With all of the discussion surrounding the square renovation, I thought it might be interesting to chat with Tim Rosenbury of Butler Rosenbury and Partners about the project, the situation surrounding the redevelopment and how he sees the situation.
LifeOfJason: When you heard the square was going to be redesigned, was it something that you felt should be a priority for BRP?
Tim Rosenbury: We were excited about the possibilities of improving the square, and, with a landscape architecture team in-house, we felt we would be qualified for the project. We had redesigned the streetscapes on Commercial Street, and we also redesigned the Trafficway streetscape, crosswalks and median from National to Benton, and the plazas in front of the Expo Center downtown. We thought the square would be a challenge. And it’s been that, for sure.
LOJ: What was your inspiration for BRP’s design of the new square?
TR: Virtually all of the design is in response to the community input process, which was a requirement of the project — to seek out through a series of workshops, open houses, and surveys, those issues and opportunities that we’re facing at this point in the square’s history.
The initial request for professional qualifications that went out to design firms listed several consulting firms which had expertise in community input and programming of public spaces. One of them was
Project for Public Spaces, and we were fortunate to secure them as a consultant to our proposed team. PPS took the reins at the beginning of the project, which was the community input and master planning process.
During the master planning work the leadership role was transitioned over to our firm.
LOJ: You stated to the Community Free Press that you “felt a responsibility to observe the use and revitalization criteria that came out of the public input process on the square” which included at least
750 people. The CFP then claimed that “many of the people who provided input were members of focus groups chosen by BRP’s programming partner, Partner [sic] for Public Spaces.” What is your relationship with PPS and how many of the 750 people were in focus groups chosen by PPS? Did you have
any control over the focus groups, the questions asked or the people chosen?
TR: PPS is a consultant to BR&P. I’d guess that a little over a hundred people were in the focus groups. The rest were those who had responded to surveys at Cider Days, Taste of Springfield and on web sites, as well as those who attended open house events. The categories of focus groups — downtown property owners, retailers, students, etc. — were recommended by PPS, and Urban Districts Alliance and City staff invited specific citizens who fit in those categories to the focus group sessions. At least one of us from BR&P attended each session, and was involved in the discussions, but the actual facilitation was done by PPS.
LOJ: Were you really dissuaded by the city from researching Lawrence Halprin’s involvement with the square as claimed by the president of the Cultural Landscape Foundation? If so, who was it that dissuaded you from doing that research?
TR: No one with the City instructed us to not research Lawrence Halprin’s involvement in the square.
(EDIT: The author of the piece in the Community Free Press has posted on her blog that the claim was never made that the city dissuaded Mr. Rosenbury from researching the square. Here is the full quote from Mr. Birnbaum:
“In my conversation with Tim Rosenbury back in early February, he noted that, in his initial presentation to the city, his firm raised the question of Mr. Halprin’s involvement. Rosenbury noted that the city suggested provenance was not a significant consideration and he was dissuaded from researching any Halprin involvement.”
I believe my readers are smart enough to see the word “and” and realize the two items in that sentence are tied together. You can clearly see what is being implied by Mr. Birnbaum. The whole quote is about Mr. Rosenbury speaking to the city and the dissuasion is included in that statement. Even if you to try and claim as the Community Free Press’ writer tries to hypotheize that Mr. Birnbaum is saying “the lack of interest on the part of the city in the provenance of the square was enough to dissuade Rosenbury from further research regarding Halprin’s involvement in the square design” it still means someone from the city dissuaded Mr. Rosenbury.
Now, back to the interview…)
LOJ: How involved do you think Halprin himself was in the design of the square? Is the claim by George McLaughlin that “the only one who can professionally be credited with the project design is Lawrence Halprin” just a business related declaration and not an indication of involvement or authorship?
TR: I can’t say. I don’t know these men personally, and I’ve not visited with either of them, and I should take Mr. McLaughlin at his word. One of our landscape architects researched this issue, and found little archival evidence of Mr. Halprin’s direct involvement in Park Central Square. For what it’s worth, when I refer to the designer of the square, I use the name on the letterhead, working drawings, and correspondence do — “Lawrence Halprin & Associates.” It suggests it was an effort of more than one person, as is usual in projects like this.
LOJ: Let’s flip the script and put you in the place of Lawrence Halprin. You’re a legendary architect that has been called one of the best in American history. Your firm designs a square in Boise, Idaho although you only oversaw the work of your staff and did a few crude sketches that were not used in the final design. Yet some people want to preserve it because it’s a “Tim Rosenbury square.” Would you be comfortable with people saying that or would you have to admit that you had very little actual input in the process?
TR: Well, there are lots of projects by our firm that I don’t have any involvement in. And when I get personal credit for a project that I didn’t have anything to do with, then I’m usually quick to point that
out. So I’m comfortable admitting when I had little or nothing to do with a project in our firm. But the attribution issue is tough nevertheless. Different firms and individuals do it different ways.
LOJ: Do you think your design pays enough tribute to Halprin and his work? Would you like to have included more of his firm’s design?
TR: Knowing what I know now, yes. At the time we were working through the design with the technical Committee — the group of stakeholders that acted in the client’s role during the master planning and design process prior to the plan being approved by council — I remember one meeting
during which we had proposed reworking some things, and someone in the committee said, “Yes, but will we have changed the square enough?” It seems there has been as much a desire for change as for no change to the square.
In a way, you have to discern what is useful and functional in the existing square, and what is not. What contributes to its success as a place? From what I can tell, the square designed by Lawrence Halprin & Associates was really nice when it first opened, but over the years a lot of the nice things — trees, mostly — were not maintained. And then, there have been other changes to the landscaping, paving and retaining walls that intrude on the Lawrence Halprin & Associates design. So when you start to redesign, you ask: how important is it for the square to be contemplated as an artifact, and how important is it to be a functional, engaging and shared public space? We’d like to accomplish both, but the latter is the one that designers overlook too often, I’m afraid.
LOJ: Do you think the organizations from outside the city are out of line in trying to stop the process?
TR: No, not at all. That’s their job. They’re very aware of the process, and the process allows for their involvement.
LOJ: What do you hope people say about the square designed by BRP in thirty years? Fifty years?
TR: “Time to fix it — it’s worn out from constant use!” I’m serious. If the “new” square gets lots of use, then it will have been a success. If in thirty or fifty years a different design is needed, then I’d have no problem with that.
LOJ: As a Springfield resident, do you think you could dedicate anything more important to the city than the design of it’s central square?
TR: Well, the square is mighty important, no doubt.
Schools may be more important, because they speak to our aspirations for the future, but they are neighborhood-centered — the good ones, anyway — as opposed to the whole city. Same with churches, and other civic and community institutions.
We were responsible several years ago for the exterior restoration of the Historic City Hall building. As the place of the city’s public business — the City Council chamber, it’s certainly significant to Springfieldians.
We’re finishing up final plans for the Watershed Center. I think we are only now as a whole community beginning to appreciate the significance of the practicing good stewardship of our watersheds, and this building is going to be a huge resource in making progress in our community in that regard.
But the square is one of the few places that all Springfieldians can claim — it’s not north, or south, or west or east. And it’s the same public space that John Polk Campbell laid out in the 1820’s. And, given
that people have lost their lives there — some in grisly, shameful ways — it’s like holy ground. The Halprin & Associates square is just one piece of the story of the square.
Recent Comments