- Refusal to represent the entirety of Columbia University's history--silencing the past so as to propogate a nostalgic version of an industrialist past in Manhattanville, as opposed to explaining the processes by which the University obtained the majority of the land ("urban renewal" and order maintenance), starting in Morningside Heights and working their way north. In this sense, there is a toxicity in their self-representation. When I interviewed an administrator working on the Expansion, she drew much of my attention to the history of the buildings, including that they once housed an American Girl doll factory, as well as a dairy factory. The manner in which she conveyed the transitions of the neighborhood enacted a sense of nostalgia, but also “natural progression”: Manhattanville once served a viable purpose, and now it was moving on to meet its new purpose in the age of the knowledge economy. If Columbia did not move into the space, another institution would have; rather than allowing an eyesore to persist, it was necessary for Columbia to step in and make use of a space that was conceived of as generally “empty.”
- What I might term the toxicity of "local denial." The notions of “blight,” “development,” “redevelopment,” and “progress,” as well as the existence of and frequent usage of eminent domain by private institutions, connote a cultural frame of addressing late industrialism’s pitfalls, but only for certain populations such as University faculty, staff, students, and administrators, those participants of the knowledge economy. The knowledge economy and its alleged connection to the global is imbued with greater value than the needs of West Harlem as a whole, the local deemed as irrelevant to the project of the “greater good,” however that is defined. Meanwhile, residents of housing developments face the brunt of deteriorating conditions themselves: watching as glass and metal buildings are built nearby, they still have to deal with housing that is dangerous to their own health. The culture of “progress” enables structural neglect to be deemed as acceptable in certain situations among certain populations over others. Not only Columbia, but the city as a whole buys into the culture of “progress” and capital: millionaires can purchase homes they don’t intend to live in for the purposes of investment; meanwhile costs of living continue to skyrocket for residents in affordable housing in the vicinity of such “residencies.” There is a cultural disposition towards the enhancement of capital and private interests, at the expense of people more generally who are rendered more vulnerable to displacement due to gentrifying practices and the unaddressed effects of late industrialism.
- Columbia's promotion of the idea of "transparency": Promoting narrative of “transparency” and “accessibility,” even as local residents feel uncomfortable/unwelcome to partake in their resources at various instances. Such renders certain parts of West Harlem inaccessible; particularly as Columbia is seeking to in a sense take over part of the waterfront, this may render some residents uncertain if they are welcome to partake. Restricting spaces and policing them in tandem render places toxic and more dangerous for the groups of people who are perceived not to be welcome.
Artifact
Analytic (Question)
Everyone can view this content
On