| Modern Makeover
Manhattan preservationists object
to the renovation of Two Columbus Circle.

Story by David V. Griffin / Aug. 1, 2003

Printer-friendly
version

 |
|
Two Columbus Circle, designed
by Edward Durell Stone in 1964 (Ezra Stoller, ©1964
ESTO)
|
When the City of New York announced plans in June
2002 to sell the 10-story marble building at Two Columbus Circle
to the Museum of Arts and Design for $20 million, Manhattan preservationists
were cautiously optimistic. Commissioned in 1964 by arts patron
Huntington Hartford at a cost of $7.5 million to house his Gallery
of Modern Art, the building would again be a museum, instead of
being demolished for a Trump luxury hotel.
But four months later, the Museum of Arts and Design
announced that they planned to renovate the structure, replacing
much of its original marble facade with glass and terra cotta.
Now preservationists are alarmed by a plan that, if implemented,
will permanently alter one of New York's 20th-century modern structures,
designed by Edward Durell Stone.
Overlooked for decades, Stone's work now shows signs
of a revival. His Conger-Goodyear House, a sophisticated Modernist
mansion on Long Island, is being restored, as is a portion of
Stone's original facade of the Museum of Modern Art. In February
2003 a local preservationist group called "Landmark West!"
held a symposium on Two Columbus Circle that drew over 300 people,
including historian Thomas Mellins, critic Reed Kroloff, and writer
Kurt Anderson. Architect Robert A. M. Stern, unable to attend
the symposium, called the building "a landmark in the history
of architectural taste … a pot of paint flung in the face of the
high Modernist establishment."
Originally a Bauhaus Modernist, Stone had by the
early 1960s developed a decorative style that incorporated neoclassical
elements. Delicate screens, rich materials, and bold colors became
his trademarks. The Gallery of Modern Art, with its largely windowless
facade, walnut-paneled interior, and fanciful Polynesian restaurant
exemplifies Stone's style and is "a crucial hinge in Stone's
career," says architectural critic Michael Sorkin.
Despite the affection that many now have for Two
Columbus Circle, its initial reception was decidedly mixed. Writing
for The New York Times on the occasion of the gallery's
opening in 1964, Ada Louise Huxtable dismissed the exterior as
"a die-cast Venetian palazzo on lollipops," although
she praised the interior spaces as a "conspicuous success
… an achievement to command considerable admiration." Art
critic Hilton Kramer was more hostile, comparing the interior
to "a rest home for retired bankers."
In 1969 Hartford donated the structure to Fairleigh
Dickinson University, which operated it as an alternative arts
center. In spite of its popularity, the gallery was too costly
for the university, and in 1975, Fairleigh Dickinson sold it to
Gulf & Western, who donated it the following year to New York
City as a home for its department of cultural affairs. The department
left the decaying structure in 1998, and the building has been
vacant since then. Other than a chain-link fence that was erected
around the signature "lollipop" arcade, no substantial
changes have been made to the building.
When the city made Two Columbus Circle available
in 1996, numerous bids came in from developers who planned to
destroy the building, as well as bids from two museums. The Dahesh
Museum stated its intention to retain the original facade, a plan
supported by Hartford's daughter Juliet and philanthropist Brooke
Astor, among others. But the city, which seemed to favor a teardown
plan, chose the Museum of Arts and Design instead.
At two public hearings in May and June 2003, after
the Museum of Arts and Design's renovation announcement, many
people pleaded for the building's preservation. Despite these
objections, the city's planning commission approved the new plans
unanimously early in July, although some of the commissioners
did so with reluctance. Commissioner Dolly Williams went so far
as to ask at the second hearing: "Why would anyone destroy
such a building?" and noted the "overwhelming concern
of speakers" at the hearings. "It should be a landmark,"
she concluded.
In fact, the city's Landmarks Commission has come
under criticism for failing to protect the building. Writing for
Newsday, historian Jeffrey Kroessler has criticized the
commission for "pointedly" ignoring Two Columbus Circle.
"Few believed that this commission would have designated
it, but three successive chairs have demonstrated a reluctance
to let the [preservation] process take its course." The Landmarks
Commission has stated that an internal committee reviewed the
building for landmark status in 1998 and decided not to recommend
designation. Beyond this, the group has declined to comment.
"While many people believe that Two Columbus
Circle is an idiosyncratic building, this does not make it a great
building," says Holly Hotchner, director of the Museum of
Arts and Design, pointing out that the new design will follow
the distinctive shape of the original structure. "It weaves
together the museum experience and street life in one of the city's
most significant urban spaces."
Even opponents to the new scheme agree that the
design, by Allied
Works Architects, is architecturally significant. But Kate
Wood, executive director of Landmark West! says that isn't the
point. "The fact is that what's already there is irreplaceable,"
she says. "For a museum devoted to human craft not to recognize
this building's significance is unconscionable."
So far, the Museum of Arts and Design has raised
approximately half of the $50 million for the new building. With
construction of the new facade slated to begin in spring of 2004,
Wood is not giving up her efforts to publicize the building's
importance and plight. After all, the building is still city property,
and a final approval from the Borough Commission is scheduled
for October of this year. "Preservationists have been calling
for this building's preservation since 1995," Wood says.
"We're just getting warmed up."
David V. Griffin is a freelance writer living
in New York, N.Y.
Recent Stories
A castle,
part of a historic winery, languishes on California's coast
- July 25, 2003
A Chicago
hospital flatlines - July 18, 2003
Hawaii's former agricultural region harvests its history
- July 11, 2003
Is
the preservation of historic facades really preservation?
- June 27, 2003
Can
Buffalo, N.Y., woo tourists with its historic grain elevators?
- June 20, 2003
Savannah's street fight - June 13, 2003
Inside
a nation's attic - June 6, 2003
Reno struggles to preserve its divorce-era icons - May 30, 2003
Naming
the Seattle Monorail a landmark could stop a new monorail in its
tracks - May 23, 2003
Jens Jensen's Midwestern landscapes
- May 16, 2003
Chicago and the Cubs compromise on landmarking Wrigley Field
- May 9, 2003
Virginia
wineries lure tourists with history
- May 2, 2003
Restoring the ruins of New York City's Roosevelt Island
- Apr. 25, 2003
Iraqi treasures in peril
- Apr. 18, 2003
Former
airports like Denver's 1929 Stapleton Airport are becoming neighborhoods
- Apr. 11, 2003
More
Stories of the Week, only on Preservation Online >>
|