Updated May 21st, 2009
Day Two - Fountain Plaza
Updated: So… The thing is … some people seem to think that because the newly unveiled (yesterday) NorthWest Quadrant of Washington Square Park looks “great,” “nice,” “pretty” (insert adjective) that that means there was nothing to oppose. That just doesn’t hold up. Of course, there were things to oppose.
Some of the issues were – and are:
– digging up 18th and 19th Century burial grounds;
– chainsawing Fourteen 40-80 year old trees(including all but one of the trees that lined the fountain);
– dismantling and moving the circular fountain 23 feet east to “align” with the Arch (after 138 years in that location in the exact center of the Park);
– Reducing the public space around the Fountain which has been used as a theater-in-the-round;
– Changing the historic nature of the Park;
– The Cost: a pricetag originally quoted at $16 million, now skyrocketing to over $30 million;
– Selling off the naming rights to the famous Fountain to the Tisch Family for $2.5 million
– Adding lawn space — more “picture perfect” for NYU‘s graduation ceremonies
– Fencing off the Park: increasing the height of the exterior Fence around the Park from a welcoming 3 feet to a more daunting 4 foot fence.
In addition, there were serious issues of non-transparency, evasiveness, lies and minimal consideration to community concerns by the NYC Parks Department along the way. There did not have to be such acrimony. That could all have been avoided if the Parks Department had given true consideration to some of the changes a majority of the Community asked for. Yes, people will use the Park but there is a level of bitterness that will most likely never go away. That didn’t have to be. If the Parks Department, Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe, et al, would realize that in retrospect, and perhaps going forward, then there might be something gained from this.
That being said, I had a face-to-face, one-on-one conversation with Park designer George Vellonakis yesterday (and it was actually a nice one) and he walked with me around the Park and pointed out some things about the new design that I wasn’t aware of that I’ll go into over the next few days.
A look at Day Two at the Park (Today):
View of the Fountain from the East (Note: Picnic tables heavily in use)
"Old" Section (Eastern Side) Still Heavily in Use
Squirrel: It's all the same to me; just don't cut down any more trees
Okay, Not Day Two ... The afternoon before the Park Opened: Calm Before the Storm?
Photos: Cat
Washington Square Park Blog 
On “New” Version of Washington Square … Reader Comment that Sums it Up…
All in alignment
With a little more time to reflect on the Park changes, I’ll write with some further observations but I wanted to share a comment that was posted last night by a reader here that sums up some of the sentiment.
There was also an interesting observation from a reader who commented over at the New York Times site last week in response to their fluffy, feel good piece about the opening which obscured any real detail about the arguments, cost, changes, or problems that have gone on in relation to the Park to date (and usually I like writer Jennifer 8. Lee’s pieces). He asked… why couldn’t the park have been renovated in stages? Why did a whole half of the Park have to be shut down all at once? Good question. The writer thought it was basically ridiculous in light of the work that was being done. So… stay with me a minute… if that had happened…if the Park had been done in stages, where the NW Quadrant was done first and then opened, and then the Fountain Plaza area worked on and completed, (a) it would not have taken nearly as long to have access to each section and (b) Park users would have had a chance to experience the changes in stages.
Instead, since the Park was closed off for 16 1/2 months, the first reaction anyone has had has been… it’s clean, it’s pretty… it’s OPEN! But once you get past that layer of emotions – and, yes, there are some elements of the design that are lovely and functional (I will go into them at a later date) – there ARE problems.
I know some of the blog readers don’t want to hear that. Some people would like anyone who was opposed to the dramatic changes and the Parks Department’s obfuscations to move on. But that is not appropriate in this situation because that diminishes and obscures real issues. Maybe there’s some way to ‘fix’ what they took away. Although many believe these changes were made purposefully to homogenize this vital public space.
Here is a comment from Mark Milano:
Cathryn,
I agree with your frustration about the awful lack of community input into the renovation.
And while the new Park may look “better than nice,” it is not Washington Square.
The unique sunken performance space invited people to come down and join the fun – you had to make a conscious decision to enter, and once you did you were a part of the action. Now it’s just a wide open space that people walk through on the way to someplace else. The loss of the old trees is particularly tough.
Also, there were places in the original sunken area where you could step back from the activity and just observe – places where you had a sense of privacy in the midst of all the chaos. Those are all gone.
The new space isn’t terrible, it’s not the wonderful, unique space it was. Actually, it feels like a Disneyland recreation of Washington Square, not the real thing.
And the new fence sucks.
Posted by cathryn on May 27, 2009
https://washingtonsquarepark.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/on-new-version-of-washington-square-reader-comment-that-sort-of-sums-it-up/