Letters to the Editor
Hoylman ‘misunderstands’
To The Editor:
Re “St. Vincent’s: Let’s not do the time warp again!” (talking point, Feb. 29, by Brad Hoylman):
Mr. Hoylman’s talking point criticizing community groups seeking changes to the current Rudin/St. Vincent’s plan is premised upon a basic misunderstanding of how the landmarks approval process works.
Determinations about which buildings can or can’t be demolished, and what new buildings can or cannot be built in their place, are made at the same time, as part of a single application and approval process. Thus, the suggestion that community groups like the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation or other members of the public should refrain from commenting upon what would or wouldn’t be appropriate development on these sites would leave us severely handicapped as we fight to preserve the character of our neighborhood.
It is incontrovertible that some of St. Vincent’s buildings, especially those which are particularly new or unrelated to the context or character of the historic district, are not going to be protected from demolition by the Landmarks Preservation Commission — that’s simply the way the landmarks law works. To suggest otherwise is to bury one’s head in the sand, and risk losing the opportunity to affect what is one of the most profound changes proposed in our neighborhood in more than a generation.
Melissa Baldock
Baldock is director of preservation and research, Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation
Talking point missed point
To The Editor:
Re “St. Vincent’s: Let’s not do the time warp again!” (talking point, Feb. 29, by Brad Hoylman):
Brad Hoylman’s talking point misses the point. The St. Vincent’s modernization issue will not be decided in a Harvard Law School contract law class, where I’m sure Brad got an A.
Those who object to the St. Vincent’s-Rudin proposal are not talking past the point if considered in the context of reality politics. The Landmarks Preservation Commission willl surely, consciously or unconsciously, be considering the broader arguments of quality healthcare in determining the appropriateness of demolishing each building.
Even if L.P.C. initially rejects demolition, then as night follows day, St. Vincent’s and the politically very well-connected Rudins will surely make a second hardship application; St. Vincent’s would raise the issues of the multitude of alleged public benefits from its plan and the economic needs to maintain its mission.
Those now involved with community alternative plans, including the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation and Protect the Village Historic District, are realistically planning ahead. Perhaps their proposals need some modification. However, they are not talking past the point. In the real world, they are “on point.”
Gil Horowitz
Horowitz is president, Washington Square-Lower Fifth Ave. Block Association
Countering St. Vincent’s P.R.
To The Editor:
As the umbrella group for the block associations of Greenwich Village, the Greenwich Village Block Associations finds it necessary to clarify its position regarding the current St. Vincent’s Hospital/Rudin Organization proposal for the building of a new hospital and a large residential development.
The community has made a substantial good-faith effort to support St. Vincent’s Hospital, so much so, that it has allowed itself to be pushed farther along in the discussion than is appropriate at this juncture. Indeed, the community has a responsibility to evaluate St. Vincent’s existing campus buildings and discuss which, if any, contribute to the Greenwich Village Historic District and warrant preservation, not demolition.
St. Vincent’s is conducting an extensive public-relations campaign that ignores the necessity of this discussion and encourages the myth that there is community opposition to improving the hospital. G.V.B.A. supports the concept of an up-to-date medical facility and does not oppose the size of the “new” St. Vincent’s. We oppose its proposed configuration and the unprecedented magnitude of the project, as it includes the massive Rudin residential complex.
We understand, however, that St. Vincent’s is drumming up support outside the historic district among people who have an interest in access to the latest medical treatment, but little comprehension or concern about the drastic impact this development would have upon the integrity of Greenwich Village. Unless interested parties appreciate the preservation issues involved, their support is uninformed and nonproductive.
Last fall, as a result of a St. Vincent’s/Rudin presentation, The New York Sun wrote a misinformed, mean-spirited editorial mischaracterizing the nature and intent of the hospital’s neighbors and ignoring relevant aspects of the issue. St. Vincent’s consented to write a rebuttal. If it did so, the response was not printed in The Sun or publicly circulated. Although St. Vincent’s admitted no responsibility for the editorial, an unfortunate pattern of evasion and misdirection is emerging.
St. Vincent’s appears to be garnering support by simplifying the discussion, obfuscating complex issues and drawing upon sentiment engendered by its own history in Greenwich Village without reciprocal regard for the Greenwich Village Historic District. Unlike St. Vincent’s, the Greenwich Village Historic District cannot move elsewhere.
Since St. Vincent’s is soliciting support for a new hospital in communities that it may serve, but that may not be sensitive to the restrictions that St. Vincent’s should respect if it reconstitutes itself below 14th St., the hospital may inadvertently be building a case and a constituency for its relocation.
Marilyn Dorato
Dorato is executive director, Greenwich Village Block Associations
E-mail letters, not longer than 250 words in length, to news@chelseanow.com or fax to 212-229-2790 or mail to Chelsea Now, Letters to the Editor, 145 Sixth Ave., ground floor, NY, NY 10013. Please include phone number for confirmation purposes. Chelsea Now reserves the right to edit letters for space, grammar, clarity and libel.
