GRAND IDEA

Architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff labels the Grand Central Terminal restoration a “disaster” because it will serve a public “that has no connection to the original purpose of the building” (“The Grand in Central Is Leaving the Station,” April 6).

He seems oblivious to the fact that the public for whom the terminal was designed no longer exists, having disappeared decades ago along with the Twentieth Century Limited, Pullman Sleepers and long-distance rail travel itself. And while Mr. Ouroussoff may well have “preferred the company of the worn-out commuters, the loiterers, the needy and the homeless,” the restoration and maintenance of Grand Central Terminal for the sole use of such a constituency is not, in the real world, an economic possibility.

Any project that will preserve the main concourse, restore many facets of the building including the magnificent ceiling mural and ensure the economic survival of the entire terminal should be applauded rather than bemoaned. Unless, of course, Mr. Ouroussoff has a better idea.

LEE ARONSOHN

Encino

*

Although I applaud Ouroussoff’s concern for landmarks, Calendar should be concerned with issues other than whether eating a croissant in Grand Central Terminal will mar the building’s cultural and historical significance.

The marvelous movie palaces of downtown L.A. are hanging on by a thread. Broadway’s fine buildings are in desperate need of renovation. Hollywood Boulevard is nothing but wig shops and fast food. Gorgeous MacArthur Park is surrounded by wonderful buildings that are falling apart. Bunker Hill has been decimated.

Rethinking and restoring old buildings is one way to save them. Mae West may no longer be shopping at Bullocks Wilshire, but at least the fabulous building is being put to good use as a law school library.

As a transplanted New Yorker who loves L.A., let me assure you that New York can take care of itself. L.A. could use a little help.

JACK KEELY

Los Angeles