Michael Van Valkenburgh Sued For "Malpractice" Over Dangerous Brooklyn Bridge Park Lighting Design

"MVVA was careless, failed to use reasonable and customary care, departed from accepted practice, and failed to perform services in accordance with professional standards, and therefore committed professional malpractice in its design and in its construction supervision of the Shade Sail Structures"   - Lawsuit



Endangering The Public. Brooklyn Bridge Park designer Michael Van Valkenburgh (MVVA) is being sued again by the City this time over faulty designed light poles and shade sails installed at Pier 5’s soccer field in December 2012.  The items were designed to withstand 100 mph winds or more but they were destroyed eight days after the field’s opening by less strong winds, "as a result of defective design and construction supervision by MVVA," according to the lawsuit.  This is at least the second time Van Valkenburgh has been named in a suit by the City involving dangerous Brooklyn Bridge Park designs.  (Image: DNAinfo)

Brooklyn

By Geoffrey Croft

The honeymoon is apparently over between the  Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation and the park's private designer, Michael Van Valkenburgh Landscape Architects, (MVVA).

  

The City, on behalf of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation (BBP) is suing the firm  over faulty designed light poles and shade sails installed at Pier 5’s soccer field in December 2012.      The suit was first reported by DNAinfo. 

The light poles and shade devices were supposedly designed to withstand 100 mile per hour winds or more, but they were destroyed eight days after the field’s opening by 75 mph winds,  "as a result of defective design and construction supervision by MVVA," according to the lawsuit. 

"the design proved to incapable of with standing even much lower winds," the suit contends. 

MVVA was responsible for the feasibility analysis, design, and construction support services for the Shade Sail Structures.    

A second company,  HNTB Corporation, an engineering firm is also named in the suit. 

The lawsuit states that BBP had repeated meetings and communications with MVVA and HNTB concerning the design and construction of the Shade Sail Structures. At these meetings, BBP, MVVA and HNTB repeatedly discussed the need to produce a design that was capable of withstanding foreseeable wind conditions of 100 miles per hour or more. 

The suit was filed on November 27th and seeks $1,294,931 in damages and aims to "recover damages suffered by BBP as a result of defective design and construction supervision by MVVA."

The City's Corporation Counsel is suing on behalf of the plaintiff, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation.

Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation contracted with MVVA to design the park including the construction of the Shade Sail structures at Pier 5 in the park.  MVVA subcontracted the work out to HNTB to design the structures. 

"As a result of MVVA’s and HNTB’s contractual and professional  failures, the Shade Sail Structures had to be substantially redesigned and rebuilt, at great cost to BBP." 

BBP asked MVVA to design and oversee the construction of overhead lighting and subsequently asked it to modify the design to provide shade on the Pier 5 playing field.

The suit does not mention however why they hired a landscape architecture firm for such work. 

After the malfunction of the Shade Sails, the Park conducted a Structural Peer Review of the design which concluded that there were " fundamental flaws in HNTB’s design of the Shade Sails…. Specifically, the tie rods, the light  poles, base plate and reinforced concrete foundations were each inadequate as a matter of design to withstand 100 mile per hour winds."

So basically everything. 

When the Park asked HNTB to fix the damage to the Shade Sails, "HNTB no longer stood behind its own original design," the suit states. 

This is at least the second time Van Valkenburgh Associates have been named in a suit by the City involving dangerous Brooklyn Bridge Park designs.  

Within a few weeks of the opening of the playground at Pier 1 the park was forced to remove irresponsibly designed metal orbs after they were found to be burning children including  thirteen-month-old Paula Sporlar who suffered second degree burns.   

Two years later tax payers shelled out $ 17,500 to the Sporlar family for her injuries. 

During the suit the city tried to shift blame to the playground designer by filing a third-party suit against Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates claiming that any negligence was the designer’s fault. The judge ordered the city and the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation to pay the settlement.

No word if those funds were ever recovered from MVVA.    

April 7, 2010. The controversial metal domes in Brooklyn Bridge Park's Pier 1 Playground are covered up after several children are injured including thirteen-month-old Paula Sporlar who suffered second degree burns.  The irresponsibly designed domes were soon removed. Tax payers shelled out  $ 17,500 to the Sporlar family for her injuries. (Photo: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates)

Not Just The Heat. Kira Foley, 5½, smashed her nose and lost a tooth playing on the metal domes within five minutes of the playground's opening on March 22, 2010.

A week after the Brooklyn Bridge Park incidents the city was forced to caution off a larger version of the metal dome in the newly opened Michael Van Valkenburgh designed Evelyn's Playground Union Square Park because children were also getting burned.  The "play feature" structure was closed off for months.  A massive green awning was finally installed above the six-foot high steel climbing dome at a reported cost of $ 100,000.   Several people have been injured on the climbing orb since it opened.

Evelyn's Playground is at the top of City Comptroller Scott Stringer playground-related personal injury claims report where at least 11 children and a mother were hurt. 

Why is a landscape architect firm being allowed to design playgrounds on goverment properties?  Hadn't anyone seen the multi-million dollar disastrous Teardrop Park in Battery Park City?  

Same Designer, Same Problem.  May 1, 2010.  Evelyn's Playground.  A week after the Brooklyn Bridge Park incidents the city was forced to close off the giant silver dome in Union Square Park because children were getting burned.  A massive green awning was installed at a reported cost of $ 100,000. Several people have been injured on the Union Square climbing "play feature" structure.   (Photo: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates)

The Union Square Partnership BID hired the landscape architect firm to redesign the playground for some reason.  

Read More:

Brooklyn Bridge Park's Faulty Light Poles Blow Over in a Stiff Breeze: Suit

DNAinfo - December 4, 2015 - By Alexandra Leon

City Forced To Pay Family Of 1-Year-Old Burned In Brooklyn Bridge Park Playground
A Walk In The Park - October 25, 2012 

Brooklyn Bridge Parks' Burning Domes Replaced With Playhouses

A Walk In The Park - July 1, 2010

Union Square Playground's Metal Dome Burning Kids

A Walk In The Park - May 24, 2010 - By Geoffrey Croft

Van Valkenburgh's Scalding Domes Removed From Brooklyn Bridge Park

A Walk In The Park - June 29, 2010

Union Square Dome Opens But Problem Not Entirely Solved

A Walk In The Park -  June 22, 2010

Van Valkenburgh's Metal Domes To Be Removed After Burning

Toddler In Brooklyn Bridge Park

A Walk In The Park - June 18, 2010 

Brooklyn Bridge Park Playground "burning orbs of death"

A Walk In The Park - April 30, 2010 

Brooklyn Bridge Park Visitors Slam Heat and Traffic Peril

A Walk In The Park - April 9, 2010 

More Fallout From Brooklyn Bridge Park's 'Dangerous' Metal Domes

A Walk In The Park - April 8, 2010

Brooklyn Bridge Park Playground Burning Kids

A Walk In The Park - April 7, 2010 

Union Square Park Restaurant: High-End Eatery Not Returning To Children's Pavilion

(Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates)  Click on images to enlarge

An empty Pavilion Market Cafe in Union Square Park at lunch time. Is the controversial restaurant faltering? The restaurant was forced to eliminate breakfast service months ago due to poor business.  "The staff have left in droves,"  said an employee.  "Its hard to staff a seasonal restaurant and it doesn't help when the business is not there."    

The City is allowing the restaurant to remain open until October 31, past yesterday's "on or about" October 15 deadline.

A Park Experience? The concessioner was required to install up to a seven foot high barrier to separate the playground from the restaurant which is on the other side of the faux grass on the wall (above). 

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

The controversial restaurant will not be returning to the historic Woman's & Children's pavilion in Union Square Park NYC Park Advocates has learned.  

Administration officials are currently working out the details which would move the high-end eatery out of the pavilion building and into the north end of the plaza.

One of the sticking points left is how much of the north end would the restaurant take up and whether or not the indoor space which is currently being utilized by the restaurant's kitchen would be removed and instead be used for community and neighborhood uses. 

The de Blasio administration had initially rebuffed the community,  and the local elected officials who have been unanimous in their opposition.

In January in one of the first court appearances under the new administration  city lawyers argued before the New York Court of Appeals that luxury restaurants belong in public parks – and it doesn’t matter how much they charge to eat there,  how many people can't afford it or how much land they take away.  In fact,  the city said,  these eateries can take up to “98 percent” of a park. 

The de Blasio administration shockingly argued in the State's highest court that there is virtually is no limit in the amount of space a restaurant can occupy in a public park. The city also argued that didn't matter how high the prices were even if the vast majority of people would be prohibited from affording it  - a restaurant would qualify as a "park purpose" under the law.  

No More Breakfast. The cheapest food item is a single piece of shrimp for $ 4 dollars.

The City’s Law Department also vigorously argued that it retains the legal right in the license granted to the restaurant concessionaire to freely terminate the contract “at will” at any time, citing the agreement.  

The Court of Appeals decision came at a critical time as parkland alienation,  the sale,  lease or use of parkland for non-park purposes without State legislative authorization,  was routinely exploited under the Bloomberg administration.  Increasingly the city has allowed parkland to be taken from communities and used as cash cows or as free real estate for commercial or industrial purposes in flagrant disregard of the law critics charge.

In March, numerous City, State and Federal elected officials sent a strongly worded letter to Mayor de Blasio imploring him to cancel the Bloomberg - era contract to build the controversial high-end bar/restaurant in the historic pavilion.

There is nothing progressive about displacing families, children, seniors and eliminating one of the county's most historic free speech sites in a public park. On Sunday March 9, elected officials,  community residents and representatives from more than 50 neighborhood associations came together to call on Mayor De Blasio to void the concession agreement and give back the pavilion to the people and do what is right for New York City.  


In April  at a closed-door meeting close to a dozen elected officials and representatives met with top administration officials at City Hall.

The group included  Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer,   NY State Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried,  City Council Member Corey Johnson and representatives from  NY State Assembly Member Deborah Glick, State Senators Liz Krueger, Brad Hoylman, and Public Advocate Letitia James,  as well as a senior advisor to Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito.   

Administration officials included Jon Paul Lupo,  director of the Office of City Legislative Affairs,   Marco Carrión, head of the mayor’s Community Affairs Unit, Emma Wolfe,  director of intergovernmental affairs and Peter Hatch, de Blasio's former chief of staff as Councilman and now senior advisor to first deputy mayor Anthony Shorris who lead the meeting.   

The elected officials presented their case and argued that the administration had the legal right to cancel the restaurant contract as the city had represented in court and won.

Administration officials were not moved. They countered by saying that canceling the contract was not so easy, a concept they were not so forthcoming about to the Court of Appeals, and was one of the major reasons why the court ruled in thier favor. 

Mayoral officials at the meeting also argued that canceling the contract would create "a bad precedent" for business.  

"They feel an obligation to the concessioner's investment, " said an elected official who attended the meeting, an account that was confirmed by several attendees.

"But what about the tens of millions in public money that was spent."    

The elected officials were not buying that excuse as both the city, and the concessioner were aware long before the business spent a dime that is was an issue.  

A few weeks after the meeting however elected officials were told by de Blasio officials that a deal had been made by the administration which would require the restaurant to move after the 2014 season which ends "on or about October 15"  according to concessionaire's license agreement with the city. 

NY State Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried, and State Senator Liz Krueger  included the news of the move in their most recent newsletters. 

As Public Advocate Bill de Blasio wrote to the New York State Liquor Authority expressing his "concern" in granting Chef Driven Market a liquor license adjacent to a public playground.  

"I urge the State Liquor Authority  to explore and weigh whether the license being sought by  Chef Driven Market, LLC is in the best interests of this community," he wrote in the October 19, 2012 letter. (below)

"In your delberations, I urge you to consider the proximity of similar businesses in the immediate area and the effect of this type of establishment will have on children using the adjacent playground," de Blasio wrote.


March 9, 2014. Assembly Member Richard Gottfried making a point.  

Is The Restaurant Faltering? 

It appears the controversial Pavilion restaurant may be not selling as many $495 bottles of Cristal champagne as they had hoped.

Several Chef Driven Market employees painted a bleak picture of restaurant fortunes.

The restaurant was forced to eliminate breakfast service months ago due to poor business and now the cheapest food item is a single piece of shrimp for $ 4 dollars.

On a recent afternoon a slight but steady drizzle left only the center tables dry from the cold damp wetness.  

"The staff have left in droves," said a The Pavilion Market Cafe employee on a recent visit.

"Its hard to staff a seasonal restaurant and it doesn't help when the business is not there."

When asked to estimate how many staff remain the employee replied,  "scant."

"They're trying to extend it to November 8th but I don't think we'll make it. Look at it," the employee said while pointing to the empty restaurant.  

"The city will evaluate The Pavilion's performance during its first season, and make adjustments as deemed necessary to their operation moving forward," the Parks Department said in a statement declining to comment on the deal.

The City is also allowing the restaurant to remain open until October 31, past yesterday's October 15th deadline because they opened on May 1st,  fifteen days later than thier contract specified. 

Background

The area around Union Square Park has the lowest amount of playground space but the highest concentration of restaurants in the entire city.  Since 2004 Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Union Square Partnership — a Business Improvement District/Local Development Corporation — have attempted to seize thousands of square feet of potential recreation and neighborhood space by turning the historic pavilion into a high-end restaurant.  The BID has been allowed to dictate public land use policy aided by an eight million dollar anonymous donation.

For the past decade the community has been fighting to have the historic pavilion in Union Square Park restored to its former uses which include a sheltered,  indoor recreation center that served a variety of year-round recreation and free public uses for children,  teens,  families,  seniors,  and the greater community at large.

In 2004,  Save Union Square Park,  a grass roots,  community - based campaign was organized by NYC Park Advocates to advocate for the needs of the community. With the help and support of 57 community organizations,  elected officials and a broad-based labor coalition,  the campaign succeeded in defeating an irresponsible plan to create a year-round restaurant and greatly increased the amount of playground space,  much of it recaptured from play areas lost to the previous seasonal cafe.

Plaintiffs including the Union Square Park Community Coalition sued claiming the City violated the Public Trust Doctrine which says that municipal park land can not be used for non-park purposes without the consent of the State Legislature. 

Read More:

Union Square pavilion restaurant could be cooked, local pols say

The Villager - October 16, 2014 -  By Lincoln Anderson

Union Square Park: Mayor de Blasio Called On To Halt 

Controversial Bar/Restaurant & Return Historic Pavilion For Community Uses

A Walk In The Park - March 10,  2014 - By Geoffrey Croft

No Limits On Restaurant Space Or Prices In Parks - City

A Walk In The Park -  January 16,  2014 - By Geoffrey Croft

As Public Advocate Bill de Blasio wrote to the New York State Liquor Authority expressing concern. 

Elected officials including Rosie Mendez, Dan Garodnick and Gale Brewer also wrote to the State Liquor Authority. 

Man Assaulted In Union Square Park

A Mess. The encampment, known for illegal drinking, drug use,  fighting and general filth, prevents the general public from accessing this section of the park.   (Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on images to enlarge.

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

The South-West part of Union Square Park near the Mohandas Gandhi statue on 14th Street has become the wild-wild west. 

Last night a fight broke out and a man was punched in the face NYC Park Advocates has learned.

The victim sustained a bloody mouth, mouth and nose according to police.

Nicholas Nelendez, 23 of Webster Avenue in the Bronx was arrested and charged with Assault after he and the victim had a verbal altercation.  

The victim was treated by EMS and released.

The Parks Department removed all the permanent benches from the area. Maintenance workers say they are afraid to go into the area.


The incident occurred around 7:00pm between the park's ornamental fountain and the Gandhi statue which has been a hotbed of illegal activity for several years.

The area is known for illegal drinking, drug use and fighting. 

For years calls for the Parks Department to re-establish a permanent multi-tour PEP presence in the park have fallen on deaf ears.

Instead of addressing these conditions the parks department went so far as to remove all the benches in the area to discourage the illegal behavior. 

However removable chairs and tables provided by the Union Square Partnership have replaced the permanent benches.

"Its ugly, it's a blight on the park," said a parks worker referring to that section of the park.  

"Things happen there all the time. They come from all over to hang out and cause trouble. Being that this is such a high visibility park and they just spent all that money you would think the city would care but they don't.  It's sad people don't feel safe.  These people prevent regular people from enjoying that area of the park. That's not right,"  the worker said.      

Another Causality. The Parks Department has blocked access to the circular area around the historic George Washington Statue due to its inablity to police the area.  

Union Square Park: Mayor de Blasio Called On To Halt Controversial Bar/Restaurant & Return Historic Pavilion For Community Uses

There is nothing progressive about displacing families, children, seniors and eliminating one of the county's most historic free speech sites in a public park. On Sunday community residents and representatives from more than 50 neighborhood associations came together to call on Mayor De Blasio to void the concession agreement and give back the pavilion to the people and do what is right for New York City.   (Photos: Courtesy NYC Park Advocates) Click on images to enlarge

(from L) US Representative Carolyn Maloney,  State Senator Brad Hoylman, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, former Council member Carol Greitzer,  NY State Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried, NYC Park Advocates president Geoffrey Croft, City Council Member Corey Johnson and civil rights attorney Norman Siegel.

The new administration has an opportunity to set a very important tone concerning its public policy towards parks.

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

Children, parents, seniors,  elected officials, advocates, community residents and representatives from more than 50 neighborhood associations came together on Sunday to call on Mayor de Blasio to cancel the Bloomberg - era contract to build a controversial high-end bar/restaurant in the historic Woman's & Children's Pavilion in Union Square Park. 

On Friday seven elected officials sent a letter to Mayor Bill de Blasio with the request.

The signatories included US Representative Carolyn Maloney, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer,   NY State Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried, State Senators Liz Krueger and Brad Hoylman, City Council Member Corey Johnson.

For the past decade the community has been fighting to have the historic pavilion in Union Square Park restored to its former uses which include a sheltered, indoor recreation center that served a variety of year-round recreation and free public uses for children, teens, families, seniors, and the greater community at large.

The area around Union Square Park has the lowest amount of playground space but the highest concentration of restaurants in the entire city.  In Community District 5 there are only two playgrounds, but more than 150 eating establishments, bars and markets within just a two-block radius of the park.  

Despite this history, and the serious need for additional recreational and sheltered community space, since 2004 Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Union Square Partnership, a business improvement district (“BID”), have attempted to seize thousands of square feet of potential recreation and neighborhood space by turning the historic Pavilion into a high-end bar and restaurant despite vehement community opposition. The BID, run by Bloomberg's former deputy press secretary,  paid for and pushed though a plan which displaces all of the traditional community uses. 

The BID has been allowed to dictate public land use policy aided by an eight million dollar anonymous donation. 

 Assembly Member Richard Gottfried making a point.  

The City's lawyers have repeatedly argued that the contract can be canceled by the administration at no cost to the tax payers. 

“The Mayor has the legal right to cancel this contract for any reason,” said Assembly Member Richard Gottfried.  

“As the concession agreement provides and the City’s Law Department vigorously argued to the New York State Court of Appeals, the license is freely terminable “at will” at any time.

We have any number of restaurants, but we have only one park pavilion, and we want it back. Fortunately, we have a new mayor who has the power, and we hope, the will, to give it back to us. We know he has the power to give it back to us, because when the city was in court, they argued that there's nothing to worry about, because the city can breach the contract and give the pavilion back at will, at any time. Well, that's right, and we want to give it back now. That's the law, that's our right, and that's what this community needs."

 “For years this community has made it plain that it would be unconscionable to turn a part of Union Square Park, which has historically been a center of activism, recreation and other park uses, into just another high-end restaurant,"  said Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney.

"It blows my mind that the previous administration would consider confiscating precious park space to develop another fancy eatery and watering hole.  I strongly urge Mayor de Blasio to cancel the arrangement.  

I join my colleagues in the neighborhood by saying that this is one of the dumbest ideas that I have seen, to take parkland and turn it into a restaurant," the Congresswoman continued.

"We need to stop this, we need to stop it now. And fortunately we have a new mayor who can turn this around. We are a community that is absolutely starved for open space and parkland...Every inch is valuable to the families and the children, and we need every square inch of this park to stay a park. We have lovely restaurants all around here, and we shouldn't have to give a large chunk of this park for a high end restaurant...We can think of hardly anything that is less suited for this park than a high end restaurant," she said. 

“It's beyond ironic that the Union Square pavilion where Emma Goldman and Dorothy Day made history practicing their brand of free speech could instead become home to free-range pork," said Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer. 

"This neighborhood already has an enormous choice of restaurants – and a shortage of park space.  To put a restaurant here, in this designated National Historic Landmark, puts a price tag on the public’s enjoyment of what should remain a public space. 

This is a community of restaurants, and all you have to do is walk around to see them all, and there's very little park space. There are millions of people in this park every single day...We need every single opportunity for public space. This is really a unique, fabulous pavilion, and we want it available to the public, and that's why I'm here. I'm for restaurants in parks, but not this one," she said.

“There is nothing progressive about displacing families, children, seniors and eliminating one of the county's most historic free speech sites in a public park, said Geoffrey Croft of NYC Park Advocates and a board member of The Union Square Community Coalition both  plaintiffs in the lawsuit.    

"The new administration has an opportunity to set a very important tone concerning its public policy towards parks.  We are requesting that the Mayor void the concession agreement and give back the pavilion to the people and do what is right for New York City. The BID has been allowed to dictate public land use policy aided by an eight million dollar anonymous donation.  This is terrible public policy.” 

Geoffrey Croft holding up a photograph and rendering of competing uses for the pavilion — mommy and me yoga and the proposed high-end bar/restaurant. 

The community is demanding that the Parks Department allow for community input in a fair and open process that gives organizations and the public the opportunity to submit proposals to be re-established to its original intent as public space.

"This shouldn't be a tale of ‘two pavilions,’ said former City Councilmember Carol Greitzer who represented the area for 21 years. 

"The Columbus Park pavilion serves the recreational needs of all age groups while this one, although designated the Children's Playroom nearly 150 years ago, has been allowed to deteriorate by the Parks Department.   A restaurant would displace families, children, seniors, and eliminate one of the county's most historic free speech sites."

Manhattan's only remaining historic park pavilion in Columbus Park was handsomely restored recently and given back to the public for community activities and is a valued neighborhood resource.

"The public space of Union Square is a civic treasure -- a place with a rich history of speeches, protests, and social movements, and a rare open space in one of the city's densest hives of activity, State Senator Liz Krueger stated.  "

We must not sacrifice this hallowed ground for another restaurant in a neighborhood full of restaurants."

New York State Senator Brad Hoylman and daughter Sylvia.

New York State Senator Brad Hoylman called on the City to cancel the restaurant contract and restore the pavilion as part of a unified and non-commercial public space.

"With dozens places to eat within blocks of Union Square, it's wrong and shortsighted to place yet another dining establishment in the park's pavilion," Senator Hoylman said holding  his daughter Sylvia.

"I'm here as a State Senator, but also as a dad,  and a user of the park along with my daughter, Sylvia. She's been pulling at my hair throughout this entire press, conference,  saying 'I want to go play,  I want to go play, ' and that's, the principle that's really at stake here. It's the public trust, doctrine.  It dates back to Roman times, when natural resources were for the public, and whether that was rivers, or waterways, or public parks, we as a public deserve those public spaces. And that's really why we're all here. That's why we're asking Mayor de Blasio to put an end to this farce, and make certain that the pavilion is returned to the people, to make certain that the pavilion is returned to users like Sylvia."

NY State Assembly Member Deborah Glick, a passionate protector of parkland added,  “I have long held that public space should not be given over to private development. The community needs is more parkland, not another wildly expensive restaurant. I join with the local community and elected officials, to ask Mayor de Blasio, to cancel the contract and ensure New Yorkers get the open space they deserve.”

‎"Union Square is one of our city's most important public spaces. Its very name echoes the historic role it has played in New York City's history,” said Councilmember Corey Johnson.  

“The private takeover of public spaces is unacceptable. We need to create more public green space, not give away what is already rightfully ours," he said.

Critics also charge that the proposed new seasonal restaurant and its outdoor seating area will also dramatically alter the Parks' historic first amendment and free speech role by prohibiting these uses in the pavilion and in the North end of the park year-round. Union Square was designated as a National Historic Landmark in large part because of these important uses which began in 1882 in the park' s first pavilion.   

"We call upon Mayor DeBlasio to cancel the contract to create a high-end restaurant in Union Square Park and return the historic Pavilion for community uses,"  said Civil rights attorney Norman Siegel. 

"In this controversy, a "progressive" mayor should place the community's needs, wishes and rights over the establishment of and the development of business profits.

“So,  Mayor de Blasio,  this is a test for you, ” Siegel exclaimed,  “to see whether your actions will meet your rhetoric.”

Council Member Mark Levine said he also opposes the use of Union Square Park Pavilion for bar/restaurant and called for the preservation of this historic open space for the community and a safe playground for children.

"In a neighborhood already densely populated with restaurants and bars and lacking in public parks, it is essential to preserve Union Square as an open space pavilion," Council Member Levine, the newly appointed Chair of the Committee on Parks and Recreation Committee said in a statement.  

"For over a hundred years, Union Square has been the central ground for community activism and engagement. I stand with the community in their calls to rescind the contract put forth by the former administration and the Union Square Partnership - BID. We need to prioritize the needs of this community for recreational and gathering space over the interests of private development and ensure that this historic location continues to be the focal point for special events and programming that will benefit residents of all ages regardless to their income level."

The day brought out representatives from numerous neighborhood and community groups including, Union Square Park Community Coalition,  The Council of Chelsea Block Associations,  Tilden Democratic Club,  and several plaintiffs fresh off their victory in NYU park land alienation case. 

Sign of the Times. U.F.T. co-founder George Altomare calling out the Union Square Partnership BID. He recalled using the Union Square pavilion as a free-speech platform in the 1960s and ’70s.  Mr. Altomare, along with Eadie Shanker and Carol Greitzer were among the first group of people who helped raise awareness of the BID/Bloomberg pavilion privatizing scheme in the park beginning in 2004.  (Photo: Sam Spokony/The Villager)

For more than 130 years, the historic Pavilion in Union Square Park has served many vital functions to all New Yorkers - a covered playspace for children and mothers, a bandstand, a reviewing stand, a speakers’ rostrum, and as a focal point for countless labor rallies and social protests.  Recently the pavilion has also been used for wonderful new uses like free arts and film programs as well as for dance classes. 

In 2004, Save Union Square Park, a grass roots, community - based campaign was organized by NYC Park Advocates to advocate for the needs of the community. With the help and support of 57 community organizations, elected officials and a broad-based labor coalition, the campaign succeeded in defeating an irresponsible plan to create a year-round restaurant and greatly increased the amount of playground space, much of it recaptured from play areas lost to the previous seasonal cafe.

In March 2012 the city quietly approved a fifteen-year deal with Chef Driven Market, LLC. – the owner of a number of high-end restaurants – to build a restaurant at the expense of the children and the community. 

Plaintiffs including the Union Square Park Community Coalition sued claiming the City violated the Public Trust Doctrine which says that municipal park land can not be used for non-park purposes without the consent of the State Legislature. 

Comments made by the City's lawyer in January before the New York Court of Appeals were shocking and park and open space advocates hope they are not indicative of the new administration.

The City argued that there is virtually no limit to the amount of space a restaurant can occupy in a public park, or a price they can charge too high even if the vast majority of people would be prohibited from affording it  - a restaurant would qualify as a "park purpose" under the law. 

In fact, the city argued the only scenario where a resturant might not be a park purpose would be if it took up to “98 percent” of a park.   Under this scenario, the public would have no say in private businesses swallowing 826 acres of Central Park.  The city argued the parks commissioner has unlimited power in making such decisions, once again completely eliminating the checks and balances system required by the Public Trust Doctrine.   

Last month the Court of Appeals ruled that the restaurant could go forward. 

Sign of the Times.  New Yorkers for Parks, a partner organization of the Parks Department filed an Amicus Brief,  written by a board member,  supporting the irresponsible restaurant plan.   In what is clearly a conflict of interest the group has repeatedly failed to disclose to the media that restaurateur Danny Meyer was the co-chair of  the Business Improvement District (BID) which created and paid for the Union Sq. restaurant plan while simultaneously serving on NY4Parks Board.  He also made at least a $ 25,000 donation to the group.  

In several instances NY4Parks has actively worked against communities trying to protect parks and have provided cover for bad park policy issues. 

The public is encouraged to contact the Mayor and the Speaker.  

Contacts: 

Mayor Bill de Blasio  

City Hall 

New York, NY 10007

Email:  http://www.nyc.gov/html/static/pages/officeofthemayor/contact.shtml

City Council Speaker

Melissa Mark-Viverito

City Hall -   New York, NY 10007

(212) 788-6960

mviverito@council.nyc.gov

Read More:

Rally blasts pavilion bistro as mayor remains mum

The Villager - March 13, 2014 - Sam Spokony 

Protesters of fancy restaurant in Union Square Park call on Mayor de Blasio to halt project 

New York Daily News  - March 9, 2014 -   BY Erin Brodwin  

De Blasio to Review Restaurant Plan at Union Square

Epoch Times -  March 9, 2014 - By Ivan Pentchoukov

Park Advocates Urge Mayor to Block Union Square Restaurant

DNAinfo -  March 9,  2014 - By Dana Varinsky

Community Reps Plead With De Blasio To Block High-End Union Square Bar

WCBS - March 9,  2014 

1010 WINS

Plan Offers No Picnic for Union Square Park

New York Times -  February 26, 2014 - By Michael Powell

Only Bill De Blasio Can Save Union Square Pavilion From Brunchers

NYU Local - February 25th,  2014 - By Kevin Beerman 

New York Court of Appeals To Hear Controversial Union Sq. Park Restaurant Case

A Walk In The Park - January 13, 2014 - By Geoffrey Croft 

Judge Stops Union Square Restaurant Plan

A Walk In The Park - January 9, 2013  

Bloomberg Unveils Redesign Plan for Union Square Park

NY Sun -  October 26, 2004 - By Dina Temple-Raston 

No Limits On Restaurant Space Or Prices In Parks - City

"I'm asking if a restaurant wanted to charge $100 for appetizers – and of course proportionally more for entrees and so on – it’s still a park purpose, so it’s OK even though only maybe very few people would be able to eat there?"  - New York State Court of Appeals Judge 

"I would say that is correct, your honor," City attorney Deborah A. Brenner


The City argued there is virtually is no limit on the amount of space a restaurant can occupy in a public park, or prices they can charge that are to high even if the vast majority of people would be prohibited from affording it  - a restaurant would qualify as a "park purpose" under the law.

The City also incorrectly argued in New State Court of Appeals on Tuesday that no matter what the circumstances the decision to install a restaurant is solely at the discretion of the Parks Commissioner. The Public Trust Doctrine, which provides that once land has been acquired for use as a municipal park, it cannot be used for non-park purposes without the approval of the State Legislature.  

The area around Union Square Park has the lowest amount of playground space but the highest concentration of restaurants in the entire city.  Since 2004 Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Union Square Partnership — a Business Improvement District/Local Development Corporation — have attempted to seize thousands of square feet of potential recreation and neighborhood space by turning the historic pavilion into a high-end restaurant.  The BID has been allowed to dictate public land use policy aided by an eight million dollar anonymous donation.

City - Wide

By Geoffrey Croft

Talk about a tale of two cities.

In a first court appearance under the new administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio, city lawyers argued that luxury restaurants belong in public parks – and it doesn’t matter how much they charge to eat there, how many people can't afford it or how much land they take away.

In fact, the city said, these eateries can take up to “98 percent” of a park. 

Under this scenario, the public would have no say in private businesses swallowing 826 acres of Central Park.

The city also argued the parks commissioner has unlimited power in making such decisions, once again completely eliminating the checks and balances system required by the Public Trust Doctrine.    

The controversial comments were made during oral arguments Tuesday in the state’s highest court, which is considering a lawsuit by residents around Union Square to stop a high-end restaurant from taking over the park’s historic pavilion. Courts have long ruled that parks are held in the public trust, and state law requires the alienation of parkland by the Legislature before the property can be used for non-park purposes.

The suit says the city violated the public trust doctrine in attempting to bypass the state Legislature to install the high-end restaurant in Union Square. The surrounding neighborhood has the city’s highest concentration of restaurants and the least amount of public play space.

For almost a decade, the community has been battling the plan, promoted by the area's business improvement district, the Union Square Partnership and the city.  The city has allowed the BID to dictate public land use policy aided by an $8 million anonymous donation.

The state's top judges repeatedly tried to get the city's lawyer, Deborah A. Brenner, to address why this particular restaurant would qualify as a "park purpose,” but she could not.

"How is this restaurant a park purpose?" asked Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman.

"Restaurants historically have been held to be," said Brenner, arguing on behalf of not only the city but the proposed restaurant concessioner, Chef Driven Market.

"'What about this restaurant?" interrupted Judge Robert S. Smith.
.

"Well.” Brenner replied, “restaurants in general . . . ”

"You say that's the end of the inquiry -  it's a restaurant, good-bye?" asked Judge Smith interrupting.

"Generally, yes, your honor,” Brenner said.

“I mean, I could envision a case where if 98 percent of a park were being turned into a food court that might be a problem," she said.

The judges also wanted the city's lawyer to commit to financial parameters in considering a potential restaurant's legal appropriateness.

"You said, ‘What the restaurant charges is not really important. If a restaurant charged $100 for appetizers — and of course entrées and everything else would be a lot more than that – [it] would be OK because?" asked Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam.

"Well, there are some park restaurants in the city that have substantially higher prices than that," said Brenner, who failed to provide even one example.

Judge Abdus-Salaam was undeterred. 

"I'm asking if a restaurant wanted to charge $100 for appetizers – and of course proportionally more for entrees and so on – it’s still a park purpose, so it’s OK even though only maybe very few people would be able to eat there?" Judge Abdus-Salaam questioned. 

"I would say that is correct, your honor," Brenner replied.

Brenner went on to argue that the prices for the proposed restaurant were not expensive.

"We're talking about by Manhattan standards,” she explained, claiming the restaurant would charge “some very reasonable prices on the low end." 

Though only paying customers could sit in the restaurant, Brenner pointed out, “There's no admission fee. There’s no requirement that you spend a certain amount of money."

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman noted the plethora of available of restaurants and bars surrounding the park: 

"Aren't there restaurants all around the square where people are serving alcohol?”

"There are,” acknowledged the plaintiff’s attorney, Sanford I. Weisburst, “but not a few feet from the playground.” 

A children’s playground is immediately adjacent to the proposed restaurant and bar in the park. 

“Moreover,” Weisburst continued, “the fact that those restaurants exist totally undermines one of the factors this court should consider," he said dismissing the city's claim that the park needs a restaurant and qualifies as a park purpose.

One of the main points of contention is the use of the pavilion as a seasonal eatery takes away desperately needed recreational space at a time when the public's need is the greatest - spring through the fall.

The City lawyer argued that "heating lamps" could be used during the winter,  an idea that was long ago pointed out as being absurd in an open air building.

The City did not mention the interior space inside the pavilion the concessionaire plans to use year-round for a kitchen, at the expense of children, teens and seniors and the greater community.

The plaintiffs attorney pointed out that the restaurant would displace historic park uses including recreational and free speech.

"If you could pick the worse place to displace park activities this would be it, " argued Sanford I. Weisburst on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Judge Smith asked why would anyone sign,  including Chef Driven Market, a nominal 15 year license term, "when Mayor de blasio could kick him out tomorrow."

"Well I think Its a calculated risk,"  Deborah Brenner responded.

"If the State legislature was good enough to decide Bryant Park it should be good enough to decide Union Square," attorney Sandy Weisburst said about that restaurant which received state Alienation legislation approval.

"Ultimately all we're asking is the opportunity to have the State legislature decide this,"  Mr. Weisburst said.

"This is a very long standing doctrine,"  Weisburst said citing former New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith Kaye in the Van Courtland Park water filtration case decision. 

"It requires State legislative approval as a check and balance on local city officials and for this court to say that restaurants are per se park uses would really over turn the doctrine," he argued.

"If you could pick any place in the city , in any park to put a restaurant this is the wrong place and we should have a chance to satisfy that test," he said in closing.

The Mayor's press office Ignored several requests seeking comment. 

The Court of Appeals oral argument in this case comes at a critical time. Parkland alienation, the sale, lease or use of parkland for non-park purposes without legislative authorization, was a big concern under the Bloomberg administration.  Increasingly, municipal government took parkland from communities, using them as cash cows or as free real estate for commercial or industrial purposes in flagrant disregard of the law.

Read More:

City defends plan for ritzy Union Square restaurant

New York Post - January 16, 2014 - By Julia Marsh

Pavilion bistro lawsuit is back on the front burner 
The Villager - January 16, 2014- By Sam Spokony

New York Court of Appeals To Hear Controversial Union Sq. Park Restaurant Case

A Walk In The Park - January 13, 2014 - By Geoffrey Croft