Current conditions. 2 Columbus Circle at left. Photo courtesy Erin Tobin Bearden, 2003.

RPPN joins DOCOMOMO in the fight to save Edward Durell Stone's Gallery of Modern Art at 2 Columbus Circle. Members of RPPN should have received a copy of the Action Alert from DOCOMOMO regarding the impending disfigurement/refacing of Stone's 1964 building. You can help by writing a letter of protest to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, City Hall, New York, NY 10007 and sending the letter to DOCOMOMO/NY Tri-state at P.O. Box 250532, NY, NY, 10025 or fax to 212-874-2843. The staff at DOCOMOMO will distribute your letter to other important officials. This is a critical juncture in the future of this building. Immediate action is needed! If you live in NYC, you can attend the Community Board 5 Meeting this May 8th at 6 p.m., 1107 Broadway, 6th Floor (Toy Bldg.) and make your opinion known. See DOCOMOMO website for more information on this organization.

Historic photograph, courtesy Ezra Stoller, 1964 ©ESTO

2 Columbus Circle, the former Gallery of Modern Art, is a signature work by leading Modernist architect Edward Durell Stone, whose work ranged from New York's Museum of Modern Art (1937) to the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C. (1963). Completed in 1964, 2 Columbus Circle embodies Stone's late-career theories, which some critics and historians have cited as prescient of post-Modernism. New York Times architecture critic Herbert Muschamp called the design a "fairly legible abstraction of Venetian Gothic," a step away from the undecorated poetic new of mainstream Modern architecture in the 1950s and 1960s. A rare and courageous building, 2 Columbus Circle is uniquely of its time. Forty years later, it continues to inspire admiration and healthy debate.

Now, the building is threatened by the City's plans to sell the property (which is owned by the City) to the Museum of Arts and Design (formerly the American Craft Museum). The Museum proposes to extensively alter the façade and interior, erasing many of the building's most distinctive features including its filigree portholes and "lollipop" ground-floor arcade. These features, plus its iconic concave curve (following the shape of Columbus Circle) make this building a de facto "landmark." Incomprehensibly - despite concerted advocacy from individuals and organizations including architect Robert A.M. Stern, writer Tom Wolfe, Landmark West! and, most recently, the National Trust for Historic Preservation - the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission has never held a public hearing to consider the building's merits. As a result, 2 Columbus Circle is unprotected.

Other Information:

The Future of 2 Columbus Circle: A panel discussion on Edward Durell Stone's controversial Gallery of Modern Art. Panelists: Kurt Andersen, Novelist, host of Studio 360; Reed Kroloff, Architecture critic; former Editor-in-Chief, Architecture magazine; Robert A.M. Stern, FAIA, Founder and Senior Partner, Robert A.M. Stern Architects, Dean, Yale School of Architecture; Billie Tsien, FAIA, Principal, Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects. Moderator: Thomas Mellins, Architectural and urban historian. Designed by Edward Durell Stone and completed in 1964, Huntington Hartford's Gallery of Modern Art at 2 Columbus Circle has been loved, loathed, and continues to be at the center of heated debate concerning modern architecture and its preservation. LANDMARK WEST! and the Center for Architecture/AIA New York Chapter now bring you the complete transcript of this session. Read here.

The Preservation League of New York State also just listed 2 Columbus Circle on its Seven to Save 2003 list - http://www.preservenys.org/seventosave2003.htm.

Photo courtesy Kate Wood.

Most Recent Updates from Landmark West!

February 2004: **REMINDER** Don't miss this chance to show your support for preserving 2 Columbus Circle. Attend the NY State Supreme Court hearing tomorrow (details below)!

The Landmarks Preservation Commission still refuses to hold a public designation hearing on 2 Columbus Circle – but that isn’t stopping LANDMARK WEST! from going to the New York State Supreme Court and asking it to take swift and necessary action… On Friday, February 27, at 9:30 AM, NYS Supreme Court Judge Walter Tolub will hear oral arguments in the Article 78 lawsuit filed by LW! (with Historic Districts Council, DOCOMOMO and others) to protect 2 Columbus Circle from wanton destruction.

This hearing is open to the public. Only attorneys may speak, but your presence (a.k.a. “silent support”) will make a difference – please attend if at all possible! RSVP to this e-mail message. **Details** NYS Supreme Court (very recognizable, temple-like building on Centre Street between Pearl and Worth Streets, a couple of blocks north of City Hall) 60 Centre Street, Room 335 (Judge Walter Tolub) Because of security, please plan to arrive early and bring your photo ID. Judge Tolub’s request to hear oral arguments; the City’s assignment of an A-team defense; an expedited time frame – all signs that no one considers this lawsuit “frivolous,” least of all us. Preservation by litigation? Not our preferred strategy. But, when legal action is necessary to preserve the integrity of the processes designed to protect our historic resources, c’est la guerre! Support 2 Columbus Circle. Support due process. Support nothing less than the future of preservation in NYC. See you downtown…

January 2004: The beauty pageant continues…Follow the link below to see today’s New York Times article on Allied Works Architecture’s revamped revamp of 2 Columbus Circle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/garden/22CIRC.html

While the new design for Edward Durell Stone’s 1964 gallery building remains a moving target, at least a few things haven’t changed: “[2 Columbus Circle] is a landmark in the history of architectural taste.” Robert A.M. Stern, architect and historian (written statement for February 12, 2003, panel discussion) “[The proposal] to totally replace the great marble facades of Stone’s building…is a painfully perverse step in the wrong direction, a betrayal even of the public trust…” Barry Bergdoll, professor of art history, Columbia University (statement at November 24, 2003, press event) “Defending [2 Columbus Circle] requires a somewhat more expansive – if equally compelling – interpretation of the idea of preservation. Is should be saved because many hold it in deep affection for various private reasons, because it is a very good building, and – perhaps especially – because it contributes so strongly to defining its site.” Michael Sorkin, architect (Architectural Record, January 2004)

Unrelenting media coverage is one (very good) indicator that the future of 2 Columbus Circle is a matter of supreme public concern. Is anyone listening? WHAT MORE WILL IT TAKE?! Express yourself! Write the New York Times: letters@nytimes.com.

December 2003: Not with a sigh, not with a wimper, but with a big, loud BANG!!! So ended 2003 on the 2 Columbus Circle front.

Was it the sound of the Landmarks Preservation Commissioners diving under their desks, clapping their hands over their ears, and shoving history and the concept of landmarks preservation itself through the shredder (to paraphrase Tom Wolfe's sizzling, two-part New York Times Op-Ed piece, which appeared in October)?

No, not this time. This resounding "thwack" came from New York Times architecture critic Herbert Muschamp, whose recent inventory of the past year's architectural Highs and Lows cites 2 Columbus Circle in both categories.

NYT 12/28/03
The Highs: The Buildings (and Plans) of the Year
"Faint heart never won fair critic. Brad Cloepfil's proposal for remodeling Edward Durell Stone's mid-20th-century campanile at 2 Columbus Circle is an unwelcome exercise in caution" ...in comparison with David Childs' Time Warner building next door, which, whatever its faults, is arguably an improvement over previous designs.

The Lows: Banner Year for Lost Opportunities
In the same breath as he condemns the Ground Zero planning process, Muschamp denounces the Landmarks Commission's failure to act on 2 Columbus Circle: "The refusal of the New York City Landmarks Commission to hold hearings on the future of 2 Columbus Circle is a shocking dereliction of public duty. Unacceptable in itself, this abdication also raises the scary question of what other buildings the commission might choose to overlook in the future."

Coming from a critic of Mr. Muschamp's considerable wattage, those are fightin' words indeed. What are we to conclude about our city's leadership on important preservation issues? WHAT MORE WILL IT TAKE?

December 15, 2003

We're sure many of you saw Joyce Purnick's column on 2 Columbus Circle in yesterday's New York Times ("A Building Still Looking for Respect," 12/15/03, p. B1). She's right on the money with her comment, "This being New York, nothing happens easily." Nor should it, especially when an irreplaceable historic resource is at stake. But, this being New York, people are bound to disagree.

The truth is, it isn't just one voice that counts - a reason that leading preservation groups have consistently called for a full, open, public hearing to debate the landmark potential of 2 Columbus Circle. According to Landmarks Commission Chair Robert Tierney, whenever he raises the idea of a hearing, people respond, "Omigod, that thing!" Whom has he been asking?!

***You've sent letters and postcards to Chair Tierney. Now, send them to the New York Times! (The full text of Purnick's article is pasted below.) The more e-mails and faxes they receive, the more likely it is that some will be published. Contact: letters@nytimes.com or fax (212)556-3622.

The supporters of preserving 2 Columbus Circle are far from the "small, vocal minority" characterized in some reports. Our most recent e-mails have cited the outspoken advocacy of Tom Wolfe, Robert A.M. Stern, Barry Bergdoll, Chuck Close and Frank Stella, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Preservation League of New York State (to name only a few supporters). Here's a run-down of recent press:

Herbert Muschamp, NY Times architecture critic: "Let us now celebrate the aristocratic satisfaction of not pleasing. Huntington Hartford gave himself that pleasure when he commissioned Edward Durell Stone to design the Gallery of Modern Art (1964), the legendarily exotic building at 2 Columbus Circle....[2 Columbus Circle, Lever House, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, the Met Life (originally Pan Am) Building, the T.W.A. Flight Center at Kennedy Airport]...All of them were great problems. All of them deserve to be valued as such, if their history is not to be falsified, and if we are to regain a healthy appetite for more of the same." ("A Building's Bold Spirit, Clad in Marble and Controversy," NY Times, 11/24/03)

Laurie Kerr, Wall Street Journal columnist: "When it comes to designating architectural landmarks, there should be a special criterion, quite apart from artistic merit, for buildings that express the political zeitgeist. We may not especially like these buildings, but they stand as remnants of the ideas that shaped their age....With the Twin Towers gone, 2 Columbus Circle is one of the last places where New Yorkers can glimpse a symbol of those early years of American global power...2 Columbus Circle is one of New York's few tangible reminders of America's response to the Cold War." ("How 2 Columbus Circle Saved the World," Wall Street Journal, 12/2/03)

Godfrey Deeny, Fashion Wire Daily editor-in-chief: "Rarely has it been so chic to fight for the preservation of a landmark....Adding his voice to the [fight] was art and fashion photographer Timothy Greenfield-Saunders: 'It's really a cool building. One can't say that about most. We certainly don't want to lose this one.'" ("Fashionable Preservation: Saving Huntington Hartford's Marble Museum," Fashion Wire Daily, 11/24/03)

John J. Goldman, LA Times writer: "Three preservation groups have filed suit against the New York City Planning Commission, the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the Museum of Arts & Design...Court papers contend that the city is about to lose a 'signature image' without an adequate environmental review [and] allege that the Bloomberg administration's decision to sell 2 Columbus Circle was 'arbitrary' and 'capricious' and that economic motives over the years have 'infected' the landmark selection process." ("Tempers Up Over Facade Lift in NYC," LA Times, 12/30/03)

Why is the Commission so reluctant to give this building its day in "court?"

November 2003:

In November the Preservation League of New York State released its Seven to Save list, highlighting endangered historic places throughout the state. The Preservation League recognized the threat to 2 Columbus Circle through the proposed inappropriate alterations and called the building "a milestone in the Modern Architecture movement" as "one of the first post-modern building designs." To view the full 2003 Seven to Save list visit the Preservation League's website at www.preservenys.org/seventosave2003.htm.

Also in November, three preservation groups (Landmark West, the Historic Districts Council, and Docomomo US) and four individuals filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the Museum of Arts and Design. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the sale of the building to the Museum of Arts and Design, alleging that the sale of 2 Columbus Circle was performed without proper environmental review, and the sale should be reversed until such review is complete. The full text of the Complaint can be found at www.hdc.org/lawsuit.htm.

July 2003: Last Wednesday (July 2) marked the end of two critical discussions regarding the future of 2 Columbus Circle. But that doesn't mean efforts to save this 1960s modern icon have run their course. Preservationists have been calling for the building's preservation since 1995 - and we're just getting warmed up.

City Planning Commission
The City Planning Commission (CPC) voted to approve the transfer of Edward Durell Stone's 1964 building to the Museum of Arts and Design, whose planned alterations to the facade and interior will erase Stone's world-renowned design for the site. Although the CPC's vote was unanimous, two commissioners couched their votes as "reluctant," questioning why the Landmarks Preservation Commission (the municipal agency charged with protecting New York's cultural heritage) had never held a public hearing to consider the building's historic significance. "Why would anyone think of destroying such a building?" asked Commissioner Dolly Williams, responding to what she recognized as the "overwhelming concern of speakers" at the June 18, 2003, CPC public hearing. "It should be a landmark," she continued. Indeed.

Unfortunately, the Landmarks Commission has not taken up the mantle. Others have noticed - in a July 8 Newsday article, NYC historian Jeffrey Kroessler writes: "Despite the pleas of historians, preservationists and architects, the commission has pointedly refused to hold a hearing to consider 2 Columbus Circle, Edward Durell Stone's controversial 1965 museum (originally the Gallery of Modern Art). Few believed that this commission would have actually designated it, but three successive chairs have demonstrated a reluctance to let the process take its course."

On-Line Panel Discussion
"Is the tradeoff worth it?" With this key question, Paul Goldberger concluded the 2 Columbus Circle on-line forum at www.collectorsworld.org. In the minds of many historians, preservationists and architects, the answer is resoundingly "no." And not necessarily because the Museum's planned replacement of E.D. Stone's building would be bad (it appears not to be), but because the original design is simply irreplaceable. (Note: "Protecting the Irreplaceable" is the motto of America's leading preservation advocate, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which has taken a strong stand for preserving 2 Columbus Circle.)

The forum transcript will remain on the CollectorsWorld website. Check it out. It concentrates into one uniquely fresh, frank exchange a full range of ideas about why 2 Columbus Circle should - or shouldn't - be preserved. Exactly the kind of discussion one would expect to take place at a public hearing before the Landmarks Commission. What more will it take for 2 Columbus Circle to receive its official "day in court"?

June 2003 Update From Landmark West!

The alarm sounded. And you came. To all who wrote letters and attended Wednesday's City Planning Commission hearing regarding 2 Columbus Circle, thank you. We mean it.

Over 30 speakers lined up to testify about the importance of Edward Durell Stone's original 1964 design, urging the Planning Commission to call for a public hearing before the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
(Incomprehensibly - despite years of preservation advocacy - this has never happened.) In his testimony, writer Tom Wolfe cut to the chase, telling the Commissioners that they should be "aflame with curiosity" about why 2 Columbus Circle has never been formally considered for landmark status. It
is indeed a mystery. And one that should not be left to rest - or, worse, to politics! It's up to all New Yorkers who care about this building and, perhaps more importantly, fair and due process, to make sure this signature work by one of America's pre-eminent Modernist architects has "its day in court."

In a letter to City Planning Commission Chair Amanda Burden, the National Trust for Historic Preservation wrote that to dispose of a building before determining its historical and architectural significance is "premature." (The Commission has not yet taken a vote, but must do so shortly.)

Love it or hate it, 2 Columbus Circle is a significant part of New York's Modern architectural legacy. The City's inexcusable failure to recognize this significance means the building's unique identity may soon be morphed (much like the identity of its potential new occupant, the Museum of Arts and Design - see "Trading Baskets for Plastics," NY Times, 6/19/03). Marble to mesh, anyone?

2 Columbus Circle already has a powerful identity. It should be embraced, not erased.

Now is the time to write to Landmarks Chair Robert B. Tierney (with a copy to Landmark West! landmarkwest@landmarkwest.org, F: 212-875-0209). Remind him that leading preservation organizations (see growing list, below) have united in calling for a public hearing, not to mention the hundreds of
individuals who have written as well. What more will it take?

Hon. Robert B. Tierney
Chair, NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission
1 Centre Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10007
rtierney@lpc.nyc.gov
F: 212-669-7955
_________________________


The following is a partial list of organizations and elected officials that have expressed their support for preserving 2 Columbus Circle, or at least holding a hearing before the New York City Landmarks Preservation
Commission (LPC):

Organizations:

National Trust for Historic Preservation
Preservation League for New York State
DOCOMOMO US
DOCOMOMO US-New York/Tri-State Chapter
Municipal Art Society
New York Landmarks Conservancy
Historic Districts Council
Fine Arts Federation
LANDMARK WEST!
Modern Architectural Working Group
Committee for Environmentally Sound Development
New York Artists Equity Association
Clinton Special District
Coalition for Livable Westside
Committee for Post War Architecture

Elected Officials:
US Congressmember Jerrold Nadler
US Congressmember Carolyn Maloney
NYS Senator Eric Schneiderman
NYS Senator Thomas Duane
NYS Assemblymember Richard Gottfried
NYS Assemblymember Scott Stringer
NYC Councilmember Christine Quinn
NYC Councilmember Eva Moskowitz
NYC Councilmember Gale Brewer

Full Addresses and Fax numbers:

LANDMARK WEST!
45 West 67th Street
New York, NY 10023

Hon. Amanda M. Burden, Chair
New York City Planning Commission
22 Reade Street
New York, NY 10007
F: 212-720-3219

Hon. Gale A. Brewer, City Council Member
2374 Broadway
New York, NY 10024
F: 212-513-7717
gale.brewer@council.nyc.ny.us

Hon. Robert B. Tierney, Chair
New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission
1 Centre Street, 9th Fl.
New York, NY 10007
F: 212-669-7955
rtierney@lpc.nyc.gov

Mayor Michael Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
F: 212-788-2460
http://nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html

Hon. Bernadette Castro
NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation
Agency Bldg. 1, Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12238
F: 518-474-1365
bernadette.castro@oprhp.state.ny.us

April 2003 Update via email from Landmark West!
From: LANDMARK WEST!
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:46 AM
Subject: 2 Columbus Circle - Receiving its Day in Court?

Many of us held out hope that the City's formal review process - "ULURP" - would finally open the door for balanced, informed public discussion about the future of 2 Columbus Circle.

However, if last week's Community Board 5 Land Use Committee meeting is any indication, the process may have already devolved into a "beauty contest" between the original 1964 design by Edward Durell Stone and a proposed re-design by Brad Cloepfil of Allied Architects. Despite community pleas that it postpone its decision (the full CB5 board is not scheduled to vote until May 8 and the Cloepfil design was only made public on March 31, just 4 days prior to the committee meeting), the committee voted 6-3* to move ahead
to approve the transfer of the building from the City of New York to the Museum of Arts and Design. The Museum asserts that 2 Columbus Circle cannot become its new home without radical alterations. (*The 3 dissenting members favored deferring the committee's vote until May.)

Does this mean that Stone's icon is on a rubber-stamp fast track towards the dust bin? Not if we have anything to say about it - and we do! See LANDMARK WEST's and the Historic Districts Council's letters published in the New York Times on April 4, 2003 (below). LW! and HDC, along with community
members and representatives from the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development and DOCOMOMO (international advocacy group for Modern architecture), spoke out in strong support of preserving and restoring the existing marble-clad façade - call it "kooky" and "quirky" but it is nonetheless unique and recognized the world over - as part of any revitalization plan for the site.

"We will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."

- New York Times editorial on the demolition of Penn Station, October 1963

Meaningful public review depends on you! The ULURP process could - and should - be a continuation of the energetic civic debate that has surrounded 2 Columbus Circle since its construction. "Cooler heads" ask, why this rush to judgment? Why this urge to simply "settle the matter" when so much more remains to be said about a complex building reflecting the creativity of an equally complex architect, the legacy of whom is only now beginning to be understoord? In our eagerness to see 2 Columbus Circle reused and reborn, we
must also remind ourselves to take the long view and recognize that the choices we make today will shape the identity of Columbus Circle - and the city - for generations to come.

Stay involved, and stay tuned for more information about future hearings!
Make them count!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 4, 2003
That Quirky Building, Lollipops and All

o the Editor:

Re "A New Look for a 10-Story Oddity" (Arts pages, April 1):

I have admired the zany, whimsical, kitschy, kooky and quirky building at 2
Columbus Circle since going to school nearby in the late 80's. I am happy to
see that it may soon be restored in an attractive, well-thought-out plan
that will revitalize the building, both inside and out, while preserving its
unique charm. But please, please, please, save at least a couple of the
lollipops!
PAUL FONSECA
New York, April 1, 2003
.
To the Editor:

Re "A New Look for a 10-Story Oddity" (Arts pages, April 1): I take issue
with the characterization of Edward Durell Stone's Gallery of Modern Art at
2 Columbus Circle as "a dead building."

To paraphrase Monty Python, the building is not dead, it's only sleeping,
having been forced into hibernation by the city since 1998. Now that the
building is about to be awakened with a bold new resident, does it
necessarily follow that radical cosmetic surgery is needed? Isn't tenancy
enough to revitalize this important, quirky piece of modern architecture?
SIMEON BANKOFF
Exec. Dir., Historic Districts Council
New York, April 1, 2003
.
To the Editor:

You put it well when you write that "a spectral memory" of Edward Durell
Stone's original 1964 design for 2 Columbus Circle will remain if the city
allows the Museum of Arts and Design to reclad the building (Arts pages,
April 1).

But whatever its merits, Brad Cloepfil's design is hardly an homage to
Stone, one of America's most significant architects, a leader who challenged
orthodox Modernism and argued that the inspiration for a building should be
in the accumulation of history. The proposed new design utterly erases
Stone's vision for 2 Columbus Circle by eliminating its most evocative
features: its noble white-marble cladding, "porthole" windows and whimsical
"lollipop" arcade.

Let us not forget that 2 Columbus Circle was given as a gift to the city in
1980 and that its sale is subject to public review. It's up to all New
Yorkers to decide through an open, democratic process whether we can afford
to lose it.
KATE WOOD
Executive Director, Landmark West
New York, April 2, 2003