Trustees discuss commercial land on the Farm

The Board of Trustees recently held a retreat that aimed to do away with business as usual, focusing on several issues of strategic importance. The three topics they discussed this year were Stanford’s land use over the next 25 years, the value of the 350-plus centers on the Farm and the potential New York City campus.

The retreat is an annual tradition that allows the Board to break from its traditional meetings and think about big issues regarding the future of the University. The first issue discussed was Stanford’s long-term land use over the coming decades.

“Over the past few years, an area the Trustees have spent the least amount of time talking about is Stanford commercial land,” said Leslie Hume, president of the Board of Trustees, in a phone conference. Though there were no decisions made at the meeting, Hume said the Board members discussed the tradeoffs between developing commercial land for long-term income generation and the impact it may have on academic development and the local community.

“The land use policy that is in place was adopted by the Board almost 22 years ago,” Hume said.

She noted that the result of the Board’s discussion might “suggest modification to the land use plan, and help frame future agendas” for the University Committee on Land & Building Development.

The Board also focused on the various centers housed at Stanford; Hume said she and her peers mainly focused on the 17 centers that report directly to the Dean of Research. These centers, which include the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies, Bio-X and the Clayman Institute, were examined in terms of how well they meet the challenge of initiating multi-disciplinary study.

“We wanted to really learn more about these centers and the risks and opportunities they pose,” Hume said.

She described the discussion as “very informative and candid.”

In addition to examining the centers, the Board also participated in a moderated panel discussion with directors of various centers on campus. Many of the Trustees have been engaged with the centers and Hume herself was an advisor at the Clayman Institute before becoming chair of the Board of Trustees.

The final topic of note was the potential New York City campus. According to Hume, the Board received a thorough presentation about the project and “was pleased with the quality of the proposal.”

“I think the conversation John Hennessy will have next week with the Academic Council will give you a sense of the conversations he had with the Trustees,” Hume said.

The Board also received a preview of the site plan and the deans of both the Business and Engineering schools gave presentations about their curricular ambitions for the NYC campus. Hume said the Board was able to talk over some of their concerns with Hennessy, ranging from the proposed site of the project to financial estimates and navigating the politics of New York City.

When asked about the new Manzanita Park dormitories for upperclassman, Hume said no action was taken at the recent Board meeting regarding the issue. According to the University’s timeline, project approval should have taken place in February of this year. However, no action has been taken since the original concept was proposed last year.

 

About Brendan O'Byrne

Brendan is a senior staff writer at The Stanford Daily. Previously he was the executive editor, the deputy editor, a news desk editor and a writer for the news section. He's a history major originally from New Orleans.
  • Absurd

    The Board of Trustees are supposed to be caretakers of the excellence and quality that characterize the university. Are they so blinded by the possibility of a useless expansion that they are really approving of the New York City campus? What happened to improving Stanford in California? Why are we trying to increase Stanford’s prominence in something it’s already prominent in, especially considering that Stanford lags quite abit in a great many areas? including public policy, public health, social work, architecture, the arts (fine arts, music, theater, etc.), agricultural sciences, languages, various medical areas, etc. Stanford always claims that it has so much excellence in a great breadth, but the fact remains that there are other universities which achieve similar excellence across a greater breadth, like Berkeley and Harvard.

    Stanford needs to focus on expanding academically there before it strengths something that’s already unbelievably strong. Stanford is legitimately tied with MIT for the best place in the world for engineering.

    And then there are tons of problems outside of that that Stanford still needs to fix. Like the fact that it offers only half of the graduate students housing. Or the fact that undergraduate housing leaves a lot to be desired. Or the fact that most faculty don’t have housing, and those that do are paying prices higher than the housing prices in Palo Alto. Or the fact that Stanford isn’t able to attract many top faculty as a result, since it’s not paying them a salary commensurate with the real cost of living. Or the fact that it’s exorbitantly expensive to attend Stanford. Or the fact that capital improvement is still a problem (how long has the Old Chem building been sitting there untouched? How long has it been since they announced that Meyer is unsafe?)

    There are so many problems here to fix first. Rather than drain some of Stanford’s talent and send them to the east coast, let New York deal with its own problems of not having enough engineering talent there. The answer is staring them in the face anyway: Columbia has a decent engineering school, so if they gave Columbia the $100m they’re investing in this project, I’m sure Columbia could become one of the top places for engineering.

  • Manzanita?

    What new Manzanita Park dormitories? Where could they possibly build more Manz dorms?