Letters to the editor

Horowitz had to be high

To The Editor:

Re “Washington Square’s ‘radical redesign’ was in ’69” (talking point, by Gil Horowitz, Sept. 5):

I write to correct the ludicrous history presented in last week’s talking point by Gill Horowitz. Yes, Jane Jacobs first referred to the square’s fountain itself as a theater-in-the-round (in 1961, not 1967), but she lauded Robert B. Nichols’s design, with its central amphitheater, as a magnificent improvement, calling it “one of the most remarkable things in America”; and she fought hard for it. She used her considerable influence with Mayor Robert Wagner, Jr., to transfer control of the design from the Parks Department to a team of local architects. Jane then argued forcefully for the team’s design in community board meetings, winning approval of it in 1967. The square we have is Jane Jacobs’s square and Parks’ proposal is an insult to her memory.

Nichols and the team respected the Olmstedian character of the square (established 1869-’70) by restricting their changes — mainly the amphitheater and music podium — to the area of the square’s former roadbed, leaving the fountain and the area outside of the roadbed virtually intact. They modeled the amphitheater on Vaux’s Bethesda Fountain in Central Park. (See Nichols’s letter in The Villager, June 1, 2005.) Horowitz has it exactly backward — it’s Nichols’s work that preserved the century-old layout of the square, and it’s Parks’ plan, with its formal plazas and promenades, that will ruin it.

Previously, Stanford White had indeed intentionally chosen the off-center arrangement of the arch and fountain when he sited the arch in consultation with Parks officials Samuel Parsons, Jr., and Calvert Vaux. This collaborative decision was discovered by the country’s foremost landscape preservationist, Charles A. Birnbaum, who studied the McKim, Mead and White plans and notes. Birnbaum opposes Parks’ plan to move the fountain, as does the city’s entire arts community (per the position of the Fine Arts Federation of New York, the city’s umbrella arts organization).

What was Horowitz smoking when piling abuse on Nichols’s work? Recently, in 2005, the prestigious Project for Public Spaces organization studied the square and credited Nichols’s design with creating “one of the best-known and best-loved locations in New York City” and “one of the great public spaces in the world.” The square only gets cleaned once a year when N.Y.U. spiffs it up for the university’s graduation, and the square’s shabby appearance results from Parks’ lack of repairs and general inattention.

Finally, contrary to Horowitz and those who have apparently bought his and Parks’ baloney, the Greenwich Village community overwhelmingly rejects Parks’ plan. Arthur Schwartz’s letter in the Aug. 8 Villager covers this point — and Arthur should know. And the 23 percent reduction in central plaza size in Parks’ plan is not Jonathan Greenberg’s and my invention, but comes from Parks’ own claim in their court filing.

Luther S. Harris

Harris is author of “Around Washington Square,” a definitive history of the neighborhood.

Sings different tune on square

To The Editor:

Re “Washington Square’s ‘radical redesign’ was in ’69” (talking point, by Gil Horowitz, Sept. 5):

I have been a resident of Greenwich Village for more than 45 years, having grown up here using and enjoying the park. I am a member of the 12th Street Block Association’s steering committee, work with the Washington Square Chamber Music Society and am generally involved in the affairs of the Village. As a singer and the daughter of a renowned cellist, I am particularly concerned with the availability and use of the park for the musicians.

I took my late mother to Washington Square Park daily. Occasionally, we walked up to Madison Square Park, but she found it bland and boring. The way things look, the Parks Department wants to do the same thing to our park. I speak to and for a great many senior citizens in the neighborhood, and they are livid at the proposed “redesign.” I have also spoken to my friends, neighbors and block association members, and have yet to find anyone who likes the proposed changes.

I remember the 1969 changes; they were not the reason for the loss of the big-name performers. History will bear out that a few things changed: Watergate, the “disco” age and the sudden fame of those particular performers. The park’s ’69 “redesign” had nothing to do with it. It is still a lively and dynamic space, full of people enjoying themselves and creating there. If the park is changed, we may never again have such creative people sharing our park, and we would be in danger of losing the tourists who come to see the park the way they have seen it in the movies — not to mention the possible loss of revenue to the city, if the movie industry finds the changes uninteresting.

I have watched the park deteriorate over the last few years due to lack of maintenance and simple neglect by the Parks Department, which wants the changes to occur. But to call the park a “slum” makes me wonder as to Mr. Horowitz’s motives.

It appears to me that Mr. Horowitz is speaking on behalf of the real estate developers who want the changes for their own greedy reasons. These people have already done enough harm to the quality of the Village. At least let’s stop them from ruining our park and ripping the heart out of our community.

Elizabeth Adam

Potholes in park paths