Gothamist: Park Avenue's Parky Past and Median Present

TomKennedy

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:52:12 -0500

Actually, I just came across an interesting analysis of this photo, and how it's been used recently for political purposes. http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2008/06/19/a-pictures-worth-a-thousand-words/ Bottom line is that, if you look at a blown up version of this picture, you'll see that this is really a park with ROADS and CARS on either side. The forced perspective and small size of the photo makes these hard to pick out, but when you blow up the photo, it's all there. The Commuter Outrage post discusses how this photo has been used, somewhat dishonestly, to cause people to conclude that 4th Ave / Park Ave was simply a park with no roads on either side. I agree with their argument. If there were cars driving up and down the side of Park Ave when this photo was taken, that should be mentioned and it should be part of the debate. Very interesting stuff.

Brightliner

Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:49:46 -0500

Glenn, The problem is Myers isn't advocating bollards. She wants concrete barriers, a much more expensive installation.

RicktheCabbie

Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:49:43 -0500

Dave H, thanks very much for putting things in a realistic perspective. This city is sooooooooo over.

Matt H

Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:50:20 -0500

The decking's over the train tracks under Park Avenue south of 56th street is only 8 inches thick -- this complicates things. See below: http://www.transalt.org/press/media/2005/168.html Though they don't go into great detail as to whether the deciding issue is the weight of additional street apparatus or what.

Dave H.

Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:48:10 -0500

I love that picture. What an urban idyll. Unfortunately it was one of those rare historic periods when Park Ave. was the practically exclusive domain of the wealthy. Steam locomotive tracks used to run at street level on Park Ave. until Cornelius Vanderbuilt was forced to submerge a four-track line to improve the living conditions of those alongside the railway. Even with the submerged rail tunnels, there was primarily poor- to middle-income housing along Park Ave. because the steam, smoke and noise of steam locomotives made living conditions fairly unattractive. It wasn't until a rail disaster in the tunnels in 1902--supposedly caused by poor visibility due to steam engines--that electric-powered trains were deemed necessary. Once the new trains were installed in 1908 and the environment along Park Ave. improved drastically, the poor and middle-income residents were quickly given the bum's rush out of the neighborhood in a crush of gentrification. I imagine the picture above is from the brief 14-year era between 1908 and 1922 when the average New Yorker was pushed from Park Ave. and it became an exclusive enclave of the wealthy. Ironically, it was that 1922 plan to open Park Ave. to more traffic lanes that served to re-democratize the Avenue. Again, I love the picture of a paving-stoned carriage path lined with benches for meditating on the city's beauty, but that is actually a view of developers taking advantage of a tragedy to push reforms that allowed massive gentrification of a neighborhood and effectually restricting a central NYC avenue primarily for the use and enjoyment of the wealthy. Whether one feels that's good or bad, I thought some historical context was in order.

Gino Gusmano

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:22:51 -0500

That looks absolutely incredible. Who knew that we lost the "park" in Park Avenue. NYC is a pedestrian city and I think most people would favor restoring the medians in some fashion for safety and aesthetic reasons.

If I recall

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:21:30 -0500

There was an answer to the walk/no walk question in Time Out a few months ago. It said basically what #6 said. It is technically feasible, but would be much more expensive to do than a normal intersection. The article also said that plans were in place to install signals in the next few years if I remember correctly. I think it had something to do with the MTA not wanting to pay for installing the lights, so other funding had to be located.

anomalous

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:29:22 -0500

Using Glenn's estimates $18,000 per block divided by 100 apartments/block works out to an assessment of $180 per apartment. That's $15/month, which is negligible for my lower-middle class budget and wouldn't be noticed by the Park Ave. swells.

Tom

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:22:10 -0500

I can tell you that one person is too many. Not really, unfortunately. Unless a death directly affects you, it's a statistic, not a tragedy. 1 person divided by the X million people who use that intersection in a year = safe intersection. Sorry for her loss, but unfortunately a massive, half-million dollar project is neither warranted nor cost-effective every time someone accidently dies. And, frankly, I doubt the city is on the hook for any (or hardly any) money in a wrongful death suit when a car hits a pedestrian (unless a traffic light is malfunctioning) and, if they are, it's probably to the tune of like $30,000, not $600,000.

drewo

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:52:53 -0500

Dan #6: I've heard that explanation too about the lack of Walk/Dont Walk signs on Park. But I find it hard to believe condsidering all the other electrical gear from traffic lights to street lamps that is along Park Ave. I suspect that, like the idea of pedestrian protecting barriers, the "look" of crosswalk signs just doesn't meet the aesthetic standards of the Park Ave community.

Glenn

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:48:58 -0500

Sorry, that's the cost for 72 islands over 36 blocks (60th to 96th)

Glenn

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:47:02 -0500

The Bollards cost about $3000 apiece to install from what I understand. Three per ped island ($9000 per island) times 74 islands over 37 blocks = $648,000 That one time payment sounds like a good deal compared to the payout of any lawsuit I assume the relatives of the next person severely injured or killed on one of those islands would bring against the City.

Brightliner

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:33:59 -0500

With all due respect to Rachael Myers, she needs to get some perspective. "One person is too many"? Yes, safety is important, but at what cost? You can't spend millions of dollars to keep one person safe each year. The cost/benefit ratio just isn't there. If we had unlimited resources, it'd be great, but we obviously don't. Myers is entitled to her grief, but she's being more unreasonable than the most strident 9/11 families.

of joy

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:08:54 -0500

That picture makes me want to cry for what we've lost.

Gwin

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:55:41 -0500

Dan: hmmm, that seems to be a plausible explanation (which might also serve as the answer to the question, "Why does Park Avenue south of 57th seem to be constructed of concrete plates attached by steel beams?") I work at 47th and Park and I find the lack of Walk/Don't Walk signs to be really annoying... On another note, where's the love for Allen Street - the Park Avenue of the LES? kidding!

Dan

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:50:15 -0500

There are no Walk/Don't Walk signs just north of GCT because the train tracks are so high that there's no room under the streets for the appropriate wiring. Or so I'm told.

Glenn

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:33:27 -0500

Jason It happened in 1922 to increase the number of traffic lanes available for cars. http://www.naparstek.com/2005/12/history-of-new-york-city-public-space.php It filled up pretty quickly and confirmed the theory that simply adding new lanes only encourages greater automobile use, thus leading to a loss of public space and more pollution with no gain in transportation efficiency. And this was before Robert Moses got his hands on NYC's streets...

jason

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:20:59 -0500

anyone know when and why they changed it from what looks to have been quite wonderful to its current mediocre state? Just curious about the history of that decision.

me

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:20:42 -0500

does anyone know why park avenue doesn't have 'walk/don't walk' signs in the blocks south of 57th street and north of grand central? i'm rarely there, but when I am, i'm shocked by this, it's tough gauging when the lights are changing also, because of the way their placed there.

S.D.

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:03:37 -0500

I'd rather Park Ave looked like it did in that photo.

mm

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:46:10 -0500

Wow. That picture sucks. I mean to say that it is hard to think that's what Park Ave. once looked like. What a shame it is what it is now.