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

Wed Apr 2 08:25:45 EDT 2008

All due respect taken - we could discuss the merits of the building til the cows come home.  I'm a
big fan of Boston City Hall but there are other brutalist buildings that I just dont get.  While
Philip Johnson's house is now a registered landmark, I probably wouldn't have blinked if it
disappeared.  

My point is more that people are becoming aware of this recent past "idea."  The fact that its
even being debated is a good sign.  It allows us to air the exchanges - such as this.  Just dont
let us fall victim to the grandparent syndrom - we like what our grandparents had, not what our
parents had.

Thanks Dennis!

Aaron

--- Dennis De Witt <djdewitt at rcn.com> wrote:

> 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
> ********************************
> 

--------
http://www.marcavitch.com

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com