A few things.
First of all, the New York Times in 1992 on the postmodern skyline blight that is the Sony Building (then still the AT&T Building):
This proposal marks the latest instance in which landlords have tried to recreate ill-conceived or little-used arcades and plazas, which generated lucrative bonuses for builders but not much in the way of genuine public amenities.
In one of the most dramatic cases, a dank arcade under 2 Lincoln Square, an apartment tower on Columbus Avenue, between 65th and 66th Streets, was enclosed in 1989 and turned into a home for the Museum of American Folk Art.
The Sony plan is likely to provoke wide debate on whether the public will gain or lose through the renovation, given the celebrity of 550 Madison Avenue itself, which was designed in 1978 by Philip Johnson and is marked on the skyline by a Chippendale-style broken pediment.
Sony’s proposal calls for a net reduction of 8,727 square feet of space at ground level that is now devoted to the public; space that could conceivably be rented to retailers for about $200 a square foot.
And now the New York Observer in 2012, on NYU’s 2031 plan, which will involve upgrading the quality and quantity of open space while adding new buildings to their modernist superblocks in the Village:
“We are making publicly accessible [existing] open space that is not—and is not perceived—as publicly accessible now,” university spokesman John Beckman told The Observer.
Still, this ignores the fact that this is already N.Y.U. owned land, and many of the impediments in place that the university cites, such as fences and locked gates and requisite visitor passes, could merely be done away with by the institution. The public space would not be the best, but it still underscores the fact that there is not nearly a net open space gain on the scale the university is suggesting.
But the Greenwich Village is, of course, sacrosanct, being the home of Jane Jacobs and one of the first neighborhoods in America to gentrify after urban decline (that is, regain its former stature – there are some places, like Lake Shore Drive in Chicago and the Upper East Side in Manhattan, that never lost it).
Speaking of Jane Jacobs, commenter Benjamin Hemric, in one of his epic comments the other day, pointed me to this footnote on page 194 of The Death and Life:
“Dear, are you sure the sotve is one of the 51 exciting reasons we’re living in Washington Square Village?” asks the wife in a cartoon issued by protesting tenants in an expensive New York redevelopment project. “You’ll have to speak up, honey,” replies the husband. “Our neighbor just flushed his toilet.”
Washington Square Village is, in my opinion, the nicer of the two complexes that NYU wants to redevelop, despite not having the pedigree of I.M. Pei’s Silver Towers next door.
And finally, from another Observer article, right after the plan passed the first of two major City Council hurdles:
[Community Board 2 chair David Gruber] said the community did not get a single major concession from NYU, among them a hope that the Mercer building on the north block would be eliminated entirely. It was something everyone from the board to council members to The Times‘ architecture critic had asked for, but NYU said it was impossible given the huge underground building it was building on the north blocks for classrooms and labs.
“In order to for it to work, we have to be able to access it, for ingress and egress,” Alicia Hurley, the NYU VP shepherding the project, told The Observer. “People have to be able to get in and out.”
Why do they need to go in and out? Surely it would be more beneficial to the community if the mole people were contained within the earth’s crust!
I’m not sure what the ratio is now that the aboveground space has been reduced, but the plan was originally 1.4 million new square feet above ground, and 1.1 million below. Light and air are so important to existing residents that newcomers have to spend their daylight hours underground.
PART ONE
Stephen Smith wrote:
But Greenwich Village is, of course, sacrosanct, being the home of Jane Jacobs and one of the first neighborhoods in America to gentrify after urban decline . . . .
Benjamin Hemric writes:
While it’s true that opponents are trying to use Jane Jacobs to fight NYU’s plan, it’s also incredibly ironic since these tower-in-the-park superblocks represent the antithesis of Jacobs’ ideas about urban health and regeneration; and, furthermore, she’s actually written about how such blocks might be densified and re-knit into the fabric of the surrounding city. Plus, although I’m not absolutely positive about it, but I’m pretty sure Jacobs actually specifically criticized (when she was still living in the Village, I believe) the open space of Washington Square Village as really being private space that is masquerading as public space.
Unbelievably, this aspect of the controversy has largely been overlooked — in part, I believe, because of the myths that surround Jacobs.
Here’s a link, though, to one of the articles that I believe has gotten it right. It’s entitled, “Critics of NYU 2031 Plans Now Defend Once-Maligned NYU Buildings” by Charles Eisenhood and it is in the November 18th, 2010 online edition of NYU Local (an NYU newspaper). My comment is the third comment below the article. (Unfortunately, most of the links that I mention no longer work.)
Here’s a link:
http://nyulocal.com/on-campus/2010/11/18/critics-of-nyu-2031-plans-now-defend-once-maligned-nyu-buildings/
If the link doesn’t work, just put the following words in a search engine: Charles Eisenhood Critics of NYU
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
As I believe I may have mentioned in one of the early “Market Urbanism” posts on this topic, I think NYU missed the boat, though, by proposing more towers-in-the-park to densify the superblocks, rather than choosing to add density via relatively low-rise buildings of about six or seven stories (like the loft buildings across the street) that would be attached to the existing high-rises and have green roofs that would provide existing residents with more privately accessible green open space than they have now (for a community garden, swim club, etc.).
This way everyone could be happy:
Residents would not have any views that are obstructed by new towers. Their existing views would be the same as they are now, except they would be six stories closer to green open / recreational space than they were before.
NYU would have its classrooms (with green roofs), etc.
The general public would have real streets that go through the site (between the low rise buildings), with additional retail space to enliven the newly accessible streets and to lessen the pressures for higher commercial rents in the smaller storefonts on nearby streets. And the additonal low-rise structures could help enclose / shape new corss streets and an incredible new open space / plaza (with cafes, etc.) around the statue of Sylvette.
Also, this probably one of the rare instances in the entire world where there would be little or no need for any offsite relocation, as NYU owns most of the units in the complex and many of the residents are transients (faculty), or seniors who may be retiring, or both — so people could be “relocated” by moving them elsewhere in the complex, maybe even into the very same layout higher up in their building.
Such a densification would probably be unique in the world (although something similar was once proposed for a smiliar middle-income project in Chelsea, and the NYC Housing Authority had been talking about adding buildings to some of its projects), and a great example of how to densify housing projects elsewhere in the U.S.
And adding low-rise / green roofed structures among the existing high-rises would not only create one of the most incredible and unique urban districts in the world, it would also create one of the most incredible walking experiences in all the world too: down Univeristy Place, past Washington Mews, Washington Square Park and Bobst Library, “under” and through Washington Sq. Village North, between NYU classroom buildings with stores on the ground floor (and green roofs above), “under” and through Washington Sq. Village South, between more NYU classroom buildings having cafes on the ground floor (and green roofs above), and then by an incredible opening in the block / plaza showcasing Sylvette, and then across Houston St. right into SoHo.
Benjamin Hemric
Mon., July 23, 2012, 8:00 p.m.
JANE JACOBS AND EXPANSION OF NYU SUPERBLOCKS
Stephen Smith wrote:
But the Greenwich Village is, of course, sacrosanct, being the home of Jane Jacobs and one of the first neighborhoods in America to gentrify after urban decline . . . .
Benjamin Hemric writes:
Although it’s true that opponents of NYU plans seem to be invoking Jacobs, this is amazingly ironic since the development they are trying to preserve is the antithesis of Jacobs work!
By the way, I believe, but am not sure, that when Jacobs was still living in New York she even criticized the open space in Washington Square Village for being falsely presented as being for the public when it was really private open space.
Most people seem to be overlooking this, but one article that’s got it right is one by Charles Eisenhood, entitled, “Critics of NYU 2031 Plans Now Defend Once-maligned NYU Buildings.” It is in the online edition of NYU Local (a NYU newspaper) and can be found via a search engine. My comment is the third one down. (Unfortunately the links that I mention in my comment no longer work.)
To avoid any confusion, it should be noted that Jacobs was NOT against high-rises. She was against the wiping out of economically vital districts, often of high density, for sterile projects, often of low-density (because of all the open space).
– – – – – –
I think NYU made a big mistake by proposing a tower-in-the-park scheme to densify the superblocks. I think they would have a much better case for their redevelopment if that had proposed to densify via low-rise buildings (similar to the six- and seven-story loft buildings across the street) that would have green roofs and would be attached to the existing high-rises — thus providing residents with more private open space than they have now.
This way everybody would get what they wanted:
Residents would still have their same views and would get more private open space.
NYU would get its classrooms (with green roofs).
The general public would get public streets throught the site, with more retail frontage (that would lessen the pressure on rents in nearby small storefronts).
Such an arrangement would be unique in the world andit would show the way to densify other projects across the U.S.
Plus no relocation would be needed. Since NYU owns most of the units and most of the residents are transient (faculty) or seniors, or both, they could move people being displaced (by the addition of the low-rise buildings to the lower floors of existing high rises) to higher floors — maybe even to the same layout on a higher floor!
– – – – – – –
Stephen Smith wrote (re Jacobs footnote):
Washington Square Village is, in my opinion, the nicer of the two complexes that NYU wants to redevelop, despite not having the pedigree of I.M. Pei’s Silver Towers next door.
Benjamin Hemric writes:
By the way, this was in the chapter on “The Need for Old Buildings,” and Jacobs was pointing out that not everybody wanted brand new construction, which is what planners thought at the time. (This was before browstoning, adaptive reuse and loft living had hit the big time.)
Re Washington Square village and Silver Towers
While I think much modern architecture is anti-urban, as these developments are, I think there is much to like in both developments too — I just think their faults should be corrected and they should be “downtown-ized” or “Jane Jacob-ized.”
Benjamin Hemric
Mon., July 23, 2012, 10:30 p.m.
JANE JACOBS AND DENSIFICATION OF THE NYU SUPERBLOCKS — PART TWO
I think NYU made a big mistake by proposing a tower-in-the-park scheme to densify the superblocks. I think they would have a much better case for their redevelopment if that had proposed to densify via low-rise buildings (similar to the six- and seven-story loft buildings across the street) that would have green roofs and would be attached to the existing high-rises — thus providing residents with more private open space than they have now.
This way everybody would get what they wanted:
Residents would still have their same views and would get more private open space.
NYU would get its classrooms (with green roofs).
The general public would get public streets throught the site, with more retail frontage (that would lessen the pressure on rents in nearby small storefronts).
Such an arrangement would be unique in the world andit would show the way to densify other projects across the U.S.
Plus no relocation would be needed. Since NYU owns most of the units and most of the residents are transient (faculty) or seniors, or both, they could move people being displaced (by the addition of the low-rise buildings to the lower floors of existing high rises) to higher floors — maybe even to the same layout on a higher floor!
It would also create one of the most incredible streets in all of New York:
Walking down University Place one would walk by Washington Mews, Washington Square Park, and Bobst Library; and then one would walk “under” and through Washington Square Village North, between new loft buildings with ground floor stores (and green roofs above), and “under” and through Washington Square Village South; crossing Bleecker one would continue between these new loft buidings until one came upon an incredible new midblock plaza, containing the statue of Sylvette; then it’s onward between more of the new loft buidings, until one crosses Houston St. into SoHo.
– – – – – – –
Stephen Smith wrote (re Jacobs footnote):
Washington Square Village is, in my opinion, the nicer of the two complexes that NYU wants to redevelop, despite not having the pedigree of I.M. Pei’s Silver Towers next door.
Benjamin Hemric writes:
By the way, this was in the chapter on “The Need for Old Buildings,” and Jacobs was pointing out that not everybody wanted brand new construction, which is what planners thought at the time. (This was before browstoning, adaptive reuse and loft living had hit the big time.)
Re Washington Square village and Silver Towers
While I think much modern architecture is anti-urban, as these developments are, I think there is much to like in both developments too — I just think their faults should be corrected and they should be “downtown-ized” or “Jane Jacob-ized.”
Benjamin Hemric
Mon., July 23, 2012, 11:00 p.m.
JANE JACOBS AND DENSIFICATION OF THE NYU SUPERBLOCKS — PART ONE
Stephen Smith wrote:
But the Greenwich Village is, of course, sacrosanct, being the home of Jane Jacobs and one of the first neighborhoods in
America to gentrify after urban decline . . . .
Benjamin Hemric writes:
Although it’s true that opponents of NYU plans seem to be invoking Jacobs, this is amazingly ironic since the development they are trying to preserve is the antithesis of Jacobs work! Jacobs has even written about ways to add to and densify such tower-in-the-park developments and re-knit them into the urban fabric.
By the way, I believe, but am not sure, that when Jacobs was still living in New York she even criticized the open
space in Washington Square Village, in particular, for being falsely presented as being for the public when it was really private open space.
Most people seem to be overlooking this, but one article that’s got it right is one by Charles Eisenhood, entitled,
“Critics of NYU 2031 Plans Now Defend Once-maligned NYU Buildings.” It is in the online edition of NYU Local (a NYU newspaper) and can be found via a search engine. My comment is the third one down. (Unfortunately the links
that I mention in my comment no longer work.)
To avoid any confusion, it should be noted that Jacobs was NOT against high-rises. She was against the wiping out of
economically vital districts, often of high density, for sterile projects, often of low-density (because of all the open space). And this was, indeed, the case with this district. Before the area was leveled, this was a intensely built up district of loft buildings that was teeming with light industrial uses. It was all wiped out for a sterile development that is actually less
dense than the area it replaced (because of all the open space).
(To be continued.)
Benjamin Hemric
Mon., July 23, 2012, 10:30 p.m.