Something that always annoyed me about discussions of the state of Manhattanville and Columbia’s blight study is the fact that they usually leave out restrictive zoning as the original sin. We’re certainly no fans of eminent domain or Columbia’s plans for the West Harlem neighborhood, and while people are right to point out that Columbia’s neighborhood acquisitions and plans are key drivers of the further decline of the neighborhood, it would be stretching the truth to say that the neighborhood’s blight is entirely Columbia’s fault.
The fact is that even before Columbia descended upon the neighborhood, its zoning classification just wouldn’t allow it to be a nice place. What else would you expect from an area that’s zoned mostly for industrial and manufacturing uses and is inhabited mostly by storage companies and auto repair shops?
And the neighborhood organizations themselves weren’t doing the best job selling the alternatives. While their plan included some upzonings, it also would have hobbled the area with the onerous restrictions that are all too common throughout the city. There was an emphasis on preservation of the status quo, with some light industry retained. Inclusionary zoning and community benefits agreements would have driven up the cost of development further. They also took the stance that parking in the area was “insufficient” and “inadequate,” and called for “affordable municipal parking.” Clearly not being familiar with the work of Donald Shoup, they argued that “limited parking cause[s] drivers to circle blocks looking for on-street parking.”
Again, while we’re no fans of eminent domain or Columbia’s heavy-handed tactics, it’s important to remember how difficult it is to do things “the right way,” and how much time and money is necessary to get plots of land rezoned. NYU, which doesn’t have the blight excuse for its Lower Manhattan acquisitions, is being pummeled for trying to tear down a few rather ugly (in my opinion) buildings designed by I. M. Pei that it already owns, and for its other expansion plans. When the process for redevelopment is as difficult as it is in New York City, the case for blight-induced eminent domain becomes stronger, and only large, connected insiders will be able to afford to build anything at all.
Market Urbanism wrote:
“NYU, which doesn’t have the blight excuse for its Lower Manhattan acquisitions, is being pummeled for trying to tear down a few rather ugly (in my opinion) buildings designed by I. M. Pei that it already owns, and for its other expansion plans.”
Benjamin Hemric writes:
I’ve been very closely following this controversy for the past two-and-a-half years and eventually hope to write some more about it in the future (but I’m kind of pressed for time at the moment). It seems to me that this post, and the articles upon which it is based, are somewhat misinformed, and I’ll try to clear up the misinformation in just a bit.
But first I’d like to say that I support more intense development of the NYU sites, but disagree with NYU’s current plans, which put the planned added density in an anti-city, tower-in-the-park form. It appears to me that NYU has developed this tower-in-the park approach, in large part so it seems to me, because it believes it will eventually help win over community opponents and government officials. So, in other words, this bad plan seems to me to be a result, to a large extent, of NYU trying to cater to anti-development community activists (although these activists are still up in arms about it) and government officials. I think a more market-oriented approach (one where a municipality takes care of its basic duties and needs and where private developers take care of their own needs), similar to what existed in cities prior to the urban “renewal” era, would likely produce a much better, more urbane plan. So I think that, to a large extent, it is the visible hand of “planning” that is mis-guiding this project and that more reliance on an invisible hand of the marketplace approach, where developers try to maximize their benefits and where municipalities focus only on limited “legitimate” (in my opinion) duties, like providing streets and parks, protecting landmarks, etc., would produce a much better result (here and elsewhere).
In terms of the misinformation, I think it’s fair to say that NYU is not and has never been interested in tearing down the I.M. Pei-designed Silver Towers. (And I agree with this sentiment. I think the buildings are great and, even if I didn’t, there’s no need whatsoever to tear these buildings down in order to add density to the development.) What NYU wants to do is to add additional buildings to this superblock development, “University Village,” and to another superblock development it owns directly across the street to the north, “Washington Square Village.”
Under its current plans, NYU hopes to add density to these superblock developments by building another, Pei-like, tower (a university-owed residence and hotel for visiting scholars, etc.) to the University Village development (which is also known as “Silver Towers”), and to add two academic towers, that would be built a top an underground “base” of classrooms, to the Washington Square Village development. These additional structures are anti-city, though, and do nothing to create a better streetscape in the Village. Plus, although they add density, because of their small footprints, they do not add the kind of commercial space that would enable the area to properly absorb and catalyze the added density. Furthermore, all three towers cut off what remains of the two public streets that still go through the site. So the plan not only doesn’t solve the problem of the anti-city superblocks, it actually makes the problem worse!!! (They also want to tear down their low-rise gym and replace it with medium high-rise classrooms and dorms. Although it could be done better, basically this isn’t a bad idea.)
It seems to me that most community activists are opposed to NYU’s expansion (on its own underdeveloped land, I should add) because they are, basically, anti-density and anti-development and not, I reiterate, because NYU supposedly desires to tear down Silver Towers. (NYU actually supported having them designated government protected landmarks.)
Here are links to some of my previous posts on this topic:
Here’s a link to the “letter to the editor / op-ed essay” that I wrote for the NYU student newspaper, which I think is named, “Washington Square News.” (On the masthead it says WSN / Washington Square News / NYUNEWS.com.).
I kind of like the title that they gave to it on the website edition of the paper. I used the word “Downtown-ize” in my essay, and they incorporated it into an imperative title for the essay, “Downtown-ize the superblocks, NYU.” (Perhaps they also should have put an exclamation point at the end of the title!?)
1) “Downtown-ize the superblocks, NYU,” Benjamin Hemric, WSN,
http://nyunews.com/opinion/2010/04/20/21letter/
If the link doesn’t work , Google the following: WSN Hemric superblocks.
I also posted similar comments on the on-line editions of the “New York Observer” and the “The Real Deal”:
2) “The Bad and (potential) GOOD of NYU’s Expansion in the Village” a comment on “At N.Y.U. Open House for Expansion Plans, Simmering Civility,” by Roland Li, The New York Observer, April 15, 2010.
http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/nyu-open-house-expansion-plans-simmering-civility
3) Comment on “NYU expansion plan critics still protesting,” Amy Tennery, The Real Deal, April 15, 2010:
http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/critics-of-new-york-university-expansion-plan-for-2031-intend-to-keep-protesting
Benjamin Hemric
Wednesday, October 6, 2010, 10:25 p.m.
Very interesting – thanks for the comment! I liked it so much that I made it its own post…