Bloomberg: Crime Stat Manipulations are "Tiny"
Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
School Already Canceled Tomorrow for Snowpocalypse!
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
In August, a sudden summer storm downed hundreds of trees across city parks. Central Park suffered a great deal of damage between 90th and 100th Streets, with tree canopies "simply wiped away" and animals confused.
The Central Park Conservancy, which maintains the park, had started an appeal for donations to help fund the clean-up, estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. Today, JPMorgan Chase announced a $1 million donation to help restore the trees.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I stopped donating to them because they are silent about the cruelty of the carriage horses. shame on them. I guess trees are more important then the poor horses.
I stopped donating to them because they are silent about the cruelty of the carriage horses. shame on them. I guess trees are more important than the poor horses.
If they don't take care of the trees in the park there won't be habitat for our furry and feathery friends that live there!
Restore Trees???
I stopped donating when a park worker yelled at my 4 year old son "No tree climbing in the park". Yes tree climbing is prohibited, which I get if you are a 190 pound man, but a 35 lb kids hanging from a branch.
That and the way fields are more like "grass museums" than areas for public usage.
I get it they do an amazing job making the park great and private donations make that possible, but it is still a park. And they can take themselves way too seriously.
For example the signs they put up about this "devastating" storm. Calm down, Katrina was devastating. This storm killed trees and with the market up bankers will be throwing money at them. The view from 5th ave is seriously diminished.
Your 4 year old sun could have fallen on his head then the park gets sued.
The more trees the better. The city doesn't have enough of them.
Your 4 year old son could fall on his head then the park gets sued.
The more trees the better. The city doesn't have enough of them.
I was told it was to protect the trees. If the rule is to avoid lawsuits I have even more people to be annoyed at. If I let my son climb a tree the people responsible for his safety are me and me.
It is to protect the trees, if your kid wants to go climb on something take him to a jungle gym or one of the numerous playgrounds all over the park.
Maybe you didn't live here when the park was a poorly maintained, dangerous place, but I for one appreciate how seriously they take maintaining it and I gladly donate to keep it that way.
As to your point about play grounds, we use them heavily and this encounter was one time. So I'm not out to have my kids destroy anymore of the parks trees. But if we are walking past a tree and they want to sit on a branch or hang from one and the tree is healthy they should be allowed to. I like to think my kids get it, my 9 year old girl thinks it is rude when people pick flowers because then others can't see them. So the idea of respecting the park for the sake of others is something they get.
And I was here in the 70s 80s 90s and 00s, so I get your point. But taking it "seriously" and being realistic about how the space should be used aren't the same thing. I never played on a field with more that a few patches of grass. So seeing it now is great, but what is the point if the red flags go up all the time and you can't use the fields. They may run the park, but it isn't theirs. I think that point is often lost on them. I think they view Central park as their urban oasis and they are often overprotective. It's as though they are more interested in how it looks than anything else. I find that odd.
If there is a park in the city but no one can use it is there actually a park? An exaggeration for sure, but it underscores my point.
Don't you get that Central Park is just a set for shooting movies and model portfolios? Its not for recreation.
I'm sick of all this fundraising for Central park. its already 1000X nicer than the Mad Max parks we have Greenpoint. Even Prospect Park looks shabby compared to it. Rich people - you have everything already, why dont you share a little wealth with the people who have to live with your sewage and garbage and build a nice park in Greenpoint?
McGolrick is nice.
its Winthrop park - dont reconize that bullshit 1940s renaming for that fool monsiquinor. Winthrop is a nice park buts its what 5 or 10 acres big. Central Park is like a 1K acres. you can compare em.
Actually the damage was more like 3 million dollars worth. They lost over 500 trees, including two of the oldest trees in the park. The Conservancy raises 85% of it's own operating budget and now they have to raise more on top of it for repairs.
In regards to the "grass museums" the top soil in the park is only about 8-10 inches deep in any given area, it's extremely close to the bedrock (which is why NYC is able to build so many skyscrapers). The conservancy monitors the grass at certain times (esp after rain) because if it gets too compacted from people walking, running, playing on it, the grass will die and it'll turn into a dust bowl.
Hate on the Conservancy as much as you want, but look up pictures of Central Park from the 80s and take into consideration all of the work and restoration that they have put into it.
I don't hate, but I'll take the bait.
If the grass isn't sustainable when used because of bedrock etc, what is the point of restoring it? All I can think is that they ignored geography for the sake of some vision of what a park should be. If that vision isn’t' realistic why chase it? Soccer or softball or touch football played on well groomed dirt, why not? I think of the dust bowl at East 97th, always packed with people playing games. Sure a nice grassy field would be better. But I think there is an argument here. Getting more kids and adults out playing more often even on a patchy grass and dirt field is better than a pretty field of grass you can't use half the time. And I agree with many rules for the grass fields, no cleats for example, so again I don’t hate. But I do have some questions.
There's lots of the park you can use all the time. The red flags only appear in some areas. There have been a few times I was disappointed to see the red flags out when I was taking my kid to the North Meadow, but overall it's worth it to have a nice meadow so we just went elsewhere. IMO, of course.
First, I apologize for the usage of the word hate, it was too strong for the point I was trying to convey; it just strikes a cord with me when I feel like the Conservancy doesn't get the respect it deserves for the massive amount of work they put into the daily maintenance of the park.
As for the question of why bother restoring it if it can't ever be used, there's isn't a simple answer to that question because the issue isn't black and white. When the park was originally designed in the 1860s, it was for passive recreation. The intent was to provide a place that people could escape the city and get fresh air and relax and reconnect with nature--before Central Park the only place people could go (unless they were rich) was Greenwood Cemetery. Cut to 1920 when Robert Moses was the Park Commissioner and he recognized the park needed to provide a place for active recreation--he paved the paths, added the ball parks and filled in a receiving reservoir to create the Great Lawn.
To cut off my history lesson, I guess my whole point is Central Park was originally, and in my opinion remains today, an escape from the concrete jungle that is New York. Personally, I would rather look at and lay on a lush grassy field than a stretch of dirt. But I'm guessing that's the difference on our views--I'm passive recreation and from the sounds of it you consider the park a place for active recreation. The park has always been, and will always be, FOR the people, but if you want there to be a park to enjoy, it needs to be taken care of.
One last point to the soil compaction argument--if the soil gets too packed, the grass isn't the only thing that will die, so will the trees. The roots can't go down, so they spread out. The conservancy is just trying to maintain the beauty and the nature for everyone, not just their own views.
Good points. Thanks. I love to lie in the grass. I just generally have my doubts when a small group is given enormous authority over a public entity. But public/private partnerships are clearly needed and this is an example of one that has, for the most part, made a city treasure better. So I say, "thank you conservancy".
Incidentally, I've been informed by my wife she ignored my protests about the tree climbing incident and we have given them money every year. Head back in sand, or the dirt field of my youth, in 3-2-1.
Frankly, Frank, your response to the tree climbing incident was ridiculous. You would really stop making charitable contributions to the conservancy because of a minor problem with a misguided low-level employee? That seems more shrill than rational.
Another good deed performed by an investment bank.