Anushka Maqbool

dead, and on the other, there were the wealthy- fighting for the property values of their second homes. Already the class divide and wealth gap in the area was tangible. The problem of a lack of burial grounds continued through the 1820s as yellow fever raged on and the potter’s field started to fill up. The population of Greenwich Village also began to surge during this time, since many people flooded to the area to escape outbreaks of the pandemic in lower parts of Manhattan.7 In May 1825, the potter’s field was officially closed after reaching capacity. The land was acquired by officials who quickly added a new entry to the site’s list of uses: the location of a military parade with green grounds. The pleasant, open grounds were created to attract wealthy citizens to the area and to raise surrounding property values. The potter’s field would perhaps have been built over for this very reason had the ground not been too unstable to handle the construction of heavy buildings.8

The park we know today was first designated as a place for the public in 1827. Wealthy families began to move in and build the Greek Revival townhouses that are still on the north side of the park. By the 1840s, the Washington Parade Ground was the heart of New York City’s wealthiest community. Improvements to the park continued throughout the years, and a massive fountain 100 feet in diameter was installed in 1852. The park’s first architectural master plan was designed in 1870 by M.A. Kellog and Ignaz Anton Pilat and followed the principles of Frederick Law Olmsted, who is regarded as the founder of American landscape architecture. This plan created Washington Square’s famous diagonal walkways, which, along with the fountain, iron fencing, and gas lanterns, gave the park a romantic Victorian aspect. The late 1800s brought with it the introduction of a roadway through the park in 1870, the creation of a temporary arch in 1889, and the erection of the permanent Washington Arch in 1895.

Washington Square: A Dividing Line By the early 1900s, Greenwich Village had become home to many diverse groups that bore little relation to one another. Ever since Greenwich Village started to populate, Washington Square Park had functioned as a dividing line between the wealthy, genteel lower Fifth Avenue neighborhood to its north and the poorer merchant and immigrant neighborhoods to its south – a divide that became more established after the first world war. A prime symbol of this divide, according to Emily Folpe, author of It Happened on Washington Square, was the flagpole erected in the park by a member of the Washington Square Association to honor the neighborhood’s soldiers who had died in the war. The flagpole was

7 Folpe, It Happened on Washington Square, 64. 8 “From Potter’s Field to Parade Ground,” Washington Square Park, January 12, 2021, https://washingtonsqpark.org/ news/2021/01/12/from-potters-field-to-parade-ground/.

erected on axis with Fifth Avenue, allowing those to the North to see it through the Arch. A member from the Washington Square Association was quoted as saying that the flagpole would be ‘‘a symbol to the great group of incoming, unknown people south of Washington Square,” and that it would “make strangers into true American citizens.”9 As Folpe points out, those in the Association had overlooked that many ‘strangers’ from the south of Washington Square had gone to war and died for their adopted country alongside those from north of the park. Despite these immense sacrifices, the flagpole did not bear their names and no memorials in their honor were to be found in the park that was supposedly of their neighborhood. William Dean Howells, a prominent novelist of the time, compared the ‘American’ part of Greenwich Village with the immigrant/bohemian sector; he contrasted “the old fashioned American respectability which ke[pt] the north side of the square in vast mansions of red brick,” against the “international shabiness which ha[d] invaded the southern border and broken it up into lodging houses, shops, beer gardens and studios.”10 His comparison “evinces a reverence for the unity and homogeneity (both spatial and cultural) of the mansions on the northern, ‘American’ side, and an anxiety about the crossing of borders and breaking up of space” in the southern end.11

The Bohemian Era At the same time as class and ethnic tensions between the north and south of the square were becoming more pronounced, many young artists, writers, and social philosophers began to move to Washington Square. This signified a clear shift from what was once “the exclusive domain of the moneyed elite.”12 While few artists were longtime residents of the square, many moved there in the early 1900s for the diverse character of its surroundings. Some of America’s most prominent painters and writers from this era lived in the dilapidated boarding houses south of the Square. ‘Genius Row,’ the section between West Broadway and Thompson Street along Washington Square South, housed notable people such as Stephen Crane, O. Henry, Willa Cather, and opera singer Adelina Patti. In particular, the rowhouse at 61 Washington Square South, dubbed the ‘House of Genius,’ dominated Genius Row. The landlady would only rent to literary and artistic intelligentsia such as bohemian writers, musicians,

9 Folpe, It Happened on Washington Square, 268. 10 William Dean Howells, quoted in Laura Helene Schoenabaum’s thesis “Manhattan’s Washington Square Park: Its History, Evolution, and Prospects for Change.” (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1988): 43. 11 Maria Karafilis, “The Jewish Ghetto and the Americanization of Space in Mary Antin and Her Contemporaries,” American Literary Realism 42, no. 2 (2010): 129-50. 12 Schoenbaum, “Manhattan’s Washington Square Park,” 42.

and artists, and would support them even if they were unable to pay rent. According to the New York Preservation Archive Project, the third and fourth floors of the House of Genius were “emblazoned with artistic murals and poetry etched by the former guests.”13 The ‘Bohemian Era’ of the Square influenced its transformation from a space of “patrician atmosphere, to one of liberalism and creativity.”14 The Square’s aura of intellectualism and artistic renown that this transformation created remains the overwhelming image of the Greenwich Village area today.

NYU, Moses, and Real Estate Development After 1912, New York University (NYU) became a principal actor in the struggle over the park alongside the ‘well-heeled’ bourgeoisie and local working class community. Having moved most of the university to a Bronx campus, NYU established an additional auxiliary campus, Washington Square College, at Washington Square. After 1920 NYU began to expand along Washington Square. Over the years, village residents did their best to protest and push back on the expansion, but, between 1946 and 1966, NYU virtually encircled the Square (See fig.1). In June of 1948, NYU purchased land to the South of Washington Square Park for its Law Center, leading to the eviction of nearly 300 people who lived on the block. Community groups banded together with the residents and formed a committee to resist evictions in what they believed to be a “crucial battle to protect the Square from NYU’s grasp.”15 The committee collected thousands of signatures to petition their administrators to get legal protection of the land, they hired a lawyer, they got prominent citizens such as former first-lady Eleanor Roosevelt on their side, they wrote to newspapers and they went on radio shows. Despite the community’s struggle, demolitions started soon after in August 1949. Ironically, as work progressed on the Law Center, the long-buried Minetta Brook began to resurface and seep into the excavation.16 The next major project by NYU was to acquire and demolish a section along Washington Square South, where the modern-style Loeb Student Center was opened in 1959 “over the ghosts of Genius Row.”17 In 1946, Holden, McLaughlin and Associates had carried out a postwar Greenwich Village neighborhood improvement study in conjunction with the Washington Square Association. The study resulted in the federally-aided Slum Clearance Plan of 1953 that aimed to “widen streets and beautify the

13 “The Block Known as ‘Genius Row’ in the Village.” Ephemeral New York, February 28, 2011. https://ephemeralnewyork. wordpress.com/2011/02/28/the-block-known-as-genius-row-in-the-village/. 14 Schoenbaum, “Manhattan’s Washington Square Park,” 43. 15 Folpe, It Happened on Washington Square, 293. 16 Folpe, It Happened on Washington Square, 293. 17 Folpe, It Happened on Washington Square, 301.

area in keeping with Village architecture.”18 Park Commissioner Robert Moses, who was chairman of the Slum Clearance Committee in the 1950s, acquired land for the Washington Square Village project under Title I, and by the mid 1960s, the land had been transformed into NYU-owned high rises that housed faculty and students. The NYU Elmer Holmes Bobst Library, completed in 1972, was also built after an “extended rancorous debate” under a favorable interpretation of Title I Slum Clearance Act.19 The bulky, fortress-like library cast the sunny south side of the park in a perpetual shadow and fundamentally and permanently altered the character of the square. Aside from NYU’s expansion, the residents of the Square had to contend with the multiple design disagreements on proposals to link Fifth Avenue and West Broadway with a fast-moving road through Washington Square Park. This design was included in many of the mid-1900s proposed (but not implemented due to opposition from the community) redesigns of Washington Square, first showing up in the initial redesign by Kellog and Pilat. Moses continued to re-propose the fast road moving through the park, but due to continuous resistance by the community, traffic was permanently blocked from passing through the park in April 1959. This was a grand victory for the community and was instrumental in preserving the character of the park.

The Various Populations of Washington Square By the early 20th century, because of the diversity of people who lived around and used Washington Square Park, it had evolved into a cultural hub and a place for artists, writers, musicians, and activists to congregate. The park has an extensive musical history and has long been considered a place of free speech and activism. Protestors gathered against NYU’s use of prison labor during the construction of one of its buildings in what was known as the Stonecutter’s Riot in 1833, and Labor unions marched through the park in 1911 after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire . After the Second World War, the Beat generation of the 50s and folk singers of the late 1950s and early 60s made the park their home. Folk singers began to perform in Washington Square very frequently on Sundays; Washington Square Park became a “renowned haven for performers and protestors.”20 At this time, the park’s sociology consisted of many different groups of people who had each staked their claim to a section of the park. The park was full of families, Beatniks, teenagers, motorcyclists – a New

18 Schoenbaum, “Manhattan’s Washington Square Park,” 56. 19 Folpe, It Happened on Washington Square, 302. 20 “Washington Square Park,” Washington Square Park Highlights : NYC Parks, https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/washingtonsquare-park/history.

York Times article from 1964 claimed that “down in Washington Square, no matter who or what you are, you’re likely to find your little niche.”21

Tensions in the Park Though the park was already heavily used and always crowded by performers, tourists, and locals, the growing presence of beatniks and folksingers in Washington Square in the 1950s made residents ‘uneasy.’22 After traffic was banned in the park in 1959, the fountain became a popular spot for crowds to gather, and folk singers to perform. Noise became a major complaint for many of the nearby residents. Drugs had also become popular in Washington Square Park around this time; the walk between the Holley statue and the southwest corner of the park was nicknamed ‘Junkie Row” because of the abundance of drug deals and usage. Drug dealers aggressively expanded their turf in the park throughout the 60s and 70s as stores selling drug paraphernalia opened in the streets surrounding Washington Square.23 Washington Square Park was also dangerous at this time. Crime rates were high and there was always a physical threat if a person walked through the park at the wrong time. Oscar Newman, a NYU city planning professor, said that “the screams of people being mugged in the park often reached the windows of his bedroom at 29 Washington Square.”24 Because of the increase in drugs and crime in the park, tensions between different population groups of the park ran high. Some residents of the area believed that Beatniks, hippies, and folk singers were attracting ‘derelicts’ and ‘undesirables’ to the park; they blamed them for the park’s descent into crime and advocated for their removal from the park.

Street Music and the Beatnik Riot Increased performances in Washington Square Park and the staunch belief of some residents of Greenwich Village that the park needed to be quiet and tranquil led to a new requirement: by 1947 a person had to hold a permit to be able to perform music in the park.25 On March 28th, 1961, NYC Parks Commissioner Newbold Morris decided to “limit permits issued for musical performances in Washington Square to ‘legitimate’ artistic groups.” When a group of folk singers applied for their permit to perform,

21 “Washington Square Park on Sunday: Village’s 8-acre melting pot,” The New York Times. June 8, 1964. 22 Folpe, It Happened on Washington Square, 310. 23 Folpe, It Happened on Washington Square, 312. 24 Folpe, It Happened on Washington Square, 312. 25 Adam Thalenfeld, “Washington Square Park - A History of Activism,” NYC URBANISM, March 1st, 2020, www.nycurbanism. com/blog/2020/3/1/washington-square-park-a-history-of-activism.

the Parks Department rejected their request with no explanation.26 Parks Commissioner Newbold Morris stated that “unnecessary noises, musical or otherwise, must not be allowed to conflict with other persons’ right to a little peace and quiet.” On April 9, 1961, a protest rally that came to be known as the Beatnik Riot was organized by Izzy Young, head of the Folklore Center on MacDougal Street. Although many Villagers saw Morris’ banning of folk music as an infringement of civil rights, there were local residents who supported the ban; they believed that the removal of these musicians would allow the park to become safer, cleaner and more ‘orderly.’27 When the ban was lifted a month later, these were the residents who tried to get it re-imposed. A 1961 New York Times article reported that: “[f]oes of folk singing in Washington Square warned City Hall yesterday that they would call out Greenwich Village residents for a mass rally unless the ban on Sunday minstrelsy was reimposed.”28 These residents went out of their way to make clear that folk singers were unwelcome in their neighborhood. A petition opposing the Sunday song fests in Washington Square was signed by about 2200 Village residents, “mostly old-timers,” and presented to the Deputy Mayor.29 The belief of some residents that ‘derelicts’ and ‘hippies’ were “making Washington Square a nightmare area” reflected a shift in perception of street music, due to the formalization of what Paolo Prato terms ‘art music.’30 As music was brought into enclosed spaces, off the streets, music was perceived and evaluated differently. When brought into enclosed spaces, off the streets, music was perceived and evaluated differently. “Street music [became] an object of increasing scorn”, evident in the case of folksingers in Washington Square Park in the 1960s and in the writing about music at that time.31 It is interesting to note that “for a long time [music in the streets] had been the only music which could reach the poorer layers of society.”32 Today, many people who were around at that time reminisce about hearing Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, and other folk icons at the outset of their careers strumming near the fountain. The 1970 Community Park Redesign After Moses’ plans were defeated by community activists and traffic was discontinued through

26 Jim Shelley, “NYC Bans Folk Music,” The Woodstock Whisperer/Jim Shelley, April 9, 2016, https://woodstockwhisperer. info/2016/04/09/nyc-bans-folk-music/. 27 Folpe, It Happened on Washington Square, 312. 28 “Villagers’ Score Park Folk Singing; Ask Mayor to Restore Ban in Washington Square,” New York Times. May 19, 1961. 29 “Villagers’ Score Park Folk Singing” 30 Homer Bigart, “Derelicts and Hippies Are Making Washington Square a Nightmare Area,” The New York Times, August 9, 1968, https://www.nytimes.com/1968/08/09/archives/derelicts-and-hippies-are-making-washington-square-a-nightmare-area. html. 31 Paolo Prato, “Music in the Streets: the Example of Washington Square Park in New York City,” Popular Music 4 (1984): pp. 151-163, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261143000006206, 151. 32 Paolo Prato, “Music in the Streets: the Example of Washington Square Park in New York City,” Popular Music 4 (1984): pp. 151-163, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261143000006206, 151.

the park, it was understood that the park needed a major renovation. In June 1963, the Parks Department drafted a $10,000 redesign plan that was signed by Clarke and Rapuano Inc., the same office that had designed the failed scheme 25 years earlier. In May of 1964, Morris proposed the Clarke and Rapuano plan, which was predicted to cost $750,000 - $1,000,000. This Beaux-Arts plan proposed a complete redesign of the park. The fountain would be aligned with the arch and 5th Avenue, the diagonal pathways would be removed and replaced with circular paths around lawns raised by 15 inches, and colonnaded comfort stations would be constructed on axis with the arch. The plan aimed to formalize the park and was subsequently faced with overwhelming opposition from community members, architectural critics, and the press.33 Due to the intense criticism, Edward Dudley, the Manhattan Borough President, asked Community Board 2 to present a plan representing the community’s wishes for Washington Square, so a group of nine village architects were brought together to prepare a plan. These nine architects chose Robert Nichols, a local landscape architect, to lead the group.34 The redesign of the park in the late 1960s was a rare case of community members getting a major say in the planning of a public park. The whole process took about seven years to accomplish due to many disagreements, but ground was finally broken in 1970.

Some of the main changes made in the 1970s renovation included the lowering of the fountain and the creation of a two-tiered central sunken plaza around it that accommodated the space where the roads once were. Over time, this plaza became an internationally famous performance space. A play space referred to as ‘The Mounds’ was created to the southwest of the park; ‘The Mounds’ consisted of three six-foot tall hills, meant to provide children with a space for spontaneous play and discovery. Chess and gaming tables were built at the south and northwest entry ways and low concrete walls were added to these areas as well (See fig. 4). In more recent years, Nichols’ design has been criticized for not creating a sustainable or historically accurate park, but the redesign was heralded as a major win for the community at the time. It was a victory over real estate developers, wealthy stakeholders, and NYU, all of whom had seemed to get their way with the Village and the fate of the park for far too long. A closer examination of the 1970s renovation reveals once again communities that were sidelined and excluded from the redesign process. A New York Times article, published on July 23rd, 1966, quoted Paul Douglas, Chairman of Planning Board 2, saying: “[w]ith the restored park[,] we hope to promote the

33 Schoenbaum, “Manhattan’s Washington Square Park,” 67-69. 34 Schoenbaum, “Manhattan’s Washington Square Park,” 67-69.

kind of activities that attract a little more healthy people.”35 Through the redesign, they hoped to exclude young people like the beatniks and folk singers that many of the ‘old timers’ and wealthy residents had come to associate with drugs and crime. Newspaper articles from the time quote some young people as saying that they did not want the redesign to go forward. These were disagreements between people who lived near the park and also those who lived farther away, but still used the park and performed there. Who should be allowed to have a greater say? Do people who live farther away from the park, but still use it frequently have the same right to the redesign of the park as those who live on the Square?

Conclusion Even though the different populations of Washington Square may have clashed at times, all of them have played significant roles in developing the physical character of Washington Square Park throughout its history. The battles to save the park from drastic redesigns by Moses were led by individuals of “unimpeachable bourgeois respectability,”36 while the fight for the freedom of musical expression in the park was led by the folk singers and beatniks that the ‘old-timers’ of the park disliked. Although the right to Washington Square is one that is constantly in flux, the park generates a ‘passionate attachment’ from people of all different incomes, occupations, cultures and backgrounds.37 This passionate attachment of different populations to Washington Square park is what fuels ongoing struggles and makes the park all that it is today.

35 Edward C. Burks, “‘Villagers’ and Officials Agree on Plan for Washington Sq. Park,” The New York Times, June 23, 1966, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1966/06/23/93849760.html?pageNumber=17. 36 Gilbert Millstein quoted in Folpe, It Happened on Washington Square, 302. 37 Jane Jacobs, Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961.

Figure 1: Map of NYU’s Expansion on the Square between 1946 and 1966. Laura Helene Schoenbaum (Cornell University, 1988), 59.

Figure 2: A map depicting the sections of the park dividend by cliques in 1964, published in the New York Times. “Washington Square Park on Sunday: Village’s 8-acre melting pot,” New York Times, June 8th, 1964.

Figure 3: Stills of posters taken from Dan Drasin’s 1961 film, Sunday, which captured scenes from the Beatnik Riot on April 9, 1961.

Figure 4: 1970 Community Design Plan. Burks, “‘Villagers’ and Officials Agree on Plan for Washington Sq. Park.

Figure 5: Pictures from a New York Times article of people for and against the redesign. “Washington Square Park Renewal Praised and Condemned by ‘Village’ Residents,” The New York Times, July 23, 1969, https://www.nytimes.com/1969/07/23/archives/washington-square-park-renewal-praised-and-condemned-byvillage.html?searchResultPosition=2.

About Us

Staff

Ainsley Dean ’24 is an Urban Design and Architecture, Sociology, and Italian triple major interested in how inequality and social relations are influenced by the built environment. In addition to her work with Ink & Image, Ainsley is a research assistant in NYU’s Sociology department. She hopes to eventually attend grad school to further research urban sociological issues. She would like to thank her friends and family for their support, as well as Professors Knight and Cowan for their mentorship and encouragement.

Niall Lowrie ‘22 is an Art History major with a minor in studio art, specializing in the art and material culture of the Renaissance and early modern periods. In addition to editing Ink & Image, Niall is the secretary of NYU’s Fine Art Society, and works as a tech assistant in the Department of Art History. He is also writing an honors thesis titled “Nature as his Guide: The Botanical Studies of Leonardo da Vinci”. He hopes to one day pursue a Masters in Art History. Niall would like to thank his friends and family for their love and encouragement, but he would especially like to thank Professor Smith, Professor Geronimus, and Professor Krinsky. Your advice, support, and recommendations have been appreciated more than you know.

Hannah Javens ‘22 is an Individualized major with a concentration in ‘Haunting Culture,’ with a minor in French. She is interested in investigating how and why certain experiences become lasting aspects of culture, particularly when elements of trauma or ‘abnormality’ are involved. She is the Managing Prose Editor for the Gallatin Review and plans on attending graduate school for sociology. She would like to thank Professor Moya Luckett for the support on her senior honors thesis, as well as her advisor Professor Andrew Romig for his continued guidance throughout undergrad.

Emilie Meyer ‘22 is pursuing an individualized major at Gallatin. Her studies combine contemporary and medieval art history with linguistics and psychoanalysis. Emilie is presently working at non-profit gallery Carriage Trade where she assists with the research, curation, and installation of exhibitions. She would like to thank her professors for indulging her enthusiasm and passion for her studies.

Elizabeth Baltusnik ‘24 is an Urban Design & Architecture Studies and Spanish double major interested in historic preservation and public art. In addition to her work with Ink & Image, Elizabeth is also an editor for Esferas, the undergraduate journal of the department of Spanish and Portuguese, and on the Graphics team for Vis Major, the Fashion Business Association’s student-run magazine. Elizabeth is the author of “From Gay Liberation to Guerilla Art: LGBTQ Monumentalization in New York City” and would like to thank Professor Jon Ritter for his guidance in writing her contribution to the journal.

Caroline Cook ‘23 is an Art History major and Hebrew & Judaic Studies minor fascinated by the representation and creation of communities through art. Along with her contributions to Ink & Image, Caroline serves on the Executive Boards of NYU’s Fine Arts Society, Gallatin Dancers/Choreographers Alliance, and Hillel and works as a Data and Engagement Intern at the NYU Bronfman Center for Jewish Student Life. After her current semester studying away at NYU Paris, she hopes to continue traveling the world exploring the integrations between art and culture. Caroline is the author of “Photographing Egypt: Opposing the Expression of a Colonialist Lens.” She is especially grateful to her family and friends and would like to thank Professors Meier and Geronimus for their guidance and unwavering support.

About Us

Authors

Joey Chen ‘22 is an Art History major with minors in Web Programming and Applications and Business of Entertainment, Media, and Technology (BEMT). Her continuous exploration across the various segments of the art world, from non-profit to for-profit, and from her hometown China to the United States, has nurtured her academic and professional advocacy for a more diverse and interconnected global art market. She would like to thank Professor Julia Robinson for her enlightening insights into contemporary art. She also greatly appreciates the guidance and support of Professor Nancy Deihl and Professor Dennis Geronimus for her honors thesis.

Anushka Maqbool ‘22 is an aspiring urban planner majoring in Urban Design and Architectural Studies. Anushka’s lived experiences in her hometown of Karachi, as well as New York City and London, have developed her fascination with understanding how cities work, and how people interact with spaces. She’s particularly interested in the concept of “the right to the city”.