[MassHistPres] lessons from New York in today's Times

[Jill Fisher]

Thank you Dennis for articulating so precisely my reaction to this building (I admit I am not familiar with the architect's other work.)  I actually thought the article must have been an April Fools joke!  Of course what is proposed to replace this building could be worse...Jill Fisher, AICPPrincipal PlannerLarson Fisher Associates, Inc.Historic Preservation & Planning ServicesPO Box 1394Woodstock, NY 12498845-679-5054jillfisher47 at hotmail.comwww.larsonfisher.com> From: djdewitt at rcn.com> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:37:02 -0400> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] lessons from New York in today's Times> > With all due respect. . . . As someone who who believes > passionately in modern architecture, has written about it, and taught > its history and theory, I can only say that building has minimal > redeeming architectural merits and is urbanistically awful. His > other NYC buildings are a little more interesting -- but imagine a > city built like that. It is truly hostile to the urban environment. > (Others can judge its social historic significance.)> > It is a reasonably bad example of what was known at that very brief > moment (from the late '50s into the early '60) as "the architecture > of delight" (Saarinen's term for a pair of buildings he and Harry > Weese did — later picked up and used by Safdie). There are good > examples by people like Stone (yes at Columbus Circle) and Rudolph > (Wellesley) and Saarinen and Yamasaki and others. That is not one of > them.> > Dennis De Witt> > > > > > > On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:50 PM, M Fenollosa wrote:> > > Architecture> > In Village, a Proposal That Erases History> >> > <presspan.jpg>> > Hiroko Masuike for The New York Times> > The 1963 O’Toole Building, threatened by development> >> > By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF> > Published: April 1, 2008> > The passionate battles surrounding the birth of New York’s > > preservation movement nearly a half-century ago seem like distant > > memories now. For some New Yorkers the main threat to architecture > > in the city is no longer the demolition of its great landmarks, but > > a trite nostalgia that disdains the new.> >> > <prop190.jpg>> > Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers> > A rendering of a plan for St. Vincent’s Medical Center in Greenwich > > Village. The lines indicate the elevation of existing hospital > > buildings. A hearing on the project is scheduled for Tuesday.> >> >> > Well, think again. Over the last few years the growing clout of > > developers has gradually chipped away at the city’s resolve to > > protect its architectural legacy. The agency most responsible for > > defending that legacy, the New York City Landmarks Preservation > > Commission, has sometimes been accused of putting developers’ > > interests above the well-being of the city’s inhabitants.> >> > A proposal before the commission to tear down several buildings in > > the Greenwich Village Historic District is shaping up as a crucial > > test of whether those critics are right. A hearing on the issue is > > scheduled for Tuesday morning, and New Yorkers would do well to > > follow the proceedings if they care about the city’s future.> >> > The application by the St. Vincent Catholic Medical Center calls > > for the demolition of eight structures on West 11th and 12th > > Streets, near Seventh Avenue, to make way for a towering new co-op > > building and a hospital. The threatened buildings range from the > > 1924 Student Nurses Residence Building to the 1963 O’Toole > > Building, one of the first buildings in the city to break with the > > Modernist mainstream as it was congealing into formulaic dogma.> >> > The question facing the commission is which, if any, of these > > buildings contribute to the character of the neighborhood, a > > protected historic district. (If the agency sides with > > preservationists, the battle is not necessarily won; St. Vincent’s, > > which is financially troubled, still has the option of pleading > > economic hardship.)> >> > Sadly, the hospital’s application reflects the pernicious but > > prevalent notion that any single building that is not a major > > historical landmark — or stands outside the historical mainstream — > > is unworthy of our protection. Pursue that logic to its conclusion, > > and you replace genuine urban history with a watered-down > > substitute. It’s historical censorship.> >> > St. Vincent’s board would like you to believe that this is a purely > > practical decision. The project, planned in partnership with the > > Rudin Organization, a local developer, would be built in two > > phases. In the first the five-story O’Toole Building would be > > demolished to make room for a 21-story tower that would house the > > entire hospital. (Because of the floors’ unusual height, this is > > roughly equivalent to a 30-story building.) A 21-story residential > > tower, flanked by rows of town houses, would replace the hospital’s > > seven other buildings between 11th and 12th Streets.> >> > The hospital expects to get $310 million from the sale of that > > land, which would go toward the construction of its new $830 > > million tower. (It would raise the remainder through private > > donations and other sources.)> >> > In patronizing fashion, hospital officials have suggested that > > preservationists are choosing buildings over lives, as if the two > > were in direct opposition. This is the kind of developer’s cant > > that is ruining our city. The addition of up to 400 co-op > > apartments is about money, not saving lives. There are plenty of > > other ways that the hospital could upgrade its facilities.> >> > The existing buildings that make up the hospital’s main campus east > > of Seventh Avenue do not rank as major historic landmarks. Even > > preservationists concede that the George Link Jr. Memorial > > Building, a bland brick box dating from the mid-1980s, is not worth > > saving.> >> > But it is not their status as individual objects that makes these > > buildings important; it’s their relationship to the historic fabric > > of the neighborhood. The designation of the neighborhood as a > > landmark district in 1969 was intended to protect humble structures > > like these. Established after local activists brought attention to > > the destruction wreaked by urban renewal projects, the designation > > was an affirmation that the city’s character is rooted in the small > > grain of everyday life.> >> > The threatened demolition of the O’Toole Building is most troubling > > of all. Designed by the New Orleans architect Albert C. Ledner, it > > is significant both as a work of architecture and as a repository > > of cultural memory.> >> > It was built to house the National Maritime Union, as the era of > > longshoremen and merchant sailors was nearing an end. Its > > glistening white facade and scalloped overhangs, boldly > > cantilevered over the lower floors, were meant to conjure an ocean > > voyage and a bright new face for the union. (Think of “On the > > Waterfront.”) Its glass brick base, once the site of union halls, > > suggests an urban aquarium.> >> > In short, you don’t need to love the building to grasp its > > historical value. Like Ledner’s Maritime dormitory building on > > Ninth Avenue or Edward Durell Stone’s 2 Columbus Circle, the > > O’Toole represents a moment when some architects rebelled against > > Modernism’s glass-box aesthetic in favor of ornamental facades.> >> > Viewed in that context, the O’Toole Building is part of a complex > > historical narrative in which competing values are always jostling > > for attention. This is not simply a question of losing a building; > > it’s about masking those complexities and reducing New York history > > to a caricature. Ultimately, it’s a form of collective amnesia.> >> > At St. Vincent’s, the damage is likely to be only compounded by the > > design of these new co-op buildings, a sentimental faux version of > > the past.> >> > If we continue down this path, we’ll end up with the urban > > equivalent of a patient on meds: safe, numb, soulless. Is this > > choosing lives?> >> > <presspan.jpg><prop190.jpg>> > ******************************> > For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact > > Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly. PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO > > THE WHOLE LIST.> > MassHistPres mailing list> > MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu> > http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres> > ********************************> > ******************************> For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly. PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST. > MassHistPres mailing list> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres> ********************************