Columbia lost eminent domain case. But did it?

At first glance it looks as if Columbia lost: Land Seizure for Columbia Expansion Ruled Unconstitutional!

But it didn't really. 

There is an urban design element to this issue which should not be ignored. All that happens (if this decision is upheld) is that Columbia may not be able to build a "campus." It can certainly build on the rest of the land it has already purchased, (much of it however I assume under threat of condemnation which may be a biter pill for those who sold "voluntarily.")  It could build on those parcels as if it was just any other property owner. 

Yes, the overall feel would not be of a traditional isolated walled tree-shaded “campus.” It would be much more urban with non-university buildings along the current street grid etc etc. Columbia's building would be interspersed with non-univeristy structures. In fact if the City were smart it would require Columbia to build mixed-use structures so that in appropriate locations there would be commercial uses along the street and Columbia's buildings would be integrated into the neighborhood.  That should have been the style of development from the start; there would have been no eminent domain dispute  and it have been a much better and safer (in many ways) urban design solution.

Unfortunately most institutional developers think in terms of a nice clean tabula rasa campus and not how the space they need can fit with an existing city. That’s a pity.

In this case Columbia is held hostage to its view that the way to satisfy its space needs (which I do not dispute) is in the form of a “campus” which reads as separate from the surrounding neighborhood. If Columbia could get rid of that antiquated notion it could be under construction immediately as it owns a great deal of land.

Here is another way to look at it: do you want Columbia’s expansion to feel like a Robert Moses “campus?” or a Jane Jacobs “neighborhood?” 

David Sucher, Columbia College ’67 

Comments

[Benjamin Hemric]

David,

Hi!

Nice posts (both here and elsewhere) on this topic! Sorry, I haven't had the time to post a comment earlier.

As I've also mentioned on a related "Discovering Urbanism" thread, I've just now posted two comments on a "Volokh Conspiracy" thread, "New York Intermediate Appellate Court Invalidates Taking of 'Blighted' Property . . . ", which you also contributed to. (For those who are unfamiliar with it, the originaly blog post, is dated December 3, 2009, and is by Ilya Somin. It can be easily found by typing "blight" into the search text box.)

My comments there also include links to two posts from 2007, one from the "City Room" blog (on the "New York Times" website) and one from Norman Oder's "Atlantic Yards Report" blog. These blog posts, and my follow-up comments to them, provide some further information regarding this topic via a discussion of a 2007 program sponsored by the Municipal Art Society, entitled "When the Big Get Bigger." Columbia president, Lee Bollinger, was a speaker on the panel.

Here's the URL:

http://volokh.com/2009/12/03/new-york-appellate-court-invalidates-taking-of-blighted-property-for-transfer-to-columbia-university-but-contradicts-state-supreme-court-in-the-process/

- - - - - -

P.S. -- As you probably know (but others may not), Ilya Somin is one of the attorneys listed on the Amicas Curae brief that Jane Jacobs submitted as part of the Kelo case. At one time, a pdf of the brief was available on line. Also, Norman Oder mentions it in one of his "Atlantic Yards Report" posts, and he may have provided a link to the pdf.

Regards,
Benjamin

Sat., Dec. 12, 2009 -- 10:15 p.m.