Presentations at the Macaulay Honors center was quite an adventure. It is always exhilaration (or slightly nerve racking) to orally present a topic to a live audience, but it is especially exciting to present to colleagues and peers. I think that fact that we presented to others in the Macaulay Honors College upped the anty in further. This experience allows you to see what other Macaulay classes are really like, and how have other been taking advantage of their seminars.

I felt like overall our group presented well. We were the last group to present, so it goes without saying that they saved the best for last. I felt that our group had a firm grasp on the subject matter that we were presenting, and delivered our points in a clean, concise manner. We all spoke fairly well, and used a sufficient amount of body and hand gestures to animate the presentation, and accentuate specific points. Another testament to our preparedness and thoroughness, was the fact that we were constantly asked to speed up the presentation as our time limit was growing nearer. In the end, we went well over our allotted time.

I also felt that the whole experience was run rather nicely. The professor in charge was extremely nice and insightfully. While after each presentation during the question answer session students generally answered a good some good questions, the professor was always there to ask really inquisitive and engaging questions. In addition, all the other groups were very respectful and a proper decorum was met while group’s presented.

One of the major things I noticed between our group’s presentation and the others was the contrast in the direction of the presentation. While our group presented a thesis and an issue to be analyzed with a certain urban development (the Hudson Yards) it seemed like the other groups just summarized what was happening to their respective projects. While they were all very thorough and well done, it does not seem like most of the groups had any specific thesis in mind. In fact, most of the presentations were reminiscent of our earlier assignment.

One groups which I was actually impressed with was a group which who presented on Willets Point. This group, unlike most others, had a specific goal in mind. They wanted assay the public opinion for or against the newly announced Willets Point project. They analysis what led to specific public perceptions about the project, and why certain social groups either had a favorable or negative view on the development. The group really a had a strong centralized thesis which they developed well very. This I believed greatly strengthened their presentation overall.

My group and I signed up for a 10:00am time slot at Macaulay this past Saturday.  The agenda was split into two sections and my group was to present during the later. A majority of the groups that presented with us focused on social issues including the effective use of mosques, female homelessness, and a majority focused on the effects of Hurricane Sandy. It was very interesting to hear the diverse opinions of students not necessarily pursuing business (as my teammates and I are doing).

One of the first interesting presentations I heard was about female homelessness in New York City. It opened my eyes to the unique challenges females face when homeless, but also what would be necessary in order to provide services to displaced women. Another interesting point to note was that the group members were not from the same CUNY campus. Instead, they represented the Macaulay College as a whole. I was unaware that this could be done.

I was also curious to watch the presentation about mosques put together by two City College of New York students. What I found most interesting was the proposed use of systematic practices to help institutions run smoothly and effectively. I felt that although the project centered on a religious center, it could be applied to secular organizations as well.

My group and I presented last, after a handful of presentations about Hurricane Sandy. Our Times Square project provided a shift in topic but also a different vantage point. Not only did we look at the social aspects of Times Square, we explored legal, political and economical ideas. The students seemed to enjoy our presentation and the moderator even told us that he enjoyed our unique research approach.

Every semester, I look forward to attending these types of Macaulay seminars. Only rarely do students from every CUNY campus get the chance to convene and share ideas. It is nice to explore the different ideas and beliefs of students from campuses that are not necessarily business-driven. Likewise, I am sure that our audience enjoyed our project as well. It was almost bittersweet concluding Saturday’s seminar, but I am sure that I will remain involved on the Macaulay scene in the future.

I thought that my group’s presentation at the Macaulay Seminar 4 conference went pretty well. We presented the information in an orderly and organized manner so the viewers who did not know much about our project would be able to understand. Our use of pictures, visuals, and text helped keep the audience interested and also aided in explaining the future plans for Times Square’s transformation. I felt that most of the people in the room were not aware of the current project for Times Square that is going on. By focusing on the effect of eminent domain on the past and present transformation projects, we gave a good overall feel of the changes brought to Times Square over the years and the role the government played in them.

In addition to the presentation itself, I felt that my group was able to answer questions very effectively. After all the presentations were done, students had several questions regarding the financial load that the future transformation of Times Square would have on the city. There was also a question about role that public opinion played in the past in the redevelopment project for Times Square. I thought that we were able to answer everyone’s questions well by using supporting evidence from our research and give them a satisfying response. There was a clear sense of interest in the future of Times Square since most of the students are New Yorkers who have definitely visited Times Square before.

In general, I found it interesting to see the various different types of presentations that were there during the conference. There were presentations on the effects of Hurricane Sandy in different neighborhoods in Staten Island, homelessness, and the way that movies are made. I found that the presentations about Hurricane Sandy were especially interesting since most of us experienced the natural disaster but had not faced it to the extreme level that people in Staten Island did. I found that the students presenting on these effects were also much more personal about the topic since they were most likely also affected by the disaster.

In the questioning portion of the conference, there were several questions regarding the aftermath and plans for recovery for Staten Island neighborhoods after Hurricane Sandy. These discussions were much more confrontational than other discussions. People felt emotionally connected to the disaster so they clearly had done their research and made strong arguments for why the government should be doing more than it has been in the recovery process in Staten Island. I personally found the presentation on the behind the scenes of movies and dancing to be very interesting since it was a unique topic in the conference. They stressed the importance of dance and suggested that it should be a required class in schools so that the art does not die out.

In conclusion, I found the conference to be very informative with many interesting presentations. It was very well organized and everything was done timely. The groups tried their best to stick to the time limit, but even if they went slightly over, the observer did not mind. The only disappointment was that there were several groups missing their group members since it left the group incomplete and unable to present to their best ability. I thought that people would be able to come since it was scheduled by them and it was the last conference. Otherwise, I felt that the last Macaulay conference was certainly very helpful in learning about the different facets of New York.

Last Sunday was the last presentation I will ever do for an IDC class. Honestly, it makes me kind of sad to know that I probably won’t see other Macaulay students from other campuses unless I join one of the clubs at Macaulay. However, everything must come to an end eventually. I felt my group could have done a bit better on the presentation. Our group got our points across for our presentation but due to time constraint we weren’t able to go into detail everything we were going to say. A member of the audience asked a question and we provided an answer that seemed satisfactory to him.

Something I felt kind of disappointed about was the lack of an audience. My group went in the first hour on Sunday between 10 am to 11 am and almost no one was there. Half of the room was empty and there were no teachers there to watch our presentation. It was less pressure for us to do well that way but I feel like the work we put into the project was not very rewarding.

Among the presentations I watched, a few were pretty interesting to me for different reasons. One thing that surprised me was the variety of topics the topics were about. Some projects were about neighborhoods, some were about education, and there was one comparing the managerial techniques of different clothing stores. I honestly did not understand why the project about the managerial techniques of different clothing stores was even there. I think it vaguely fits the topic of this IDC class, “Shaping the Future of New York City.”

One of the most interesting presentations to me was the education presentation. I came from one the specialized high schools and I can attest the racial disparity in my school. I was among the many Asians in the school and the number of black people in the entire school, not just my school year, is less than 15 people total. The freedom they have in other countries where there is no set curriculums has made me question about our education system. Our school system can be too restricted and luckily there are teachers I have met who were able to step outside of the rules but they are rare.

One of the projects I saw was the use of social media in Sandy and the students who presented were from the College of Staten Island. The teacher who assigned this definitely took into consideration their school’s location when thinking what the students should present about and I think it was very fitting. Even though the electricity may be out in certain areas, I learned the advantage of having a smartphone can help people alert others whether they need help and if they are safe. I don’t have a smartphone and as time goes on, the usefulness of a smartphone becomes more and more apparent including during disasters.

I presented with Lynda and Alice on Sunday at 10am. We were the very first group to go, and I think it went just fine but could have gone better. Being in an unfamiliar room with strangers definitely hindered our presentation. We were used to the podium in our classroom and how to maneuver around it; we usually all stand behind it and just shift the attention onto whoever is speaking. We tried to do the same thing at the conference, but there was a lot less space and it ended up being a little awkward. We were also used to our audience being familiar with our topic. The rest of the class has seen our presentations leading up to this one, but our new audience had no idea what we were talking about for the first few minutes.

Even so, I think we got our point across well. We were lucky that most of the people watching had been to the High Line, so they caught on once we declared that we’d be discussing the future of its funding. There didn’t seem to be any confusion amongst the other students when we were finished. The moderator and a visiting professor had some thought-provoking questions for us that gave us some ideas for our final paper. We had a small discussion about the process of creating a BID and methods for encouraging residents to participate in one for the High Line.

Our presentation could have gone better if we’d prepared more for the new atmosphere. In comparison to the other presentations, ours was the only one that seemed to be a part of a larger step-by-step project. We didn’t really take into consideration that the people at the conference wouldn’t have the same understanding and background information that our classmates have. Personally, I was also uncomfortable in the new space. I got a little tongue-tied occasionally because I was making eye contact with total strangers. I could have avoided this if I just mentally prepared for that factor, but it didn’t even cross my mind until it happened.

The most interesting presentation that I saw at the conference was about public housing on the Upper West Side. Students from City College made the presentation, and they spoke about some really interesting ideas on how to revamp the neighborhood. Since we’ve spoken about public housing, the topic resonated with me and I was able to follow along easily. They proposed ideas like opening up a street through a housing complex to increase foot traffic and building a school in the middle of the complex. On a side note, I thought it was funny how the Baruch business school students talked about funding while the City engineering students talked about architecture.

It was also interesting for me to see other presentations about the future of NYC that didn’t involve neighborhoods. There were presentations about crime control, education, obesity, etc. Watching these presentations allowed me to ponder the future of NYC in a broader and less geographical sense. They were more focused on the people and their wellbeing. This also helped me get a better perspective on what I should be thinking about when I take a position in my final paper. I have to think of the people in the area and not just the physical space alone.

I found Florida’s work on creativity, the digital revolution, and the importance of location to be all interesting reads. When one thinks of the innovations and technological advances, many driven in the computer sciences, the notion of a smaller world comes to mind. In many ways the world is shrinking (figuratively of course). Advances in communication, specifically the cell phone, internet, and fiber-optics, have made communicating with one another exponentially simpler.  Messages can be sent throughout the world and received in seconds. Hence, one would assume that being in a specific location nowadays would seem irrelevant. Florida argues otherwise.

Florida initially recants a story about a somewhat alternative, counter-culture graduating student who accepts a position in a internet start-up in Austin. The student explains his reasoning due to the many facets of Austin which cater to a young, creative individual like himself. I found the piece about Austin to be especially resonant as I have a particular fascination. Austin embodies a culturally unique, progressive and accepting atmosphere that young people crave. Even its no official slogan “keep Austin weird” gives off this same feeling. Austin is the poster child for how a small city keep foster a unique feel which attracts creative and innovative people.

In the reading, Florida develops a thesis to account for the increasing trend of urbanization, and moreover the reason cities give rise to the most innovation. In terms of factors of production, cities come at a severe disadvantage. Land, labor, and capitol all come at a steeper price in cities. So why do companies continuously choose to set up shop in major cities. Florida explains that is it the effect that results when people are clustered with other people. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts he contests. When people, especially innovators  are surrounding by like-minded individuals the circulation of ideas produces an environment which is conducive to innovation.

I found it quite interesting this notion that geography still remains important. We are constantly taught that globalization and technological advances have made the world increasingly smaller and have nullified the importance of place. Yet, computers screens and voice pads can never truly replace living, breathing people. The clustering of innovative people have produced some of the greatest technological accomplishments in the past few decades. Consider Silicon Valley for one. This localizing trend has made place in some ways more important that ever.

When you consider the positive effect that people have on other people no place comes to mind more than New York City. I can think of no city whose inhabitant come from such a wide-ranging diverse backgrounds. It is also hard to imagine a city whose denizens are so completely on top of each other, whose lives are so inter-connected.  The cumulative effect has continuously allowed New York to constantly reinvent itself, providing the world with innovation one after another. Yet, New York may be best described as a composite of many smaller cities. The combination between interconnectivity and localization may explain how New York maintains so many different identities, yet so many uniting forces.

I felt that our presentation on Saturday went pretty well. We attended the first sessions, at 10. We presented in the third floor classroom south along with 3 other groups. Since we had presented twice before and we had been working on the project for the whole semester, I think we mostly knew the information pretty well, so it was easy to present. Most of the other students seemed interested and paid attention to what we had to say. We did not have time during our session for Q & A, so it was only the presentation. Something I noticed and really liked was the variety of topics that were presented. I only saw seven other presentations, but by the titles of the presentations, I could see that they were all different and no other class seemed to focus on mega projects like ours did. Many of the presentations I saw were about a problem that exists in New York City now and policy that could be implemented to help solve it.

One of the presentations that I really enjoyed was “Pollution in Chinatown,” which was presented by a group of three students from City College. I liked it because I have spent a lot of time in Chinatown, and I live in Flushing, which is like Chinatown #2 so it was relatable. I always knew that it is dirty and polluted, but I didn’t really know the extent of it and all the different reasons for it. A big part of the presentation focused on the buses that travel to other cities on the East Cost. I’ve always known about the buses, but I just thought of them as an inexpensive alternative to more costly companies for travel and I never really though about the impact the buses have to air pollution and traffic congestion. As was presented in the presentation, there are arguments for and against the buses, and I can understand bother sides. On one hand, it is a cheaper way for people to travel, especially in an area with many immigrants and elderly. But on the other hand, there are some damaging effects to the neighborhood and environment. I wouldn’t argue for getting rid of the buses, but I just hope it down not expand to other neighborhoods, such as Flushing. Flushing is already crowded and congested and there are buses that travel from Flushing to other places, but I don’t think it is like how it is in Chinatown. Seeing the presentation and the negatives of the travel buses, I really hope that it just stays in Chinatown and doesn’t expand.

Another presentation that I enjoyed was “Homelessness in LGBTQ Youth” by a group of three students. I liked that it focused on one specific sector of the homeless population, one that I think most people, including myself, don’t really think about much even though they make up a higher proportion compared to its population in the country. The main thing I got from the presentation was that sensitivity and knowledge are the biggest is really needed to help LGBTQ homeless youth. It’s simple and a small thing, and is needed not only in the policy to help LBGTQ homeless youth, but also really in everything in life.

My group presented our presentation on the Highline on Sunday at 10:00 am. We were the first group to present and we explained our topic fairly well. The other presentations were diverse and covered a variety of topics such as drug and sexual education and the theme of liberty versus security. The presentation I most enjoyed was about the Upper West Side.

Our group presentation went well. We began by asking the audience member if they had been to the Highline and whether they were familiar with it. Mostly everyone had been there or knew of it. We explained some background on the Highline along with how the Highline is funded and how a BID works. We then compared the Highline to some other NYC parks and then discussed how the Highline might benefit from a BID.

The students viewing the presentation didn’t seem very enthusiastic about our topic since we talked a lot about funding, which they might have found a bit dull, and they didn’t ask many questions. The two professors in the room asked us about why the residents were opposed to a BID and how to make it appeal to them. We discussed the benefits of a BID to the area and how the Highline could hold members-only events and build a sense of community for the members and residents in the BID. We were also asked if there were any other controversies surrounding the Highline though we were unable to provide any other major debates about the Highline since there didn’t seem to be any significant ones. Overall I think we presented well but perhaps we could have made the presentation a bit livelier for those who weren’t particularly interested in the topic.

I mostly enjoyed the presentation about the Upper West Side. The group discussed the problems that some areas of the neighborhood faced and they gave specific responses of how to tackle those problems. They talked about a portion of public housing units that are secluded from the rest of the neighborhood. These areas have large open spaces but there is nothing surrounding them but the housing so few people walk through. This causes high levels of crime. Their presentation reminded me of Jane Jacobs’ theories on the safety of sidewalks. Since the area was so secluded and there were few people who needed to walk by, the area became prone to crime, as Jacobs explains. The group suggested that a road is built between the public housing, and they displayed a map showing a large amount of space that could hold a road to cut through the secluded public housing area. This would increase car and foot traffic and theoretically decrease crime. The group also mentioned how they public housing was built as a “tower in the park” and seemed most reminiscent of our classroom readings.

I enjoyed the Upper West Side presentation the most because they clearly discussed the future of NYC by identifying a problem and putting together a solution to solve the problem. Some of the other presentations merely restated some facts and didn’t put in much analysis nor offer solutions to ease the issues. Overall though, all the presentations were well done and thoroughly researched.

My group went to the 2nd session of the Conference, on Sunday, from 10am to 12pm. Personally I think the slides are wonderful. The content presented was clear cut, presentable, and not wordy at all. We utilized less writing and more pictures, which is what was suggested to us by the professor and our ITF. Each of our members knows what they talked about and minimized ad-lib talking as much as possible. Yet, some of the materials were glossed over due to the time constraint and strict time keeping by the ITF overlooking the conference. Personally, I think that presenting the succinct content of a 20-page paper would have taken way more than just 10 minutes. Otherwise, I think our group did a great job on the presentation. When the Q&A session came up, we did our best to provide answers for the audience, and they were satisfied.

One of the presentations that stood out the most for me was named “RISE,” about the initiative to improve New York City’s policy on runaway youth. It was interesting because the presentation talked about something of which I have no information about. The group presenting was an enclave of students from 3 different CUNY who took IDC in Macaulay Honors College. Their communication was impeccable, reflecting what I suspect is a more special kind of education you could receive at the Honors College’s headquarter. What stood out to me the most are two things. First, the annual cost of taking care for a runaway youth in a shelter is $90,000, which is a lot, considering that I, living by myself, spend only $30,000 at a maximum, taking into account the scholarship that I have received from the college. Second is how the government, with their R.I.S.E initiative (of which abbreviation I cannot remember), plan to do for the kids. Besides providing food and shelter, the government is thinking of providing psychotherapeutic counseling for these youths in the form of a mix between Addict Anonymous and extracurricular activities. The kids get to talk about how they feel about their situation and engage in meaningful and cognitively changing activities. Sustaining the kids for the very long-term would be really inconsequential whereas helping them thinking about a better future ahead and how to attain it seems like a very good idea.