Bryan Mercer and Visnja Vujica

GLOSSARY

“Gym Crow” Then and Now
Trying to grow in a cramped city, expansion and development has never been easy for Columbia University. Through plans for new buildings, policies for residential buildings that house non-Columbia affiliates, and policies that guard Columbia resources, Columbia has consistently acted against the interests of those not elite enough to gain entrance. As the second largest landowner in New York City, Columbia has clearly defined itself as in the City but not of the City of New York.

In the spring of 1968, Columbia University's plan to build a new student gym in Morningside Park was met with student and community uproar. Columbia students and faculty would access the facility from the larger top level, while the lower level would provide access to the community. This distinction indicated that the community should be gracious for what Columbia gave them in the form of smaller, backdoor-entrance facilities. Protest on Columbia's campus, initiated by the Black Student Organization, and supported by Students for a Democratic Society and residents of Harlem, called the proposed building “Gym Crow.” - racist. Through direct action in the form of protest, building takeovers, and sit-ins, people united and forced the administration to cancel its plans. Through direct action in the form of protest, building takeovers, and sit-ns, people united and forced the administration to cancel its plans.

COURTESY OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Now, thirty-seven years after the protest of 1968, it seems as if some things have not changed. Columbia's recent action in the neighborhood of Manhattanville is not the urban segregation of the 1960s, but if we take even the most pedestrian view of the situation, the same issues become apparent. The “Gym Crow” of today looks like urban development at the expense of existing communities, and displacement of livelihoods for the sake of economic development. It is a statement that the rights and property of the working poor — who are often black and brown people — are insignificant to the profit and comfort of the privileged.

Morality held hostage to economic gain begs critique and makes certain questions necessary: what is the relationship of a private institution to the community that not only surrounds it, but plays a part in defining it? Should people be able to determine the conditions of their home, work, and community? As students and residents of New York, how should we feel about these issues, and what is our role, not only in the debate, but also in the decision-making process?

Exclusion from a “Transparent” Process
The proposed development site for the new Columbia campus lies within 17 acres in the southern part of West Harlem, and the median household income in the area is $29,743 — which is less than two-thirds of the median income for Manhattan. It is known to be a neighborhood of mixed race and mixed income, and its streets are lined with long established family-owned businesses and public housing.

The most local form of government in the area is the Community Board, CB9, which for a decade and a half has been planning a development process for the area. In 1991, with the assistance of Columbia Urban Planning Professor Elliott Sclar, CB9 initiated the process of drafting a 197a Community Development Plan, which, as delineated under the City Charter, would serve as a guideline for City agencies in considering any future development in the area.

Meanwhile, in 2000, WE Act (West Harlem Environmental Action, a local environmental advocacy group) and CB9 put forth Harlem on the River, a plan for an environmentally responsible approach to developing the area; in 2002, the NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC) worked with CB9 to adopt those recommendations into the West Harlem Master Plan, which further proposed the re-development of a waterfront at the Harlem Piers, reconsideration of traffic flow, and recommendations for economic development. These plans further overlap with a City Planning and EDC 125th St. “River-to-River” study, aimed at examining possibilities for development along 125th St.

Clearly, the announcement of a new Columbia campus in West Harlem is not the only opportunity for West Harlem, specifically the area recently referred to as Manhattanville, to be developed. In fact, at the time of President Bollinger's announcement two and a half years ago, the area was well on its way to setting a path to revitalization. Yet, ignoring these other development plans, Columbia's plans for the new campus cite “a continuation of the commitment to the communities of Upper Manhattan and our belief that this effort will bring economic and other benefits to our neighbors” as one of the two goals of the plan.

So what sets the Columbia plan apart? What makes so many people so resistant to it? To begin with, CB9's 197a plan, started in 1991 and in its final revision stages now, has had almost 15 years to seek community input in public meetings, and to work on very specific community interests — working them all into one comprehensive plan for how residents would like their own community to develop.

On the other hand, Columbia's plan, a 197c plan, was announced amidst a sudden period of aggressive property acquisition in Manhattanville. During the two-year planning period, very little effort was made to include community needs and concerns that had already been expressed, such as affordability and availability of housing, as well as retention of existing businesses. Such effort on the University's part was nearly impossible, since for about a year and a half of the planning process the position of Vice President of Government and Community Affairs was left vacant. As a result, Columbia continued to develop its plan while excluding the community from the process.

This plan was just recently presented to the larger community: it entails an active urban layer that is about “coming and going,” about commercial usage on the street level and tall academic and research buildings above. It is “vibrant, accessible, sustainable.” It is about “transparency.”

These are the terms Columbia has used to shed a favorable light on its own plan. These same words are often pointed to as the very embodiment of the lack of dialogue and community inclusion in the process — however physically transparent the proposed glass fronts buildings may be, transparency in the planning process has been notably lacking.

Another level on which the issue of transparency is repeatedly brought up is the threat of eminent domain. Columbia's official position is that it cannot take it off the table; the plan it has in mind requires ownership of all of the land in the area, and the University wants to keep all of its options open. Columbia has allotted upwards of several hundred thousand dollars in funds to the Empire State Development Corporation for the investigation of the appropriateness of eminent domain. This all-or-nothing attitude, whether it actually means Columbia will force residents out of their homes and businesses or not, has come to be used as a means of intimidation in pressuring reluctant owners to sell.

A Community Plan: The 197a Plan
So what guidelines should Columbia use for its expansion into West Harlem? Columbia should consult the 197a Plan, which sets a broader,more long-term set of guidelines for development in West Harlem and in which the community has had a voice.

The 197a Plan, among other things, has no place for the use of eminent domain by private parties. It also makes recommendations for land-use (zoning) changes to allow for a mixed-use special purpose zoning district, keeping existing resources intact while allowing development in the neighborhood.

Additionally, the plan stresses the importance of a variety of affordable housing options, including inclusionary zoning for future private residential developments. Inclusionary zoning requires developers to provide a certain number or percentage of affordable housing units for any given number of market-rate apartments, creating mixed income housing opportunities in an area that has long been ghettoized through public housing. Other recommendations for preserving affordability of housing in the area include:

• Increase the number of housing opportunities for low-, moderate- and middle-income residents, including seniors.;
• Study under-built sites for development of affordable housing;
• Encourage the development of a Community Land Trust;
• Retain and improve large scale housing sites;
• Preserve existing affordable housing.

Affordability of housing becomes especially significant when the probability of secondary displacement is considered — the displacement resulting in the change of cost of living in an area, rather than directly forced displacement. Secondary displacement quite frequently is particularly burdensome on lower income communities of color, and is especially problematic in rapidly gentrifying urban areas, such as Northern Manhattan. West Harlem, with 18 percent unemployment and a relatively low home ownership rate, finds itself remarkably vulnerable to large-scale secondary displacement.

The 197a Plan also calls for the creation of a Zero Waste Zone; more trees, greenways and parks; green building standards; the removal or re-designation of many of the environmental dumping sites in Manhattanville, such as the Waste Transfer Station and the MTA Bus Depots.

The 197a Plan also calls for the creation of additional schools in the area. Currently, the only high school in West Harlem is A. Philip Randolph, a magnet school located at CUNY City College, which because of its competitive nature does not serve the local community exclusively.

Further limiting local educational opportunity, Mayor Bloomberg recently announced a new science and engineering magnet high school to be built in the expansion area. Accepting only 650 students and giving preference to students north of 96th St,, the school would reserve about half of its spots for students coming from other areas in New York City. The addition of another magnet school in West Harlem would assure that neither of the two local high schools provide placement for local kids who don't meet the high standards of a New York City magnet school. While strategic developments in the planning process, such as the Mayor's announcement of the new Columbia-affiliated public school, seem to address the community's needs for educational facilities, the planning of the school itself was done without input from the community — further demonstrating the exclusion of local residents' voices in the shaping of their own community.

What the 197a Plan does is put the ownership of the planning process into the hands of long time West Harlem residents. A range of groupswith diverse interests have been integral to the planning process, and these groups have been able to support the 197a plan through their local organizing.

Organized Community Voices
Throughout the past two and a half years, community opposition to the proposed Columbia expansion has escalated. In addition to Community Board 9, which has served to facilitate the expression of community voices, several issue-based local organizations have been quite assertive in making their own voices heard. Among these groups are the Coalition to Preserve Community (CPC), West Harlem Environmental Action (WE Act), Harlem Tenants Council, the Ecumenical Community Development Corporation, the tenant associations of the Manhattanville and Grant Houses, the West Harlem Business Association, and Hermanas Mirabal.

CB9 meetings are filled with representatives of these groups, many of whom have come to be Members of the Board, and several of whom have actively taken it upon themselves and their constituencies to contribute to the substance of the 197a Plan. In addition to their formal input through CB9, several of these organizations have taken on specific problems of organization against the current expansion plans.

CPC has sought to pressure President Bollinger into entering into a dialogue with the community next door. In an open letter, they call for Bollinger to engage directly with the community, to get “together with community members in an open forum about the Columbia expansion plan so that a productive and fair exchange [can] occur.” Additionally, CPC has been instrumental in mobilizing the residents and business owners in Manhattanville to be vocal about their displacement.

WE Act emphasizes the environmental conditions in West Harlem and the possible impacts of large scale development in the area. They have focused on Harlem's designation as an “Environmental Justice” zone, an area of unacceptably poor environmental conditions, and have weighed in on Columbia expansion primarily by calling for green building standards and condemning Columbia's proposed placement of a bio-technology research facility in such a densely populated area.

The many other organizations involved in this process have also been quite active, primarily through educating their members and being visible at the information sessions hosted by Columbia, as well as at the community meetings, many of which are held at CB9.

Spaces of Input
Over the past few weeks, Columbia has presented preliminary information about their development plans through a city process called the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR). Drafts of the Environmental Impact Statement are being presented for community input, but because of the technical aspects of the process, the EIS can often shut out more substantial community input.

The Columbia Information Sessions were, however, an important opportunity for members of the community to voice concerns about issues of affordable housing and a transparent planning process, issues that went unmentioned by Columbia during its presentations. This pressure from members of the community persuaded Columbia to include the 197a plan in its Environmental Impact Statement.

Columbia's development plans are finally taking a defined shape. Students also have a clear stake in the outcome of the process, and there are clear points at which student opinion can be heard and taken seriously in the planning process.

The Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification has followed this process closely. The group has engaged in discussions with members of the Manhattanville community, organized faculty to speak out on the issue, and shared information with the student body. They are also hosting a number of campus events on these issues.

Prospectives for Development
Currently, Columbia and Community Board 9 are entering a City Planning mediated dialogue process. Hopefully, if City Planning is true to its goals, what will result will be a combined plan — one that will integrate the guidelines of the 197a while allowing Columbia to meet its need for additional space. What will need to happen for that level of compromise to be reached is a serious analysis of Columbia's need for space: for what exactly is additional space needed and how much space is actually necessary to meet that need?

When these questions are publicly answered by Columbia, a real dialogue can take place to determine how to meet Columbia's needs while also meeting the needs and desires of its neighboring communities. Potentially, the result will closely resemble the goals and recommendations of the 197a Plan.

The authors are members of the Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification. If interested in this issue, email sceg@columbia.edu or attend a meeting: Sundays, 7:00pm in Kent 424.