AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
UPDATE: NY1's first report yesterday on the Union Square Pavilion lawsuit has been corrected. It turns out that, contrary to the initial news, the injunction stopping work on the park’s 78-year-old Pavilion is still in effect.
While parts of the planned renovation to the north end of the park can now proceed, including construction of the expanded playground, the judge has also temporarily stopped the city from cutting down any trees while a lawsuit brought by a coalition of parks advocates and community groups moves forward.
At the center of the controversy is the proposal to turn over the park’s 78-year-old Pavilion to a private restaurateur, heavily rumored to be none other than Shake Shack and Union Square Café owner Danny Meyer. Opponents object to what they see as the privatization of park space and argue that the city needs approval from the state legislature before moving forward with the $21 million overhaul. They also oppose the planned removal of 14 mature trees.
Photo of Union Square Pavilion courtesy Wallyg.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
that was nice to not have the jack hammering, while it lasted...
I have an idea - how about price stabilized food? you know so they can raise the cost of a burger or a shake to $9...
or community discount cards for those in the area to receive a discount for the lost of the park - I'll take my 33% every purchase.
I'm not sure exactly where those trees are but hopefully they won't get cut down. Can't kids play in the grass and around the trees?
The restaurant is a foregone conclusion...
Make it a giant pissoir instead, to give this location that extra touch of class...
Does it bother anyone else that the two parks undergoing controversial renovations at essentially the same time are in such a close proximity to one another?
Why won't someone investigate the Danny Myer
and Parks department connection?
How is it that he alone gets these lucrative
contracts for his eateries,bars?
Did anyone who sits in Madison Square Park smell
the stink from his burgers cooking?
That's not what I call a park of fresh air respite.
Why not give a minority these contracts even a
Vegetarian restaurant that won't smoke up a
sitting area.
We just can't take this commercial BS all over
this once great city ,over and over again.
Lets spray paint ad's on all the sidewalks too!
Ugh,Phhhoooeeeeeyyyyy!
This is yet another case of the Parks Dept. murdering their mission with good intentions. Union Square could use a sprucing up, and the pavilion could use a purpose. But.... jees... do you have to give the shop away to a private businessman AND cut down 14 trees?
This is exactly the same thing that happened at WSP... again, the place needed a clean-up/sprucing-up. So what did Mike Bloomberg and Adrian Benepe and Parks do? Closed the whole thing down and change everything.
If I want my living room painted I'm not calling a demolition crew. You'd think a rich, smart guy like Mike Bloomberg would know that.
Everyone knows that people can plant 14 new trees somewhere else, right?
sad
this would be kinda cool. You would have one line starting at 17th street and one line starting at 23rd street shake shack. Burger Joint makes the same goddamn burger for 2 dollars more and no lines.
The current state of the north end of the park does give it quite a Guantanamo Bay feel though. Come check it out!
sad
What exactly is so "sad" about this?
The trees are to be removed for more playground space. Last week people here were complaining about the lack of playground space in the neighborhood. Yes, the pavilion is being privatized. These are two separate issues. Unless someone is proposing tearing down the pavilion to make way for more trees or more playgrounds then I fail to see what the problem is. In fact, try to do that and the city would probably get slapped with a lawsuit from "Friends of the Pavillion".
If I want my living room painted I'm not calling a demolition crew.
What does that even mean? You say WSP needed "a cleanup/spruce up" but what does that mean in your mind? Seems like you just complain about everything new and want to preserve the status quo. How about making a productive alternative suggestion?
It means, my friend, that the parks needed cleaning up... fresh paint, new benches, reseeding, new playground equipment, etc. What we got instead was the destruction of the fountain at WSP, the impending loss of 14 trees in USP, the subcontracting of the Parks Department to private business interests, and the closing of said parks for inordinate amounts of time.
Oh, and BTW, there was no neighborhood outcry for any of this. If you don't believe me, check the minutes of the community board meetings. This was conceived, implemented,and (in the case of WSP) carried out by City Hall.
It's not so much a default to the status quo, but it seems like, IMHO, we are living in an age of unregulated, out of control change... so if I seem extreme at times, it is because I see extremism in the other direction all around.
Tim, basically all you did was list the changes and assert that all of them are bad. Sorry, but that, my friend, is not much of an argument. If you want to argue how cutting down trees to make playgrounds is a bad thing I would listen to you. But if you are only interested in saving 14 trees for the sake of saving these specific 14 trees I would ask why? Didn't the Mayor propose planting millions of tress citywide over the next decade. What's so special about these trees? The parks department prunes and removes trees every day from parks all across the city.
On the topic of privatizing the pavilion I again have to ask, do you have an alternative solution? Tear it down? Leave it to rot? Have a private enterprise use it but make them pay for the renovation?
As for the "destruction" of the fountain the last I heard they were realigning it with the arch. I really doubt that this is a necessary improvement but in the end they're taking public space and creating public space. You, on the other hand, are acting like they are taking public space and dropping 2000 luxury condos and a Wal-mart on it.
Sorry if I don't think the minutes of community boards are the means of determining public sentiment. Most community boards are fascist organizations dominated by a minority of the residents that impose their will on others and usually that is for no change to anything.
First of all, I respect your points, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. And I don't know what CB's you live under or have lived under, but remind me not to move in there. Mine are not ideal, but not quite what you have had to endure.
As for the 14 Trees, it's not so much the trees themselves, which sucks enough, but the idea that there is this self-imposed mandate for change that the municipal government has assigned for itself. If there is some groundswell from the citizens of the city for this, I haven't seen it. But yet the city goverment continues, Robert Moses-like, to plough through its plans, opposition (or trees) be damned.
Again, just my humble opinion. But members of my family were summarily thrown out of their homes by said same Robert Moses and his goons because he wouln't move the Cross Bronx Expressway four miles to the south. What a do-gooder he was. Does that equal 14 trees or a fountain? No, probably not. But the whiff is the same.
Oh, and speaking of which, the fountain is gone. Destroyed. It may be replaced with something more symmetrical, something more generic, something less threatening, but the fountain is gone.
As for paying for the park upkeep, that's what I thought my taxes were doing. We have conservancies, yes, but it is disturbing to see them selling out to commercial interests.
My argument, however inarticulate, is simple... before we irreperably change something, can we at least ask if the change is really necessary?
Tim, I don't think the comparison to Robert Moses is quite fitting but I hear what you're saying. My entire point is that these are the kind of small changes that don't need to be subjected to endless litigation. Nobody is being uprooted. Nobody is losing anything (except trees). Communities are not being torn apart physically and spiritually like when Moses built his highways. At what point can the government just be allowed to function and make some improvements? I don't know exactly where the line is but it's somewhere in the wide gap between the parks and the Cross Bronx Expressway. If every tree in Bloomberg's million tree campaign has to be subjected to community approval I would suggest that we as a society are doomed.
As for community boards if you haven't seen a problem where you live I offer two theories: One is that everyone in your neighborhood miraculously agrees on everything. The other is that the most vocal have scared the others into silence.
And at what point do the parks serve more than just the immediate area? Should only the residents around Union Square have a say? Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if only the residents of Fifth Avenue and Central Park West could have a say in what happens in Central Park?
And again on the subject of the Pavilion, what is the alternative? Do you think the city is capable of running a restaurant? Tavern on the Green is in Central Park and I haven't heard a huge outcry about private interests marring a public space.
They should have given the Pavillion to the people who run the Green Market there. It is packed every weekend and certainly this would have been a better solution than selling it to a restaurant. The idea of selling parts of a public park to private interests is repugnant.
They should have given the Pavillion to the people who run the Green Market there. It is packed every weekend and certainly this would have been a better solution than selling it to a restaurant.
I totally agree. What the heck! Why a freaking smelly burger joint? They could have just renovated the pavillion. "Tavern on the Green" is on relatively tiny speck of land and in a corner almost invisible. This Shake Shack will practically be front and center.
I don't know what CB's you live under or have lived under, but remind me not to move in there. Mine are not ideal, but not quite what you have had to endure.
I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans on this. In EVERY experience I've had with a community board it's dominated by old people and parents. They're the people who have made it taboo to even suggest opening a new bar in Tribeca.
Kaisen, I'm certainly not going to argue your experience, but I'm just calling it as I see it. I just haven't had the same experience. Maybe they just don't rub me the wrong way, or don't as often. Whatever. I've thought the CB's are like most governments in our land, big and small... sometimes they suck, but for now they're the best we've got.
I also think Gary makes a great point.
ER, your points are well taken, but again, all I ask from the city is please, a little moderation.
wow! a calm discussion with good points being made on both sides?
am i really in a gothamist thread right now?
am i really on the internet right now??
I've thought the CB's are like most governments in our land, big and small... sometimes they suck, but for now they're the best we've got.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Community Boards are not elected, they're appointed and there are no term limits.
I agree that giving the Pavillion to the Green Market people would have been better. Or any other community group... But giving away public park space to private interests is indeed offensive. Our taxes pay for that, people shouldn't be able to make a profit off of it.
Also, with WSP and the removal of the fountain: THe city said they were merely alligning it with the arch (which by the way, Staford White specifically decided not to do, and the park is landmarked!!) but they have actually destroyed the fountain and they are shrinking the gathering space around it by at least 23 percent!!!! THAT is a loss of public gathering space if ever there was one. Also, the new fountain is going to have a smaller seating area and be made in a way that it will be difficult to use as a theater-in-the-round, as it was traditionally used.
I was all for some fixing up of the park, I even could have stomached raising the grade of the plaze area (though not really necessary) however the utterly deceptive, and anti democratic way the WSP "renovation" was rammed through in despicable. Especially with the $2 million "donation" to rename the fountain "Tisch Fountain."
I propose that there be an "un-naming ceremony" for the fountain. Or perhaps we can rename it "schiT Fountain"
Union Sqaure is one the most legendary and historic places of protest in the country and the north end of the park, including the pavillion has been a site hosting many of those protests, rallies, and press conferences for many years. How is it not the loss of public space, if a private restaurant will take over the spot where these protests are held? Will be able to hold rallies on the steps of whatever restaurant goes in there? We should be able to, they are our steps.
the children's play area should be renovated and the northern area of the park should be repaved but why should we, the taxpayers of this city, pay over $15 million so danny meyer can have a restaurant on land that belongs to US??? i don't think i'm going to see a penny of what the restaurant is going to make - are you?
and with the restaurant right next to the children's play area, the smell will be spewing from the kitchen and the rats that will be having a field day with the children.
the story on danny meyer and the parks: he is co-chair of the union square partnership and THEY are the spearheading this restaurant idea. they held the renovation of the children's play area and north plaza hostage until the community board agreed to the restaurant. this has been going on for about 5 years now. and did you know that the union square partnership pays the salaries of the park employees at union square??? hmmmm...interesting isn't it...
and isn't it funny that adrian benepe and jennifer falk have both said a restaurant in union square park would bring safety and vitality to the area...the more people that use the park, the safer it is. so why is it they are always trying to get rid of the artists that set up there? could it be because they don't make a penny off of them? but aren't they making the area safe by their mere presence???
it's all about money - whoever has the most, wins. mayor bloomberg will sell anything in this city to the highest bidder. never mind what the community wants and what's public or private...if you have the money, it's YOURS.
p.s. the alternative to a restaurant is leave the friggin' thing alone! renovate it and let it be! isn't that what our tax dollars are supposed to be doing??? the park makes $500,000 from the holiday market taking over the entire southern end of the park in december, but not one penny goes to union square - it goes to the city's general fund. why not use THAT money to renovate the pavilion and let the park workers move back into their offices, let the children use it as an entrance to the play area...oh heck, why don't we let the public use it?
p.p.s. when the green market managers became aware that the pavilion (formerly known as the children's pavilion) was going to be renovated, they asked the parks department for access to a portion of the space so they could use it as had been formerly used for children's educational purposes. this would permit them a place for presentations to school groups that visit the green market to discuss issues such as nutrition, organics and the benefits of locally grown produce. the parks department refused this request as they were bent on converting the space to a private restaurant for danny meyer.
The proposal for a private, up-scale restaurant by the Parks Department and the Union Square Partnership is ill-conceived and would be a detriment to Union Square Park. There are scores of restaurants and places to eat surrounding the park, so there is no need for another one in the pavilion. The pavilion itself should be refurbished and returned to the public for community and children's activities. The expropriation of scarce public land and facilities is not yet regulated by the City Council. It should be.
The residents of the community, as well those from every district of the city, regularly visit Union Square Park. It is their destination park, a national historic landmark with a grand tradition of free access, open assembly and a forum for free speech. The proposal to privatize the park's pavilion to privilege a restaurant would change the entire character of the park. The community has waited decades for the pavilion to be repaired to serve the increasing need for space and leisure activities of a burgeoning population of children and families. The less affluent, unable to pay the high prices of the café or even the modest cost at a take-out counter would, for the first time in Union Square, feel the sting of discrimination and would no longer have free access to the pavilion.
Ironically, the Parks Department cites the deterioration itself as the reason for a private remedy for that neglect. Columbus Park which has the City's other remaining park pavilion is currently being renovated for the exclusive use of the community, while the pavilion in Union Square Park is being designed for the specific needs of a restaurant. This is unacceptable. The three plans presented to the public thus far, by the Parks Department and the BID have not offered an alternative design for public use only. It is now time for them to listen to the community and do so.
The City, local BIDs and the Parks Department are increasing their attempts to alienate public parkland for commercial use. Every piece of our fast-disappearing parkland and facilities is precious and its loss contributes to the deterioration of the quality of life for City residents and their families—who, by the way, pay taxes to support the much-needed amenity of free and open access to all parts of our parkland. One of the main factors in the push for privatization is that the parks are notoriously underfunded, which is especially egregious considering the millions of dollars--possibly hundreds of millions dollars more--that the taxpayers will be shelling out for the Mets' and Yankees' "privately financed" stadiums.
Under this administration, the score of parkland takeovers for commercial purposes is rising at an alarming rate. The City supports such schemes, and the City Council seems unaware of how much of our green space is slipping away from public to private use. A recent example is the Brooklyn Waterfront project's accommodations for building high-end condominiums. Unfortunately, such commercial projects in and around parks provide a value added for the rich and a net loss of public parkland at the expense of the public. Stuyvesant Park is now also threatened, as is Union Square Park, by the Department's promotion of restaurants and kiosks in very small parks. Such schemes are not in the public interest at these sites, or in ones we don't know about yet. An alarming example is the almost successful Yankees' expropriation of two Bronx parks without notice to or approval by the local community board and residents.
Only by accident did the community find out that the stadium was virtually a done deal, scheduled to sail through the City Council without thorough examination of the public versus private issues involved. Were it not for angry community protests, negotiations to relocate the parks and "sweeteners" to the community would not have been provided.
In the same way, in 2004, the Campaign to Save Union Square Park led the fight against the original proposal. They alerted the public to the Department's renovation plan to minimize the children's playground in order to accommodate an outdoor terrace for a year-round exclusive restaurant. That proposal was roundly rejected by the public. and in the latest proposal the playground will be expanded to the maximum space available --14,687 square feet instead of a mere 8,200 square feet. The Parks Department, however, still intent on privatizing the pavilion, now proposes a seasonal restaurant in the pavilion during the season of greatest public use.
The opposition of elected officials to privatization helped tremendously to win the playground expansion and to defeat the Department's and local BID's attempt to establish a year-round restaurant in the park. Strong opposition to such plans are even more important now. The tenacious efforts of the Parks Department to continue its attempt to privatize the pavilion with not so veiled threats of withdrawing funds from the project must be countered by the City Council and ensure that funding for the renovation is kept intact in order to support the whole community's fight and to secure the pavilion's 2,500 square feet of space for public, not private use.
Unfortunately, the City Council and the public too often learn of many of these maneuvers after the fact. Without an official antidote and regulation of the Parks Department's privatization agenda, the public interest will continue to be ignored. The City Council must ensure an administrative process to oversee the out-of-control Parks Department.
Members of the committee for the Campaign to Save Union Square Park; the hundreds of park users who signed our petition; 60 block associations, city and statewide organizations and local political clubs, as well as 20 national, state and local elected officials and other countless members of the community are opposed to the latest plan. The community is united in its determination to reject the Parks Department's misguided proposal for "fixing" the pavilion. A better proposal would be to privilege the public's need for more space in which to continue the park's great tradition of free and open access for everyone to enjoy all sorts of community-enhancing events.