Letters to the editor

Just one MOMO-moment

To The Editor:
In her letter to the editor (“O’Toole’s a Mod masterpiece,” April 4), Kathleen Randall of DOCOMOMO mistakenly indicates that I was referring to the O’Toole Building when my letter said “it is incontrovertible that some of St. Vincent’s buildings, especially those which are particularly new or unrelated to the character of the context or character of the historic district, are not going to be protected from demolition by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.” In fact, this was not meant to refer to the O’Toole Building, but to St. Vincent’s Coleman and Link buildings, two grossly out-of-context buildings built in the 1980s that no group or person we are aware of — including the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation and DOCOMOMO — has argued merit landmark protections from demolition.

G.V.S.H.P. has raised strong concerns about the size of the proposed new developments by St. Vincent’s and Rudin, and has and will continue to argue strongly for the preservation of several of the buildings proposed for demolition that we believe, under landmarks regulations, should not be demolished. While G.V.S.H.P. doesn’t necessarily see eye to eye with DOCOMOMO about the historic or architectural significance of the O’Toole Building, we respect their and others’ choice to view it as they do — just as we respect DOCOMOMO’s choice not to advocate for the preservation of any of the other eight buildings proposed for demolition (Modern or otherwise).

On a more timely note, the second Landmarks Preservation Commission hearing regarding the Rudin and St. Vincent’s plans will be on Tues., April 15, at 9:30 a.m. — people can sign in as early as 9 a.m. to testify — in New York University’s Kimmel Center, 60 Washington Square South, 10th floor. We urge all who are concerned about this issue to attend the hearing, and anyone who did not testify at the April 1 hearing to testify. This is probably the most important development issue in our neighborhood in more than a generation, and it is critical that we continue the strong turnout from the last hearing. More information can be found at www.gvshp.org/StVincents.htm.
Melissa Baldock
Baldock is director, preservation and research, Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation

Malpractice at CB 2

To The Editor:
Re “St. Vincent’s does triage, but CB 2 measure passes” (news article, March 28):

As the former chairperson and a current public member of the Landmarks Committee of Community Board 2 and a longtime resident of the Village, I have followed with great interest C.B. 2’s response to St. Vincent’s proposal to build a new and modern hospital to serve our community.

Officially, the community boards have little power and can only advise the various city agencies that have the delegated authority to make actual decisions. However, community boards are our designated “advocates” through which local residents can speak loudly to those city agencies to make our desires, needs and wishes known before a decision is rendered. It is this larger and much more important function that has not been achieved by C.B. 2 in its recent St. Vincent’s resolution.

It is assumed that the very importance of St Vincent’s proposal caused C.B. 2’s chairperson, Brad Holyman, to appoint a St. Vincent’s Omnibus Committee to coordinate C.B. 2’s response. Composed of Brad as chairperson, other C.B. 2 officers, the chairpersons of the various C.B. 2 standing committees and two public C.B. 2 members, the Omnibus Committee held several public hearings.

The committee issued a draft resolution that C.B. 2 adopted three days later on March 20 as its official response to St. Vincent’s proposal. Unfortunately, the resolution is a singular homage to the limited interests of landmark preservationists. All it does is state that we need to preserve some brick and mortar. It makes no mention of the great need of our community for a modern hospital, it fails to mention the inadequacy of the current facilities, and it fails to refer to the needs of those community members who would most benefit from the new hospital, the elderly, H.I.V. and AIDS patients and young families.

I was chairperson of the Landmarks Committee for nearly two years and during that time my committee voted often to preserve meaningful and historic architecture and against construction that failed to maintain the authenticity of existing neighborhoods. But we cannot forget that our historic neighborhoods, like the Village, Chelsea, Soho and the Meatpacking District, are not just a collection of buildings but more a collection of people, both past and present, creating the environment we now want to preserve.

C.B. 2 should not be concerned primarily with preservation. Let Andrew Berman, who is paid handsomely by the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, advocate for preservation. Let’s have a “community” board whose main focus is the interests of all the people who live there, including the elderly and ill who cannot show up at public meetings to loudly advocate for their position.
Patrick Munson