Weaving Urban and Ivy:

Columbia Universitys Role in Transforming

West Harlem

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

Ambar Paulino

Research Assistantship 490

Advisor: Professor Davarian Baldwin
04/14/2015

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

Introduction: All Out, Nos Quedamos, We Will Remain!

Literature Review
Methodology

5
9
11

Chapter One: White Harlem: The Columbia Factor

Harlem: A Legacy of Racial and Class Conflict and Inequity

14
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.

Introduction
All Out, Nos Quedamos, We Will Remain!

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

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,

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 lowincome 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.!

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

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

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.!!

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!

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),!5717
588!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

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

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

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 AfricanAmericans, 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 10year 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

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

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.!

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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 longterm $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 197a 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 chainlink 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 AfricanAmerican 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 17story 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 13block-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!15
3.!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

billions of dollars in the development pipeline and Black and Latino Firms have
been blatantly excluded from the construction industry. New York is our city too
and we must be included in every aspect of building its future. Columbia is a
prominent example of the inequities, but by no means the only example of public
land and public funds being utilize to enrich large developers with no
participation from qualified minorities. None whatsoever. 81
Morgans piece demonstrated his strong disapproval of handing the CU all of the
decision-making powers when it came to matters of the community. After two years of
the initial implementation of the CBA, the community began to grow very vocal about
their discontentment with the way things had played out for the community. In 2013,
CB9 voted in favor30-0 (with one abstention and three non-votes due to conflict of
interest) to audit CUs progress in the CBA. By that time, four years had passed since the
CBA was initially agreed uponmembers of the board and residents began to question if
CU had kept its word.
Reporter Jeff Mays documented an overwhelmingly negative response regarding
CUs progress. CB9 member Larry English criticized CUs progress in implementing the
CBA, they are in breach of this agreement...A contract is a contract.82 Those
community leaders, who had the opportunity and enough information to educate their
neighbors took it upon themselves to inform the general public. People didnt know
what it all meant, stated Lopez-PierreColumbia had all of the time in the world and
they took advantage of the neighborhoods weaknesses... no English no problem! That
meant less information to them. Those who cared were either too old or didnt live in the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
81!Morgan,!Vince,!Columbias!Harlem!Expansion,!A!Broken!Contract.!BlackStarNews.com.!
Web.!
82!Mays,!Jeff.!CB9!Calls!for!Audit!of!Columbias!Promises!to!West!Harlem!Community.!
DNAInfo.com.!Web.!!

51

neighborhood.83 To those residents who had the capacity to understand the ins and outs
of CUs expansion plan, CUs tactics were unprofessional and disheartening, given that
the institution had made several promises to the community in return for the land that
they were given.
Several years after countless debates and disputes in support or against the
expansion plan, CU attempted to clear its name in an article published by the New York
Daily News. According to this article, CU exceeded hiring targets for women and
minorities in the area, providing medical services, shuttle buses, and other services to
residents.84 While some of the residents currently living in West Harlem are aware of
these services provided to Harlem residents, many are not. In fact, when asked about
the availability of these services, two interviewees claimed to have never even heard
about these benefits. Abigail, a student who resides and works in West Harlem states,
she had been completely left out of the blue regarding residents being able to use some
of their services. While she expressed frustration with trying to use Columbia
Universitys facilities, she had always assumed that resources like the library were
available to all residents:
I recall having to use their library one day after work because my local library had
been closed for the day. Something told me to call them and confirm that I could
use their facilities, only to find out that it was not open to local residents.... but I
live here. How could they tell me I couldnt? At that moment I knew that CU did
not care about me, or my neighbors.85
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
83!Lopez5Pierre.!Interview!with!author.!4!Mar,!2015.!New!York!City,!NY.!!
84!Chaban,!Matt.!Expansion!Benefits:!Columbia.!NYDailyNews.com.!2013,!Web.!!
85!Daniel,!Abigail.!Interview!with!Author.!!

52

Such confusion and misinformation was a reality that many residents, aware of the
benefits that were rightfully theirs or not, had to deal with. The struggle between CU and
Manhattanville depicts a story of false and failed promises that further proves the lengths
that for-profit and in this caseprivate non-profit organizations will go to secure their
best interests. In order to successfully move forward with the expansion, CU had to
publicly uphold their commitment to improving issues such asliving wage jobs,
affordable housing, and environmental standardsall that were subsequently
accounted for in the 2006 Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). To this day,
residents question CUs CBA, and wonder how their own neighbors agreed upon the
document and furthermore, question how in the eyes of the City of New York, Plan 197c, (drafted by a private organization) displayed a more appropriate vision for
Manhattanville. Chapter three explores the answers to these questions by shedding light
on the continued struggle over urban development as expressed in the technical terms of
blight and eminent domain, and how these terms ultimately did not protect and
continue to leave vulnerable Manhattanville citizens.

53

Chapter 3
Iron Fist in a Velvet GloveTheyve found a way to kick us out!
I know that they will spare no mercy, nor money in their efforts to steal this land and its
heritage from our people.
-Rev. Manning at CB9 197-C
Public Hearing

Figure'7:'Local'Resident'Protests'West'
Harlem'Displacement.'Picture'by'
theVillageVoice.'

Columbia University prides itself on being an institution that is conveniently

located within the cultural richness of Harlem, Washington Heights, and surrounding
neighborhoods.86 For the institution, its location in a culturally rich and historic
district provides students, faculty and staff the opportunity to work in a vibrant urban
community. Interestingly enough, the latest attempts to restructure and expand CUs
Manhattanville campus, utilized a university-authorized neighborhood conditions
report, which demonized local residents and prioritized depictions of the neighborhood as
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
86!Community,!Manhattanville!Facilities!Page,!Columbia!University.!Web.!!

54

blighted, poorly unkept, or in their terms a destroyed Manhattanville area. This

study, conducted and completed by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC)
in April 2007, used the language and logic or urban planning, to document the conditions
of Manhattanville in ways that justified the state giving the ESDC rights to exercise
eminent domain. By 2006, CU had acquired a many of the parcels necessary to complete
their initial phase of the plan. Obstructed by business owners and local residents that
refused to sell of their property, CU determined that it were best to prove to the state that
the area was in absolute need of revitalization, without the ESDC designation of
blighted conditions, eminent domain could not be used to buy property. In what
follows, I will discuss CUs decision to invoke the power of eminent domain. This refers
to the governmental right to expropriate private property for the public benefit, at a
relatively fair market value, and the long-term impact of these decisions on local
residents and business owners.
The survey, published in 2007, has been widely contested for its authenticity and
accuracy of documenting neighborhood conditions. Residents were enraged when they
discovered that CU was pursuing action to invoke the use of eminent domain to forcibly
purchase lots. Former Tenant President at 3333 recalled that members in her organization
were infuriated after finding out that eminent domain was a possibility in the expansion.
She explained that, The CBA stated that it would not ask the ESDC to exercise its
eminent domain powers to acquire residential properties in the project area. Learning
about the bid for eminent domain exacerbated community mistrust because residents
were not made aware of the exact terms of the CBA, and therefore had very little power

55

to retaliate after negotiations had been done.87 To local residents, eminent domain
represented a larger and unstoppable threat to the community.
Traditionally, eminent domain has been used for the construction of large public
projects (i.e., public facilities, highways, railroads, etc.), which are then later utilized by
the public. According to a report published by the Coalition to Preserve Community
(CPC), these standards changed in 2004 after the Kelo v. City of New London legal case
a decision that ultimately allowed purchased property to be privatized for economic
development. Furthermore, the power of eminent domain is now used in projects that
involve public benefit and not public use. According to the report- What is Eminent
Domain, the court found that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax, and
other city revenues and revitalizes a depressed or blighted urban area it qualifies as public
use. In other words, eminent domain could be practiced in the Manhattanville area,
granted that there was enough evidence to identify the neighborhood as a blighted urban
area in need of revitalization. In this context, blightalso recognized as urban
decayis a contested concept because for many, Manhattanville did not possess the
extreme characteristics of a blighted neighborhood.
According to the survey, physical conditions in the study area were [are] mainly
characterized by aging, poorly maintained, and functionally obsolete industrial buildings,
with little indication of recent reinvestment to reverse their generally deteriorated
conditions, particularly in industrial property.88 The survey, reported that as many as
87% of the structures in the study area (Manhattanville) were over 50 years old, and over
16% of structures were completed over a century ago. Words like unsafe and unhealthy
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
87!Name!not!disclosed.!Interview!with!author.!22!Mar,!2015.!New!York!City,!NY.!!
88!Empire!State!Development!Corporation,!ESDC!Conditions!Study.!Executive!Summary.!I.!

2007.!Web.!!

56

appeared dozens of times throughout the report, implicating Manhattanville as an

inhabitable neighborhood. The report went as far to suggest that residents living in the
area were the ones responsible for the deteriorated conditions of the neighborhood:
At some locations, unsanitary and unhealthy conditions are apparent,
including evidence of vermin, poor pest control, and excessive
accumulation of garbage and debris inside buildings. In addition, the open
spraying of automotive paint at four properties without proper ventilation
poses a health hazard to workers, customers, and pedestrians. Many of the
deteriorated and unsafe interior conditions observed during site surveys
are the result of abuse and poor upkeep by tenants occupying the
buildings, such as blocked fire exists, missing windows and accumulated
garbage and debris.89

Figure'8:'Manhattanville'W.'131'Street'and'Broadway'Intersection,'2007.'Google'
Maps'Street'View.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
89!Manhattanville!Conditions!Study,!2007.!!

57

!
Figure'9:'Manhattanville'W.'131'Street'and'Broadway,'2009.'Google'Maps'Street'
View.'

The two snapshots above, were retrieved from the Google maps application and, to an
extent, confirm some of the assessments outlined in the neighborhood conditions study
on the 131st Street and Broadway Avenue Intersection. The pictures, captured two years
apart demonstrate semi-abandoned buildings and missing windows that were boarded up.
Residents however, disagree with many of the claims set forth by the report and suspect
that the ESDC magnified typical issues that plague many urban landscapes in order to
prove to the state that Manhattanville desperately needed revival.
As already noted Kenny Nuez was a long-term friend of the owner of the auto
shop seen in the pictures and protested that the conditions were never as bad as the ESDC
claimed. Garbage, poor pest control? No sidewalk space for pedestrians and unsafe
conditions? Those were all lies. Go to Manhattanville and walk down Broadway. I
promise you, you wouldnt see Garbage and you would see that the area although a little
abandoned, was safe, and spacious. I couldnt believe they could lie like that,90 he
fumed. According to Nunez, and the other interview participants, Manhattanville didnt
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
90!Nuez,!Kenny.!Interview!with!author.!New!York!City,!NY.!!

58

need CU to undergo beautification, It just needed the communitys attention. But still,
the ESDC concluded that the neighborhood suffered due to a long-term history of
community neglect. With this information at hand, CU, the ESDC, and the state, decided
that expanding the campus into Manhattanville would ultimately solve these problems,
even though local residents would ultimately have very little access to the campus.

59

Figure'10:'Empire'State'
Development'Corporation'and'
AKRF:'Overview'of'
Substandard'Conditions'

!
CU and ESDC faced controversy when their
possible plans to utilize eminent domain in the

Manhattanville expansion publically surfaced. In November 2006, the West Harlem

Business Group, renamed to the West Harlem Group Assistance, Inc., sued the ESDC for
failing to inform residents of West Harlem about the possible use of eminent domain for
the expansion. The West Harlem Group Assistance, Inc. (WHGA), is a community-based
development corporation that was founded in 1971, with the mission to revitalize the

60

under-invested West and Central Harlem communities riddled with dilapidated and
abandoned buildings.91
A study found by Columbia students in 2005, reveals that CU had solicited the
ESDC counsel to condemn property in the Manhattanville area, since the institution
legally does not have the power to do so. The Spectator states, While the six-page letter
is only a preliminary agreement between Columbia and ESDC and contains no specific
promises to condemn property, it is the clearest expression to date of the possibility that
eminent domain may be used for Columbias expansion and has raised concerns about
how open the University has been in its dealings with the community.92 The letter
outlined CUs agreement to pay the ESDC $300,000.00 to cover costs incurred during the
studya sum paid which raised many eyebrows within the community. The Spectator
article shed light on the growing concerns of CU privatizing a process that would have
been public in any other circumstance.
On March 3, 2007, the WHGA filed an Article 78, Freedom of Information Law
(FOIL) petition in the NYS court. CUs Steven Gregory reported that a FOIL petition
was filed on an assumption that the ESDC and CU had worked together to hire Alee King
Rosen and Fleming (AKRF), a planning, and engineering consulting firm to draft the
neighborhood conditions study. Later that year, in June, NYS court judge Werner
Kornreich ordered the release of over 100 documents (e-mail changes) between CU and
the ESDC detailing their relationship with ARKF. The court decision was upheld (when

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
91!Our!Mission,!WHGAInc,5!West!Harlem!Group!Assistance,!Incorporated.!Web.!!

92!Vielkind,!Jimmy,!Durkin,!Erin.!Cu!Paving!Way!for!Eminent!Domain!Use.!The(

Columbia(Spectator.!15!Apr,!2005.!Web.!

61

appealed by the ESDC) on the assumption that the AKRF worked with the ESDC to
conduct a biased study, which would ultimately favor the institutions plan.
Ignored concerns of the community resulted in public and heated demonstrations
against CU, which have revived memories of resentment that go back at least to the 1968
protests of Gym Crow and the 1993 Audubon Ballroom Protests. By June 2007 it was
evident that the community was frustrated by Columbias back-door approach in
negotiating details of the expansion. On August 15th, 2007, CB9 held a public hearing on
Columbias 197-c application to rezone West Harlem for the expansion. The meeting
drew over 300 attendees, and according to the Columbia Spectator, the institution had an
overwhelmingly negative response towards the expansion plan overall. Approximately 22
people testified in favor of the 197-c plan, and 73 against. According to the public
hearing transcript, those in attendance that evening were dissatisfied with the threat of
eminent domain looming over West Harlem. Jordi Reyes Monteblanc, president of 601
W. 136th Street, and volunteer for the non-profit HDFC Council favored and welcomed
the expansion project, but demanded that the use of eminent domain be removed from
CUs plans:
Jordi-Reyes Monteblanc: Personally I welcome the expansion of the university
into West Manhattanville. I believe that Columbia University can be a major
benefit to our community and that our community will be a great resource for
Columbia University. However, the use of eminent domain or even the threat of
eminent domain must be removed. Community Board 9 of Manhattan stands
firmly and unequivocally on that principle. We will support any owner of
properties that refuses to sell and stand with them against eminent domain use for
the private benefit or another private entity.93
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
93!CB9!Hearing!Testimony!Transcript.!15!Aug,!2007.!5.!Print.!!

62

Those in attendance that evening (which included CU President Lee Bollinger), argued
that Columbias failure to meaningfully discuss and negotiate with CB9 and residents
was a lost opportunity to help develop the trust and partnership needed to proceed with a
project like the campus expansion. Residents were unhappy with knowing that the use of
eminent domain, presented as a public benefit, would ultimately drive out many of the
local residents and businesses. Lindsay Schubiner, a local resident claimed that she
opposed the plan because it would displace at least 10,000 residents. Unfortunately, the
elaboration of this statement could not be captured that evening, due to the rowdy nature
of attendees. Regardless of the chaos that ensued while she spoke, Schubiner pleaded that
residents rally together and support the 197-a plan, because it was the only plan that
would ensure the betterment of the community, for the community.
Ruth Eisenberg, another resident of the area stated that CUs plans propounded
the environmental injustice that was already taking place in Manhattanville. She too
vocalized her advocacy against the use of eminent domain and forced displacementa
notion that was always contested by CU leadership. Testimony after testimony, residents
and supporters of businesses in West Harlem articulated their feelings of resentment
against the 197-C plan and its evident use of eminent domain. Dorothy Ross, a twentyfour year resident of West Harlem said, I oppose the use of eminent domain against any
resident or business. It is wrong for one company to use that against another company.
That is an abuse of the legal process and eminent domain should be ultimately reserved
for public need, not private greed.94 By the end of the evening, it was clear that residents
were mostly upset by the institutions decision to use eminent domain in the process of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
94!Ibid,!95596!!

63

the expansion. It can be speculated that the community would have been more
cooperative if CU and the ESDC had not used their powers to condemn residential
properties and local businesses in favor of the expansion project. One resident, Ms. Doty
reasoned,
The university is supposed to be a leader in this City, and in the world, and it
should be able to bring people together. This 197-c plan has been destroying our
community. It has divided us and now we have racism, we have economic
injustices, and that is not what it should be about. I think that the university
should be doing much more and that it should be working with the community. If
Columbia had taken eminent domain off the table, we would have had a lot more
cooperation and better feelings toward this project. We want to include more
people in our community and grow as a whole. I think this is a disgrace, what this
university is doing.95

The hearing concluded on a rather negative tone, as transcripts demonstrate a rising level
of anger amongst participants as testimony after testimony condemning the plan was
given. Unfortunately, by December 2007, the New York Department of Planning and the
New York City Council had approved Columbias 197-c plan. This decision was later
justified by the ESDCs Manhattanville Neighborhood Conditions Studywhich
approved the plans due to Manhattanvilles struggle with urban blight.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
95!Ibid,!99.!!

64

Figure'11:'Columbia'University'Property'
Owned'or'Under'Contract'in'West'Harlem.'
Student$Coalition$on$Expansion$and$
Gentrification.

Beginning in 2009, a number of residents

and property/business owners residing the
Manhattanville area filed lawsuits against the

Empire State Development Corporation for their use of eminent domain to acquire lots
(locales) for the expansion plan. A Look at the Issues, a tell-all report composed by the
Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification at CU, contains testimony from
community residents arguing that the University unfairly demonized local business-

65

owners as profit-seeking outsiders96 despite their very active involvement in the

community before the expansion plans were announced. The report concluded that the
institution played a major role in shifting Manhattanvilles economic development, since
it was found that CU owned over 60% of the land involved in the neighborhood
conditions report released by the ESDC, and controlled over 80% of the land they
reported to be neglected in the study. Figure 4 (above) displays the targeted study area
for the report, the structures in blue represent buildings that are Columbia controlled, the
purple- structures owned by other institutions, and the whitenon-Columbia controlled
structures.
Initially, Columbia was able to negotiate the purchase of manyif not most of the
properties on the expansion site, except for two lots. These two hold-outs, Tuck-ItAway-Self-Storage, owned by Nick Sprayregen and Shell Gas Station, owned by Gurnam
Singh and Parminder Kaur filed separate lawsuits against the ESDC for their attempt to
use eminent domain to acquire their properties. Tuck-It-Away-Storage had been the
largest piece of land owned by any other entity that was not CU in the impact area.
Threatened by the possibility of losing the property, Sprayregen (Tuck-It-Away, L.P.),
requested access to the ESDC/AKRFs project records by filing a FOIL (Freedom of
Information Law) request to the Department of Planning. The Department of Planning
(DoP) later denied this request, a decision that would drive Tuck-It-Away to request all
of ESDCs records on the expansion plan. This request was honored, and the ESDC
agreed to disclose some of the documents, and agreed to withhold others on the grounds
that it violated a deliberative materials clause.97Tuck-It-Away, once again challenged this
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
96!Undisclosed!Interviewee!Name.!Interview!by!author.!New!York!City,!NY.!!
97!Note:!Deliberative!materials!are!pre5decisional!communications!exchanged!for!purposes!

66

decision and demanded that the ESDC disclose every requested document including all
communications between the ESDC and AKRF, holding that these deliberative materials
were not protected under FOILs deliberative materials exemption, because the AKRF
also represented Columba in connection with the overall project.98
The businesss website (tuckitaway.com) had described their involvement in the
rallies against CUs expansion plan as a sudden and new, equally-important role: activist
for small private property ownership everywhere.99 On December 3rd, 2009, a New York
State appellate court ruled in favor of Sprayregen, over CUs inherent use of eminent
domain in their expansion plans. According to the website, the efforts of the university
to force Tuck-It-Away and other property owners out of Manhattanville for the purposes
of its own private expansion were determined unconstitutional, setting a significant
precedent for future eminent domain cases throughout the United States. This decision
was later appealed and the New York State Court of Appeals overturned the initial court
decision (3-2) on the grounds that a private university served a public purpose. With
the help of local community leaders and businesses, Sprayregen unsuccessfully attempted
to appeal this decision. On December 13th, 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear
Sprayregens appeal, and the demolition of structures in the impact area began shortly
after.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
of!discussions,!therefore!they!are!materials!not!constituting!final!policy!decisions.!See!id.!at!
61!(Buckley,!J.,!dissenting!in!part)!(citing!N.Y.!Pub.!Off.!Law!!87(2)(g);!Russo!v.!Nassau!
County!Cmty.!Coll.,!81!N.Y.2d!690,!699!(1993)).!
98!Tuck5It5Away,!861!N.Y.S.2d!at!5657.!!
99!Giving!Back,!TuckItAway.com,!Web.!!

67

Figure!12:!Frontal!View!of!Tuck5It5Away!Building!(Broadway!Avenue):!Sign!Reads:!Nosotros!No!Seremos!
Empujado!Afuera!!We!Will!Not!Be!Pushed!Out!,!Google!Maps.!2009

Although Columbia University and the Empire State Development Corporation

were successful in court, West Harlem residents remained wary and concerned about the
institutions tactics in using outside parties like the ESDC to acquiring remaining lots.
The ESDC played aggressively when attempting to acquire land for their project, and as a
result faced a wave of neighborhood resentment and opposition in the courts. Residents
of CB9 believed, and still believe that the project is not in the best interests of the
community, and now perceive CU as a self-interested enemy. Thomas Lopez-Pierre
supported such a claim adding that, they (Columbia) as an institution do not care about
residents and local businesses in Manhattanville. I have seen this time and time again,
and I strongly believe that they will do anything and say anything to make sure that they
get what they want. In this case, they want land. You see how they drafted those reports
and said that Manhattanville needed to be fixed? Thats not true. Manhattanville was a
vibrant community. It wasnt until they came in that the community started to suffer. 100
To Lopez-Pierre, and other residents, CUs expansion plan represented an
example of a powerful institution taking advantage of a smaller, and less powerful
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
100!Lopez5Pierre,!Thomas.!Interview!with!author.!New!York!City,!NY.!!

68

population. Like Lopez-Pierre, many residents believed and continue to believe that
Manhattanville did not suffer those extreme conditions that were detailed in the
neighborhood conditions study. Many residents go as far as believing that this report was
in part, drafted using specific language to persuade others of a condition that simply
didnt exist. Mr. Nuez, unlike some residents, had accepting defeat when he had heard
about the initial report. He represented the general populace of local residents, who did
not have the time, money, or resources to pursue any legal action against the institution.
In fact, there was not and still is no independent credible proof of blight in
Manhattanville according to the official records of the Supreme Court of New York,
Appellate Division in the case of Tuck-It-Away v. the New York State Urban
Development Corporation (Doing business as Empire State Development
Corporation).101 The above case later paved the way for another FOIL request, filed by
owners of a gas station located adjacent to the Tuck-It-Away structure. The legal
document notes the EDCs 2002 master plan to rezone and redevelop Harlem failed to
describe any blighted condition or area in Manhattanville...instead, it noted that West
Harlem had great potential for development that could be jump-started without
rezoning.102 It wasnt until after the plan had been released and debated, that the EDC
and Columbia proposed the use of eminent domain in the project.
These two lawsuits fueled the beliefs of local residents living in properties and
surrounding neighborhoods that displacement was more than likely. There are 6
residential buildings located within the impact area, which have housed over 300 people
for decades. . Tenants were shut out of rent-stabilized and subsidized housing as prices
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
101!Nardelli,!J.!,72!A.D.3d!1,!*14;!892!N.Y.S.2d!8,!**19.!Pg.!12!
102!Nardelli,!J.!72!A.D.3d!1,!*14;!892!N.Y.S.2d!8,!**19.!Pg.!13!

69

rose when the ESDC acquired the properties. Residents have suspected that this
acquisition of properties in the Manhattanville area by the ESDC is a direct result of the
known relationship between the CU and the ESDC. It is important to note the ESDCs
history of purchasing apartments in the area (I.e. 3333 apartments). Although there is no
certain way to prove whether or not tenants have been impacted and displaced by the
expansion plan, many residents suggest that the drastic change in demographics of
Manhattanville are a direct result of the economic changes brought on by the expansion,
which have made the cost of living in Manhattanville simply unaffordable.
Another interviewee-- Rosaura, a West Harlem resident and student at City
College of New York (Hamilton Heights) stated,
I used to attend church on 130th and Broadway. I attended church there for
about 8 years, before I left to Hillsong. A lot of us found out that there was
some drama going on with Columbia trying to buy us out and promise us
property elsewhere. The congregation only found out about this after we
relocated to the churchs new location on 147th Street and Broadway. I
naively assumed that we had found the money to support a new facility. I
feel bad knowing that Ive lost so many memories because a university
wanted our building. While were we are at is good now, we dont really
understand eminent domain, so we dont know what is at stake. I feel like
Im dealing with the 3333 drama, even when I am not at home. Its
ridiculous.103

Residents like Rosaura, have dealt with the effects of CUs large expansion
project and its impact on the neighborhoods surrounding Manhattanville. The apartment
complex, at 3333 Broadway, is a 1,200-unit apartment complex, which houses over 3,500
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
103!Rodriguez,!Rosaura.!Interview!with!author.!New!York!City,!NY.!!

70

people. According to a Trends Analysis report compiled by New Yorks City Department
of City Planning, a 1,190-unit apartment complex located in Hamilton heights (3333
Broadway, West 135th Street), was built and leased under the Mitchell-Lama housing
programA New York State program that accommodated housing for families with
lower to moderate incomes living in the residential complex under a 75-year contract.
However, former landlord Jerome Bolson decided to opt out of the program right after
Columbia had formally announced their expansion plans into the neighboring area. The
report implied that because of this, real estate would flourish in the area due to buyingout, a strategy that could drive local residents out of the building.104 In lieu of
Columbias largest project proposal, in 2012 a 90-block area of West Harlem (which
encompasses the Hamilton Heights district) was rezoned to establish contextual zoning
district, and strengthen the 145th Street corridor, while allowing for inclusionary housing
program and establishing a mixed use district.105 This decision left many of the families
living in the building (and surrounding buildings) unable to afford new rents and others
that had previously received assistance from the state subject to new Section 8 policies.
When asked if her landlord had deliberately increased her rent after the CU plans
emerged, Abigail, a resident of 3333 stated:
Our landlord has not suggested a rent increase, but renovations have been
made to empty apartments, and now those that are vacated to increase
property value. Previous tenants have the opportunity to apply to one of
these apartments, but the waiting list to get into one is obviously very
lengthy. I wouldnt say that they (my landlords) did this one purpose, but I
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
104 !New!York!City!Department!of!City!Planning,!Appendix!C5!Recent(Trends(Anaylsis,!
C511.!(October!15th,!2013)!
105 !New York City Department of City Planning, West Harlem Rezoning Amendment,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/west_harlem/west_harlem_adopted_text.pdf (October 18th, 2013).

71

wouldnt say that they didnt either. I find it a little weird that they think
my family could afford what some of these new apartments are asking for.
What one white family can afford is not the same as my family. So at any
given moment I can assure you that if you walk into one apartment, the
inside will look brand newand mine... well, thats not the case.106

During another interview, a former Tenant Association President specified,

When our landlord raises the rent it has to be submitted to the HPDSticky/Enhance Section 8 vouchers for approval... they dont have to be specific
about why, or what steps they are taking to make sure it happens. While this is an
assumption, I would say that gut renovating these apartments are an indirect way
to kick us out.107
She explained that there was a common understanding among residents that sooner or
later they too would be subjected to displacement, although landlords were not telling
them explicitly that they would have to leave. Former CU student, West Harlem
advocate, and resident of 3333, Andrew Hamilton recalled finding an acceptable studio
apartment one mile north of campusnot knowing that the apartment had only been
made avaiable (to him) because the previous tenant had leapt to his death out of the 15thstory window.108 To his surprise, many, but not all of his neighbors had half or more
of their rent paid by the government. The process by which apartments became availabe
to CU students was a reality that incoming privileged residents are simply unaware of.
On the other hand, local residents continue to grow wary of changes brought on by the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
106!Daniel,!Abigail.!Interview!with!author.!New!York,!NY.!!

107 !Name!not!Disclosed.!Interview!with!author.!22!Mar,!2015!
108 !Hamilton,!Andrew.!Notes!from!the!15th!Floor.!Columbia(Political(Review.(

CPR.com.!18!Mar,!2010.!

72

expansion plan and continue to this day, nearly a decade after the plan was first
announced, to live in fear; worried that Columbia Universitys plan of revitalization
will one day result in the displacement their own families.

73

Epilogue
The Bodega Memoir: Morphing Identity of the West Harlem Area
As Columbia moves forward with its multi-million dollar development plan in
Manhattanville, residents in surrounding neighborhoods like myself begin to notice the
changes that have emerged as a result of their push to build in our neighborhood. Many
of my invaluable, personal childhood and teenage memories were built on the very
grounds that now house enormous glass and steel structures for the expanding campus.
Every Saturday morning, my mother would encourage my younger sister and I to take a
walk with her to the 125th Street shopping strip. Although it seemed like an unattainable
feat, my mother encouraged us to maintain a healthy lifestyle and wed start our
expedition across Broadway, into Manhattanville to reach my favorite stores, The Gap,
Old Navy, and of courseChuck E. Cheese.
I recently returned to the 125th Street shopping strip, and to my surprise was faced
with a number of empty lots, where vibrant Dominican families once owned businesses.
Construction for a Livable City, read one particular sign that stood out to me on a
scaffold. Normally, I wouldnt have made this stopbut given the nature of this project,
I felt almost obligated to read what the sign had to say. Clean, safe, worksites read the
fine print. I thought to myselfhow is it possible, that people whove never lived in this
neighborhood know that Manhattanville wasnt once a clean, livable, and safe area? My
friends and family members lived in Manhattanville, and they did so, comfortably for
decades. As I approached the 125th Street and Broadway Avenue intersection, my heart
dropped when I saw an empty lot where Floridita, a Latino restaurant, and personal
favorite once stood. Across the street, I noted a boutique that had not existed two years

74

ago, a Duane-Reade store chain, and of course about 3 different branches of Banks. I
have been away, in Connecticut, for my undergraduate studies for almost four years; this
bittersweet return back home was simply another reminder of the problems that continue
plagued my community.

!
Figure'13:'125th'Street'and'Broadway'Avenue'Intersection.'Photo'by'author.'9'April,'2015'

!
Even though I do not reside in the affected area (Manhattanville), I strongly
believe that my neighborhoodHamilton Heightshas suffered the consequences of this
expansion plan. More upscale bars and pubs are now in the presence of where Dominican
restaurants that fed local families once stood. Amsterdam Avenue has become a landing
strip for Yelp and Zagat recommendationswebsites that rate restaurants on factors like
cleanliness, quality of foods, and physical appearance of the location. I am afraid that it
wont be long until Hamilton Heights and furthermore, Manhattanville takes on the

75

characteristics of predominantly White neighborhoods such as the Upper West Side and
SoHo.
Any person whos lived in West Harlem can tell you that the urban landscape and
characteristics of the district have drastically changed. While many of us are quick to
blame Columbia for these changes, others live in oblivion due to language barriers. In a
recent conversation with a neighbor, I was reminded that people arent privy to this type
of information. I didnt even know Columbia was planning to expand by 125th Street,
said my neighbor. I assumed that the city had finally given us what we deserved, she
exclaimed in Spanish. Unfortunately, this is the reality of many West Harlem residents
who, due to these barriers, assume a very passive role in community activism.
While all of these very drastic changes continue to plague our communities, I
believe that Columbia University still has the opportunity to make amends with West
Harlem residents because many simply do not know what is happening in their
neighborhoods. My research clearly proves that there are feelings of abandonment and
betrayal among those who know of the recently implemented expansion plan, but I
strongly believe that policies are ever-changing. Columbia still has the opportunity to
right their wrongs, meet and exceed goals as outlined by the Community Benefits
Agreement, and more importantlywork towards the completion of a project that can
create opportunity for students and local residents alike. It is possible to compromise and
to create and collaborate with local residents, but all parties involved have to work
together to actualize these visions for their respective communities. The final chapter in
this story is yet to be told.

76

Bibliography
1. "Abigail Daniel." Personal interview. 11 Mar. 2015.
2. Amzallag, Daniel. "Benefits Agreement to Decide Funds Allocations in
Manhattanville." The Columbia Spectator [New York] 5 May. 2008: 5. The Columbia
Spectator. Web.
3. Avella, Tony. "How City Government Failed the People." The Columbia Spectator
[New York] Feb. 2008: 1. The Columbia Spectator. Web.
4. Barry, Kenneth. "Challenge to Administration Strongest in Schools History." The
Columbia Spectator [New York] 24 Apr. 1968: 1. The Columbia Spectator. Web.
5. Bollinger, Lee and Lehrer, Brian. 2008 Interview with Brian Lehrer. The Brian
Lehrer Show WNYC. 3 Jul 2008.
6. Bradley, Stefan M. "Gym Crow." Harlem vs. Columbia University: Black Student Power in
the Late 1960s. Urbana: U of Illinois, 2009. 40+. Print.
7. Catterson, James A.. 2008 Tuck-It-Away Associates, L.P., Petitioner-Respondent, v.
Empire State Development Corporation, Respondent-Appellant. Print.
8. Chaban, Matt. Expansion Benefits: Columbia, NY Daily News.
NYDailyNews.com, 4 Oct, 2013. Web.
9. "Columbia University Protests of 1968." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 31 Mar.
2015. Web. Dec.-Jan. 2014.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University_protests_of_1968>.
10. Columbia Spectator (No Author). "Local Residents Again Protest Gym." The
Columbia Spectator [New York] 13 November. 1967: 2. The Columbia Spectator. Web.
11. "Columbia University 1968 | History and Personal Rememberances" Columbia
University 1968 RSS. N.p., Nov.-Dec. 2008. Web.
<http://www.columbia1968.com/history/>.
12. CB9 Hearing Testimony Transcript. 15 Aug, 2007. Print. <
http://www.nyc.gov/html/mancb9/downloads/pdf/8-15_public_hearing.pdf>
13. "Columbias Harlem Expansion, A Broken Contract." Weblog post. WordPress.
Morgan Vince. Web.
14. Community Board 9 Manhattan 197-a Plan: Hamilton Heights, Manhattanville,
Morningside Heights. Community Board 9 and the Pratt Institute. Burden, Amanda
M. (Chair), 26 Nov, 2007. Web.
<http://www.nyc.gov/html/mancb9/downloads/pdf/197_a_plan_brief.pdf>

77

15. Empire State Development Corporation (Alee King Rosen and Fleming) 2007
Neighborhood Conditions Study. AKRF http://www.esd.ny.gov/. Accessed 20 Feb,
2015.
16. Fountain, La-Verna. City Planning Commission Approves with Modifications
Rezoning of Manhattanville Manufacturing Zone to Allow for Columbias Proposed
Long-Term Expansion: For Immediate Release. Office of Communications and
Public Affairs, Columbia. 26 Nov, 2007
17. Gregory, Steven. "The Radiant University: Space, Urban Redevelopment, and the
Public Good." City & Society 25.1 (2013): 47-69. Accessed 13 Dec, 2014.
18. Greene, Peter. "Hoving May Attend Morningside Rally Against New Gym,
Columbia Spectator." The Columbia Spectator [New York] 14 Mar. 1966: 6. The
Columbia Spectator. Web.
19. Handlin, Oscar. The Newcomers: Negroes and Puerto Ricans in a Changing Metropolis.
Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1959. 35. Print.
20. Hines, Sarah. "The Struggle for Hines." Socialist Worker [New York] 16 June 2006:
15-16. Print.
21. Hartocollis, Anemona. "Coping; A Site of Battles, a Piece of Paradise." The New York
Times N.Y. Region. N.p., 20 Apr. 2003. Web.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/nyregion/coping-a-site-of-battles-a-pieceof-paradise.html>.
22. "Interview with Wm. Theodore De Bary." Interview by Stefan Bradley. 1997: n. pag.
Print.
23. 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.
24. "Kenny Nuez." Personal interview. 18 Mar. 2015.
25. Kahn, Roger. The Battle for Morningside Heights; Why Students Rebel. New York: W.
Morrow, 1970. Print.
26. Kugel, Seth. Where Tragedy Struck, a Memorial Will Rise, The New York Times. 2
Jan, 2005. Web.
27. Leslie, Casimir. "Protest Targets Landlord in Low-Income Evicts." NY Daily News
[New York] 11 June 2006: n. pag. Daily News. Web.
<http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/protest-targets-landlord-lowincome-evicts-article-1.548713>.

78

28. "Manhattanville." Planning and Design. Columbia University, Facilities Department,

2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. <http://manhattanville.columbia.edu/planning-anddesign>.
29. Mays, Jeff. "Black Architects Say Columbia Shut Them Out of $6.3 Billion Harlem
Campus." DNAInfo [New York] 18 Dec. 2012. Web.
30. Mays, Jeff. "CB9 Calls for Audit of Columbias Promises to West Harlem
Community. DNAInfo [New York] 22 Mar. 2013. Web.
31. Mays, Jeff. "Community Demands Full Day Pre-K as Part of $150 Million Columbia
Deal." DNAInfo [New York] 15 Mar. 2012. Web.
32. New Gym Annex, Columbia Alumni News, Collins Collection, Schomburg Center
for Research in Black Culture, New York Public Library, NYC. 2005.
33. Newman, Maria. Columbia Torn by Disciplinary Hearing, The New York Times. 22
Feb, 1993. Web.
34. New York City Department of City Planning, West Harlem Rezoning
Amendment, NYC Department of Planning, Web. 2007.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/west_harlem/west_harlem_adopted_text.pdf
35. "Notes from the 15th Floor." Weblog post by Andrew Hamilton. WordPress.
Columbia Political Review, 18 Mar 2010. Web.
36. "Out Mission, WHGAInc. West Harlem Group Assistance, Incorporated RSS. N.p., June.
2010. Web. <http://www.whgainc.org/>.
37. Rosaura Rodriguez Interview. Interview by Author. New York, NY. Mar 2015.
38. "The Remnants of the 1912 Audubon Theatre and Ballroom." Weblog post.
WordPress. Daytonian-in-Manhattan, 22 May 2013. Web.
39. Trends AnalysisRecent: Appendices C-E NYC Department of Planning, Web.
15 Oct 2013.
40. Tuck-it-Away et al. vs. New York State Urban Development Corporation. 2009 New
York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.Print. Accessed 01 Mar, 2015.
41. "Tourist Guide: Morningside Heights, Manhattan." The Official New York City Guide to
NYC Attractions, Dining, Hotels and Things to Do / Nycgo.com. N.p., 2012. Web.
42. Thomas Lopez-Pierre Interview. Interview by Author. New York City, NY. 18
Mar 2015

79

43. Sprayhagen, Nick. "Giving Back." Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage. Tuck-It-Away, n.d. Web.
<http://www.tuckitaway.com/giving_back>.
44. Understanding the Columbia University Expansion into West Harlem: An Activist's Guide.
Coalition Against Gentrification. Columbia Student Coalition Against Gentrification,
Oct.-Nov. 2014. Web.
<https://coalitionagainstgentrification.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/understanding
-columbia-university_s-expansion-into-west-harlem.pdf>.
45. Undisclosed Interviewee Name, Interview. Interview by Author. New York City,
NY.
46. Vielkind, Jimmy. "CU Paving Way for Eminent Domain Use." The Columbia Spectator
[New York] 15 Apr. 2005: 1. The Columbia Spectator. Web.
47. Washington, Eric K. Manhattanville: Old Heart of West Harlem. Charleston, SC: Arcadia,
2002. 23-25. Print.
48. Williams, Timothy, Rivera, Ray. Columbia Expansion Gets Green Light. The New
York Times. 20 Dec, 2007. Web.

80

Addendum
A: Copy of Invitation sent to Interviewees

81

B: Copy of interview questions (residents)

82