Three years ago, when the merger between NYU and Polytechnic University was just under way, I wrote a well received opinion piece arguing that aggressive development of New York City’s university-based engineering research programs might prove key to its ambitions to become a center of technology-based business development. I even argued that competition in this arena (between NYU-Poly and Columbia) would be salutary. Apparently, someone was listening, but not exactly in the way I expected!
Some months ago, New York City issued a “request for expressions of interest,” seeking to identify academic institutions anywhere in the world that might want to develop what the City called an “applied science and engineering research campus.” Today, the City announced that it had received 18 expressions of interest, and clearly had met its goal of stimulating worldwide interest. Represented in the pool were a number of strong U.S. institutions (some being usual suspects, and others a bit of surprise) and also institutions in Canada, France, Finland, India, Israel, Korea, Switzerland, and the U.K. Pretty impressive!
The obvious question is why even try and bring in outside institutions — as good as they might be — rather than get behind the growth ambitions of the three largest in-city engineering research programs? Why start from scratch when you can build on gathering strength? Engineering is engineering, and it can be done well or badly, with strong commitment to industrial partnership or not, but there’s nothing magic about Stanford, Cornell, Purdue, or Carnegie Mellon. It’s about size, scale, momentum, and institutional leadership, and the home teams will always be larger than the NYC “satellites” of institutions based elsewhere. So why the competition? No one has been able to give me a good answer, so what follows is purely my own speculation. Feel free to contradict me in the comments.
More on The responses are in to NYC’s ‘applied sciences campus’ RFEI
Filed under Commentary by 
The Center for an Urban Future, with which I have been affiliated as an advisor and author for many years, has published as the most recent number in its “Off the CUF” series of commentaries my thoughts on the implications of Columbia University’s Manhattanville campus project.
While the legal issues swirling around Manhattanville are up in the air as of the publication date, I have tried to focus on the policy implications, and how it happened that we all took our eye off the ball: the potential of this expansion to enable cluster formation and private-sector employment. At the risk of irritating both sides in this contentious process, I am asking that City leaders explicitly re-open the question of private-sector research partners of the university and whether they will be recruited and made welcome either in the project itself or in immediately adjoining land scheduled for rezoning by City Council this spring.
On Manhattanville, it’s time to lead toward the outcomes NYC wants, and time to stop cowering behind fear that any new complexity will complicate a fraught political process. I expect this piece to be controversial. Comments welcome. Click the link in the first paragraph for the article, or see it embedded in a frame after the jump.
More on Manhattanville: the implications for economic development
Filed under Commentary by
The Center for an Urban Future has finally released the long-awaited study of the City’s innovation sectors, funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation through the NYC-focused civic program managed by Ted Greenwood. At the City Futures website you’ll find both a full study, and an appendix with an “index” of innovation indicators.
I can scarcely provide an impartial review, since I’ve been involved with this project from its earliest stages. I provided commentary to Sloan prior to the award and then served as an advisor (relax: unpaid) to co-authors Jonathan Bowles and Jim O’Grady through repeated drafts. However, if you’re prepared to accept admittedly self-interested commentary, I think this report hits the nail right on the head: what has stood in the way of New York City’s emerging as a technology center whose standing is consonant with its research preëminence is a series of primarily cultural issues. Go read it and tell me in the comments or by any other means if you think I’m wrong.
More on CUF releases its study of innovation-led development in New York City
Filed under Commentary by
CUF’s ‘New Tech City’ report
An interesting report on New York City’s powerful wave of digital-technology startups has issued from the Center for an Urban Future (a non-partisan think tank where I’m a long-time advisor and occasional author, though not involved in this report).
The report “New Tech City” does a solid job capturing the way Internet-enabled startups (supercharged these days by mobile technology) have begun to cluster and thrive in a way they did not back in the dot-com 1990s. As the report correctly notes, the secret sauce has been a new enthusiasm by City government and civic leadership for facilitating healthy symbiosis between digital entrepreneurs and the several sectors where the City already boasts world-dominating business clusters. Mainly, that means the media/publishing/advertising sectors, finance (toujours finance), and what might be called the creative/cultural/educational complex. These happen to be clusters that both exhibit clear vulnerability to disruption and wield enormous purchasing power.
More on CUF’s ‘New Tech City’ report
Filed under Commentary by David Hochman
Tags: CUF, Engineering, NYC