Statement at Community Board 9's Town Hall on Columbia's Plans

June 23, 2003
Thomas M.H. Kappner

I am representing the COALITION TO PRESERVE COMMUNITY and the 121st-122nd STREETS BLOCK ASSOCIATION, one of the Coalition's constituent groups.

Two years ago the 121st-122nd Streets Block Association conducted a survey of the tenants living in the ten residential buildings owned by Columbia University on that square block between Broadway and Amsterdam. The results were shared with Emily Lloyd's office and Bill Scott, Columbia's Vice-President for Institutional Real Estate. We asked our people to indicate the areas of greatest concern to them between "construction problems"—the Law School Dorm and the School of Social Work were being erected across the street—"building matters"� and "character and make-up of the community." The latter came out on top and "construction problems" elicited the least interest. To my surprise, people told us they cared more about maintaining "healthy and viable community life with people living on the block with families, involved in neighborhood affairs, and having strong community bonds"� as well as preserving a "mixed and diverse community with people from different social and economic backgrounds, ethnicities, countries of origin, occupations, interests and cultures," than even keeping the rents at reasonable levels, which was obviously a close second.

On the other hand, I really should not have been surprised at the strong sentiment in favor of preserving our wonderfully diverse social fabric. Despite Columbia' s policy of converting all vacated apartments into student dormitory units, almost half of our block remains a quintessencial example of what has made New York the unique city that it is: a city of neighborhoods whose character has been determined by the contributions of the marvelously heterogeneous mix of people from every segment of the socio-economic scale, from all walks of life, a vast variety of backgrounds, ethnicities, nationalities, religious and cultural traditions living side by side. In the apartments that remain occupied by long term, stable community members, there are custodial workers, hospital workers, teachers, professional musicians, university professors, United Nations staff, and many others who would not otherwise be vibrant contributors to our community's life. The fact is that while the average annual household income in the neighborhoods around the University have been going considerably above the median for the city, our block is, if not the only, one of the few south of 125th Street, excluding the public housing projects, were it remains considerably below the city's median. It is a precious resource which must be protected.

When Columbia built an additional 250 units of student housing on the 121st-122nd Street site were six buildings were demolished and over 200 families were thrown out, and for which a mixed use plan commissioned by Columbia at one time proposed the creation of 320 housing units to be equally shared by the University and the community, we asked the University to stabilize the residential patterns on our block and to cease its vacancy conversions that remain a link with its past policies homogenizing the neighborhood along racial and economic lines, turning it into a company town exclusively for institutional use.

Columbia's response was to meet with us twice and then insist on an approach including all other institutions in the area, objecting to "being singled out,"� knowing that none of the other institutions have anywhere near the impact on housing that Columbia has. In the whole city, only New York University, and the Catholic Church, and to a much more minor degree, a couple of hospitals, are private landlords owning as many residential buildings as Columbia-over 150 between 110th and 123rd Streets. Barnard, the second largest in this area, owns perhaps a half a dozen apartment buildings. Columbia does bear a special responsibility for the decimation of affordable housing in this community and it should not be surprised at being singled out.

Once again Columbia is going to acquire properties exclusively for institutional use, and once again we call on Columbia to break with its past practice of meeting its needs at the expense of the community. It is in Columbia's interest not only to be a good neighbor and a responsible citizen, but also to make sure that it exists within a viable and healthy, living community. It should be part of New York City, not apart from it.

The enhancement and preservation of the community's housing stock reflective of this area's income levels should be a key part of the University's plans. Above all it needs to address the unresolved issues from its past expansions before entering into a new round. We again call upon Columbia to stabilize the residential patterns in our neighborhood and we call upon this Board to use its good offices to urge Columbia to do its share in addressing the housing crisis for which they are in large measure responsible.