I love Bryant Park so much, and your post helps explain why: both why it's such a wonderful park for park-goers *and* exactly why it works as an urban space--with an answer that lends depth and nuance to the question of how urban parks work. Just today I walked through the park only to observe a mass yoga class taking place on the lawn.
I mourn the loss of public funds to maintain spaces of nature and peace accessible to all NYers and the ways that has to be tied to corporate profit. OTOH without that philanthropy and civic-mindedness, we would be socially poorer. You describe the dilemmas well.
Where i live, there is a lovely, large library lawn strewn with wooden Adirondack chairs. While they are comfortable and technically movable, they weigh a TON so they stay put.
I was floored when I first learned that not only Bryant Park, but also Central Park, Battery Park, Madison Square Park, and Union Square Park are all privately maintained.
I disagree that this structure erodes trust in the public sector. When I experience excellent public parks, I don't think any worse about the NYC Parks Department. Even when I know that they're not the ones running them. The outcomes are good.
I also disagree that this structure erodes funds for the public sector. We only have so much tax revenue. When an army of corporate donors raise additional private money for parks, that's money that doesn't have to be supplied by taxes. We can use our public budget for other parks or other purposes.
It's true, most people don't think less of the Parks dept when they walk through Bryant Park - the evidence of the erosion of trust is less with the end user and more with decision-makers. The parks dept is almost never given full control of a new park. It is consistently underfunded and understaffed. It was the target of fresh cuts this year (although clawed back by the city council). Like I said in the post, it would be no problem if when private money took the funding/maintenance burden off the City they redirected money and effort towards other places but over a decade of municipal budgets prove that isn't happening -- even when the city was flush. And I disagree with you that outcomes are universally good under this model. They are good for parks that can raise revenue and attract sponsorship. Walking through Bryant Park is a world away from my local park which does not have conservancy support. The same can be said for many rusty and trash strewn neighborhood parks I visit for work, or the splintering state of the Coney Island Boardwalk. I'm absolutely not arguing for the elimination of conservancies or kicking philanthropy out of parks, I just wish this came with a corresponding investment from the public sector in the many parks that private money will never flow into.
I love Bryant Park so much, and your post helps explain why: both why it's such a wonderful park for park-goers *and* exactly why it works as an urban space--with an answer that lends depth and nuance to the question of how urban parks work. Just today I walked through the park only to observe a mass yoga class taking place on the lawn.
I mourn the loss of public funds to maintain spaces of nature and peace accessible to all NYers and the ways that has to be tied to corporate profit. OTOH without that philanthropy and civic-mindedness, we would be socially poorer. You describe the dilemmas well.
Where i live, there is a lovely, large library lawn strewn with wooden Adirondack chairs. While they are comfortable and technically movable, they weigh a TON so they stay put.
I was floored when I first learned that not only Bryant Park, but also Central Park, Battery Park, Madison Square Park, and Union Square Park are all privately maintained.
I disagree that this structure erodes trust in the public sector. When I experience excellent public parks, I don't think any worse about the NYC Parks Department. Even when I know that they're not the ones running them. The outcomes are good.
I also disagree that this structure erodes funds for the public sector. We only have so much tax revenue. When an army of corporate donors raise additional private money for parks, that's money that doesn't have to be supplied by taxes. We can use our public budget for other parks or other purposes.
It's true, most people don't think less of the Parks dept when they walk through Bryant Park - the evidence of the erosion of trust is less with the end user and more with decision-makers. The parks dept is almost never given full control of a new park. It is consistently underfunded and understaffed. It was the target of fresh cuts this year (although clawed back by the city council). Like I said in the post, it would be no problem if when private money took the funding/maintenance burden off the City they redirected money and effort towards other places but over a decade of municipal budgets prove that isn't happening -- even when the city was flush. And I disagree with you that outcomes are universally good under this model. They are good for parks that can raise revenue and attract sponsorship. Walking through Bryant Park is a world away from my local park which does not have conservancy support. The same can be said for many rusty and trash strewn neighborhood parks I visit for work, or the splintering state of the Coney Island Boardwalk. I'm absolutely not arguing for the elimination of conservancies or kicking philanthropy out of parks, I just wish this came with a corresponding investment from the public sector in the many parks that private money will never flow into.