“Honey, I Shrunk the Park” — City’s Plans call for 23 percent reduction in “public space” around Washington Sq Park Fountain

Figures don’t lie. But a lot of liars figure.

The NYC Parks Department figures that the “new and improved” Washington Square Park will have just as much public space as the old one. But let’s check the figures:

* The EXISTING entire plaza is currently 51,223 square feet.

* The PROPOSED plaza area will be 39,419 square feet.

That’s an 11,804 square foot reduction, right in their official plans.

* The old and expansive interior plaza was 27,650 square feet.

* The PROPOSED interior plaza will be 20,662 square feet.

Who’s lying? Who’s figuring?

It was a lie when George Vellonakis, the new plan’s “designer,” told the Community that the reduction in public space would be five percent.

The shrinking of the public space in Washington Square Park has a tremendous impact on how it will be used, which in turn impacts on the character of the park. Who gathers there? HOW will they gather? And how will the new, constricted space be regulated?

Will musicians need official approval? Will performers and political speak-outs be required to obtain a permit? Will the free spirit of the Park be shredded and destroyed?

Maybe that’s Mayor Bloomberg’s whole point.

* Recycled Entry * Originally Published March 17th, 2008 *

*********************************************************************

WSP Blog NOTE: - The reduction of public space at Washington Square Park - and a mandate to increase it - is something the Community Board could still address as well as NYC Council Member Alan Gerson and Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum.

Community Board 2 Washington Sq Park Task Force Meets Thurs. July 17th

After a long hiatus, Community Board 2’s Washington Square Park Task Force meets this coming Thursday, July 17th, at 6:30 p.m. NYU Silver Building, 32 Waverly Place, Room 520 (ID Required). I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that it’s being held in an NYU Building (although it would be more reassuring if it was in a different location).

This is the agenda, as posted on Community Board 2’s web site:

1. Status report on phase 1 construction.
2. Status report on phase 2 planning and design, including initial report on dog run design.
3. Status report on comfort station and maintenance building planning.

4. Design of playgrounds including “mounds” area.

When I encountered Council Member Alan Gerson at the City Council Parks Department Budget Hearing in May, he alerted me that the Task Force could weigh in on the pathways and design elements (planters, benches, etc.) which are clearly already underway at the Park. And not just the playgrounds and the “mounds.” (I would call Council Member Gerson’s office to clarify this but, as his office does not return my phone calls, I have no way of getting his take on this.)

Is that not so? None of the items on this agenda seem to have any empowering aspects to them or any regulation over the look or design of the park. (For those who have been entrenched in this issue for the long haul, I realize that may sound naive.) It’s not the playgrounds that are going to change the entire character of the Park.

What do we want this Task Force to be doing? What should the Community Improvement District be asking for? The Community Board has a tendency to shirk back and then attribute this to their “advisory” status (which is also used as an excuse for not taking stronger positions), now it’s time for them to step forward.

What is up with Community Board 2? Approves NYU’s demolition plans for 133-139 MacDougal Street / Provincetown Playhouse despite widespread community disapproval

Manhattan Community Board 2 voted 37-1 (with 2 abstentions) to approve NYU’s proposal to demolish 133-139 MacDougal Street, the Provincetown Playhouse and Apartments.

Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation(GVSHP) noted, at last week’s general meeting(June 19), speaker after speaker spoke out against NYU’s demolition plans and ONLY NYU and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer’s office spoke in favor of demolishing the Provincetown Playhouse and yet the Community Board voted with them.

Who exactly does the Community Board represent?

After NYU’s initial plans to totally demolish the historic Playhouse were revealed, heated protest caused the University to back down - somewhat. According to GVSHP, NYU “did agree to preserve the four walls and entry facade of the theater portion of the building, although NYU originally claimed there was nothing worth preserving about the theater.”

The Real Deal, a real estate blog, wrote about the history of the building:

“The building, originally four separate townhouses, was combined in the early 1940s. In 1916, the Provincetown Players, including playwright Eugene O’Neill, called 139 Macdougal Street home, and two years later moved three houses down to its current home at 133 Macdougal. The Players, famous for experimental theater, book-ended the four houses with fellow radicals living in between them.

In the early 1900s, the Washington Square Bookshop promoted modern literature at 135 Macdougal. Next door at 137 Macdougal stood the Liberal Club, the self-proclaimed ‘Meeting Place for Those Interested in New Ideas,’ whose famous members included Theodore Dreiser, Upton Sinclair and Margaret Sanger.”

The article notes that, “… the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation deemed [the location] eligible for historic preservation this week.” NYU’s plans include a new building “with two extra floors to be used by its School of Law.”

Andrew Berman, head of GVSHP, commented: “Unfortunately there seem to be a little too much eagerness [by the Community Board] to accommodate NYU at the expense of our neighborhood’s history and character.”

Then, if you look at their track record on Washington Square Park, Community Board 2 voted twice in favor of the “renovation” of Washington Square Park again despite widespread community disapproval.

The Board eventually rescinded their approval when the New York City Parks Department’s lack of transparency and withholding of information became impossible to ignore.

That being said, neither Community Board Chair Brad Hoylman, nor NYC Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe, seem to remember that the “approval” was rescinded. The Community Board chairs are often seen featured in photos with Commissioner Benepe and the BID (Business Improvement District) members holding checks towards the Park’s redesign.

So, who exactly does the Community Board represent?

Thoughts on Construction at Washington Square Park

Somebody mentioned the other day that they walked by Washington Square Park and it looked like the whole place had been bulldozed. (Which … of course… a lot of it has.)

It’s true - when you walk by the Northwest Quadrant where the work is being done now - everything that was connected and seemed intimate and inviting about the space has been made to appear barren. There’s large concrete paths. There’s “plazas” but you won’t see or interact with the people sitting across from you because there will be ornamental flower beds between you and them. (Think suburban park.)

Flowers are beautiful, of course, but part of the charm of Washington Square Park is the ways in which you’d connect with others there. There will now be impediments to that. And it doesn’t feel like you would want to stroll through, it feels like a passageway. Of course, it’s not done yet.

Which brings me to the information I was told by City Council Member Alan Gerson at the City Council Parks Department Budget Hearing. He mentioned that Manhattan Community Board 2 has some say in some of the design (not the things most of us would like to see changed, but still) but they have not met to discuss it. He wasn’t sure why.

(Council Member Gerson - Washington Square Park falls in his district - acts as if there was just nothing he could do about the redesign of Washington Square Park - when clearly there was. He took the easy route and sold out his community.)

The work at Washington Square Park is proceeding and the Community Board hasn’t met to discuss it … do they think the Parks Department is waiting for their input?

J. Bary, who took this photo and has been photographing the work there, says there’s trees being dropped in around the new fountain location but - if so - I haven’t noticed them. It’s possible that they are mostly visible from high up - where he is taking his photos from. It’s also probable that I focus so intently on the hole in the ground where the “aligned” fountain is supposed to appear that I’ve missed them.

Week in Review: Union Square Court Decision, Danny Meyer, Washington Sq Park Photo Ops, more.

* NYC Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe previously stated that the 14 trees the City plans to chop down at Union Square Park were “dying” and would have to be cut down no matter what. Yet, in court, the City submitted papers stating that just two of those 14 were “likely” to need to come down. Not definitely. Why can’t these trees be spared the City’s ax?

*Artist and activist Robert Lederman exposes how powerful the local BIDS - business improvement districts - are in Mayor Bloomberg’s New York. He details how, privatization, despite cheerleading from the media and CEO Bloomberg himself, has a dark side. At Union Square Park, when artists recently began being harassed by Parks Department police, it turns out this was under direction of the Union Square Partnership, the local BID, which has been given tremendous influence over Union Square Park (by the Parks Department).

*Speaking of BIDs, Manhattan Community Board 2 members, who act in an advisory role over Washington Square Park, posed with BID members and Parks Commissioner Benepe in this week’s Villager. They may have forgotten about that vote of April 19th, 2007 in which they rescinded their previous approval of the Parks Department’s “renovation” plans of the Park. The local BID members are giving $250,000 towards the renovation (I gather they approve). Given the overwhelming disapproval of the Community towards the redesign plan of this historic park, and the City’s flawed and non-transparent “process,” I’d hope the Community Board members would realize that they ought to skip photo ops like this. Also in the picture is City Council Member Alan Gerson, which answers my question as to where he is.

*Judge Jane Solomon of New York State Supreme Court signed an order on May 7th in favor of the Union Square Community Coalition and granted a preliminary injunction preventing construction of a restaurant in the historic Union Square Pavilion (site of the first Labor Day March in the 1800’s).

There’s also the small detail that the New York City Parks Department stated to the court they were never quite sure they were putting in a restaurant anyway.

Despite NYC Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe talking up his pet project (the restaurant) all over town, and applying for Building Permits, that all suddenly became “not yet final” and “subject to further administrative review” when they were forced to backpedal under oath in Court.

Danny Meyer (restauranteur and Union Square Partnership co-chair) signed an affidavit submitted to the court saying he did not intend to bid on the restaurant. This confused other blogs and news sites, such as Curbed, Eater and Lost City, who all linked to my report on this, and thought it was a done deal. Eater checked with Meyer and a spokesperson said “Trust the affidavit.” Okay…

*Thursday night May 8th was the Brooklyn BlogFest!

*Artist William Glackens painted 20 pictures of Washington Square Park between 1909 and 1914. His scenes record the mixing of social classes that occurred in NYC.

*******************************************
— Happy Birthday to my amazing sister, Susan! –

Now about that redesign of Washington Square Park…

The photo above was taken by the New York City Parks Department and provided to the local media. It appears in this week’s Villager along with the information that the local Greenwich “Village Alliance”/8th Street BID(Business Improvement District) gave some money towards the “renovation” of Washington Square Park ($125,000 now; $125,000 later), thereby expressing its approval of the Parks Department’s controversial plan to redesign the historic Park.

Posing here with the BID members are Community Board 2 Chair Brad Hoylman, Community Board 2 Parks Committee Chair Tobi Bergman, City Council Member Alan Gerson, Speaker Quinn’s Community liaison Grey Elam, and NYC Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe, among others.

They all look so happy, don’t they?

Given the overwhelming disapproval their constituents have expressed towards the City’s “renovation” plan and the lack of transparency and factual information the NYC Parks Department has provided about the “renovation” of this landmarked Park, I question whether any of the aforementioned people — other than Commissioner Benepe (we know where he stands) — ought to be trotting themselves out for a photo op and appear in this photo.

Yet there they are.

How does Washington Square Park stand a chance amidst Mayor Bloomberg’s agenda if these are the people designated to speak up for it?  And they don’t.

My Conversation with NYC Parks Commissioner Benepe. Part II: When city officials spread “wrong information”

New York City Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe said to me, “It’s all those crazy bloggers spreading wrong information.”

I suppose officials always need a scapegoat. But what about when the City official in charge of an agency, say, the Parks Department, knowingly spreads wrong information? What then?

Washington Square Park

On the cutting back of public space in Washington Square Park Commissioner Benepe argued, “There’s no reduction of public space.”

The facts: In reality, there’s a 23% reduction of the central plaza in Washington Square Park, according to the blueprints. That’s 23% less room — not even including the reduction in public space due to the reconfiguration of the old fountain, which served as a one-ring circus for performers and protests.

“The Community Board approved it,” hammered Benepe — a theme we’ve heard over and over again from City officials like Council member Alan Gerson and Council Speaker Christine Quinn too. In reality, the Community Board rescinded its approval over a year ago, at a meeting April 19, 2007. Said the commish: “That’s not true.” Well, yes, it is.

Union Square Park

In discussing how the community would like to see something different at Union Square Park than what the Parks Department is offering, Commissioner Benepe retorted, “Why did the Community Board support it? Why did the Arts Commission?”

The next day to NY1, Commissioner Benepe relayed the following: “It’s really a terrific plan, we’ve been working on it for five years,” said Benepe. “It was fully approved overwhelmingly by the community board…”

The facts: According to Community Board 5 Chair David Siesko, “Despite all of the public observations, Community Board Board Five has not yet taken a position on the future use of the pavilion”, which the Mayor wants to turn into a private restaurant most likely owned by, or affiliated with, Union Square Partnership co-chair, Danny Meyer.

Commissioner Benepe then said to me, “The projects are moving forward.” … Truth be damned? So much for us “crazy bloggers.”

1 Year Ago: Community Board 2 Rescinds its Approval of Parks Department’s Washington Sq Park Plans

On April 19, 2007, Manhattan’s Community Board 2 rescinded its approval of Bloomberg’s plan to bulldoze and rebuild Washington Square Park. Happy Anniversary!

All, right, technically the Board gave the City until May 9, 2007, to adequately respond to questions that had been raised; otherwise, the approval would be rescinded. Which is what happened when the Parks Department ignored the Community Board’s directive.

While Community Board votes are largely considered “advisory,” officials like to cite Community Board decisions to validate their projects when those decisions go in their favor. In the case of Washington Square Park, Parks Commissioner Benepe falsely cites in his letters that he had the approval of the local Community Board, and ignores the inconvenient fact that the Board had rescinded their previous approval.

Here are the Minutes from the April 19th, 2007 Community Board meeting at which the Board took back its approval.

COMMUNITY BOARD 2 Manhattan MINUTES
DATE: April 19, 2007

13 3. Washington Square Park

… WHEREAS, the Appellate Divisions opinion affirmed Community Board 2’s legal right to be fully informed and provided with accurate plans for review, irrespective of the Parks Department adherence to the Board’s recommendation

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Community Board 2 will rescind its prior approval of the plans for renovation of Washington Square Park effective May 9, 2007 unless before such date the Parks Department presents for review and examination its current plans for renovation to the full Community Board 2, the Community Board 2 Park and Waterfront Committee or to the Washington Square Park Task Force; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Community Board 2 calls on our elected officials, most especially City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Councilman Alan Gerson, State Senator Tom Duane, Assembly Member Deborah Glick and Borough President Scott Stringer, to use their respective offices to urge the Parks Department to appear before the Community Board and/or the Washington Square Park Task Force and present its detailed plans for Washington Square Park before any contracts are put out to bid and work of any nature is performed in connection with the renovation of Washington Square Park.

Vote: Passed, with 42 Board members in favor and 5 in opposition.

Connect the Dots: A guide to the NYC Parks Department –Washington Sq Park and Union Sq Park “Redesigns”

Washington Square Park “Renovation”

Washington Square Park and Union Square Park are both in the midst of redesigns by New York City. There are some striking similarities in how these controversial plans of two historic parks initially got pushed through despite community disapproval and widespread negative public opinion.

A Primer on how the New York City Parks Department — headed by Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe at the behest of Mayor Bloomberg – works:

• Community requests some repairs of Park

At Washington Square Park, the background is a bit murkier as far as who initiated the discussion with the Parks Department but most everyone agreed that the Parks Department had let the Park fall into disrepair and it needed some basic fixing (roads repaired and cracks in paths paved) and a tune-up.

At Union Square Park, in 2002, City Council Member Margarita Lopez was able to allocate $1.9 million from City funds expressly for the improvement of two playgrounds on both sides of the pavilion (on the north end).

• Local Community Board Votes

At Washington Square Park, in 2005, Community Board 2 in Manhattan initially approved the city’s “renovation” plans — a flawed vote since essential information was withheld by the Parks Department about the redesign elements. (Community Board 2 later rescinded its approval in 2007.)

At Union Square Park, Community Board 5 (also, Manhattan) “approved a new design for the north end of the square with the stipulation that the city would contemplate the pavilion housing ‘cultural institutions (and) community groups … in addition to restauranteurs.” (Metro, March 21st, 2008)

Note: Community Boards votes are largely “advisory” and are not binding in any way. However, they are utilized in the court of public opinion and it is considered important for City Agencies to gain their approval. City Council Members like to point to their approval - when it suits them.

• Crucial Information Withheld and Subsequently Discovered; Parks Department Dishonest With the Public
  

After numerous rounds of meetings with the NYC Parks Department about Washington Square Park’s “renovation,” the community discovered that the presentations omitted key information: that there was a major reduction in the amount of public space based on the redesign plan; that the Tisch Family had been given naming rights to the historic fountain; etc.

At Union Square Park, despite city assurances that they were considering the Community Board’s wishes for community groups to utilize the pavilion, it was discovered recently that the city had “already applied for building permits to put a restaurant in the pavilion.” C.B. 5 member Kevin Finnegan was quoted as saying “The building plans are for a restaurant — it has a kitchen and seating for 120 people.”
(Metro, March 21st, 2008)

• Historic Elements of Park Treated with Contempt by Bloomberg Administration

The aspects that make Washington Square Park historically a free speech gathering place and a great overall public space were treated with disdain by the Bloomberg Administration. Their plan is to cut away public space to control public gatherings and un-permitted performances. They are ruining the historic nature of the park, dismantling the large circular Fountain, which also serves as a public rallying venue, rebuilding it in a smaller version eight yards away with vast reduction of the ad-hoc seating and renaming it (a plaque on each side) for the billionaire Tisch Family.

The Union Square Park Pavilion’s history is primarily known as the space where numerous political demonstrations occurred. The first Labor Day Parade in 1882 ended up at the northern end of Union Square at the Pavilion.

• Budget Swells ; Corporate Entities Enter Picture

At Washington Square Park, repairs could have been accomplished with the $6 million the Parks Department allegedly had on hand for Washington Square Park but instead a $16 million budget was put into play with financing by the Tisch Family ($2.5 million) and NYU ($1 million). Current “designer” of the redesign, George Vellonakis, is on the record as stating that half of the money will come from private donors. Thus far, no others have been named but the budget for Phase I alone has skyrocketed from $6 million to $13 million.

The $1.9 million that Council Member Lopez secured for Union Square Park has never been spent. In 2004, Mayor Bloomberg himself (and greeted by hecklers) “announced the city would kick in $8 million* to fund a new $14 million renovation of the entire north end.” It was announced that “the balance (was) being paid by the Union Square Partnership, the area’s business improvement district, which currently helps take care of the park.” (Metro, January 25th, 2007) *The City’s contribution is now $11.75 million and the entire project is projected at $20 million. In addition, an “anonymous donor” has given $5 million towards the project, contingent on a restaurant being in the pavilion. (New York Times, January 28, 2007) The Parks Department of course insisted initially that there was no such stipulation but the truth has since been revealed.

• Reduction of Historic Public Space

Presently, Washington Square Park is scheduled to lose 23 percent of public space around the historic fountain.

Union Square Park will see a widening of the street at 16th, and a reduction of the space allocated to the famous GreenMarket (The GreenMarket was interestingly enough founded by Parks Commissioner Benepe’s father, Barry) - largely responsible for helping revive the area and neighborhood - as well as reduction of green space around Pavilion and chopping down of numerous trees (see next item).

• Trees Seen as Expendable for Corporate Interests

In Phase I ALONE of the Washington Square Park redesign, up to 16 trees in the Northwest Quadrant have been deemed ‘in the way’ of the city’s plans. Thus far, 11 have been axed. There is no word on what tree destruction will happen during Phase II.

At Union Square Park, 14 trees are inexplicably headed for the chopping block to expand the restaurant space at the Pavilion.

Note: We’d like to reflect for a moment on the fact that these plans are coming from our City’s “Parks” Department. Hopefully, you’ve taken that in…

• Conflicts of Interest

Controversial designer of the “aligned” version of Washington Square Park, George Vellonakis, is allegedly on the board of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation which strangely enough took no position on the redesign of this landmarked historic Park, while seemingly taking strong positions on every other issue of redesign in the Village.

At Union Square Park, Restauranteur Danny Meyer – who is likely to helm the proposed restaurant at Union Square Park — is also co-chair of the Union Square Partnership (a BID - business improvement district organization) which is putting up a large part of the money to redesign the north end of the Pavilion.

***

There are many other aspects to Washington Square Park’s muddied approval “process” that we will go into at another time (”The Gerson-Quinn Agreement,” the Landmarks Preservation Commission and Arts Commission approvals, etc.) but they don’t apply to what happened - thus far - at Union Square Park. There are enough similarities and alarming details outlined above without adding anything else at the moment.

Where in the world is Alan Gerson?

Alan Gerson — the NY City Council representative for District 1 in Manhattan, which covers Washington Square Park — was missing in action Wednesday March 19th at the City Council hearing on the Parks Department and its Preliminary Budget. Alan Gerson is on the Parks & Recreation Committee of the City Council and all of his colleagues on the committee showed except for Gerson and Letitia James (Brooklyn).

Since Washington Square Park is a ‘hot topic’ for his constituents, we find it a bit odd that he would miss this presentation by the Parks Department and a chance to ask them some questions. (Although Parks & Recreation Committee chair Helen Foster - Bronx - noted that “if Alan had shown up,” his topic of focus was to ask Parks Department Commissioner Adrian Benepe about “the bathhouses.”) Since the budget for the City’s redesign of Washington Square Park’s Phase I alone has more than doubled from $6 million to $13 million (the project was initially budgeted at $16 million TOTAL), it seemed like a perfect opportunity for Council Member Gerson to quiz Commissioner Benepe on this topic.

Council Member Gerson also failed to show up for an important Community Board 2 meeting in late December at which the Washington Square Park “renovation” was discussed and in which he was supposed to report back on whether he was releasing key City Council funds - under his discretion - for the Washington Square Park project to the Parks Department. (He sent his aide who read a statement which did not answer this question. His office now says that they told the community at that time that the funds were being released).