Letters to the Editor
Selfishness vs. Housing. Again?
First of all, thank you for continuing to report on the closure of the Tony Dapolito Recreation Center. I recall the man, presiding over the fading Italian presence south of Houston, and he deserves better than this long impasse between developers and bureaucrats. So do young people and other swimmers.
My main point is to express further skepticism regarding would-be developers of the Village. Extreme gentrification means that I cannot afford to live in my old Village neighborhood, and that dear old businesses are squeezed out. However, regarding the push to create more housing… whom does this usually benefit? Developers get tax breaks, and supposedly affordable apartments turn out to be unaffordable for most of us. Density puts stress on local transportation and other infrastructure. New buildings are often very ugly. And construction is a major driver of climate change unless they are green buildings.
In the July Village View your regular contributor Alec Pruchnicki has written an article with the headline Massive Buildings Are Coming to the West Village. So What? Making many subjective assertions, the writer obviously embraces development at the expense of the character of the Village. Do we really want our neighborhood to be Hudson Yards? Better to maintain the unique small-scale character of the Village, that still draws people from their suburban malls and also supports smart and creative communities. Build in those suburbs and outer boroughs instead.
In the same issue Pruchnicki has also written an appreciative review of Ezra Klein’s Abundance, a book that promotes an anti-regulatory perspective and fails to address actual scarcity, not to mention mass starvation and the looming threat of climate change. The “politics of results” is just a slogan for business as usual. Better read Jane Jacobs instead.
Paul Carroll, Formerly of West 11th St.
I really hoped that CM Marte’s heroic work to find suitable development sites for housing while saving one of our precious parks (Elizabeth Street Garden, or ESG) would satisfy all parties. Instead, some continue to argue that open recreational or garden sites in the city are ripe for the picking for developers. They want the vagaries of city government and the ineptitude of the Department of Parks maintaining their parks properties to be an excuse for redeveloping city property. (See Selfishness 1, Housing 0. Again? in July 2025 Village View by Alec Pruchnicki.)
The fight against development pressures is not new to the city, of course. We only need to look back at Central Park’s history to see how, bit by bit, the edges of the park were seen as opportunities to serve other needs, besides parkland. After all, what’s the harm of a little space at the street fronts for a restaurant, or a museum, or an arsenal? If people hadn’t fought for restrictions then, it would not be hard to imagine a park with its borders framed by buildings (or parking lots!).
As you may know, when the private school at the ESG site was turned over to the city years ago, the deed restricted the play yard to remain open for future generations of recreation use. The Department of Parks neglected the fenced-in space, and subsidized housing was built where the school once stood. Now housing development at all costs rears its ugly head once again.
We as a city can do better than to build upon our precious open and recreation space and that is not “selfishness.” Parks and gardens are the living breath for our communities; don’t choke it.
Brian Pape
I liked the idea of a park especially with fun statuary like lions. Yet living in the West Village, I had never visited. But after writing letters and sending money, and filled with curiosity, I finally got a ride over on a Friday afternoon.
City planners should come and learn from the design of the garden how to make a hundred private-feeling spaces in a small area—how to go with nature. Selfish? No. If city people can be given a sense of privacy in Mother Nature on a piece of land no bigger than a ballroom in a city as dense as Manhattan, then this is a gift to the urban public and a lesson to follow for other planners.
Yes we need more housing. But trashing the amenities we now have does not solve the problem. How about concentrating on the pied-a-terres dotting the desirable areas in Manhattan, empty for most of the year but filling up space where good hard working people could otherwise live? That is what can be called selfish.
The neighborhood spaces for housing found to substitute for that park space had not been guaranteed to be built on. But now the pressure may be great enough with all this publicity, and the neighborhood will gain both housing and a park.
I counted 95 people sitting in the nooks and crannies along the shady winding paths of the Elizabeth Street Garden reading, talking quietly, writing. Just sitting. Plus the walkers like me. And the street sounds of music and traffic drifted over our heads through the huge old trees and statuary. So selfish is not an appropriate word. “Sanctuary” perhaps.
Penny Jones
