Introduction
1. POPS are governed by the New York City Plaza Bonus Zoning Ordinance. The New York City Zoning Resolution was first developed in 1961. It allowed developers to build additional stories on their buildings if they provided a “public space” either outside or inside the building. Each space is governed by a contract between the developer/owner and the Department of City Planning. In 2000 the Department of City Planning, Jerold Kayden, and the Municipal Arts Society of New York published summaries of the contracts for all existing POPS, and the laws governing the spaces. For a description of the history of the program and an accounting of the spaces themselves see Jerold S. Kayden, New York Department of City Planning, and Municipal Art Society of New York, Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience (New York: John Wiley, 2000).
2. The work of Nancy Fraser on the public sphere underlies my own understanding of the concept, in particular her critique of Jürgen Habermas. See Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig J. Calhoun (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992). Fraser’s work on transnational public spheres has important implications for understanding the neoliberal city where public-private partnerships for the provision of public services situate private corporations within the matrix of the public sphere. The public sphere, notes Fraser,
3. See, for example, work on Business Improvement Districts, such as Sharon Zukin, The Cultures of Cities (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1995); on the expulsion of homeless people from sidewalks, streets and parks, and gated communities, such as Setha M. Low, Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America (New York: Routledge, 2003); on the sale of community gardens, such as Lynn Staeheli, Don Mitchell, and Kristina Gibson, “Conflicting Rights to the City in New York’s Community Gardens,” GeoJournal 58, no. 2–3 (2002); and on public-private partnerships that manage public spaces such as Central Park. This literature parallels studies on corporate involvement in public schools, prisons, security, and war.
4. See Setha Low’s examination of two Costa Rican plazas in On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000). Low’s study includes a description of the social and political factors that led to the redesign of both plazas and of how the new designs were received by the people who used the spaces every day.
5. I use the term aesthetics to describe the sensory experiences resulting from a particular environment. This definition is related to the work of Susan Buck-Morss, in particular her understanding of the physicality and politics of aesthetics. Susan Buck-Morss, “Aesthetics and Anaesthetics: Walter Benjamin’s Artwork Essay Reconsidered,” October 62 (Fall 1992).
6. “PPS’s mission is to create and sustain public places that build communities. It operates programs based on transportation, parks, plazas and civic squares, public markets, community institutions, and public buildings. Since the organization’s founding in 1975, PPS staff have worked in more than 1,000 communities, both within the U.S. and abroad, to help grow public spaces into vital community places— with programs, uses, and people-friendly settings that highlight local assets, spur social and economic rejuvenation, and serve community needs. In improving these public environments, PPS focuses on creating places that enrich people’s experience of public life, through their distinctive identities and their integration into the community fabric.” Project for Public Spaces, How to Turn a Place Around: A Handbook for Creating Successful Public Spaces (New York: Project for Public Spaces, 2000), 11.
7. Project for Public Spaces, How to Turn a Place Around, 14, 15.
8. Mele’s work is one example among many studies on how “[s]patial meanings are actively manipulated by the city and the state to represent diverse political
9. Connections between economics, geography, and representation in American cities have been mapped by several scholars. See, for example, Sharon Zukin, Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); David Harvey, The Urban Experience (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989); Andy Merrifield, Dialectical Urbanism: Social Struggles in the Capitalist City (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2002); and Neil Smith, Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1991).
10. Stephen Carr, Mark Francis, Leanne G. Rivlin, and Andrew M. Stone, eds. Public Space (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 19–20.
11. Lynda Schneekloth and Robert Shibley, Placemaking: The Art and Practice of Building Communities (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1995), 5.
12. See recently edited volumes, including Marcel Hénaff and Tracy B. Strong, Public Space and Democracy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001); Andrew Light and Johnathan M. Smith, eds., The Production of Public Space (Oxford, England: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998); and Luc Nadal’s dissertation “Discourses of Urban Public Space, U.S.A. 1960–1995: A Historical Critique” (Columbia University, 2000), which presents a comprehensive summary of the changing use of the term “public space.”
13. The legal aspects of public space are complex. Actually, there is no legal definition of public space at all. Rather, the concept of the public realm as it relates to civil liberties such as free speech and state transportation laws regarding the management of public thoroughfares form the basis for much of the litigation surrounding the use of public space in New York. (Christopher Dunn, in discussion with the author, November 2000).
14. Don Mitchell, The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space (New York: Guildford, 2003), 129.
15. In a lecture presented as part of the CUNY Politics and Public Space conference in November 2001, Cindy Katz describes the political implications of the management of Central Park by a nonprofit conservation organization that can raise money for the sole purpose of its own maintenance outside of the city budget. Money is raised from wealthy property owners around the park who have an interest in keeping the park clean and well maintained. Parks in other parts of the city have no such patrons. As tax money that would support park maintenance has been removed from the larger city budget, those who visit Central Park believe that everything is “all right” and enough tax money is being spent. The park’s good maintenance gives the impression that the democratic system, and in particular the system that collects and spends tax dollars, is working well. This impression is based on the illusion that Central Park is still part of a larger system of money spent evenly across the city.
17. This chapter is based on a previously published article. Kristine Miller, “Condemning the Public: Design and New York’s New 42nd Street,” GeoJournal 58, no. 2–3 (2002).
18. This chapter follows on the work of recent scholarship on the transformation of Times Square, including Lynne B. Sagalyn, Times Square Roulette: Remaking the City Icon (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001); Samuel R. Delany, Times Square Red, Times Square Blue (New York: New York University Press, 1999); and in particular Alexander J. Reichl, Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development, (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999).
19. Kayden, New York Department of City Planning, and Municipal Art Society of New York, Privately Owned Public Space, 173.
20. Naomi Klein’s idea of branding as a unique type of retail marketing tied to a broad range of transnational social issues underlies my own understanding of Sony Plaza. See Naomi Klein, No Logo (New York: Picador, 2000).
21. Sony’s equivalent of the Pillsbury Doughboy, but with surveillance-camera eyes.
1. Public Space as Public Sphere
1. The current City Hall is actually New York’s third. The first two were located even further to the south in Manhattan on Pearl Street and on Wall Street. Carol von Pressentin Wright, New York: Atlas of Manhattan, Maps, and Plans, 2nd ed. (New York: Norton, 1991), 150.
2. At least until 1916 it appears that McComb received almost full credit for the design. For a discussion of the controversy, see Twenty-first Annual Report of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, 1916, to the Legislature of the State of New York (New York: J. B. Lyon Company, 1916).
3. Von Pressentin Wright, New York, 150.
4. Edith [last name illegible], “Portraits in New York’s City Hall,” Antiques [publication date unknown]. (A photocopy of this article was obtained from the New York City Hall Library with the author’s name cut off and the publication date missing. I have been unable to ascertain full publication details.)
5. When renovations on City Hall’s ceremonial Blue Room were completed in December 1998, Giuliani announced that Koch and Dinkins were going to be moved to the hallway outside the room. Lisa Rein, “Ed and Dave’s Pix Shut Out at City Hall,” Daily News, December 12, 1998.
6. Barry Schwartz, “Mourning and the Making of a Sacred Symbol: Durkheim and the Lincoln Assassination,” Social Forces 70, no. 2 (1991): 343.
8. The same article argued that the solemnity of the event was disturbed by the “pitiful” condition of the park and in particular by the “bootblack and news stands” and other vendors that stood along the park paths.
9. Twentieth Annual Report of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, 1915, to the Legislature of the State of New York (New York: J. B. Lyon Company, 1915).
10. “Flying Enterprise” (photograph), 1952, New York Municipal Archives.
11. “Carlson in By Air; Official Reception Awaits Him Today,” New York Times, January 17, 1952.
12. Clyde Haberman, “City Opens Its Heart to Freed Hostages,” New York Times, January 31, 1981.
13. Art Commission of the City of New York, History of City Hall Exhibit Brochure, 1984.
14. Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939).
15. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, March 1, 1984.
16. Rudolph Giuliani was mayor of New York from 1993 to 2001.
17. A few of these battles related to charges that the city denied Housing Works government contracts because of their criticism of the mayor and the lawsuits that Housing Works brought against the city regarding the use of the front steps of City Hall. See, for example, Housing Works, Inc. v. Giuliani, 56 Fed. Appx. 530 (2003), Housing Works, Inc. v. Turner, U.S. District Court (2004).
18. Lynda Richardson, “Celebrating a Ruling: Aids Group Rallies on City Hall Steps,” New York Times, July 22, 1998.
19. Rudolph W. Giuliani, “The Next Phase of Quality of Life: Creating a More Civil City” (New York: Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani, 107th Mayor, 1998). The rest of the quotes in this paragraph are drawn from this speech.
20. For instance, by enforcing speed limits, raising taxi safety standards, enforcing bicycle safety laws, decreasing noise pollution, and punishing people who litter and write graffiti (“a city with an increasing amount of graffiti is a city in which the rights of its people are being disrespected. And conversely, a city with decreasing amounts of graffiti is a city in which the rights of people are being respected,” Giuliani, “The Next Phase of Quality of Life”). Giuliani’s near obsession with graffiti in this particular speech is interesting in the context of his larger body of work aimed at limiting speech, since it has been argued that graffiti, or more specifically writing and tagging, is a form of speech used by people who feel they would not be heard otherwise. See, for example, Joe Austin, Taking the Train: How Graffiti Art Became an Urban Crisis in New York City, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001); and Jeff Chang, Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: A History of the Hip-Hop Generation, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2005).
22. Housing Works, Inc. v. Safir, 98 Civ. 4994 (HB) (1998), 1.
23. Cited in Benjamin Weiser, “Ban on Big Gatherings at City Hall Is Ruled Unconstitutional,” New York Times, July 21, 1998.
24. An excerpt from the memorandum is included in the judge’s summary: “Elected officials as well as private citizens are allowed to hold press conferences on the steps or in the vicinity of the steps. However, the size of the group is limited to 25 persons in addition to any press personnel in attendance. The rationale behind this policy are [sic] safety and security concerns.” Housing Works, Inc. v. Safir, 2000, 2.
25. Christopher Dunn and Arthur Eisenberg, “Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum,” New York Civil Liberties Union, 1999.
26. Weiser, “Ban on Big Gatherings at City Hall Is Ruled Unconstitutional.”
27. Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani, New York Yankees Celebration, City Hall, Tuesday, October 29, 1996, http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/96/yankees1.html (accessed September 14, 2004).
28. Stephen Handelman, “New York Throws a Giant Party, Greatest Spectacle in the History of Sport, Boggs Says,” Toronto Star, October 30, 1996.
29. Gail Collins, “Editorial Notebook: Scenes from the Yankees’ Parade,” New York Times, October 30, 1996.
30. In his speech during the celebration, the mayor aligned the Yankees and their victory with the city of New York and New Yorkers: “The New York Yankees are the greatest franchise in sports, and New York is the greatest city in the world—and the Capital of the World. Like New Yorkers themselves, this team plays best under pressure… . And their victory is an inspiration for all of us. It is a metaphor for a city whose people perform best under pressure. It is a metaphor for a city that is undergoing a great renaissance … George, in honor of the Yankees championship season, I am honored to present you and the entire team with an official proclamation naming Tuesday, October 29, 1996, as ‘New York Yankees Day’ in the City of New York.” Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani, New York Yankees Celebration, City Hall, Tuesday, October 29, 1996. Guiliani’s celebration of physical strength and his desire to make sports champions representatives of the city makes more disturbing his marginalization of New Yorkers suffering from AIDS and HIV.
31. “The defendants’ prior and current practice of allowing more than 25 people to participate in press conferences, without incident, undermines their factual claim that the 25 person limit is narrowly tailored to address safety and security concerns.” Housing Works, Inc. V. Safir, 101 F. Supp. 2d 163, 2000.
32. During this month, Giuliani also rededicated the refurbished Statue of Justice atop City Hall’s cupola. Archives of the Mayor’s Press Office, “Mayor Giuliani Rededicates the Statue of Justice and Celebrates the Restoration of City Hall: New
33. The city distributed tickets for the event at City Hall through city agencies and groups that in turn distributed the tickets to individuals of their choosing. However, these tickets didn’t have names attached to them and individual’s identification was not checked at the event.
34. Dunn and Eisenberg, “Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum.”
35. The meeting was attended by police officials and by lawyers from the Office of Corporation Counsel and the NYPD.
36. Dunn and Eisenberg, “Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum.”
37. Ibid.
38. See Housing Works, Inc. v. Safir, 98 Civ. 4994 (November 24, 1998) (Housing Works II).
39. Lynda Richardson, “Police Keep Close Tabs on AIDS Marchers at City Hall,” New York Times, December 2, 1998.
40. When Housing Works and the NYCLU first informed the Office of Corporation Counsel that they would seek a summary judgment, the counsel asked them to hold off for a few days, saying they would rewrite the policy. They did not, in fact, write a new policy.
41. Dunn and Eisenberg, “Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum.”
42. Ibid.
43. Between February 23—the day before the new policy was enacted—and March 15, 1999, the city permitted twelve or thirteen events to take place on the steps.
44. Dunn and Eisenberg, “Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum.”
45. The mayor and the police commissioner unevenly enforced even this policy. Councilwoman Christine Quinn was not allowed to hold on the front steps a press conference with community members to draw attention to the murder of a young gay man in Harlem. After she called on Council Speaker Peter Vallone to complain, Quinn was eventually allowed to hold the event. “The Mayor and the First Amendment,” New York Times, November 16, 1999.
46. Dunn and Eisenberg, “Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum.”
47. Housing Works, Inc. v. Safir, 2000.
48. Dunn and Eisenberg, “Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum.”
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid.
52. Richardson, “Police Keep Close Tabs on AIDS Marchers at City Hall.” Michael D. Hess, the city’s corporation counsel, said there was never an agreement with the protest organizers over how many people would be allowed on the grounds. He said that since only 186 people showed up, the issue was moot.
53. Dunn and Eisenberg, “Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum.”
55. Housing Works, Inc. v. Safir, 2000.
56. For example, a court case heard in December 2000 gave Housing Works permission to use amplified sound in the plaza in front of City Hall (Housing Works v. Kerik). The city appealed, and in 2002, judges Minor and Leval in the U.S. Court of Appeals argued that the city could control sound amplification. But this decision is interesting for a different reason. While Judge Leval argued that the steps of City Hall are unarguably traditional public forum, Judge Minor argued that they were not, noting that even if they were, they ceased to be so in the summer of 1998 when the city closed them to the public for reasons of security. Judge Minor argued further that even though the steps were closed as a public forum, it should not preclude the mayor from holding whatever kind of event he wants to there. Minor added that the previous three judgments (Housing Works I, II, and III) were based on faulty logic, and said that he added this information to the case in the event that the Bloomberg administration wanted to entirely close the steps to outside speech.
57. The New York Times reported that the Housing Works settlement was the largest in a string of cases made by a variety of groups and individuals charging that senior officials in Giuliani’s administration retaliated against them for criticism. The total cost to the city of those cases and the Housing Works cases totals nearly $7 million. See Jim Dwyer, “City to Pay AIDS Group in Settlement,” New York Times, May 27, 2005.
58. Sander L. Gilman, Disease and Representation: Images of Illness from Madness to AIDS (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988), 271.
59. Ibid., 271.
60. A study on American’s perceptions of HIV/AIDS completed at the time of the City Hall controversy showed growing misinformation and the need for increased public awareness of the actualities of the disease: “55 percent of Americans believed in 1997 that they could be infected by sharing a drinking glass with an infected person, compared with 48 percent in 1991. Forty-one percent believed that AIDS might be contracted from a public toilet, compared with 34 percent in 1991, according to the survey by researchers at the University of California at Davis.” Lynda Richardson, “World AIDS Day Seen Regaining Old Fervor,” New York Times, November 28, 1998.
61. Lisa L. Colangelo, “World AIDS Day Brings Crisis Home,” New York Daily News, December 2, 2003.
62. Smithsonian Institution National Museum of American History, September 11: Bearing Witness to History, http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=43 (accessed May 17, 2005).
63. I am thinking here of the work of artist Fred Wilson, and in particular his work at the Maryland Historical Society, where he removed a set of slave shackles from their original collection and reinstalled them in an exhibit of a silver serving set.
1. In piecing together this ongoing history of Federal Plaza, this chapter draws upon several sources, including government correspondence and hearing testimonies relating to Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc published in Clara Weyergraf-Serra and Martha Buskirk, Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc (Eindhoven, Netherlands: Van Abbe-museum, 1988); Rosalyn Deutsche, Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996); Douglas Crimp, “Art in the 80s: Myth of Autonomy,” Precis 6 (1987); and Harriet Senie, The Tilted Arc Controversy: Dangerous Precedent? (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002).
2. The Pentagon is the largest.
3. “New Federal Office Building: A Capital in Microcosm,” New York Times, August 29, 1968.
4. Weyergraf-Serra and Buskirk, Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc, 124.
5. Maintaining the fountain proved to be difficult, though while it was working it was described as “something of a Mecca to what seems to be an increasing number of lunchtime eaters who bring food from home.” “New Federal Office Building,” New York Times. The same article also pointed out that upon the building’s completion critics argued that the blank-concrete facade on Broadway was an eyesore and that parking, public transportation, and eating facilities were inadequate in light of the thousands of workers who were now concentrated in one area.
6. Paul Goldberger, “Critic’s Notebook: Harmonizing Old and New Buildings,” New York Times, May 2, 1985.
7. Damon Stetson, “Federal Employees Rally Here to Protest Delay in Pay Raise,” New York Times, October 2, 1971.
8. Herbert Muschamp, New York Times, April 24, 1995, B1; Weyergraf-Serra and Buskirk, Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc.
9. Robert Storr, “Tilted Arc: Enemy of the People?” Art in America (September 1985).
10. See Senie, The Tilted Arc Controversy.
11. Weyergraf-Serra and Buskirk, Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc, 3.
12. Michael Kimmelman, “Abstract Art’s New World, Forged for All,” New York Times, June 7, 2005.
13. The Tilted Arc case has been featured in numerous articles related to the role of public art in public life, to government controls, and to art and expression. See, for example, Gregg M. Horowitz, “Public Art/Public Space: The Spectacle of the Tilted Arc Controversy,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 54, no. 1 (1996); Caroline Levine, “The Paradox of Public Art: Democratic Space, the Avant-Garde, and Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc,” Philosophy and Geography 5, no. 1 (2002); and Pilar Viladas, “Art for Whose Sake?” Progressive Architecture 65, no. 4 (1985).
14. Cited in Weyergraf-Serra and Buskirk, Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc, 26.
15. Ibid., 45.
17. Ibid., 47.
18. Ibid., 45–48.
19. Ibid., 113. As a result of these hearings and the GSA’s press releases, the Tilted Arc debates quickly attracted national attention. In his Newsweek column, conservative commentator George F. Will weighed in, saying, “(s)ome Serra defenders say his First Amendment rights are being trampled. But the issue is not a person’s right to ‘express’ his whims in rusty steel. The issue is the public’s right not to be saddled with the results forever. Even if the public’s hostility were just a whim, so what? Artists who peddle their whims as art, counting on an absence of critical standards, cannot suddenly claim to have standards superior to the public’s and incomprehensible to the public. And they cannot hide behind this crashing non sequitur: great innovations in art often have met hostility, therefore whatever provokes hostility must be a great innovation. Joan Mondale says the public should give ‘Tilted Arc’ time to prove its ‘eternity.’ Sounds like a long wait.” George F. Will, “Giving Art a Bad Name,” Newsweek, September 16, 1985.
20. Cited in Weyergraf-Serra and Buskirk, Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc, 126.
21. Ibid., 113.
22. Ibid., 128.
23. Ibid., 12.
24. Ibid., 223.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Tom Finkelpearl, Dialogues in Public Art (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000), 70.
29. Cited in Weyergraf-Serra and Buskirk, Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc, 61.
30. Cited in Finkelpearl, Dialogues in Public Art, 26. Although Crimp’s interview was published after Martha Schwartz’s work was installed, the critic did not comment whether or not that design supported his definition of public space.
31. Cited in Weyergraf-Serra and Buskirk, Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc, 26.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid. In Crimp’s definition of public space, a place is made public by its use by members of the public, regardless of whether or not they are using that site for speech acts or demonstrations.
34. Deutsche, Evictions.
35. Deutsche does not go into detail on the relationships between democracy and public space; that is, how democracy “happens” in public spaces. This question is taken up in the following chapter, which addresses space and the First Amendment.
36. Deutsche, Evictions, 259.
37. Ibid.
39. John Beardsley, “The Haunting of Federal Plaza,” Landscape Architecture 86, no. 5 (1996), 159.
40. Ibid., 159.
41. Cited in Finkelpearl, Dialogues in Public Art.
42. Beardsley, “The Haunting of Federal Plaza.”
43. Weyergraf-Serra and Buskirk, Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc.
44. “ASLA Awards 1997,” Landscape Architecture 87, no. 11 (November 1997): 40–75.
45. “ASLA Awards 1997,” 55.
46. Ibid., 54.
47. Meyer, Martha Schwartz, 149.
48. Clare Cooper-Marcus, “Statement vs. Design,” Landscape Architecture 86, no. 11 (November 1996), 27.
49. In The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation, 1980), Whyte described the kinds of features that make a public plaza successful.
50. Cited in Finkelpearl, Dialogues in Public Art, 63.
51. Ying Chan, “The INS Waiting Game,” New York Daily News, July 16, 1995; Austin Fenner, “Marchers Flood Downtown: 10,000 Protest Cop Slaying of African Vendor,” New York Times, April 16, 1999.
52. Meyers, Martha Schwartz, 7–8.
53. Cited in Carrie Jacobs, “Que Serra, Serra,” New York Magazine, January 20, 1997.
54. Christopher Dunn, in discussion with the author, November 2000.
55. Cited in Weyergraf-Serra and Buskirk, Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc, 75.
56. Susan Sachs, “Guiliani’s Goal of Civil City Runs into First Amendment,” New York Times, July 6, 1998.
57. Crimp, “Art in the 80s,” 75.
3. Condemning the Public in the New Times Square
1. The boundaries of the Times Square Business Improvement District include portions of blocks, and dip in and out of the blocks between Eighth and Ninth avenues and Broadway and Sixth Avenue.
2. Alexander J. Reichl, Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999), 44.
3. Reichl’s book is a thorough documentation of the redevelopment process through 1998. Reichl describes and analyzes what was an incredibly complex process, including numerous governmental and private interests.
5. Reichl discusses the efforts of the Municipal Arts Society (MAS) to block plans for four large, white office towers designed by architect Philip Johnson. MAS displayed computer-generated images of how the office towers would dwarf surrounding buildings. Reichl, Reconstructing Times Square, 145.
6. Once taken, the state can then sell the land to another private owner.
7. Section 101 of the New York Consolidated Laws states: “It is the purpose of this law to provide the exclusive procedure by which property shall be acquired by exercise of the power of eminent domain in New York state; to assure that just compensation shall be paid to those persons whose property rights are acquired by the exercise of the power of eminent domain; to establish opportunity for public participation in the planning of public projects necessitating the exercise of eminent domain; to give due regard to the need to acquire property for public use as well as the legitimate interests of private property owners, local communities and the quality of the environment, and to that end to promote and facilitate recognition and careful consideration of those interests; to encourage settlement of claims for just compensation and expedite payments to property owners; to establish rules to reduce litigation, and to ensure equal treatment to all property owners.”
8. “In 1968, the New York State Urban Development Corporation Act (UDCA) was enacted for the express purposes of promoting a vigorous and growing economy, ameliorating blighted and deteriorating areas throughout the State, and supplying adequate and safe dwelling accommodations for families of low income.” Fannie Mae Jackson et al., Respondents-Appellants v. New York State Urban Development Corporation et al., 110 A.D.2d 304, 494 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1985, 2.
9. Reichl, Reconstructing Times Square, 98.
10. Ibid.
11. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. “blight.”
12. For more information on the relationships between language, metaphor, and displacement, see Tim Cresswell, “Weeds, Plagues, and Bodily Secretions: A Geographical Interpretation of Metaphors of Displacement,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87, no. 2 (1997).
13. Barbara Goldstein, “Constructivism in LA,” Village Voice, September 1, 1998.
14. The Times Square Business Improvement District’s Report on the Secondary Effects of the Concentration of Adult Use Establishments in the Times Square Area did not draw a direct correlation between the presence of adult-use establishments and street crime.
16. It is important to note that the legislative process that approved the use of eminent domain in Times Square is now defunct. The Board of Estimate was dismantled in the 1989 City Charter. Eminent domain cases are now heard by the City Council (Reichl, Reconstructing Times Square, 189). Interestingly, the reason for the dismantling of the Board of Estimate was that the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional because it conflicted with the one-person, one-vote rule. However, once legislative bodies have deemed a project to be in the public interest, courts rarely rule against these decisions. Defendants in eminent domain cases cite Berman v. Parker (1954), “in which the Supreme Court established the now-familiar principle that courts will not second guess the decision of local governments in land use and redevelopment.” Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 771 F.2d 44; U.S. App. (1985).
17. Sagalyn, 383–84.
18. Johnson and Burgee were responsible for the design of the AT&T Building, which will be discussed in chapter 5.
19. “Vibrancy to Vacancy: Remaking the Deuce,” New York Times, August 9, 1992.
20. Peter Grant, “State Seeks New Plan for Times Square Revival,” Crane’s New York Business, August 3, 1992–August 9, 1992.
21. Peter Hall and Michael Bierut, eds., Tibor Kalman: Perverse Optimist (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998), 58.
22. Ibid., 401.
23. Ibid., 59.
24. For a general critique of Kalman’s work and its relationships to corporate interests, see Thomas Frank, “Thomas Frank on Tibor Kalman: Half Empty,” Artforum 37, no. 6 (1999).
25. Cited in Hall and Bierut, eds., Tibor Kalman, 402.
26. For a discussion of public art and the transformation of Times Square, see Julie Ault, “Public Art,” 1996, http://www.undo.net/cgi-bin/openframe.pl?x=/Facts/Eng/fault.htm (accessed June 11, 2005).
27. There are, however, important differences. For example, in the drawings the neon signs are present but their messages indicate smaller-scale stores and theaters rather than the huge CBS and Disney tenants that occupy the same spaces today.
28. Cited in Hall and Bierut, eds., Tibor Kalman, 401.
29. “Keeping Times Square clean, safe and friendly” is part of the mission statement of the Times Square Business Improvement District, a private nonprofit that runs sanitation, security, and publicity services and is funded by a mandatory assessment on commercial buildings. See Reichl, Reconstructing Times Square, 154–55.
30. Neil Selkirk, 1000 on 42nd (New York: PowerHouse Books, 2000), postscript.
31. Ibid., 1.
33. Cited in Hall and Bierut, Tibor Kalman, 77.
34. Disney’s first stage production in the newly renovated New Amsterdam Theater was Beauty and the Beast (Reichl, Reconstructing Times Square, 157). Its storyline all but tells young girls that they can change violent men if they just love them enough. While this point seems obvious based on a cursory understanding of the movie’s plot, a shocking misreading can be found in Francois Bovon’s October 1999 article titled “The Child and the Beast: Fighting Violence in Ancient Christianity,” published in the Harvard Theological Review 92, no. 4. Bovon states, “A contrasting theme to that of the violence in nature is presented in the successful Walt Disney movie Beauty and the Beast. … In the movie, the beast is slowly tamed by the beauty. At a precise moment, he overcomes his natural cruelty and opens his paw, which is now filled with grain, and delights in the birds who come to feed on it. The message is clear: such is the power of love” (369).
35. Cited in Dan Bischoff, “Signs of the Times,” Metropolis Magazine, February– March 1998, 42.
36. Senator George D. Maziarz said, “For too many years the needs and shortcomings of Niagara Falls have been debated and discussed. With today’s announcement it is clear that the time for endless circles of talk is over and the time for action has begun. By creating an entity whose sole focus is the development of Niagara Falls and using the successful Times Square redevelopment project as a model, I have great confidence that Governor Pataki’s plan will help Niagara Falls turn the corner to finally realize its full potential.” New York State Office of the Governor, “Governor Pataki Showcases 42nd St. Success Stories,” June 14, 2001, http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/year01/june14_7_01.htm (accessed April 7, 2005).
37. New York State Office of the Governor, “Governor Pataki Showcases 42nd St. Success Stories.” If we need to discuss further Kalman’s misreading of the effects of the market on urban development, we could look at suggestions for streamlining the eminent-domain process inspired by the Times Square transformation. The Group of 35, a committee appointed by Senator Schumer, published a report in June 2001 titled “Preparing for the Future: A Commercial Development Strategy for New York City.” The report presented options for increasing large-scale office development and “a comprehensive blueprint of the actions that will be needed to ensure that New York City has enough space to accommodate anticipated future growth” (U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer and Honorable Robert E. Rubin, “Preparing for the Future: A Commercial Development Strategy for New York,” http://urban.nyu.edu/g35/Group-35.pdf [accessed May 28, 2007]). One of the report’s main recommendations was that the city should make greater use of eminent domain in order to assemble “developable” parcels, and it cited the Times Square success as an example of how “the powers of eminent domain eliminates a number of the barriers to assemblage by compelling property owners to sell and severing the leases of existing tenants”
38. See Reichl, Reconstructing Times Square; Delany, Times Square Red, Times Square Blue; and Sagalyn, Times Square Roulette.
39. West 41st Street Realty LLC et al. v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, 2238, Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division, First Department, Lexis 11245, November 9, 2000.
40. Michael Sorkin, Some Assembly Required (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001).
41. The only thing remotely “leftist” about the Times Square transformation process was the fact that it involved so much state investment.
42. Sugette Kelo, et al., Petitioners, v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al., 04-108, Supreme Court of the United States, 2005, U.S. Lexis 5011. Decided June 23, 2005.
4. Bamboozled?
1. Kayden, New York Department of City Planning, and Municipal Art Society of New York, Privately Owned Public Space, 23.
2. Ibid., 173.
3. Joseph Berger, “Strolling Hidden Nooks in Manhattan’s Canyons,” Midtown Journal, New York Times, March 11, 1991.
4. “The Municipal Art Society is a private, non-profit membership organization whose mission is to promote a more livable city. Since 1893, the MAS has worked to enrich the culture, neighborhoods and physical design of New York City. It advocates for excellence in urban design and planning, contemporary architecture, historic preservation and public art.” Municipal Art Society of New York, “The Art of Making New York Livable,” http://www.mas.org/home.cfm (accessed May 28, 2007).
5. Bruce Lambert, “Neighborhood Report, Midtown: Public Atria at the Heart of a Policy Debate,” New York Times, November 19, 1995.
6. Some of the design elements of Paley Park can be found in the IBM Atrium. For example, both include trees planted in a grove with movable seating scattered below. Also, both spaces have a tranquil feeling, as if one is far removed from the city.
7. Berger, “Strolling Hidden Nooks in Manhattan’s Canyons.”
8. See New York Department of City Planning Special Permit C 770209 ZSM, New York Department of City Planning files.
9. IBM did not build to this limit. They used 92,052 square feet. However, as noted in Kayden, New York Department of City Planning, and Municipal Art Society of New York, Privately Owned Public Space, 68: “In some cases owners have used some
10. “The bonus multiplier for the Covered Pedestrian Space was increased by 1.5 sf above the basic rate of 11 sf for additional height of the space.” New York City Department of City Planning, Public Space Record 515, 2002.
11. Revolving doors were added in 1985.
12. An article in Crain’s New York Business noted that some of those against the proposal included city officials and members of the nonprofit world who were often on the pro rather than con side of battles for more art in city spaces.
13. Ivan C. Karp, OK Harris, to Joseph Rose, Department of City Planning, April 11, 1995.
14. The following year, Minskoff announced his proposal to redevelop Columbus Circle, and included as the major portion of the development a new corporate headquarters for Sotheby’s.
15. At the time of writing, only one page of this report was available in the files of the Department of City Planning. The department is filing a Freedom of Information Act request, and the complete report should be available in June 2004.
16. Peter Rothschild and Charlotte Fahn, Parks Council, to Joseph Rose, City Planning Commission, September 11, 1995.
17. Ibid.
18. Municipal Art Society Planning Committee to the New York City Planning Commission on the proposed modification of 590 Madison Avenue’s public garden, September 14, 1995. It is impossible to prove because it is impossible to see internal correspondence from Department of City Planning files, but IBM’s diminishing care for the atrium may have been part of larger efforts to exclude the homeless from the space.
19. Carol Vogel, “Inside Art,” New York Times, December 15, 1995.
20. Ken Smith, “Requiem for an Atrium,” Landscape Architecture, April 1999, 4.
21. The ULURP process involves several steps, including a community board review, a community board public hearing, a borough president review, a City Planning Commission review, and a City Planning Commission public hearing, City Council review, and mayoral review.
22. The community board for the IBM Atrium is Community Board Five. It is one of fifty-nine community boards in New York City. Members of the community board are nonsalaried. They are appointed by the borough president and are officials of the city of New York. Kyle Merker, “Welcome to Community Board Five,” 2004, http://www.cb5.org/role.php4 (accessed May 1, 2004).
23. Maurice Roers, in discussion with the author, March 20, 2004, and March 25, 2004.
25. Ibid., 301.
26. Ibid., 301–2.
27. PaceWildenstein would have also been able to use expenses related to the exhibitions as tax write-offs.
28. Nicholas Fish to Edward J. Minskoff, November 10, 1995, Community Board Five files.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Melissa Harris to Lola Finkelstein, November 13, 1996, Community Board Five files.
32. Ibid.
33. Ruth Messinger to Richard Schaffer, July 27, 1992, Office of the President of the Borough of Manhattan archive.
34. Michael Presser to Richard Schaffer, July 13, 1992, Community Board Five files.
35. Richard Schaffer to Ruth Messinger, August 7, 1992, City Planning Commission of the City of New York archive.
36. David McGregor, “Urban Planning: Are the City’s Public Plazas in Jeopardy?” Newsday, May 14, 1995.
5. Targeted Publics and Sony Plaza
1. Paul Goldberger, “Philip Johnson Is Dead at 98: Architecture’s Restless Intellect,” New York Times, January 27, 2005. This comment was written in an obituary celebrating Johnson’s life. Earlier comments by Goldberger on the building were more critical. See Paul Goldberger, “Architecture View: Some Welcome Fiddling with Landmarks,” New York Times, May 24, 1992.
2. Verena Dobnik, “Innovative, Influential Architect Philip Johnson Dies at Age 98,” Associated Press Worldstream, January 26, 2005.
3. See Paul Betts, “AT&T to Hive Off 66% of Total Assets,” Financial Times, January 9, 1982.
4. For example, Johnson’s Glass House in Connecticut and his PPG Building in Pittsburgh.
5. Before his postmodern run, of which AT&T is arguably the pinnacle, Johnson’s projects included working with his mentor Ludwig Mies van der Rohe on the Seagrams Building, New York’s Museum of Modern Art Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Sculpture Garden, and the IDS Center in Minneapolis. He was awarded the 1979 Pritzker Prize, the most prestigious honor for an architect.
6. Johnson’s comments may reveal more about his own bravado than recount
7. “The Shape of Things to Come,” Economist, March 5, 1988.
8. “Wheeling Out Baby Bell to Rattle IBM,” Economist, November 14, 1981, 14.
9. Johnson described his client at AT&T as a “megalomaniac of proper proportions, a good 19th century buccaneer … that said I want the most monumental, I want a building that’s entirely different from these glass boxes, I want something that will say to the world AT&T.” Cited in New York City Planning Commission, Excerpt of the Public Meeting of the City Planning Commission, Item 22, Sony, August 5, 1992, 24. In a New York Times article on the remodel, Johnson lay part of the blame on AT&T: “AT&T was adamant—they wanted a Bernini kind of monumentality.” Cited in David W. Dunlap, “Remaking Spaces for Public Use,” New York Times, September 27, 1992.
10. New York City Planning Commission, Resolution, Calendar 1, C 841023 Zsm, September 24, 1984, 2.
11. New York City Planning Commission, Special Permit C 841023 Zsm, 1984, 3.
12. Infoquest went through a few overhauls to try to draw more people.
13. Carol von Pressentin Wright, Blue Guide: New York, 2nd ed. (New York: Norton, 1991), 392.
14. Ibid.
15. The redesign also met other needs for Sony, including accommodating an additional 600 employees.
16. Claudia H. Deutsch, “Carving Chippendale into the Sony Image,” New York Times, February 21, 1993.
17. Klein, No Logo, 5.
18. Fraser makes this argument to counter Habermas’s idea that in the public sphere, differences of status could be “bracketed” and that all participants would discuss issues as “peers.” Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere.”
19. Kayden, New York Department of City Planning, and Municipal Art Society of New York, Privately Owned Public Space, 169.
20. Goldberger, “Architecture View.”
21. Patricia McCobb, letter to the editor, August 12, 1992.
22. At the 1992 hearing, Sally Goodgold of the City Club of New York also criticized the commission for interpreting this change as minor, saying, “I hope that at no time in the future will this be minor whenever an inch of public space is taken away from the public.” Goodgold also suggested that if Sony were allowed to keep the Jumbotron in the space, they could show public hearings that were
23. New York City Planning Commission, Excerpt of the Public Meeting of the City Planning Commission, Item 22, Sony, August 5, 1992.
24. Ibid., 47–48.
25. Ibid., 26–27.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., 19.
28. Ibid. “We provide an equivalent area here because we give you a space that has more CPS and it generates a bonus of 117,000 square feet, an equivalent bonus, as opposed to 104,000 square feet before… . And what happens here is that we satisfy that quantitative standard, that’s No. 1. So the equivalent bonus is higher.”
29. Ibid., 113–17.
30. The race with Trump Tower is close, but Trump’s amenities—such as the café, bathrooms, telephones, and tables and chairs—are all on a lower level, making them less apparent.
31. BB is a sort of hybridized feature from William Whyte’s Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.
32. “At Sony Wonder Technology Lab, a four-story, hands-on science and technology center, you’re not going to just see technology at work—you’re going to be part of it! Personalize a swipe card at Log-in and explore communications technology as a Media Trainee. You’ll be given the opportunity to create a unique musical composition, take a cyber-journey, look at the inner workings of innovative technology and experience High Definition in our 72-seat theater. You’re sure to become a technowiz so be sure to pick up your graduation certificate at Log-out!” Sony Wonder Technology Lab Brochure, Sony Wonder Technology Lab, 2001.
33. This concern was expressed by members of Community Board Five and by members of the City Planning Commission. See, for example, Michael Presser, letter to the City Planning Commission, July 17, 1992, New York Department of City Planning archive.
34. Klein, No Logo, 150.
35. Herbert Sturtz to Donald Elliot, Esquire, July 12, 1984, New York City Planning Commission archive.
36. MTV Networks owns Nickelodeon.
38. Sony’s use of stealth marketing has been documented. In one case, models were hired by the U.S. branch of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications to sit in bars with Sony cell phones and strike up conversations with young men about how cool their new phone was and invite them to try it. In another case, Sony Ericsson hired actors to stand near New York City landmarks and ask people to take their picture using their Sony phone. See Suzanne Vranica, “Advertising: That Guy Showing Off His Hot New Phone May Be a Shill,” Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2002.
39. For more on the “educational experience” of Sony Wonder, see Elizabeth Hanly, “Fast Forward: Visit the Sony Wonder Lab,” Metropolis, December 1994.
40. Sinatra’s work is sold through Legacy Recordings, a division of Sony Music.
41. On one occasion, the movie was an unnarrated visual of fly-over segments of the United States. Another film was of the surface of Mars.
42. Rebecca Segall, “The New Product Placement: Review of Branded: The Buying and Selling of Teenagers,” Nation, February 23, 2003.
43. Ibid.
44. Martin and Siegel, letter to Sony Corporation of America, October 5, 2003.
45. National Coalition for the Homeless and National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, Illegal to Be Homeless: The Criminalization of Homelessness in the United States, 2002. A survey published by the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) reported that in 2002, one-third of the cities they examined prohibited lying down or sitting in particular public places. Between 1999 and 2002 there was a significant increase in laws that granted cities broad discretion to arrest homeless people. In 2002 more than one million families were on waiting lists for HUD-assisted housing. In New York the average waiting time for such housing was eight years, compared to a national average of three years. The most recent NCH report on the criminalization of the homeless can be found at http://www.nationalhomeless.org/crimreport/meanest.html
46. For more information on the criminalization of homeless people in public space, see Don Mitchell, “The Annihilation of Space by Law: The Roots and Implications of Anti-Homeless Laws in the United States,” in The Legal Geographies Reader: Law, Power, and Space, ed. N. Blomley, D. Delaney, and R. T. Ford (Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing, 2001); National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, “Combating the Criminalization of Homelessness: A Guide to Understand and Prevent Legislation That Criminalizes Life-Sustaining Activities,” 2002, http://www.nlchp.org/program_reportspubs.cfm?startRow=11&FA=4&TAB=0&prog=4 (access date May 15, 2007); National Coalition for the Homeless, “Illegal to Be Homeless: The Criminalization of Homelessness in the United States,” 2004; J. McElroy, L. M. Takahashi, and S. Rowe, “The Sociospatial
47. Jonathan L. Hafetz, “Homeless Legal Advocacy: New Challenges and Directions for the Future,” Fordham Urban Law Journal (2003), 1.
48. Kayden, New York Department of City Planning, and Municipal Art Society of New York, Privately Owned Public Space, 38.
49. Ibid., 284.
50. As Nancy Fraser reminds us, however, social equity and not simply access is central to public spheres. Whereas Habermas argued that one’s social status could be “bracketed” so that people could interact as equals in public spheres, Fraser argues that this is impossible. Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere.”
51. I appreciate the help and suggestions of Thomas Martin and Mark Luehrs in developing this chapter, and for their information on the allegations against Sony.
6. Trump Tower and the Aesthetics of Largesse
1. The Apprentice Web site includes a virtual tour of the suite and gives instructions on how to purchase the furnishings and accessories. See http://www.trumponline.com/.
2. Nancy Franklin, “American Idol: For the Young Hopefuls on The Apprentice, Trump Towers,” New Yorker, February 16, 2004.
3. The terminal is located on the west side of Twelfth Avenue between Forty-sixth and Fifty-fourth streets.
4. “Destination space is a high-quality public space that attracts employees, residents and visitors from outside, as well as from, the space’s immediate neighborhood. Users will socialize, eat, shop, view art, or attend a programmed event, although they may also visit the space for sedentary, individual activities of reading and relaxing. The design supports a broad audience: spaces are usually sizable, well proportioned, brightly lit if indoors, aesthetically interesting, and constructed with first-class materials. Amenities are varied and frequently include some combination of food service, artwork, programmatic activities, restrooms, retail frontage and water features, as well as seating, tables, trees, and other plantings.” Kayden, New York Department of City Planning, and Municipal Art Society of New York, Privately Owned Public Space, 49–50.
5. In Privately Owned Public Space, Kayden and his coauthors also note the existing confusion about the fact that there are spaces within Trump Tower that are “legally required to be open and accessible to the public.”
6. For information about the five years of negotiations and deals that led to Trump’s acquisition of the building site, see “Trump Pursued a ‘Vision’ of Tower with Tenacity,” New York Times, August 26, 1980.
8. Tom Soter, “The Great Indoors,” Newsday, January 16, 1993.
9. Ibid.
10. Paul Goldberger, “Architecture: Atrium of Trump Tower Is a Pleasant Surprise,” New York Times, April 4, 1983.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Jonathan Mandell, Trump Tower (Secaucus, N.J.: Lyle Stuart, 1984), 18.
14. The subdistrict runs from East Thirty-third Street north to Central Park.
15. “The most widely used affirmative zoning technique is special district zoning. This technique permits areas with unique characteristics to flourish rather than be overwhelmed by standard development. The City Planning Commission has established special zoning districts to achieve specific planning and urban design objectives in a limited area. Each district stipulates requirements and/or provides zoning incentives for developers who provide the specific urban qualities the Commission seeks to promote in that area. It is a way of using private capital to carry out public policy.” From Department of City Planning, NYC Zoning Handbook: Special Zoning Districts, chapter 11, July 1990, http://tenant.net/Other_Laws/zoning/zonch11.html (accessed April 25, 2003).
16. Department of City Planning, Zoning Handbook: A Guide to New York City’s Zoning Resolution, 2006.
17. Charles E. Tennant to Howard Zipser, November 25, 1983, Department of City Planning files.
18. Philip Schneider to Charles E. Tennant, January 25, 1984, Department of City Planning files.
19. Lisa Dunn to Donald Trump, Charles Smith, Phil Schneider, Norma Foerderer, and Ed Koch, August 9, 1984, Department of City Planning files.
20. Jan Levy to Martin Gallent, July 8, 1985, Department of City Planning files.
21. Charles E. Tennant to Donald Trump, January 24, 1984, Department of City Planning files.
22. Cited in Susan Leven, “Trump Tower and Trump Plaza,” 1984, Department of City Planning files.
23. Mrs. Frank Langhammer to Donald Trump, December 15, 1984, Department of City Planning files.
24. Leven, “Trump Tower and Trump Plaza.”
25. Cited in Albert Scardino, “Trump Finds Big ‘Bonus’ on 5th Avenue,” New York Times, February 8, 1986.
26. “Trump Pursued a ‘Vision’ of Tower with Tenacity,” New York Times.
27. Scardino, “Trump Finds Big ‘Bonus’ on 5th Avenue.”
29. Philip Schneider to Charles E. Tennant, April 10, 1984, Department of City Planning files.
30. Donald Trump to Philip Schneider, December 1984, Department of City Planning files.
31. Susan Heller and David Bird Anderson, “Occupational Hazards of the Atrium Set,” New York Times, April 5, 1984.
32. Ibid. The article reported that the two businesspeople returned to the IBM Atrium.
33. Trump’s lawsuit was successful because the judge found that the language of the abatement statute was vague regarding what an “underutilized property” was. See E. R. Shipp, “City’s Denial of a Tax Break to Trump Is Ruled Improper,” New York Times, December 15, 1982.
34. Cited in Mandell, Trump Tower, 9–10.
35. The two stores that the average shopper might visit, a convenience store and a record store, are both tucked into the basement.
36. Donald Trump, Trumponline, http://www.trumponline.com (accessed July 6, 2004).
37. Lloyd Grove with Elisa Lipsky-Karasz Grove, “Steamed Up at Fired Sign,” New York Daily News, March 19, 2004.
38. South of Forty-ninth Street, retail rents were closer to $200 per square foot. Holusha, “Commercial Real Estate.”
39. Arlene Holpp Scala and Jean Levitan, “Reality-Based Methods for Teaching Issues of Class and Privilege,” Transformations 11, no. 1 (spring 2000).
40. Cited in Mandell, Trump Tower, 9.
41. Ada Louise Huxtable, “Architecture View,” New York Times, July 1, 1979.
Epilogue
1. Excellent work on public space after 9/11 can be found in several recent books and articles. See, for example, Setha M. Low, “The Memorialization of 9/11: Dominant and Local Discourses on the Rebuilding of the World Trade Center Site,” American Ethnologist (photocopy of draft from the author, 2004); Michael Sorkin, Starting from Zero: Reconstructing Downtown New York (New York: Routledge, 2003); and Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City (New York: Routledge, 2002). Lynda Schneekloth gave one of the most compelling lectures on the question at the Conference for Educators in Landscape Architecture held September 25–28, 2002.
2. Recently, residents criticized the Environmental Protection Agency’s handling of testing buildings near the WTC for toxins. See Anahad O’Conner, “Plan to Test Downtown Dust Draws Ire,” New York Times, May 25, 2005.
4. Although researchers have noted an overall increase in security at other POPS, such as the Citibank Atrium and Sony Plaza, I have not seen the requests for identification and bag searches that these researchers noted in 2002 and 2003.
5. Two weeks after, on September 25, 2001, D.A.R.E. held an event at the Sony Arcade and honored then-chairman and CEO of Sony Music Entertainment, Thomas D. Mottola, for his “anti-drug campaign efforts throughout the music industry” (Sony Plaza donated the space for the event). Karen Kelso to Amanda Burden, April 24, 2003. A letter from the owner of Shallots (a restaurant adjacent to the Sony Plaza pedestrian space) dated September 20, 2001, requests a decision on the screens for seating while stating that their request seems “trivial” compared to everything that happened the week before.
6. World Trade Center Site Rules and Regulations, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 2006.
7. Jim Dwyer, “New York Police Covertly Join in at Protest Rallies,” New York Times, December 22, 2005.