University Senate April
26, 2002
This
year has been somewhat less active than last year for our committee, in part
due to the absence of our regular chairman, Peter Marcuse, who has been on Sabbatical.
Perhaps most importantly, however, we simply faced less urgent business this
year. Last year major decisions were made on a number of important capital
projects, some of which proved controversial. In the course of complex
deliberations that culminated in decisions to build a new Social Work School on
Amsterdam Avenue above 121st Street, a new residence building for law students
on an adjacent site on 121st Street, and a new mixed-use complex on 110th
Street that includes an elementary school, our committee reviewed the plans and
the arguments and offered its advice to the University Administration. Those
decisions are now behind us, construction is proceeding or imminent on each of
these projects without major hitches, and no major new physical development
issues or controversies came before the committee this year. Our work therefore
consisted largely of monitoring the development of projects already underway
through regular updates from Emily Lloyd and Geoff Wiener, Assistant Vice
President for Facilities Planning and Space Management, and discussing with
them possible options for the handful of remaining potential development sites
on or near the Morningside campus thus far identified by the Administration,
for which plans have not yet crystallized.
Early
in the Fall, Prof. Marcuse agreed to chair a subcommittee on developments in
the area north of 125th Street and west of Broadway, which has occupied a good
deal of the committee’s attention in the past several years. Developments in
this area have been largely on hold, however, while the University, the
Community Board, the City of New York, and other interested parties await the
completion of a major Economic Development Commission planning study, expected
late this Spring. In addition, changes in administration both at Columbia and
in New York City, along with the complex choreography of federal, state, and
local participation and Columbia’s community relations, have militated in favor
of a cautious, deliberate approach to this area. Prof. Marcuse’s urban planning
students are currently studying these issues, and will have a report at the
beginning of the fall semester summarizing the history of the University’s real
estate development activities adjacent to its campuses. We had also hoped that
the Administration would join a number of other major universities in a
comparative examination of university real estate development practices, and
participate in a conference on these matters sponsored by the Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy, a Cambridge-based not-for-profit “think-tank,” but that has
thus far been difficult.
One
of our members, Victor de la Peña, served on the Science Space Group, a faculty
committee chaired by Prof. Phong of the Math Dept. Prof. de la Peña provided
our committee with an informative report on the science committee’s
conclusions, which include a recommendation for a new science building to rise
on the northwest corner of the Morningside campus. That recommendation is under
consideration by the Administration but to date no further action has been
taken.
Our
March meeting included a lively discussion with Robert Lemieux, Associate Vice
President for Facilities Management, Health Sciences, on possibilities for
linking the Morningside and uptown campuses more closely. He reported on major
projects underway uptown, including the Audubon III development now under
construction. Mr. Lemieux also offered to take us on a tour of the Health
Sciences campus, and to discuss at a later date the master plan for the uptown
campus that is now taking shape. We anticipate that the proposed tour and
discussion of the forthcoming master plan will take place sometime in the fall.
We
have continued the longstanding practice of sending two representatives to
quarterly meetings of the Trustees’ Buildings and Grounds Committee. Although
our attendance is often a valuable source of additional information on matters
within our committee’s jurisdiction, we are disappointed that the
administration has not explicitly provided for our participation in discussion
at those meetings. A simple way to do this would be a routine agenda item for a
brief report from our committee of the kind that the Senate Education Committee
enjoys at meetings of its counterpart Trustee committee. Such participation is
provided for in a 1987 agreement concerning regular ties between the Senate and
the Trustees, which assures a voice but not a vote for Senate representatives
at Trustee committee meetings.
For the committee,
Prof. Bradley Karkkainen
Chair