Manhattanville Expansion Raises Questions About Aesthetics

Beyond the glass and steel illustrations of Columbia’s planned Manhattanville buildings is a tension between preserving the aesthetic aspects of the neighborhood and convincing local residents to embrace a modern look.

Although architecture alone does not create a space, design wields powerful force in helping to sculpt not only the physical characteristics, but also the emotional and psychological mood of a neighborhood.

“What the community expects in the new architecture is that the story of the community not be lost,” said Susan Russell, chief of staff for City Councilman Robert Jackson (D-West Harlem). “And that’s part of the fight,” she added.

But whether Manhattanville’s architecture even has a story to tell or a distinctive look—beyond a handful of historic buildings—remains a question unanswered.

A STROLL THROUGH MANHATTANVILLE TODAY

When strolling down a street in Manhattanville, the orange paint of an old brick building grabs the eye of passersby. The bright color marks some of the last properties not yet obtained by the University. The name of Nick Sprayregen’s storage company, “Tuck-it-Away,” resonates with the indistinct series of shuttered garage doors and almost matching box-like buildings along seemingly deserted streets of Manhattanville. The post-industrial architecture evokes a feeling of withdrawal—from the street and from a rapidly changing Manhattan.

Until this past December, the neighborhood’s land had not been rezoned for decades, leaving the look of the area much the same as it was 46 years earlier. A rezoning plan emerged as both local residents and the University looked to tap into a relatively untouched part of the city. In two separate rezoning proposals, Community Board 9 and Columbia both came up with plans to carve out the area for a future new look.

While maintaining that Manhattanville has its own story that is worthy of preservation, Russell admitted it was not exactly the golden architectural standard. “It’s somewhat run down,” she said. “It’s less than physically attractive.”

A few older buildings stand out from the garages and warehouses. The historic Prentis and Nash buildings are slated to be saved by Columbia. But while Columbia administrators cite these preservations as an example of the school’s commitment to the neighborhood, debate persists among local residents over how sincere the University is about safeguarding Manhattanville’s architectural and historic identity.

Community Board 9 member Walter South, a scholar of urban planning now studying historic preservation, emphasized that Manhattanville’s “rich history should be cherished.” Yet he said he fears, “Columbia has no interest in understanding the social fabric and rich architectural fabric of the area.”

BRIDGING OLD AND NEW

The room on the ground floor of Prentis Hall on 125th Street—adorned with site plans, sketches, and miniature models—is an urban architect’s Disneyland. One afternoon, Executive Vice President for Facilities Joe Ienuso sat in one of the yellow chairs at a sleek, long table at the room’s center, surrounded by walls plastered with drawings and maps that illustrate a new vision for the neighborhood.

But the fourth wall is a window onto the area today. As he explained how Columbia will alter the landscape, Ienuso lifted up the shade to point out the tower of the Studebaker building, which rises up along the distant skyline.

He explained that the vision for campus development will include the creation of a passageway that will run perpendicular to the streets and connect elements of the neighborhood’s past in an attempt to highlight the older buildings the University deems architecturally significant in the midst of the newly developing modern aesthetic.

“By design, what we’re trying to do is to make sure that this corridor—this North-South passage—provides a link, if you will, even architecturally, between an existing building that’s Prentis and an existing building that’s Studebaker,” he said.

Although residents have sent testimonies and letters to the New York Landmarks Conservancy seeking preservation of what they claim are Manhattanville’s historic structures, the organization has consistently turned down such requests, leaving to Columbia the task of sustaining the neighborhood’s architectural memory.

“Architectural value is a very slippery category,” said architectural historian Reinhold Martin, associate professor of planning and preservation at the School of Architecture. While some buildings in the neighborhood might have nostalgic value for the community, “we shouldn’t confuse buildings and people when speaking about value,” he said.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND ELEMENTS

On a chilly Wednesday evening, Columbia College Democrats and members of the Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification met in Lerner Hall. The informational event on Manhattanville featured a panel made up of SCEG members Victoria Ruiz, CC ’09, and Sam Barron, BC ’10, as well as City Councilman Tony Avella (D-Queens), who has been a vocal opponent of Columbia’s development vision as chair of the council’s Zoning and Franchise Committee, and CB9’s Will Simpkins, who also serves as associate director of Barnard’s New York City Civic Engagement Program.

Simpkins spoke about local concerns about the University’s looming architectural developments. “Many of us ... recognize that, to some degree, Columbia does need to expand and has every right to expand when they’ve bought the property fairly,” he said. “Looking at the plans for the glass and steel structures that are going to go up, it just doesn’t fit with what our notions of Harlem have been.”

Simpkins reflected many residents’ qualms, arguing that architecture is an artistic expression not only of a neighborhood’s future, but also of its history, a concern that Columbia administrators say they have considered.

“I and many others have observed the beauty of the viaduct on Riverside Drive, the structural support under the subway, and the importance those two metal structures have in shaping the future opportunities for architecture in the area,” Senior Executive Vice President Robert Kasdin said. He explained that these motifs will play an integral role in the architectural vocabulary of Columbia’s campus.

Although the University’s design team is still drafting a schematic design plan for the first three buildings in the first phase of construction, inspiration from the viaducts contributes to its architectural philosophy. Rejecting notions that the heavy glass-based design modernizes the area too drastically, administrators point to the glass as a sign of their commitment to transparency.

“The design principle that’s embedded in there is open and transparent,” Ienuso said. “The first thing that you go to is glass. ... You take the base of a building and make that interactive.”

According to Martin, material architects commonly use glass to convey freedom and “the future” in design. City planning theorist Jane Jacobs, whose principles have been an important part of the discussion surrounding Manhattanville plans, discussed transparency as essential to fostering pedestrian traffic and liveliness. But she emphasized the importance of thoughtful blending of neighborhood flair with up-and-coming developments, rather than streets lined with blocks of glass walls.

In the case of Manhattanville’s architectural design, the glass will not be reflect light, like a mirror, but will allow residents to look through walls into the new shops, restaurants, galleries, and academic facilities on the ground level of Columbia’s campus. Whether or not this concept of transparency resonates with the community remains a topic of intense debate.

“Transparency is typical malarkey,” South said, adding that he believes “transparency” is just Columbia’s favorite buzzword. “It doesn’t have anything to do, in my opinion, with good architecture.”

The dark red brick of the residential buildings surrounding the footprint will also play a role in shaping the campus’ architecture. According to Martin, red brick conjures ideas of tradition and history. Ienuso said that its influence—whether conceptually or in the use of actual materials—is a key point of consideration during the schematic design process.

But Martin disagreed with the idea that the materials alone can convey the grand ideas that Columbia proposes.

“I don’t think that either red brick or glass are capable of carrying meaning in and of themselves,” he said. Although he said he believes the reasoning behind the use of red brick comes from a “very appropriate” desire to acknowledge Manhattanville’s current architectural atmosphere, he said that “there are other ways of remembering and other ways of opening up. ... Materials can be fetishized. They can stand in for something.”

Columbia’s schematic architectural plan for the first three buildings is expected to be finished within a year. Then the University design team—with Renzo Piano, the architect responsible for the new New York Times headquarters, at the helm—will begin work on the other two buildings of the first construction phase, to be completed by 2015. Ienuso said that no architectural planning for the other two phases of development will begin until after that time, allowing Columbia more freedom to incorporate developments in design and changes in institutional needs.

At these early stages, the University is focused on turning its original vision of glass buildings into reality. “What it doesn’t mean is that every building should be designed out of steel and built with red brick because those are the two major elements that exist in the area today. That’s not a solution,” Ienuso said.

A STROLL THROUGH MANHATTANVILLE IN THE FUTURE

In 30 years, a passerby will experience a completely different streetscape in Manhattanville.

Pointing to a diagram of 130th Street according to Columbia’s future design, Ienuso narrated what the University hopes its journey will entail.

“In your mind’s eye, keep this plan in mind,” he said. “So, there’ll be new construction on both sides. The streets will be widened, so the sidewalks will be widened. Envision a tree-lined street, as opposed to what you see today. Very active ground level on both sides of the street. And then as you get to mid-block, you’re going to have two experiences. ... We’re envisioning a north-south passage, as we refer to it, which clearly doesn’t exist today. And you’re also going to encounter this very large, open space, this large square. All on your way, on your walk, to the river.”

This imagination provides stark contrast to the experience of the space today. Beyond even just the physical atmosphere, the structures and planning of the campus development will shift Manhattanville’s identity—what it feels like to live and work in the neighborhood. Some say it’s change for the better, some say for the worse.

But there seems to be a consensus on at least one point. “It will be different from anything that’s been there and anything else in the neighborhood. It’s going to be big,” Russell said. “What happens in the buildings is as important as what happens to the buildings.”

betsy.morais@columbiaspectator.com