Substantive Letters’ Response in Rebuttal to Times’ Endorsement of NYU Massive Expansion

Four letters appeared in response to the March 31st-April 1st Editorial by the New York Times which supported NYU’s massive expansion plan “2031”; all in rebuttal to the editorial and against the plan (the first two letters written by NYU professors):

The Fight Over N.Y.U.’s Expansion Plan
Published: April 6, 2012

To the Editor:

In your April 1 editorial “Let N.Y.U. Expand in Its Backyard,” you claim that New York University “needs to expand” and has “mostly made its case for the extra room.” But surely that is only relevant if the means used to create the “extra room” don’t interfere with the university’s ability to fulfill its educational mission. Bigger is not always better for what a university does.

Fearing the effect that the prospect of living 20 years on a construction site is likely to have on its ability to retain and attract top faculty, the university’s politics department, at a March 27 meeting, indicated its opposition to N.Y.U.’s expansion plan by a vote of 27 to 2. Several other departments will be holding similar meetings.

When it comes to fulfilling the educational mission of a university, it is not the board of trustees, or the president it appoints, but the faculty who are the best judges of what is needed and what is downright harmful. That makes it doubly unfortunate that most of the media have ignored or trivialized our views.

New York, April 1, 2012

The writer is a professor of politics at New York University.

To the Editor:

Many, many N.Y.U. faculty members oppose this plan, but not because we’re reactive Nimbys. Instead, we’re worried about the financial and academic health of our university, which we believe will be negatively affected by this oversized plan.

We’re worried about the health of the tenants who live in the superblocks and who will endure 20 years of nonstop construction noise, dust and the army of rats expected to be unsettled by the big dig. Finally, we’re worried about the architectural and environmental health of a beloved neighborhood.

Ironically, N.Y.U.’s building plan would do devastating harm to the very neighborhood that is part of its sales pitch to prospective students. N.Y.U. is a vital part of Greenwich Village. But it cannot be allowed to tower over it — literally or figuratively.

New York, April 2, 2012

The writer is a professor of performance studies and religious studies at New York University.

To the Editor:

I was shocked and disappointed to see the position you took in favor of N.Y.U.’s proposed expansion in Greenwich Village.

I know of no one living in the community who supports this plan. It would have an absolutely disastrous effect on the immediate neighborhood and indeed on the wider Village community. I lived for 38 years near the two superblocks where N.Y.U. proposes to expand and know how devastating these changes would be.

Community Board 1 has invited N.Y.U. to expand in the financial district. This is a perfect solution, building in a neighborhood that could use more activity and more people, and protecting a neighborhood that cannot sustain the kind of onslaught that the expansion would entail.


New York, April 2, 2012

To the Editor:

I agree that N.Y.U. has to expand. But so far it has refused to discuss options that would reduce the plan’s overwhelming impact on our neighborhood. I hope that N.Y.U. takes to heart your point that the current design should be a negotiating position.

More than 40 businesses have joined together to raise concerns about this proposal because while we see many benefits of a significantly scaled-down expansion, we also recognize that the current Midtown-like plans would overwhelm the community.

N.Y.U. should, in good faith, negotiate with our elected officials to find a common-sense solution that significantly reduces the proposed density, expands opportunities for local businesses, creates accessible open space and adds infrastructure improvements.


(Note: Judy Paul is the proprietress of the Washington Square Hotel.)

Additional Meetings on New York University’s Immense Expansion Plans ‘Til 2031 This Month

No more purple flags please...

If you’re looking for some background on where else New York University could possibly plant its purple flags south of Washington Square, visit the plethora of WSP Blog posts on NYU here.

Support is needed right now to stop this behemoth and its immense plans which have virtually no community support but which clearly have the support of the Bloomberg Administration. There are additional meetings hosted by Community Board 2 this month and the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation and local community groups are asking people to come out in force. From GVSHP:

  • Thursday, Feb. 16 at 6:30 pm – CB2 NYU Working Group/ Architectural Presentation of NYU Plan – at St. Anthony of Padua Church, 151-155 Sullivan Street (below Houston Street), lower hall.
  • Monday, Feb. 20 at 6:30 pm – CB2 NYU Working Group – at Our Lady of Pompei Church, Bleecker and Carmine Streets (enter on Bleecker), basement hall. The NYU Working Group will decide upon its proposed language;
  • Thursday, Feb. 23 St. Anthony of Padua Church, 151-155 Sullivan Street (below Houston Street).  Community Board #2 Public Hearing and Final Vote on NYU Expansion Plan.
    5 pm – Join GVSHP, community groups, and NYU faculty and students opposed to the expansion plan for a press conference and rally to call upon the Community Board and City officials to REJECT the NYU plan. 6pm to 6:30 pm – Sign up to testify AGAINST the NYU plan, and urge Community Board #2 and elected officials to vote it down.

NYU Proposed Expansion Plan 2031 — Is the Fix ‘In’ With the Bloomberg Administration?

I’m posting previous WSP Blog entries as refreshers on NYU and President John Sexton’s “vision” for the University’s Expansion Plan 2031. It’s a very critical time right now.

It raises the question — is the ‘fix’ in with the Bloomberg Administration? Given this Admin’s history over the last seemingly gazillion years (will his term ever end?), that would not be much of a surprise.

If so, how to stop it?

If her statements at the Community Meeting on NYU Plan 2031 earlier this month were any indication, Council Member Margaret Chin likely does not have the strength to stand up to Bloomberg and Council Member Quinn who will put pressure on her to go along with it.

More at WSP Blog on NYU here.

WSP Performance Crackdown; NYU Expansion on CB2 Parks Committee Agenda Tonight, Thurs. Jan. 12th


The WSP performance crackdown is on the agenda at tonight’s Community Board 2 Parks Committee meeting, 6:30 p.m. Our Lady of Pompeii Church, 25 Carmine Street, Father Demo Hall (enter on Bleecker) [venue has been changed from what was previously announced].

The addressing of the controversial new rules (on hold temporarily) is now scheduled for an “executive session.” Previously announced as an opportunity for public comment; it was stated that this topic was being moved to February’s meeting in order “to allow more time for public comment.”

Now, the CB2 website states, that, during the closed session, the committee “will consider a resolution reiterating a prior position opposing a Parks Department rule regarding public expression in parks and including its recent use to restrict un-amplified performances in Washington Square.”

Update from CB2 Chair Brad Hoylman: It was decided that there had been “enough public comment” and that “It’s not fair to ask people to come out again (and again, and…).” He is hoping that a resolution will be drafted by the committee.

The main part of the meeting which is open for public comment focuses on the “NYU 2031 Campus Expansion Plan.” I’d be curious to see how (Parks Committee Chair) Tobi Bergman handles this group since he dodges a bit on issues related to WSP (and gets away with it).

This is certain to recruit a large crowd. There will be a presentation of the plan and discussion of how NYU’s plans affect “open space and related issues” as well as NYC Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). It is noted that “Public input at this hearing will inform the Community Board 2 recommendation.