Glass Tube & Takeout Food Coming To Tavern On The Green

"With all of the important work that is going on, it seems antithetical to go and put a large glass box at the main entrance in the central courtyard. If more restaurant space is needed, it should be accomodated in additions on the secondary façades, a tactic typically required of other landmarked buildings throughout the city." - The Historic Districts Council

Historic Scenic Landmark? The City has repeatedly maintained they removed Tavern On The Green's Crystal Room in order to restore the area to compliment the original Victorian Gothic style building, designed by Jacob Wrey Mould and built in 1870-1871, within the English Romantic style Central Park designed by Olmsted and Vaux.

When the new Tavern On The Green reopens in 2013, the city hopes it will become what the Parks department’s proposal termed "a moderately priced restaurant,” with "a vibrant bar scene," a "bar space for park visitors to meet and gather for a drink and small plates,” as well as a cafe with “both indoor and outdoor seating” that also offers takeout food. Yes takeout food.

The Mayoral approved Landmarks Preservation Committee approved the glass tube design on Tuesday.

"Approving the proposed addition opens the door to insensitive additions in years to come, and the Tavern on the Green begins down the slippery slope from which it is presently recovering,"Landmark West! testified on Tuesday.

"The proposed addition is inappropriate to the historic Tavern on the Green building and the Scenic Landmark setting. We urge the Commission to deny the addition." - Geoffrey Croft

Manhattan

A Victorian Gothic style building, designed by Jacob Wrey Mould and built in 1870-1871, within an English Romantic style public park designed by Olmsted and Vaux. Application is to demolish existing additions, construct a new addition, modify masonry openings, replace infill, install HVAC equipment, and modify landscapes, according to The Historic Districts Council.

The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation. Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the application now before the Commission.

HDC applauds the restoration and uncovering, or rediscovering, of Tavern on the Green. With all of the important work that is going on, it seems antithetical to go and put a large glass box at the main entrance in the central courtyard. If more restaurant space is needed, it should be accomodated in additions on the secondary façades, a tactic typically required of other landmarked buildings throughout the city.

On a lesser note, we also ask that window configurations display more divisions as they do throughout historic photos. The divided light scheme is more in keeping with the romantically rural tradition of the sheep’s fold and Tavern on the Green.

LPC Determination: Approved

Landmark West! is not opposed to new design at the Tavern on the Green site in principle, but a legendary destination and a handsomely designed building such as this deserves something far more sympathetic; a quietly masterful note of our time, they write on their website.

The pavilion proposed is a hefty glass-and-metal box that does nothing but hide what is most exciting about the building's primary facade: the East-facing central bay.

We're disappointed to report that the LPC ultimately approved the City's plan, glass box and all.

Read more from preservation advocates on this issue:

- Statement of Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts

*Central Park, home to Tavern on the Green, was the City's first Scenic Landmark, designated by the LPC in 1974. Learn more about the park and its history in the designation report. Up until now, and until work on the restoration begins, the Tavern on the Green building has served as a visitor's center (more here).

Read More:

Historic Districts Council

February 22, 2012

UPDATE: As historic Tavern on the Green re-emerges,

new addition threatens to obscure once more

Landmark West! - February 23, 2012

In Central Park, Tavern on the Green to rise anew

Landmark West! - February 22, 2012

Throwing Stones at Tavern on the Green's Glass Box

Curbed - February 21, 2012 - By Dave Hogarty

City Looking For "Vibrant Bar Scene" For New Tavern On The Green Consession

A Walk In The Park - December 30, 2011

Parks Dept. Lost Millions In Conssesion Revenue Due To Poor Management - Audit

A Walk In The Park - December 6, 2011

Landmark Preservation Rejects Central Park Conservancy's Cherry Hill Design

"If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” - Landmark Preservation Commissioner.

"There is no way I could support this," said another.

Cherry Hill Concourse photographed in 1982, following restoration. Photo Courtesy: Landmark West!

Manhattan

On Tuesday, May 3rd, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) unanimously disapproved the Central Park Conservancy's proposal to reconstruct Cherry Hill concourse. The proposal would change the elegantly designed circular concourse to one level and install a dark brown resin bound aggregate paving described by one critic as a black donut, and dog poo by another. Critics derided the proposed redesign as resembling a parking lot which they say is being done in part to accommodate the increasing commercial uses of the site.

The commercial uses of the area were also a focus of public testimony as critics questioned the justification of the redesign and use of materials for a more utilitarian purpose. (Vehicles and Parking.) This area is heavily used by film and advertising crews and in April the DPR issued an RFP for a food concession vending cart with a "Victorian-era" look.

The concourse was redesigned in the 1980s. Preservationists have been fighting to keep the much beloved design which includes a circular platform surrounding the fountain, paved in brick and laid out a herringbone pattern, and edged in bluestone in an interlacing star pattern the Conservancy describes as "reminiscent of the Campidoglio Plaza in Rome."

Christopher Nolan, a landscape architect and Vice President of Planning, Design and Construction Central Park Conservancy presented the $ 1.4 million dollar reconstruction plan before the Commission. The project is being funded by the Conservancy and the City.

Public testimony including Defenders of the Historic Upper East Side, Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, Landmark West!, New York City Park Advocates as well as individuals who all spoke in favor of keeping the existing design. Mr. Nolan slumped further and further in his chair as every commissioner rejected the plan.

The LPC will issue an Advisory Report to the Public Design Commission, which has final say. The proposal was reportedly set to go before the Design Commission in May, with a ground-breaking originally expected by early July. No word on whether the Conservancy will withdraw the plan in light of the ruling. According to the LPC website, the next meeting is May 16th. The Central Park Conservancy would have already had to have their application in for review for that date. The following hearing is scheduled for June 6th. - Geoffrey Croft

Cherry Hill concourse today (May 2011).

In 1980, with the founding of the Central Park Conservancy, our City's first Scenic Landmark--Central Park, designated in 1974--began a miraculous transformation. Decades of neglect were slowly and carefully reversed and, after 30+ years, Central Park is the entrancing destination many of us know it to be today, according to Landmark West!

And the work continues! The Central Park Conservancy and the Parks Department, the two bodies who administer the Park, regularly undertake park improvement projects. But they are not alone in their vision to sensitively restore and preserve Central Park. Advocates such as LANDMARK WEST! and our colleagues celebrate the Park not only for its English Romantics origins, but for the incredible changes it has experienced over the decades. At times, administrators and preservation advocates don't see eye to eye on "what's best" for the Park today, for its users, and for the Park's future. The proposal to reconstruct the Cherry Hill concourse is a perfect example ... and it happens to be an advocacy "win" as well!

The ornate Cherry Hill fountain - designed by Jacob Wrey Mould - is the centerpiece of the circular concourse at the crest of Cherry Hill which overlooks the Lake. The circle was designed as a scenic turn-around for carriages, and the Victorian fountain as a watering trough for horses. The Concourse was redesigned by noted landscape architect Phillip N. Winslow and complements the nearby Bethesda Fountain.

The LPC at public hearing on Tuesday (May 3rd) unanimously disapproved the Central Park Conservancy's proposal to reconstruct Cherry Hill concourse. LW! stood strong on the issue of preserving Cherry Hill's layered history; we illustrated it's effective design and good condition; we spoke to the proposed design's degradation of the space to a parking lot (read LW!'s statement here). And the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) stood strong as well!

Said one commissioner: "There is no way I could support this." Another concurred, adding: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Cherry Hill concourse, as designed and revitalized by landscape architect Philip N. Winslow in the 1980s, is beautiful, both in terms of aesthetics and performance. It sets the stage, as many remarked at yesterday's hearing, for pedestrians to take in the views of The Lake. Cherry Hill as a "room" was an allusion heard more than once. And in terms of managing the traffic of horse-drawn carriages and pedicabs alongside pedestrians and other park users, it successfully accommodates them all!

Historic Districts Council summed it up this way:

Spring has sprung and what better time to think about Central Park! The Central Park Conservancycame to the LPC Tuesday with a plan to remove the decorative paving at Cherry Hill (installed with LPC approval in 1980) and to replace it all with a dark brown resin aggregate. The CPC argued that the new material would better reflect the area’s historic use as a scenic turnaround and parking spot for horse-drawn carriages. HDC testified in favor of keeping the existing paving as it is an attractive addition to the park that recalls the beginning of its restoration and rebirth in the early 1980’s.

Defenders of the Historic Upper East Side, Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, Landmark West!, New York City Park Advocates and individuals also spoke in favor of the existing design. Much to our delighted surprise, commissioners all voted to retain the brick paving and replace just the damaged asphalt area with the new material. As one commissioner put it, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Read More:

UPDATE from the FIELD Elegant 1980s at Cherry Hill, Central Park

Landmark West! - May 6, 2011 - As reported by Cristiana Pena

Central Park's Cherry Hill to Close This Summer for Redesign

DNAinfo - April 19, 2011 - By Jill Colvin

Controversial Loeb Boathouse Redesign In Central Park Is Withdrawn

After numerous objections were made at the Design Commission hearing on Monday, plans to redesign a section of the Loeb Boathouse concession in Central Park, including the outside bar, ramp, railings, and deck, were withdrawn.

By Geoffrey Croft

A controversial redesign of Central Park's Loeb Boathouse was withdrawn on Monday, just weeks after the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission had approved it.

Critics derided the addition of a futuristic new bar, which looked a little like a spaceship, as being out of character with the scenic landmark park. The Design Commission agreed, and expressed surprise the plan had made it as far as them. After numerous objections were made at a hearing on Monday, boathouse operator Dean Poll withdrew the application which includes a redesign of the outside bar, a ramp, railings, and deck.

It's another setback for Poll this year, whose takeover of the Tavern on the Green folded when he was unable to reach a bargain with union workers. That landmark space now has four food trucks parked outside, an arrangement that's costing the city millions of dollars in lost revenue.

The president of the Design Commission, James P. Stuckey, recommended that the designers, Koutsomitis Architects PC, and Parks Department go back to the drawing board, according to the preservation group Landmark West! He requested the applicant return to them at staff level and begin the approval process again with three or four new approaches. Commissioners remarked that the design was alien to the environment of the boathouse; they objected to the bar having a beachy, Copacabana feel. Mr. Stuckey asked the applicant to think more about the appropriateness of the design.

Opened in 1954, the Loeb Boathouse fits within the English Romantic style of the public park designed by Olmsted and Vaux in 1856, the Design Commission noted. The plan for the redesign went before the Landmarks Preservation Commission on September 28, and in response to the commission's recommendations, and preservation activists, the architects made a number of mostly cosmetic changes: The bar's roof changed from glass to solid copper with two skylights cut out along the sides to allow light into the bar area. The inner gate and structural housing and columns were changed to a dark gray aluminum to blend into the park. The trellis along the outside of the roof above the seating area is now wood rather than aluminum. A major source of contention was the raising of the dock away from the lake. The new design added a wood step down to the water to better visually connect the dock seating area to the water rather than floating so far above it.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission approved the changes at a subsequent meeting on October 12, over the objections of Landmark West! In testimony before the Design Commission at Monday's hearing, the preservation group said, "By modifying the materials selection—from aluminum to wood, from glass to copper—the reconstructed bar no longer competes with the Loeb Boathouse, nor does it falsely read as an extension thereof. Instead, it is distinctly separate and secondary. Yet for all their intentions, modified dressings do nothing if the design itself remains inappropriate. The bar’s design recalls, first, a suburban mall kiosk and, second, a beach-side rest station. But at no point a neo-Victorian pavilion befitting Central Park."

When reached about Monday's decision, Landmark West! expressed their appreciation. “Landmark West! is incredibly pleased that the Design Commission took a strong stand on this application, especially after it passed through a number of other stages of public review with far less criticism. This was a prime example of money and the desire to generate revenue -- not design integrity -- being the driving force behind park projects. What we get, of course, is an outrageous, flamboyant design that belongs anywhere but in a scenic landmark like Central Park. The Design Commission picked up on this precisely, and we think it’s terrific.”

Last month Community Board 8 also gave the plan a thumb's down. "We had a strong resolution against this, even people who normally wouldn't have cared voted against it," said a CB 8 board member who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It was too tall, bulky, too modern, wrong materials, colors. It's the wrong design for that location. Totally inappropriate. It was an obtrusive presence that called attention to itself."

When asked for comment regarding Monday's proceedings, a representative for Koutsomitis Architects PC said in an e-mail yesterday the firm was "not able to provide information on the project at this time." (The firm also declined to provide a rendering of the design) When reached by phone earlier, the representative said it was going back to the Design Commission "as soon as possible."

The outdoor terrace and bar at the Loeb Boathouse is a popular gathering place to have a drink and light food.

Notes from Monday's Design Commission meeting supplied by Landmark West!

• James Polshek, architect

• This is an historic occasion, as its the first time since the 1970s that I agree with LW!
• Agree that the existing bar is problematic, but the proposed teardrop shape is inappropriate and alien to the environment of the Boathouse
• Geometry of the boathouse works well, and should inspire new design
• (Alluding to LW! statement) The proposed bar has a beachy, Copacabana feel; hint of pergola to the design until things begin to curve, which creates a nautical, ship-like feel, like a barge that is waiting to float out to sea
• Too high (most perceptible when see height of bartender in rendering)
• Surprised that design as-is received so many approvals and made it as far as their Commission
• Believe an appropriate design would be orthogonal

Additional comments were made by Commissioners Signe Nielsen, landscape architect, and James Stuckey expressing agreement with Polshek and other points.

Testimony of LANDMARK WEST!

Certificate of Appropriateness Committee

Before the Design Commission

Loeb Boathouse, Central Park

November 15, 2010

LANDMARK WEST! is a not-for-profit community organization committed to the preservation of the architectural heritage of the Upper West Side.

The LANDMARK WEST! Certificate of Appropriateness design review committee wishes to comment on the application to reconstruct the bar pavilion, a shed and an adjacent site work at the Loeb Boathouse, within Central Park, an English Romantic style public park designed by Olmsted and Vaux in 1856, and designated a Scenic Landmark.

LANDMARK WEST! first reviewed this project on September 14, 2010, almost exactly two months ago. The design at that time could only be categorized as “‘Anywhere, USA’ goes for ‘downtown chic’”. An ultra-white color palette and selection of reflective finishes was totally antithetical to the ruse in urbe character—that is, imbuing the urban city with the rusticity of the country—that defines Central Park. In direct meetings with the applicant, and appearances before our local Manhattan Community Board 7 and before the Landmarks Preservation Commission, we urged the applicant to abandon this inappropriate treatment and to use, rather, dark tones and rustic materials to complement the Loeb Boathouse.

Designed by Stuart Constable in 1954, the Boathouse’s long and low silhouette and use of bricks and stone—rustic materials—harmonize with the surrounding environment. Satellite buildings added later, such as the bar in question, the ticket booth and a utilitarian shed, are constructed in dark tones and wood, to both blend into the larger context of the Boathouse and its surroundings, and not compete with the prominence of the Boathouse.

The design as presented today has evolved since that mid-September review. By modifying the materials selection—from aluminum to wood, from glass to copper—the reconstructed bar no longer competes with the Loeb Boathouse, nor does it falsely read as an extension thereof. Instead, it is distinctly separate and secondary. Yet for all their intentions, modified dressings do nothing if the design itself remains inappropriate. The bar’s design recalls, first, a suburban mall kiosk and, second, a beach-side rest station. But at no point a neo-Victorian pavilion befitting Central Park.

LANDMARK WEST! thanks the applicant for their serious consideration of both our committee’s comments as well as those of the LPC. We believe that the design of the reconstructed bar has been well-served by the public review process, but that the need for further design revision remains.

Parks Department Abruptly Cancels Central Park Tennis Bubble Plan

Rendering:  Irving Polsky, P. E.  Courtesy NYC Park Advocates/LANDMARK West!

Central Park is a National Historic Landmark and New York City’s first Scenic Landmark. 

Manhattan 

By Geoffrey Croft

Under mounting pressure, the Parks Department abruptly withdrew its plans yesterday to build four thirty-five foot high tennis bubbles in Central Park. The diesel powered tennis bubbles would have covered 26 tennis courts located between 93rd and 95th streets on the West side of the park for five months of the year. Additional time would have also be required for set up and break down, thereby cutting into existing outdoor use.

Critics cited high playing fees, the destruction of a scenic landmark, environmental concerns including noise and pollution, and the privatization of public parkland among other reasons for opposing this plan.  The bubble structure would have transformed and negatively altered the visual enjoyment that the public has enjoyed for more than 70 years.  Admission would have cost up to $100 per hour according to the Parks Department. Currently the cost to play tennis for the entire season is $100. The proposed contract would have been for 15 years. 

The 35 foot high bubbles would have also cast shadows on the year-round hard courts for much of the day, making these courts dreary and cold.  More than thirteen hundred people signed an online petition in a few weeks. http://www.petitiononline.com/CPTennis/petition.html. 

Another point of contention was the lack community-based planning and consultation, a recurrent theme in this administration.  The RFP had been released and the concessionaire had already been chosen before Community Board 7 had held a meeting on the issue. This while the Parks department was still maintaining that no decisions had been made.  The City could have saved hundreds of employee hours - including lawyers and revenue personnel - who have worked to put this concession together if they had come to the community first in order to gauge interest.  

Council member Melissa Mark-Viverito,  chair of the Parks & Recreation Committee, held a hearing on park concessions 

on Tuesday where the issue of transparency and community consultation was raised repeatedly.  

Late Wednesday afternoon, four New York State Senators – Liz Krueger, Tom Duane, Eric Schneiderman and Jose Serrano – sent a letter to Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe voicing their strong opposition to the plan. 

"We do not believe that construction of tennis bubbles is appropriate for Central Park," the letter stated.  "We urge you to reconsider this proposal, which has the potential to impact the natural beauty of the park and its environment, and to further privatize public parks space in a way which excludes large portions of our community,"

“Central Park is one of our city’s truly special places—an open, democratic, green oasis in the dense heart of the metropolis," Kate Wood, Executive Director LANDMARK WEST! said in a statement. "Thanks to all of the New Yorkers who spoke up in support of keeping it bubble-free!”

"We are delighted the City made the right decision and called this off," said Geoffrey Croft, president NYC Park Advocates.   "We wish to thank all those who came together so quickly to help defeat this plan. The City must begin to include communities in land use decisions – before decisions are made."

"Community input, community dialogue, community planning –that's what this whole debate was about," said Council member Melissa Mark-Viverito. "If the Department of Parks had just given the larger community the respect it merited then this very public showdown could have been avoided. In the end, I thank Parks for conceding to what we all knew to be true--that these intrusive and enviromentally unfriendly bubbles within the heart of this cherished oasis would have defaced this historic landmark."‬

On April 15, Community Board 8  on the East side voted to take "No Position"  on the Central Park issue.  The Community Board heard passionate testimony against allowing this plan to go forward.  

On the Brain Lerher show the day before, Parks Commissioner said that Community Board 8  "has initially supported" the plan. According to the Community Board resolution adopted in February 2009 they had voted on "a concept."  Even though the board never heard a formal presentation from the Parks Department and knew very few details, that didn't stop the City from attempting to represent that the City had support. 

"Now they can't wave that they have our approval, " a community board member said after the meeting. "We've learned a lot since February 2009."

The Parks Department had even gone before Board 8 located on the East-side, a year before coming before CB 7 located on the West-side, which is much closer to the proposed tennis bubble site. 

This is the second tennis bubble plan that the Parks Department has been forced to abruptly cancel under strong community opposition in recent weeks.  On April 15, the Parks Department announced it was canceling a plan to extend an existing tennis concession to twelve months a year located at the Queensbridge Oval in Manhattan. This would have taken away the usage of a popular ballfield under the 59th St Bridge in a community that has the least amount of park and open space in the entire city. The agreement would have displaced hundreds of children and community residents in order to accommodate a pay-to-play concessionaire who charges the highest rates (up to $180 an hour!) of any tennis facility on city parkland.  The local community board had its first meeting about this issue three months AFTER the contract had been signed with the concessionaire. 

The amount of commercial activity and events has exploded on city parkland. The  City is increasingly relying on these revenue deals to help make up cuts in the city's general budget by turning our public parks into cash cows.  The revenue division at the parks department is now in charge of over $110 million in revenue from concessions and lease agreements for parks. 

A special thanks to all the folks at LANDMARK WEST! including Arlene Simon, Kate Wood and Cristiana Peña; The Sierra Club; elected officials including, Liz Krueger, Tom Duane, Eric Schneiderman and Jose Serrano, Council-member Melissa Mark-Viverito and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio; Community Board 7 Chair, Mel Wymore; Moisha Blechman, Margaret Doyle, the tennis players, and many more!!  

Central Park Advocates in the Press

Landmark West - April 30, 2010

City Scraps Plans To Build Tennis Bubble In Central Park

NY 1 - April 29. 2010 - By Vivian Lee

Winter tennis in Central Park nixed

New York Post - April 29, 2010 - By Rich Calder

City Lets the Air Out of Tennis Bubble Plan

Wall Street Journal -  April 29, 2010 - By  Craig Karmin

Central Park Tennis Bubbles Popped

Our Town -  By Dan Rivoli  -  April 29, 2010 

Concessions in Public Parks: City Council committee talks process reform

Landmark West - April 28, 2010 - Cristiana P.

Stop the Central Park Tennis Bubbles!!

Help Protect Central Park - A National Historic Landmark and New York City’s first Scenic Landmark - From Commercial Encroachment!

In an effort to generate additional revenue for the City, The City of New York/Parks and Recreation is proposing building four - 35-foot high, diesel powered tennis bubbles covering 26 tennis courts in Central Park for 5 months of the year. Additional time would also be required each Fall to erect the bubbles, and to remove  them in the Spring which would would cut into existing outdoor use.  The proposed contract would be for 15 years. This is a for profit venture by the City and a private company. The bubble structure will transform and negatively alter the visual enjoyment that the public has enjoyed for more than 70 years.

• Admission will cost up to $100 per hour according to the Parks Department. Currently the cost to play tennis for the entire season is $100. The hefty price tag to play undermines the "democratic character" of the park. Help prevent the City from turning Central Park into a Cash Cow. 

•  At dusk, and through the night, each bubble would glow from the interior lighting. It would be a new visible intrusion for people living in the surrounding buildings.  Generators would run on diesel fuel stored in four tanks; each tank holds 2,300 gallons. Noise from the generator is classified at 65 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the generator. It would be heard by anyone walking or sitting nearby at all times during the 5 months of operation. This is a unnecessary source of emissions and would impinge on the Park's value as a soothing refuge and a contrast to the built city environment. The bubble would one of the largest "non-historic" structures in the park. This is inappropriate to the landmark design and setting of the park.

•  The 35 foot high bubble will cast shadows on the year-round hard courts for much of the day, making these courts dreary and cold.  Noise from the generator will also be detrimental for the players and visitors alike.  

•  Tennis bubbles have a capacity of 1,000 people per week which means an additional 4,000 people coming into this area. The parks department anticipates the use of golf carts, or shuttle vehicles to accommodate the increased crowd.

All these changes together will have a significant impact on existing park uses.  

It is clear that the erection and operation of the bubbles could cause significant light pollution, noise pollution, CO2 pollution, park wildlife habitat destruction and the dissolution of scenic/aesthetic values over a much greater area than the footprint of the bubble itself. 

Even though Community Board 7's first public meeting to review the proposal was held on March 7, 2010,  the Parks Department said they had already chosen a concessionaire and was currently in negotiations. 

Neither the Department of Parks and Recreation, nor the Central Park Conservancy, appear to be interested in understanding the true impact of the bubble proposal since there are no plans for either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Please sign the petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/CPTennis/petition.html  Please spread the word!

For more information - Please contact - Geoffrey Croft - NYC Park Advocates

(212) 987-0565  Email: croft.nycparkadvocates@cox.net

Our parks should not be used as cash cows. 

“The glory of Central Park is having developed a culture of recreation that in no way impinges on the Park's value as a soothing refuge and a contrast to the built city environment. In all seasons people can walk, run, bike, skate board, relax. All of these recreational activities are free to all citizens and all of them take place sympathetically with wildlife and the planted beauty of the Park."  - Sierra Club Resolution