regarding Columbia University and their displacement tactics.3 Understanding

Columbias role in their housing struggle, residents and supporters took their anger and

voices to the streets to mobilize and bring awareness to the issue.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!Casimir,!Leslie,!Protest!Targets!Landlord!in!Low5Income!Evicts.!NY!Daily!News,!2006.!2!Hines,!Sarah.!The!Struggle!for!Housing.!SocialistWorker.org.!Web.!!2!Hines,!Sarah.!The!Struggle!for!Housing.!SocialistWorker.org.!Web.!!3!Gregory,!Steven.!"The!Radiant!University:!Space,!Urban!Redevelopment,!and!the!Public!Good."!52.!

6

!Community leaders and residents of West

Harlem congregated earlier that morning, in a feeder

rally in Marcus Garvey Park (located in Central

Harlem) consisting of no more than 100 persons. During the rally, Nellie Bailey, of the

Harlem Tenants Council stated,

If we dont organize, Harlem will cease to exist. It will become just a bus stop on

tour buses from downtown. Columbia now wants to expand its campus into

Manhattanville. And they dont want to work with the community. They have

ignored all the proposals that were made by the Community Board and others.

What they cant buy they are going to take using eminent domain. And we have to

Figure'2:'Local'community'leaders'being'interviewed'in'front'of'3333'Broadway'Complex.'Photo'by'Steven'Gregory,'2006.'

7

stop them!4 Hell no, we wont go! she exclaimed.

This phrase was continuously chorused throughout the Harlem, Washington Heights and

Inwood neighborhoods of Manhattan. Accounts of the march indicate that several feeder

groups, representing different organization, turned a 100-person rally, into a 600-person

protesta number that increased as the four-mile trek to Dyckman Street in the Inwood

section of Manhattan progressed.

The events that transpired that summer afternoon, publicized issues that continue

to threaten local residents of West Harlem and surrounding neighborhoods. The march,

recognized as the Nos Quedamos (We are Staying) reached an unfathomable number of

people, who may have been subjected to rent increases and evictions and were unaware

as to the reason. For decades, leaders representing Columbia University have argued that

Columbia is a non-profit, public institution... and that It is not a private developer that

is trying to make money.5 By contrast, Community leaders and residents seized the

opportunity to educate others and took responsibility for informing those present about

Columbias possible role in their struggle to stay in their beloved communities

This paper explores the remarkable relationship(s) between the self-identified

non-profit public institution Columbia University (CU) and historically significant

districts in West Harlem. CU is said to hold no power in evicting residents and changing

the demographic and economic landscape of West Harlem. This paper challenges the

belief that Columbia is not responsible for the displacement of residents. By using tactics

such as eminent domain, CU has secured access to the majority of the Manhattanville !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!4!Gregory,!Steven.!The!Radiant!University:!Space,!Urban!Redevelopment!and!the!Public!Good.!!City!and!Society.!P.!48.!!5!Lee!Bollinger,!interview!by!Brian!Lehrer,!March!8th,!2006,!The!Brian!Lehrer!Show.!Transcript.!!

8

majority of the Manhattanville area. The Universitys exclusive control of their

proposed campus expansion site in Manhattanville, ensured by partnerships in

government powers holds the university responsible for the rising cost of rent,

displacement of local residents, noticeable alterations in West Harlems built

environment, and changed demographics of West Harlem.

Literature Review

Resources on the topic of the Manhattanville expansion currently consist of

newspaper articles, detailing certain events that generated controversy when the initial

plan was proposed. Local newspapers such as The New York Daily News, The Columbia

Spectator, The New York Times, and online-digestDNA Info, have over the years,

publically detailed Columbias role in changing the characteristics of West Harlem. There

are also a small selection of reports, drafted by Columbia students and community

activists, which identify a working timeline that led to decisions made by Columbia and

state leadership.

While the existing collection of reports and essays provides contextual and

historical data, it fails to offer interested readers with the personal narratives of those

affected by the expansion plan. Published literature rarely moves beyond providing the

typical timeline of events and factual data.6 This paper aims to weave together archival !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6!The!small!but!growing!scholarship!on!university7city!engagement!includes,!Davarian!L.!Baldwin,!The!8007Pound!Gargoyle:!The!Long!History!of!Higher!Education!and!Urban!Development!on!Chicagos!South!Side,!American!Quarterly!67.1!(2015);!Harley!Etienne,!Pushing!Back!the!Gates:!Neighborhood!Perspectives!on!University7Driven!Revitalization!in!West!Philadelphia.!Philadelphia:!Temple!University!Press,!2012;!Sharon!Haar.!The!City!as!Campus:!Urbanism!and!Higher!Education!in!Chicago.!Minneapolis:!University!of!Minnesota!Press,!2011;!Robert!Greenstreet,!Creating!a!Town7Gown!Partnership:!The!Milwaukee!

9

data and strong personal narratives to tell the story of those affected by the

Manhattanville expansion, hence the titleWeaving Urban and Ivy.

The lack of personal accounts besides those individuals quoted in Newspaper

articles is what motivated me to conduct this research. Apart from Gregorys The

Radiant University: Space, Urban Redevelopment and the Public Good, there are very

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Model,!in!Paul!Hardin!Kapp!and!Paul!Armstrong!eds.!Synergicity:!Reinventing!the!Postindustrial!City.!Urbana:!University!of!Illinois!Press,!2012;!Margaret!Pugh!OMara.!Cities!of!Knowledge:!Cold!War!Science!and!the!Search!for!the!Next!Silicon!Valley.!Princeton:!Princeton!University!Press,!2005;!David!C.!Perry!and!Wim!Wiewel.!The!University!as!Urban!Developer.!Armonk,!New!York!and!London:!M.E.!Sharpe!Inc.,!2005;!John!Gilderbloom!and!R.L.!Mullins.!Promise!and!Betrayal:!Universities!and!the!Battle!for!Sustainable!Urban!Neighborhoods.!Albany:!State!University!of!New!York!Press,!2005;!Carolyn!Adams,!The!Meds!and!Eds!in!Urban!Economic!Development,!Journal!of!Urban!Affairs!25:5!(2003),!5717588!and!Corey!Dolgon,!Soulless!Cities:!Ann!Arbor,!the!Cutting!Edge!of!Discipline:!Postfordism,!Postmodernism,!and!the!New!Bourgeoisie,!Antipode!31:2!(1999),!1297162.!For!more!historical!work!see,!Town!Meets!Gown:!Special!Issue,!Journal!of!Planning!History!10.1!(February!2011);!Stefan!Bradley.!Harlem!vs.!Columbia!University:!Black!Student!Power!in!the!Late!1960s.!Urbana:!University!of!Illinois!Press,!2009;!and!Thomas!Bender.!The!University!and!the!City:!From!Medieval!Origins!to!the!Present.!New!York:!Oxford!University!Press,!1988.!There!are!also!a!growing!number!of!important!dissertations!and!theses!that!have!yet!to!become!books,!but!are!beginning!to!take!up!the!higher!education/urban!development!nexus.!They!include!Jeannine!Nicole!Keefer,!Politicization!of!Space:!Urban!Campus,!Urban!Renewal,!and!Development!in!the!Temple!and!University!City!areas!of!Philadelphia!from!1947!to!1972,!(PhD!dissertation,!State!University!of!New!York!at!Binghamton,!2013);!Jeffrey!Wigintton,!Urban!Universities!Campus!Expansion!Project!in!the!21st!Century:!A!Case!Study!of!the!University!of!Southern!Californias!Village!at!USC!Project!and!its!Potential!Economic!and!Social!Impacts!on!Its!Local!Community!to!Provide!a!Template!for!Future!Expansion!Projects,!(PhD!dissertation,!University!of!Southern!California,!2013);!Anne!Bowman,!Beyond!the!Ivory!Tower:!In!Search!of!a!New!Form!for!Campus7Community!Relations,!(MA!Thesis,!Massachusetts!Institute!of!Technology,!2011);!Patrick!Noonan,!Urban!vs.!Suburban!Shawn!Abbott,!The!Good,!Bad,!and!Ugly!of!Campus!Expansion,!(Ed.D.!dissertation,!Columbia!Teachers!College,!2010);!La!Dale!Winling,!Building!the!Ivory!Tower:!Campus!Planning,!University!Development!and!the!Politics!of!Urban!Space,!(PhD!dissertation,!University!of!Michigan,!2010);!Ricki!Gever!Einstein,!Fragile!Partnerships:!Urban!Universities,!Neighbors,!and!Neighborhoods,!(PhD!dissertation,!University!of!Pennsylvania,!2005);!Leroy!David!Nunery,!Reconceptualizing!the!College!Town:!Urban!Universities!and!Local!Retail!Development,!(PhD!dissertation,!University!of!Pennsylvania,!2003);!Alvaro!Cortes,!The!Role!of!Universities!in!Urban!Neighborhood!Change:!University!Activity!and!Inactivity,!(PhD!dissertation,!Wayne!State!University,!2002).!!

10

few documents which provide an in-depth look to what the expansion really meant to

those living in the neighborhoods affected. Gregorys essay provided an extensive look at

specific events and the decisions that had led up to the expansion plan, while providing a

somewhat balanced perspective of the general public.

As the research shows, many residents living in the Manhattanville, Hamilton

Heights and Morningside Heights areas of West Harlem are completely unaware of the

details regarding this plan, and how decisions made by Columbia may shape their lives.

Besides papers that provide factual information collected by statistical data, research

conducted on this topic is scarce. Tenants and leaders of West Harlem have for long felt

marginalizedin fact, this research demonstrates that these people were quieted,

opinions being forever muffled by chaos caused by the expansion itself. As a result of

this, the community has been for long, shut out of the decision making process when it

comes to their own neighborhoods. As much as Columbia University can claim to serve

the purpose of public good, this is a story that needs to be toldin its entirety.

Methodology

I used a qualitative approach in gathering primary information, in order to weave

together this untold story. I conducted a total of seven in-depth one-on-one interviews

with local West Harlem residents, and gave those who couldnt meet with me the

opportunity to fill out an interview questionnairewhich was modeled similarly to the

interview. At the beginning, eager to talk to many of people and gather significant

information, I reached out to dozens of community leaders3 of which I was lucky

enough to get a response from. The other four interviewees were residents of the West

11

Harlem area: 2 residents of the 3333 complex, 1 from the Manhattanville area, and the

last from Hamilton Heights. When locating these individuals, I used snowball sampling

to gather the names and information of qualified individuals. I intentionally reached out

to working professionals, and Latino/a, and African American individuals who I knew

would either have some knowledge of the expansion plan or have lived/worked in the

areas affected.

Before I conducted any interviews, I obtained informed consent from all of the

participants. The form I drafted detailed the conditions of our conversation and stated that

their participation was voluntary. Participants received this form, and an interview

invitation, which in detail, explained and outlined the purpose of my research project

along with my contact information (all model forms are included in an addendum). All of

the participants were encouraged to stop and ask questions if they were unclear regarding

a question, or if they did not feel comfortable answering. Although some people chose to

remain anonymous during the interviews, I would later find that their contribution was

invaluable to the topic overallas their opinions and experiences as residents and

community leaders helped weave together a very powerful story.

Through this paper, I hope to provide an in-depth look at the CU expansion plan,

and explain how certain decisions have affected those living in West Harlem, and those

striving to make West Harlem what an interviewee described as, a better place to live. I

have divided the paper into three chapters, each covering distinct pieces of the plan.

Chapter One provides a general overview of the West Harlem community, and the

neighborhoods legacy of racial and class conflict with Columbia University. Chapter

Two focuses on the larger Columbia Master Plan. In chapter two, I begin to weave

12

together important documents provided by the Department of City Planning, Columbia

University, and general responses from the public to demonstrate how the institution

manipulated efforts in buying and implementing its 197-C plan, a redevelopment plan

which paved the way for the general plan. Chapter Three explores the various impacts of

the CU expansion plan on local community development. In this chapter, I explain

Columbias struggle to enact the use of eminent domain when buying out property for the

expansion plan, a decision that almost cost them the entire project, as I continue to weave

in the personal opinions of those individuals involved.

While I am not a resident of the Manhattanville area, I believe that I too, have

been affected by Columbias decision to expand their Harlem campus. As a life-long

member of the West Harlem community, Ive witnessed residents driven out of their

homes due to increased rents, the closing of local mom-and-pop shops, where many of

my own childhood memories were formed, and a general physical change of the

environment. Conducting this research does not only empower me to understand where I

am from and the struggle that many families have faced due to the expansion, but it also

has given me the knowledge necessary to expand the knowledge base of local residents in

order to engage in critical civic participation, to hopefully ensure a more just expansion

plan and far more democratic West Harlem. As colleges and universities continue to

expand in the urban neighborhoods of color that surround their campuses, the case of

Columbia in West Harlem speaks to urban developments that go far beyond New York

City but are at least national in scope and impact.

13

Chapter 1 White Harlem: The Columbia Factor

In the summer of 2003, current CU President Lee Bollinger formally announced

the universitys plan to expand their current campus into the Manhattanville

neighborhoodin an area spanning from 125th Street to 133rd Street between Broadway

and 12th Avenue as depicted in the picture above, which lies north of the institutions

main campus. Driven by the need to provide more space for their students, (CU)

proposed a 17-acre expansion project that would rezone local business and potentially

displace residents living in West Harlem for the construction of academic buildings. CU

marketed itself as an institution that values its neighboring communities for their cultural

Figure'3:'West$Harlem,'Picture'Courtesy'of'MAS'(Municipal'Art'Society)'of'New'York'

14

richness, ensuring that the addition of a new campus, would only provide a long-term

future of shared opportunity and prosperity.7

The CU expansion plan generated controversy and an underlying sense of

hostility between Columbia as an institution and its student body/faculty and staff, as well

as a reignited resentment on the part of local residents and community advocates. Many

residents, unclear of the institutions intention in expanding their campus into their

community have asked and continue to ask a very important question: Why does

Columbia need more space? and furthermore, Why does it have to be my

neighborhood?8 According to the official facilities/construction website, Columbia is

considered one of the next-most-space crunched school9 amongst its peers of Ivy

League institutions. In an attempt to make the campus more appealing and competitive, it

was decided that the campus was in need of a vibrant center for academic and civic life.

The plan was widely rejected and criticized by the community, especially because

it involved the rezoning of 35 acres and ultimately the confiscation of privately owned

businesses by the means of eminent domain, the legal right of an entity to seize private

property for public use, in an attempt to acquire land for the new campus.10 Residents and

business owners in surrounding neighborhoods live in constant fear that the racially

diverse neighborhoods in which theyve resided in for decades are subject to drastic

demographic changes as a result of the expansion plan. Heralded by their initial efforts to

execute their plan, rising property values presented and continue to pose a threat of

gentrification and further displacement for local residents and businesses. Changing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7!Manhattanville!Campus,!Overview.!Columbia!University!Facilities.!Updated!2015,!Web.!8!Nuez,!Kenny.!Telephone!interview.!18!Mar.!2015!9!Manhattanville!Campus,!Overview.!Columbia!University!Facilities.!Updated!2015,!Web.!10!CAGe!(Columbia!Student!Coalition!Against!Gentrification).!Understanding!Columbia!University!Expansion!into!West!Harlem:!An!Activists!Guide.!Oct!2014.!Web.!

15

demographics further prove that these fears have indeed become a reality, and

furthermorecontinue to affect the West Harlem community in unimaginable ways.

This chapter examines the neighborhoods that encompass the West Harlem area,

which consists of Morningside Heights, Manhattanville and Hamilton Heights, and their

longer relationship to Columbia University before the most recent expansion plan. As a

whole, the area has been subjected to significant demographic change and structural

reshuffling due to a phenomenon referred to by residents as The Columbia Factor.

CUs recent push to expand the campus into Manhattanville and now surrounding

neighborhoods has resulted in the gentrification of these areas. In the last decade, West

Harlem neighborhoods have seen an increase in businesses appealing to younger college

students (I.e., coffee shops where workers do not speak Spanish, organic fruit markets,

pubs/bars and pricey restaurants). In understanding that the act of gentrificationa

process in which poor urban neighborhoods are transformed into urban cities for middle

class residents, it is important to know that CU holds a lengthy and tainted record of bad

relations with West Harlem. By offering a general landscape description of the affected

neighborhoods and historical overview of CU/West Harlem relationships, what follows

will begin to shed light on the foundation that has paved the way for CU to make

decisions regarding the most recent expansion plan.

West Harlem, spanning from the Cathedral Parkway to 155th Streets along the

West side of Manhattan is considered to be one of the most historically and

architecturally diverse pockets in the city. West Harlem consists of three vibrant and

unique neighborhoods: Morningside Heightswhich houses CUs main campus,

Manhattanvillean area that lies north of Morningside Heights, and Hamilton Heights,

16

which is north of Manhattanville. Morningside Heights sometimes considered part of the

Upper West Side, houses institutions such as Columbia University (CU), Barnard

College, the Manhattan School of Music, the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, the

Riverside Church, and the local St. Lukes Hospital. Columbias recent acquisition of

most of Manhattanvilles real estate has earned the neighborhood nicknames such as:

Academic Acropolis, and even White Harlem.11

North of Morningside Heights, you can find Manhattanville, the neighborhood in

Harlem that has been under much scrutiny because of the recent expansion plans.

Manhattanville boasted a rich history of industrial activity during the 19th century, as

home of the first railroad station along the Hudson River Railroad. Manhattanville

historian, Eric K. Washington, described the neighborhoods early population as a diverse

mix of American patriots, British loyals, a former African slave trader, slave owners,

tradesmen, poor laborers and wealthy industrialists.12 During the 20th century, an influx

of African-American, Dominican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban immigrants transformed the

area into an eclectic mix of ethnic and economic diversity.

Interestingly enough, Manhattanville has seen a decrease of black and Hispanic

residents, and a dramatic increase of White Non-Hispanic (234% increase), and Asian

Non-Hispanic (74.6%) residents settle into the area over a ten-year period. Census data

extracted from the 2000-2010 census survey demonstrates an age change in the residents

that made up the Manhattanville demographic. From 2000 to 2010, there was a

documented 11.0% increase of individuals from the ages of 20 to 24 years of age, and a

16.6% increase of individuals from the ages of 25 to 29 moving into Manhattanville. This !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!NYC!Tourist!Guide,!Morningside!Heights,!Manhattan,!New!York!City.!Web.!12!Washington,!Eric!K.,!Manhattanville,!23.!Print.!

17

drastic change in the demographics of neighborhoods surrounding Columbia University

fit the profile of many of their admitted studentspredominantly White and Asian, ages

20-29.

!Figure'2:'Racial'Demographics'of'the'Manhattanville'Area,'NYC$Planning.$2000S2010' '' '! For some West Harlem residents, this influx of White and Asian non-Hispanic residents is noticeable everywhere in their neighborhoods. Abigail, a college student

living in 3333 Broadwaya 1,190-unit apartment complex located in Hamilton Heights

recalled being taken aback when she realized what had been happening in her own

building:

I remember walking into my buildings laundry mat and some blanquita (Caucasian woman) and her friends trying to speak to me in Spanish. I think she was very surprised when I responded in English. I asked her where she was from, and of course she was a Columbia Student. The next day, I found myself in an elevator with about five chinitos (Chinese men). I was extremely surprised. Chinese men that lived in my building? Not possible.

Like Abigail, many West Harlem residents acknowledge the presence of a new

diversity largely consisting of Columbia University students populating their

neighborhoods. Observers interviewed all mentioned the noticeable difference in the

composition of people they see walking down the streets, stand in supermarket lines next

18

to, and even lived next door too. One observer added, that Columbia as well as its

students had no idea of the implications moving into Harlem had on their families. 13

The Hamilton Heights neighborhood, which lies north of both Manhattanville and

Morningside Heights, shares an equally historically and architecturally diverse history.

Unlike Manhattanville, land in Hamilton Heights has not been considered for the

Manhattanville campus. Despite these claims, the area still serves as a zone of potential

development for the institution. Hamilton Heights has a long documented history of low

land-values and little political capitol in the community. Hamilton Heights, spanning

from West 135th to 155th Streets, is recognized as home to many affluent African-

Americans, housing intricate architecturally diverse structures, and a number of historical

landmarks, which makes it virtually incorruptible in the eyes of CU.

With the growing population of White Non-Hispanic residents (231.3% in a 10-

year span- see census data above) and drastic decrease in numbers of Black/African

American (-25.5%) and Hispanic groups (-22%), local businesses have perished while

businesses catering to new crowds have emerged. Residents describe Hamilton Heights

as an area that was once a black-hub nurturing local talent, turned into one that provides

bar-night and coffee shop drinks for people who couldnt understand black culture. They

didnt ask me if I wanted this. Im okay with it, but what about everyone else? I didnt

expect my neighborhood to be affected [by Columbias expansion]. It was a low-blow14

This was one of many voiced concerns regarding CUs expansion plan, which is well

under-way and expected to be completed in 2030. While there is no direct way to proving

whether CU is deliberately moving students into the area, new local coffee shops have !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!13!Nuez,!Kenny.!Telephone!interview.!18!Mar.!2015!!14!Daniel,!Abigail.!In5person!Interview.!11!Mar.!2015!

19

opened to appease college-age crowds. In fact, El Morrocco, A historic dance club

located on 145th Street and Broadway was closed shortly after Harlem Public (149th and

Broadway) was opened. Harlem Public has gained popularity in the last few years as a

bar geared towards college-aged and working class professionals. During the weekends,

they have special events showcasing Columbia talent, and have special drink offers for

students.

Harlem: A Legacy of Racial and Class Conflict and Inequity This is Nothing New The late 1960s marked a time of civil unrest across the United States, and

unbeknownst to many, struggles between West Harlem and CU were a key flashpoint in

the larger national theater. CUs plan to construct a gymnasium in the publically owned

Morningside Park (occupies 110th to 123rd Streets from Morningside Avenue to

Morningside Drive), sparked outrage on the universitys campus and surrounding

community after members of both populaces learned the terms of the proposed plan and

found out about negotiations that had been decided without the community input. CU

students, already enraged by their alma maters failure to publicly state their institutional

affiliation with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a weapons research

organization, decided to retaliate against CU in a six-day non-violent demonstration

which demanded transparency between CUs negotiation in matters of their development

plans, and that the university stop their plans to construct the gymnasium.

20

Historian Stefan M. Bradley notes that the initial proposal to construct a gym

inside the park came as part of the citys plans for redevelopment.15 Bradley continues

Harlem residents would not have been so skeptical about the proposed gym except that

large, white institutions had a reputation for taking control of community businesses and

institutions.16 This skepticism was obviously backed up by students, who had growing

suspicions of CUs role in transforming the urban community they were located in. On

April 24th, 1968, the Columbia SpectatorCUs official student-published newspaper

commented, never before have a group of students so forcefully challenged the

administration of Columbia University.17 For the first time in a long time, students

decided to represent the underrepresented (Harlem Community) and advocate for their

rights. Furthermore, residents were beginning to see the results of CU moving into their

neighborhoods. When asked about her thought on the construction of the gymnasium, a

local resident replied, Sure we fear Columbia. After all what is it to usa place where

our children can never hope to go to school, a place that may be our landlord one day, a

place that may force us to move.18

Bradley states that former New York City Parks Commissioner Thomas Hoving

was the one community leader to publicly state his disapproval towards the plan. Yes I

am responsible for instigating the thing against Columbia University,19 cheerfully stated

Mr. Hoving, during an interview with the New York Times. Hoving criticized the plan and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!15!Bradley,!Stefan.!M,!Harlem!Vs.!Columbia!University:!Black!Student!Power!in!the!1960s.!37.!16!Bradley,!Stefan.!M,!36.!!17!Barry,!Kenneth.!Challenge!to!Administration!Strongest!in!Schools!History.!The!Columbia!Spectator,!24!Apr,!1968.!Web.!!18!Morningside!Heights!Inc.!and!Growing!Community!Tensions,!1968!Protests!WikiCU.com/1968_Protests.!Web.!!19!Hartocollis,!Anemona.!COPING;!A!Site!of!Battles,!a!Piece!of!Paradise.!New!York!Times,!2003.!

21

the universitys intention to take a public space and privatize it for their own benefit. Tom

Schmidt, former CU faculty member stated, We simply dont want any gym in a public

park...They didnt notify anyone before they went ahead with the gym plans. People

should know about these things.20

Many Harlem residents and CU students alike stood in

solidarity against the construction of the gym because they felt as if the park represented

a physical and metaphysical barrier between the University, which sat atop a hill, and

Harlem, which was located below the park. The park, which already served as a physical

barrier between CU and the Harlem community, was proposed to have separate

entrances, differentiating the space(s) that would be used by CU students, and the spaces

that were set aside for local residents.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!20!Greene,!Peter,!!Hoving!May!Attend!Morningside!Rally!Against!New!Gym,!Columbia!Spectator.!March!14th,!1966.!6.!Web.!

Figure'3:'Morningside'Park'Plan'(Wikipedia)

22

On several occasions, supportive members of the CU administration explained

that, the gym was located in the park to avoid displacing local tenants. 21 A

controversial debate ensued however, after the universitys plans were made public in

February 1968 shortly before construction began, mainly because the construction of the

gym on public non-residential area was considered yet another reminder of the affluence

of white society, the oppressive nature of the university, and its relentless tactics used for

capitalization.22 It was evident before the construction started that students, staff/faculty,

and local forces alike did not approve of the plan. CU countered these arguments by

ensuring local activists that the construction of the gymnasium would ultimately help a

blighted area of Harleman argument which has provided CU with enough evidence

to prove a similar case over four decades later with the Manhattanville expansion plan.

About a decade before the demonstrations and protests emerged on CUs campus

as a result of the 1968 construction plan, historian author Oscar Handlin had labeled

Morningside Park, the most feared park in the country.23 A few years later, The

Morningside Citizen, a newsletter sponsored by local tenants in the community requested,

The park undergo a crash program of rehabilitation, better maintenance, and better

policing.24 Generally, it was officially understood that the park needed some

revitalization, but it is now clear that the community wanted to take part in the planning

and decision making process. The general exclusion of this community, along with the

campus feeling of disenchantment, stirred the events that would be written down in

history as one of the institutions strongest displays of student and community !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!21!Columbia!Spectator,!January!12,!1968,!1.!!22!Bradley,!Stefan.!40.!23!Handlin,!The!Newcomers,!35.!24!Condition!of!the!Park,!Morningside!Citizen,!March!20,!1964,!1.!

23

activism.25 CU leadership worked with the city and other government-owned institutions

to ensure that the land for the gymnasium was secured by 1967, while community leaders

fought to keep the gymnasium off of the Morningside park bounds.

Grayson Kirk, former President of Columbia, pushed for the construction of a

gym nearly an entire decade prior to the 1968 protests. Robert Moses, NYC Parks

Commissioner at the time, rejected the request and urged Kirk to lease the land from the

city.26 According to Bradley, other options included building the proposed gymnasium

on-campus. This generated a rather negative response, as CU leadership wanted a

gymnasium off-campus. According to Professor Theodore de Bary, provost emeritus

during the 1960s, although it would be more convenient for the gymnasium to be built

on campus rather than in the park, the community could take better advantage of the

various athletic programs provided by the institution.27 Displaying strikingly interesting

similarities to the 2003 expansion, CUs argument in wanting to construct facilities on

public land argued that CU, needed to keep up with the rest of the schools in its class.28

The need to provide their students with state-of-the-art facilities have a history of trying

to sacrifice the integrity of the neighborhoods surrounding this urban campus. Such

campus expansion plans, as scholars note today, draw a fine line between how

institutions work in favor, and/or against the urban neighborhoods in which they are

located.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!25!Barry,!The!Spectator,!1968.!26!Kahn,!The!Battle!for!Morningside!Heights,!92.!!27!Bradley,!Stefan.!Interview!with!Wm.!Theodore!de!Bary,!November!21st,!1997,!New!York.!Print.!!28!New!Gym!Annex,!Columbia!Alumni!News,!Collins!Collection,!Schomburg!Center!for!Research!in!Black!Culture,!New!York!Public!Library,!NYC.!!

24

The initial proposal for the construction outlined that the city of New York had

exclusive rights to the gym, making the site a public entity that could be used even

when Columbia staff were not on the premises. These plans, drafted before the 1968

protests, were deemed acceptable to both the institution, and the city, on the grounds that

it would positively affect the park by making it into an interracial meeting place full of

activity. This proposal was soon found to be flawed by Mr. Hoving, who asserted that

only 12.5% of floor space was made available to Harlem residents, as opposed to the

proposed 20% (2 full floors) of floor space. Mr. Hoving, supported by former Mayor

John Lindsay demonstrated their opposition to the plan during meetings, conferences, and

in the press. Both Lindsay and Hoving criticized the school for their attempts to use

public land for private use. According to Bradley, the development plan allowed public

land to be parceled out, for a private institutions purpose. However, Hoving was most

enraged by the Universitys approach to handling these plans without community input.

!

25

Hoving comments crystalized the need for

mobilization within the campus and outer

community. Various constituents leveled criticisms, after identified inconsistencies and

limitations within the proposed plan were revealed. The institution heard all of the voiced

concerns regarding the project but still pushed ahead with construction. The decision to

forge ahead forever stained the institutions relationship with the Harlem community.

Protests started as early as 3 months prior to construction. According to the Spectator,

members of the West Harlem Community Organization, rallied together to protest the

construction of the $9-million gymnasium in the park. More than 40 people attended this

protest, which included children, women and men of all ages chanting We want the

park! Columbia must go!29 This public display against CU demonstrated the ardent

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!29!Residents!Again!Protest!Gym.!The!Columbia!Spectator.!2.!1967!

Figure'4:'"Columbia'Student'Fred'Wilson'arrested'during'protest'around'the'site'of'construction"'Image'via'Columbia'Spectator,'24'Apr,'1968

26

fervor in exposing CU as an institution only interested in privatization even during the

early stages of planning and moving forward in the plan.

Intemperate protests ensued amongst the college campus later in February 1968,

when construction actually began. Twelve protestors, all Columbia students were arrested

at the site of construction for attempting to stop the bulldozers from entering Morningside

Park. This protest led to a number of events, including both non-violent and violent

retaliations (repressions) coordinated by the IDA (Institute for Defense Analyses) Six,

which were 6 anti-war Columbia student activists.

Student Activist, Mark Rudd (CC69), the leader of the universitys Students for a

Democratic Society, along with five other students were threatened by administration and

later placed on disciplinary probation after participating in an Anti-IDA protest in the

library. During the months of March and April, faculty and students engaged in a number

of political actions including: breaking into Low Library (which had been previously

locked down by the University), moving into Hamilton Hall, and imprisoning former

Dean of Columbia, Henry Coleman in his office. The Spectator notes that over 100

students were forced out of Hamilton by administrators, and these same students

subsequently broke into the offices of former President Kirk and former Vice President

David Truman.

27

For over 25 hours, students broke into offices,

classrooms, and other administrative spaces;

reading documents, occupying office space, and in some instances, consuming

administrators cigars. The protests, lock-ins, and strikes became such a burden to the

institution that Kirk was forced to bring in the NYPD to break up some of the political

actions against gym construction. According to Robert McFaddens!(CU!Alum)!memoir piece, published by the New York Times in 2008, over 700 students were arrested for

participating in the events, and over 150 participants (including spectators) were injured

to some degree by the police when protests were abruptly ended by the NYPD on April

Figure'4:'Columbia'Students'occupying'Fayerweather'Hall'during'Protests;'Images$courtesy$of$Columbia1968.com

28

30th, 1968 with the use of tear gas.30 Personal remembrances were made available to the

public for the 40- year anniversary celebration of the 1968 protests in 2008. Barbara

Bernstein, CU alumna detailed the horrific events that changed her life that morning:

Early in the morning of April 30, we held tightly to each other, singing We Shall Not Be Moved. We could hear the NYC police chopping through the heap of desks and other office furniture we had pile dup to barricade us from the cops. Inevitably we were stung by the jolt of blue uniforms and riot helmets bursting into our revolutionary sanctuary. We kept singing as they picked us off one by one. An older student reminded me to keep my head covered with an old quilt while we were being arrested. I watched billy clubs itching to swing at us and I tightened the quilt over my head. My feet barely touched the ground as one cop tossed me to the next cop and the next until we were out in the rotunda of Low Library. I couldnt let my guard down and uncover my head. Keep moving! a cop snarled at me and struck the back of my naked head.31

According to Bernstein, and many of those present that chose to publish memoirs, the

police bust changed the culture of student life on campus, and the worlds view of CU as

an elite institution.32Surprisingly, students involved in these heroic protests were shown a

tremendous amount of support from their peers, faculty and staff on campus. These

protests, according to Bernstein, sparked dreams, 33 and furthermore helped her

understand the importance of advocating and providing a voice for those who did not

have one to protect the well being of the neighborhood.

In the end, the general demands of the students (and greater Harlem area) were

indeed met. Construction of the gymnasium in Morningside Park was suspended and the

eventual construction took place inside the Columbia University Campus in 1972.

The NYPD protest bust not only altered the image of the prestigious Ivy League

institution, but also forever jarred the relationship with the surrounding neighborhood, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!30!McFadden,!Robert!D.,!Remembering!Columbia,!1968,!The!New!York!Times,!25!April,!2008.!Web.!31!Bernstein,!Barbara.!Remembering!68,!Columbia1968.!Web.!!32!Personal!Remembrances,!Columbia!68.!Columbia1968.com.!Web.!!33!Ibid,!web.!!

29

which in the end was left without a gym. Since those events, the institution was forced to

develop within its gates, until recently with their more than ambitious goals to expand

into the Manhattanville area and beyond.

Nearly twenty-five years after protests over the construction of a gymnasium in

Morningside Park rattled CUs campus, students and administrators came together to

protest CUs plans to turn the Audubon Theatre and Ballroom, where Black leader

Malcolm X was brutally assassinated, into a facility for scientific research. The Audubon

theatre, constructed in 1912 is located in the Washington Heights neighborhood that once

housed numerous dance and jazz clubs, theatre rooms for the local community, and

ultimately became a venue for prize fights, after Malcolm Xs assassination in 1965.

Before being partially purchased by CU, the ballroom had an infamous reputation for

catching on fire, and hosting failed organizations.34 The building was eventually taken by

the city for back-taxes, and then purchased in 1983 by CU, whose plans included building

a space-age medical research center on the site.35

The announcement of a research center, to no surprise, caused an uproar on CUs

campus and in surrounding community, for whom the ballroom room represented the late

Malcolm Xs martyrdom for the advocacy of African-Americans. Urban scholar Ned

Kaufman states, the fate of the ballroom became a public issue in 1989, when New York

City, which owned the building, announced that it had reached an agreement with

Columbia University to demolish the building and replace it with a center for commercial

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!34!The!Remnants!of!the!1912!Audubon!Theatre!and!Ballroom.!Daytonian(in(Manhattan.!22!May,!2013.!Blogspot.com.!Web!35!Ibid,!1.!

30

biotech research.36 This plan was widely rejected by the public in favor of historic

preservation of the site. The local issue that emerged, like the 1968 plan, was a demand

for CU to develop cultural sensitivity for those living in the area(s) of impact.

Figure'5:'165th'and'Broadway'Avenue'Intersection,'Google'Maps.'2015

To Columbia, this decision to purchase and potentially build laboratories in the Audubon

ballroom seemed like an exceptional undertaking. In fact, one can easily understand why

the institution was so adamant about using that space for biomedical researchit is

located parallel to the Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC), an academic

medical center and home to the New York-Presbyterian Hospital. The picture above

shows an accurate shot of the proximity of both structures. The development of a

biomedical research center on the medical campus would certainly benefit CU students.

According to Kaufman, Columbias opponents, properly insisting on the

integrity of the historic space, also brought forward the question of what exactly that

space was.37 Strikingly similar questions were asked during the 1968 protests, and now

during the Manhattanville expansion plan. The New York Times cited general worries !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!36!Kaufman, Ned. "Heritage and the Cultural Politics of Preservation: The African Burial Ground and the Audubon Ballroom." In Place, Race, and Story: Essays in the Past and Future of Historic Preservation. 61. Print.!37!Ibid,!62.!

31

about preservation. Part of my concern as a historian is preservation...There should be a

memorial to the man [Malcolm X] and to Betty [his spouse]. It is the right thing to do,

stated Manning Marable, a former CU professor and director at the institutions Center

for Contemporary Black History.38 Critics of the plan expressed similar concerns in

eliminating the historic landmark. The December incident as documented by The New

York Times, did not last longer than one day (December 14th, 1992). 39 According to the

article, the demonstration was organized by the Barnard-Columbia Save the Audubon

Coalition, which included approximately 150 protestors taking their concerns to former

Dean of CUs undergraduate collegeJack Greenberg. As these events ensued on the

campus, protestors decided to take matters onto Amsterdam Avenue, blocking traffic for

a few hours.

In the end, the student protesters and organizers were charged and later suspended

for one semester in part, for their participation in executing a public protest.40 Students

were able to successfully advocate and rally in the support of the communities that were

affected by the plan. According to the New York Preservation Archive Project, the

University was able to reach a compromise to protect approximately 2/3rd of the

buildings original architecture (inside and outside). Over 20 years later, the building

houses the Audubon Business and Technology Center. Students efforts to mobilize

against issues of the urban environment were not left unnoticed.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!38Kugel,!Seth.!Where!Tragedy!Struck,!a!Memorial!Will!Rise,!The$New$York$Times.$2!Jan!2005.!Web. 39!Newman,!Maria.!Columbia!Torn!by!Disciplinary!Hearing,!The$New$York$Times.!22!Feb,!1993.!Web.!40!4!Columbia!Students!Ordered!Suspended.!The$New$York$Times,$22!Mar.!1993.!Web.!

32

Two decades later, many scholars and critics call the Manhattanville controversy

an example of history repeating itself. In fact, when looking at the general timeline, initial

plans to rezone the Manhattanville area were rumored to emerge during the early 1990s,

simultaneous to the Audubon Ballroom plan for demolition and the ensuing protests.

Even though these events happened decades ago, the issues of racial inequality and class

conflict remain prevalent in the West Harlem area. These issues are still in existence

today, and severely affect the residents living and thriving in the ever-changing West

Harlem communities of Manhattanville, Morningside Heights, and Hamilton Heights. !

33

Chapter 2 Weaving Urban and Ivy: The Larger Columbia Master Plan Great Urban campuses weave the university into the fabric of city life.

-Facilities, Columbia University

'

Figure'6:'Current'Overview'of'Manhattanville'Expansion'Plan.'Columbia$University$Facilities.' ' '

On April 1st, 2007 former Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer formally

announced Columbia Universitys 197-c plan, a redevelopment proposal affecting areas

in West Harlem neighborhoods. Columbia University developed this plan over a 20-year

period, in alignment with their Manhattanville expansion project, in order to create an

overall design that would be approved by the New York City Council. Columbias long-

term $5 billion plan, spanning a total time period of 25 years to complete (2030) was

34

broken down into two distinct phases, which included the construction of: The Jerome

L. Greene Science Center, a privately-owned publicly accessible park space, a permanent

site for the new, University-assisted public secondary school, and new sites for the

Universitys Business School, and School for the Arts.41 The first phase, which will be

completed in 2015, include renovations to University-owned buildings on 125th Street

and faculty apartments. According to the University, its need to expand derived from the

assessment that the university, had less space for student, compared to its top-ranking,

elite peer institutions. CUs Manhattanville campus website states that planning

principles for the new campus were grounded on the idea that great urban campuses

weave the university into the fabric of city life.42

Fifteeen years earlier, Community Board 9 had begun to align their efforts for

West Harlem revitalization with The Pratt Center for Community Development, an

organization that works with the public sector to develop innovative strategies to help

build a sustainable New York City. Together CB 9 and the Pratt Center developed a 197-

a plan, that calls for the protection of existing jobs, businesses and affordable housing in

the area, as well as an investment in creating further affordable housing and living wage

jobs as a part of any new development there (in Manhattanville).43 The framework

developed between 1991-2005 encourages collaboration between Columbia University

and surrounding communities, and was considered according to an observer, a necessity

for the institution to fix a relationship and calm any misgivings between themselves and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!41!SCGE!Booklet,!Pg.!6!42!Planning!and!Design,!Columbia!Facilities:!Manhattanville!Campus.!Web.!43!The!Student!Coalition!on!Expansion!and!Gentrification,!SCEG!on!CUs!Expansion.!PDF.!2014.!

35

Harlem.44 Columbia, however, did not take a collaborative stance in shaping

relationships with the community. In fact, the two plans represent the collective struggle

between CU and the Harlem community for the future of a shared neighborhood. This

tale of two plans symbolizes a true-to-life conflict, where compromises have not been

made. Chapter two takes an in-depth look at these two planscomparing their

similarities and differences while trying to understand CUs efforts (or lack thereof) to

satisfy local residents needs.

University boosters suggest that the new campus, spanning from 129th to 133rd

Streets between Broadway and 12th Avenue, will transform what is now a largely

isolated, underutilized streetscape of garage openings, empty ground floors, and chain-

link fences...to a center for educational, commercial and community life.45 197-c would

ultimately overhaul over 35 acres of land in the West Harlem area. 197-c faced much

scrutiny, when community officials and residents alike suspected the use of eminent

domain to displace West Harlem residents in favor of the expansion. Local residents and

prominent community leaders responded with skepticism to CUs plan, citing that it

would ultimately displace and work against the best interests of the community. One

resident stated,

While West Harlem has been fortunate enough to have a couple of champion

advocates against CU, many residents had no idea of what the expansion plan

really is or meant. I suspect that even now, years later after construction began

they know what it all means. I was in high school when 197-c was the center of

many heated debates in my building, everyone was always worked up and I am !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!44!Lopez5Pierre,!Thomas.!Interview!with!author.!New!York!City,!NY.!!45!Planning!and!Design,!Columbia!University!Manhattanville!Expansion!Project.!Web.!

36

sure that our landlord and tenant association president faced the heat when

informing us about what it meant. We didnt care about what the plan meant. We

knew that sooner or later wed be kicked out, and nobody wanted that. I

remember my parents asking me what it all meant, and I having no real concrete

answer. It made me uncomfortable knowing that I had no real answer to give

them. or anyone else for that matter.46

Statements like these, which surfaced after the initial plans were announced, were

somewhat common and expected, given that these predominantly Hispanic and African-

American communities had essentially no ties with CU. While there were efforts to

provide information to the community, many residents, unclear and excluded from the

policies and negotiations shaping the CU plan were passive as community citizens. The

same resident went on to say, people simply did not have the time to research and

understand what it all meant.47 When CU announced its general plans for reconstruction

and expansion in 2003, the Community Board of District 9 (CB) had announced its

proposal for an alternate redevelopment plan to counter 197-c. In 2005, the City Planning

Commission was finally presented with CBs 197-a plan, which was designed with the

intentions to address the future of [the] community district, [to] build on its strengths,

and to encourage the growth of a healthy, viable, diverse and sustainable community.48

In part, this plan emerged not only to provide residents an alternative option for

redevelopment, but also with the intention of developing a framework to guide future

discussions concerning public and private sector land use. The official 197-a report,

published by CB9 and The Pratt Center for Community Development, lists the goals of

the 197-a plan as: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!46!Daniel,!Abigail.!Interview!with!author.!11!Mar,!2015.!New!York,!NY.!47!Ibid,!1.!!48!Introduction,!Community!Board!9!Manhattan!1975a!Plan.!!P.!2!

37

Building on the strong social, economic, and cultural base of the district

through a sustainable agenda that would recognize, reinforce and

reinvigorate this ethnically and culturally diverse community;

Ensuring that development in the district is compatible with the existing

and historic urban fabric and keeps with the neighborhoods character;

Creating the conditions to generate good jobs for its residents;

Providing housing and services that are affordable to the community;

Providing for future growth while preserving the districts physical and

demographic character without displacement of existing residents.49

To be clear, the Community Board 9 had begun the process for the 197-a plan in 1991,

after CB9 aligned their efforts with Elliot Sclar, professor of Urban Planning at CU in

order to develop a general framework. With Sclars collaborative efforts, CB9 outlined

key recommendations that CB9 should pursue as part of its 197-a plan.50 These

recommendations were then further developed by Harry Schwartz, a private planning

consultant, and crystallized by the board, after having solicited input from the

community. The first draft of the plan, called Sharing Diversity through Community

Action, which was submitted to the Department of City Planning on December 1998, was

returned for reconsideration of various aspects of the plan and completion.51

This decision strained the relationship between the affected districts and the city and

furthermore, caused suspicion among the community about the role of city government

shaping local neighborhood control. In an effort to comply with city standards, CB9

drafted several versions of 197-a, until CB9 unanimously approved it in October 2005.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!49!Introduction,!Community!Board!9!Manhattan!1975a!Plan.!!P.!2!!50!Planning!Process,!Community!Board!9!Manhattan!1975a!Plan.!!P.!5!51!Ibid.!5.!

38

197-a is designed with the intention to address issues plaguing the community and

physical environment in the neighborhoods that would be affected by CUs expansion.

CB9 spent countless hours working on a document, which to them would address

underlying problems affecting the communities while still considering the wants and

demands of residents in the area. According to city documents, there were five

underlying issues that drove the formation of the 197-a plan:

1. The need to improve the quality of life of its (CB9) residents

2. The need to preserve historical building patterns and neighborhood scale

3. The need to encourage the creation and development of job-intensive

businesses to benefit local residents

4. The need to allow for population growth in a manner that promotes diversity

of incomes without displacement of existing residents

5. The need to significantly improve the social, cultural, and economic

opportunities for residents by encouraging the qualitative development of the

area while preserving and enhancing the built and natural environment for

present and future generations.

Debates regarding the issue of land use and rezoning in Manhattanville were closely

linked to the expansion plan in 2005. CU considered the impact area to be of low-use

in a conditions study of Manhattanville published in 2008. Their 197-c plan documents

current zoning in the district as mostly residential (R7-2 and R8), with major avenues

with commercial overlays (zoned C1-2 and C2-4). Some of the recommendations set

forward by 197-c proposed that developers: establish a special purpose zoning district in

Manhattanville that will balance the mixed-used needs of the district, study and possibly

39

adopt contextual zoning, and most importantly utilize inclusionary zoning to create

affordable housing units for residents.52

As CU broke grounds on the expansion, residents began to voice their worries that

the redevelopment of Manhattanville would create more problems than they solve.53

Although the plan supported the construction of affordable housing units in the area,

residents were unhappy with the proposed changes. Walter South, CB9 member stated,

This is not good planning, and its not appropriate.... We need down-zoning, not 17-

story complexes.54 Widely contested during this time were many of the terms and

conditions of the 197-c plan, which proposed rezoning for the construction of high-rise

residential and classrooms building in an area, which was once a mixed-use district. CUs

push for the development of a different kind of neighborhood was again, negatively

received, even though the New York City Department of Planning, supports the

universitys reinforcement of the special character of West Harlems residential

neighborhoods by rezoning.55 The plan itself called for the redevelopment and

revitalization of the old Manhattanville manufacturing zone in West Harlem for

academic mixed-use, in the area,56 according to La-Verna Fountain, a member of CU

Facilities in a brief e-mail published on the schools website. The email states,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!52!1975A,.9.!53!Mitchell,!Abby.!City!Seeks!West!Harlem!Rezoning,!The!Columbia!Spectator,!3!Dec,!2010.!Web.!!54!Ibid,!1.!!55New!York!City!Department!of!City!Planning.!West!Harlem!Rezoning!Proposal:!Approved!!2012.!PDF.!!56!Fountain,!La5Verna.!City!Planning!Commission!Approves!with!Modifications!Rezoning!of!Manhattanville!Manufacturing!Zone!to!Allow!for!Columbias!Proposed!Long5Term!Expansion:!For!Immediate!Release.!Office!of!Communications!and!Public!Affairs,!Columbia.!26!Nov,!2007!

40

The commissions modifications to Columbias proposed site plan for the 17-acre former industrial area include modifying the use of a proposed building at the northeast corner of the project area from academic research to University housing and reducing its scale to be more consistent with nearby residential blocks; modifying the use and reducing the scale of a building on the block that is now primarily the MTAs Manhattanville Bus Depot; and widening the public walkway leading to the publicly accessible open space between 130th and 131st streets to make that large open square even more welcoming to all members of the local community.57

While, at this point, the plan was still under review, residents who understood the

implications of the plan, were not hesitant to voice their concerns in public forums,

despite CUs attempt to make the plan seem desirable. To counter what CU called an

exaggeration of information caused by misinformed student activists, and inflammatory

community organizations,58 the institution conducted a neighborhood conditions study,

which proved the need for redevelopment due to the blighted conditions

Manhattanville suffered.

The Manhattanville Neighborhood Conditions Study conducted by the Empire

State Development Corporation (public benefit corporation of the state of New York59)

and Alee King Rosen and Fleming (AKRFa planning and engineering consulting firm)

on CUs behalf reported the area as largely blightedor wrecked conditions as evidence

for pursuing redevelopment. The study states, Deteriorated and substandard conditions

identified in the study area are in part due to its physical isolation from surrounding

neighborhoods of Manhattanville. The poor maintenance and bleak appearance of the 13-

block-long Manhattan Valley IRT viaduct (for the 1-Train) contribute to the perception of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!57!Ibid,!web.!!58!CAGe,!Understanding!Columbia!Universitys!Expansion!into!West!Harlem:!An!Activists!Guide.!Oct,!2014.!Web.!!59!Note:!Public!Benefit!Corporations!are!entities!chartered!by!a!state!designed!to!perform!some!type!of!public!benefit.!!

41

isolation and disinvestment in the [study] area.60 While some residents agreed that

Manhattanville needed some physical revitalization, many did not describe the area as

bleak or wrecked. Kenny Nuez, Hamilton Heights resident, recalled walking past auto

shops that were located in Manhattanville and feeling proud of his neighbors

accomplishments:

I was good friends with one of the autoshop owners, he was Dominican, and tires

were all that he knew. I spent a lot of time in his shop when I first came to New

York City. While the area wasnt the greatest, and his shop wasnt the cleanest, it

was a representation of his hard work. It inspired me. I knew because of him that I

could someday make it. When the shop went down, I felt a little discouraged

knowing that like him, my hard work could potentially be destroyed.61

These concerns although vocalized during public forums and meetings with CB9, were

completely disregarded in the CU study. The neighborhood report suggests that

pedestrian movement is virtually non-existent because of the physical and visual isolation

of sidewalk amenities and recommended that the overall area undergo a physical

alteration to meet the needs of an ever-growing and ever-changing neighborhood

population and economy.

AKRF and ESDCs argument to re-zone and redevelop the Manhattanville area

was centralized on the idea that the 17-acre area was physically and visually isolated

from the rest of the environment due to landscaping built for the MTAs public railroad

system. Steven Gregory, Professor of Anthropology at CU, notes that this idea of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!60!Manhattanville!Neighborhood!Conditions!Study,!Empire!State!Development!Corporation.!Infrastructure,!Zoning!and!Land!Use.!4.!!61!Nuez,!Kenny.!Telephone!Interview.!18!Mar.!2015!

42

blockage and opacity had also appeared in documents released for the expansion plan.

Gregory quotes the institutions solution to this problem as the construction of a structure

that achieved the opposite, i.e., a glass campus that would shepherd the university and

the city into a future of scientific innovation and smart growth.62 Columbias idea of

creating a glass building would lend to the notion of transparency, and would ultimately

become a safe and welcoming space for West Harlem residents, an idea which was also

backed by the ESDC and AKRF in the study. The executive summary of the

Manhattanville neighborhood conditions report did not contain any feedback regarding

safety concerns, or any comments or questions concerning the studied neighborhood from

residents or locally based organizations.

Residents were angered by the terms and conditions of the 197-c plan and by the

lack of communication on CUs part during the decision-making process in expanding

the Manhattanville campus. According to The Spectator, residents and supporters of the

197-a plan were astonished by the failure of the land use approval process to protect the

West Harlem neighborhood and afford the community true input into the project.63

CB9s 197-a plan was ultimately approved concurrently with CUs 197-c plan, by the

states Department of City Planning in December 2006; a decision that caused contention

amongst the community. Residents claim that CU used a back-door approach which

according to Tony Avella of The Spectator only enabled CU, interested city officials, and

other private entities such as the ESDC, to negotiate and hash out details regarding the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!62!Gregrory,!Steven.!The!Radiant!University:!Space,!Urban!Redevelopment!and!the!Public!Good.!P.!58.!63!Avella,!Tony.!How!City!Government!Failed!the!People.!Columbia!Spectator.!2/2008.!Web!Article.!!

43

plan without the publics official consent.64 As concerns regarding CUs role in

gentrifying the neighborhood, local residents joined in the criticism of the expansion

plans. Residents called for the need of a memorandum of understanding with the

community became stronger. In 2008, CU began to draft a benefits agreement with the

help of the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, in an attempt to mitigate and

compensate for the effects of its [Manhattanville] expansion.65

Columbia established a 40-member community advisory council in 2003 to help

draft a community benefits agreement for the expansion plan. CUs benefits agreement

presented Manhattanville with a number of proposed resources and benefits, as their

agreement to obtain land within the bounds of the neighborhood. These benefits

included jobs for local residents, affordable housing opportunities, and improvements in

the physical environment for local residents. The community advisory council urged CU

to draft a CBA in order to negotiate the terms of the plan with dissenting residents. This

advice led to the creation of the West Harlem Local Development Corporation (LDC,

now WHLDC) in 2006 as the sole negotiating body between community representatives

and the university. By 2006, Columbia completed the acquisition of 28 out of 67

properties located in the Manhattanville area being considered for redevelopment.

Subsequently, residents, community activists, and other interested parties continued to

rally against CUs efforts. Rosaura Rodriguez, a former resident of Manhattanville and

currently of Hamilton Heights, scoffed, the WHLDC did not keep local residents

interests in mind and that legitimate concerns of the community were never addressed

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!64!Ibid,!1.!!65!Amzallag,!Daniel.!Benefits!Agreement!to!Decide!Funds!Allocations!in!Manhattanville.!The!Columbia!Spectator.!5!May,!2008.!Web.!

44

during discussions of the expansion plan.66 The dispute over the universitys tactics in

were widely contested and resulted in the mobilization of the community as a whole to

voice their concerns against of both the general expansion and the 197-c plan in

particular.

With the support generated by the WHLDC, CUs official community benefits

agreement for the Manhattanville expansion project came to fruition on May 18th, 2009.67

The agreement itself called for the institution to provide a total of over $150 million in

benefits for the community, including $30 million for a public school supported by CU,

$20 million for in-kind services (i.e. access to CU facilities, services and amenities), $20

million to be allocated towards affordable housing for local residents, $4 million in

related legal assistance benefits, and $76 million to be allocated for future community

programming (Benefits Funding). Under these conditions, the community passed on all

rights to construct approximately 6.8 million square feet of space for the Manhattanville

campus. The CBA identified programs, goals and commitments that the WHLDC and the

community agreed would benefit local residents. These goals addressed the need to

improve: housing, employment and economic development, education, environment,

transportation, arts and culture, community facilities and historic preservation.68

One of the larger commitments outlined in the CBA included the development of

what CU refers to as a demonstration community public school.69 Recognizing that

children living in West Harlem face inequities in the classroom, community officials !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!66!Rodriguez,!Rosaura.!Interview!with!author.!20!Mar,!2015.!67!Columbia!University.!West!Harlem!Community!Benefits!Agreement!Overview.!Web.!68!Ibid,!12.!69!Ibid,!13.!

45

called for the establishment of a high performing neighborhood NYCDOE public school

serving local residents. Honoring this promise, the Teachers College Community School

opened and expanded, as its own independent school on September 20th, 2012. The West

Harlem Development Corporation published a detailed account of this event, which

according to the organizationrepresented what Columbia could do in the

community.70 Attendees highlighted the celebration as an excellent example of the rare

moment when two visions intersect to become a reality to benefit a community.71 This

appraisal was also backed up by Rev. Georgiette Morgan-Thomas, the former chair of

CB9, who claimed that the school genuinely honored the goals of the community benefits

agreement and CUs engagement with West Harlem. While there no traces of local

leaders that specifically benefitted from any of the agreements, one of the interviewed

participants suggested that, information was now scarce due to the fact that people gave

up and caved into the Columbia giant.72 While the CBA worked in line with many of the

needs of the community, this interviewee described loopholes that could have been

addressed had Manhattanville been supported by strong local leadership.

Another issue addressed through the community benefits agreement was the lack

of affordable housing in Manhattanville. The CBA explicitly detailed its dedication to

preserve, rehabilitate, and create sustainable affordable housing within the district, which

in their words, would help to continue a successful urban environment in West

Harlem.73 The CBA promised residents that CU would have no active role in supporting

the privatization of the Grant or Manhattanville Houses, two public housing projects !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!70!WHLDC!Delivers!on!a!CBA!Promise!with!Opening!of!TCCS.!20!Sept,!2012.!Web.!71!Ibid,!1.!72!Undisclosed.!Interview!with!author.!New!York!City,!NY.!!73!Columbia!University,!West!Harlem!Local!Development!Corporation!(Official)!Community!Benefits!Agreement.!16.!

46

located within the projected expansion area. Other benefits promised to CB9 included the

protection of residents living in the area impacted and surrounding neighborhoods, the

creation of a program to encourage CU employees and students to live outside the

district, and external funds to be allocated towards the implementation of capital and

program needs in the Grant and Manhattanville Houses. While resident support favored

many of the benefits put forth by CU and the WHLDC, opponents declined CUs

attempts to compromise with local residents. A New York Times article published in 2007

cites this mistrust as, the result of its (CU) historically poor relationship with Harlem,

(which includes) the 1968 battle for Morningside Park.74

Since its implementation in 2009, supporters have praised while non-supporters

have criticized CU for the implementation (or lack thereof) of the benefits as outlined in

the CBA. In 2011, Jeff Mays of DNAinfo reported that Columbia allocated a large lump

sum of money attained from the contract two years earlier, to support private consultation

regarding the expansion. As a result of this, CB9 petitioned to have the CU audited on

their performance in fulfilling the contracts goals. Mays states that the WHLDC was

placed under investigation after attorneys were notified of their unauthorized decision to

hire consultants, failure to program as a non-profit organization, and lack of

organizational structure. Some residents voiced their concerns during general meetings in

their respective residential buildings for being kept uninformed about the matters of the

agreement. Kenny and Abigail, both Dominican transmigrants recalled not having any

background information on the agreement or what that meant for them or their

communities: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!74!Williams,!Timothy,!Rivera,!Ray.!Columbia!Expansion!Gets!Green!Light,!The!New!York!Times.!20!Dec,!2007)!

47

I remember my cousin mentioning something about a community benefits

agreement (in Spanish) when Columbia was first trying to draft the proposal.

What the hell was a community benefits agreement? I didnt understand, and he

knew less than me! Hes an American, born and raised in Harlem....that speaks

English! How is it that they expected me, someone who doesnt know a drop of

English to understand what this agreement meant? To this day, I dont know what

it all means. I was just told that they were trying to cut a deal with us. I didnt

want their money, and still dont! I just want to stay where I am.75

It is possible that language barriers played a huge role in the miscommunication and

disconnect between CU and West Harlem residents. Surprisingly, people like Kenny

were left without the appropriate information to empower their communities because

there wasnt leadership at CU or in their neighborhoods that did an adequate enough job

of educating those who did or did not speak English.

Two years after the CBA was finalized and implemented, community residents

and leaders who waited for significant change faced a harsh reality: very little had been

accomplished. Hopes were trumped by their realization of the political motivation that

drove some of the decisions made by CU leadership. Members of the community

expressed dissatisfaction with the WHLDCs ability to work with them. CU and the

WHLDC received a generally negative adverse reaction as they struggled to implement

many of the practices as outlined in the agreement. In early 2012, parents and members

of the West Harlem Community board lobbied for a full-days worth of primary school

instruction at TCES (Teachers College Elementary School). While CU was able to

successfully expand their campus and implement full-day instruction in the following

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!75!Nuez,!Kenny.!Interview!with!author.!New!York!City,!NY.!!

48

school year (September 2012), they were only able to negotiate half-day sessions when

planning out the initial logistics for the elementary school. Board member Judith Insell

lobbied for full-day instruction as a means for the college to begin building good

relationships with the community. If we dont have a proper start with full-day pre-K,

we are getting off on the wrong foot.76 Insell, like other residents desperately and

genuinely wanted CU to accomplish something for which they could be held accountable.

During his interview, real estate broker, Thomas Lopez-Pierre quoted his main

disappointment in all of this being that CU had nothing and still continues to have

nothing to significant to show residents that they really cared about the CBA, especially

for the children they promised to uplift.77

Representatives from Teachers College at Columbia defended these claims by

stating that decisions made in regards to the CBA were completely out of their control,

and suggested that parents and community leaders redirect their comments and questions

to the Department of Education. Mays stated that this had been one of several complaints

made by parents living within CB9. In 2011, when details about the school and

instructions were released to the public, parents were informed that the school would only

serve students living in certain areas of the district, and that it would only serve students

up until the 5th grade, and not the 8th grade.78

Later that same year, CU and the WHLDC faced another controversy when a

group of African American architects claimed that the institution stripped away the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!76!Mays,!Jeff.!Community!Demands!Full!Day!Pre5K!as!Part!of!$150!Million!Columbia!Deal.!DNAInfo.com.!Web.!!77!Lopez5Pierre,!Thomas.!Interview!with!author.!4!Mar,!2015.!New!York!City,!NY.!78!Columbia!University,!West!Harlem!Local!Development!Corporation.!Section!H.!Articles!153.!16.!Print.!

49

opportunity for them to collaborate on the expansion plan. Arch527, addressed as a

loosely organized group of African-American Harlem architects79 initially contacted

CU for opportunities to showcase their talent and give back to their respective

communities by cooperating with them during the process. CU was criticized when

residents learned that part of the CBA outlined providing work opportunities for

individuals living within the district.

Mr. Lopez-Pierre, a West Harlem community leader highlighted one of the

biggest problems with CUs initial agreement, that the institution set unattainable and

unrealistic goals to appease the crowd. Columbia has failed to keep their word and

contract with the Community Board, promises for jobs, training, providing educational

opportunities and opening doors for residents in our area. It seems as if they are trying to

buy the community. The happiness they are slowly taking away as they strip away the

identity of West Harlem cant be bought with $120 million, it just cant.80 An Op-Ed

piece published by the Black Star News in 2013 reflected similar concerns. In light of the

growing number of complaints filed against the CBA, Vince Morgan, a democratic

candidate for the New York City Council demanded that the Empire State Development

Corporation hire an independent monitor to ensure that CU complied with the goals

outlined in the CBA. His Opt-Ed states:

The Columbia expansion is symbolic of a greater injustice. In New York we build

things; big things. Our big ideas take the form of big buildings, and that is the

primary driver of our local economy, not Wall Street. There are hundreds of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!79!Mays,!Jeff.!Black!Architects!Say!Columbia!Shut!Them!Out!of!$6.3!Billion!Harlem!Campus.!DNAInfo.com.!Web.!!80!Lopez5Pierre,!Thomas.!Interview!with!author.!4!Mar,!2015.!New!York!City,!NY.!!

50

bill