I'm not sure what the ESG team could have done to save the garden, given the city's firm legal footing to develop it. Whatever they could have done probably needed to have happened years ago though.
One could think of many "could haves," like funding a 197-a development plan that would have taken a deeper look at the area and other development sites, and that might have been a good enough lever to help change the outcome by being part of a larger redevelopment effort.
I'd be interested to hear if you think of anything too. It's good to think about for other projects around the city.
To me, the big thing is really just how sad the whole situation is. I remember stumbling across ESG by accident a couple years ago and thinking how lovely it was, particularly compared to a lot of NYC neighborhood parks, which IMO are mediocre. And so it was so heartbreaking to hear about what will happen to ESG, and also to see a lot of drive-by Twitter takes from people who have never been to ESG, e.g. “Didn’t you know Central Park exists?”
It’s especially sad to see one of the nicer neighborhood parks in the city being partially developed when: (A) much of the city is zoned for low-density housing, and (B) even if we’re going to build on parks, the city has tons of more mediocre ones that are better candidates. Of course there’s no magic button we can push to make this swap. But still, it’s just really sad. 😢
Having recently had an extremely unpleasant and upsetting interaction with Joseph, who perceives himself as the steward and gatekeeper of the space, I think the garden needs to go and be replaced by a genuinely public space that is outside of his control. The vindictive entitlement he clearly feels towards this public property that is not his and that he does not own needs to come to an end.
Why do you assume the best of this new proposed space and that the development will keep its word on including green space?
Even if they did, most public use spaces are concrete and blocked of natural light. ESG is not only magical but provides legit greenery and keeps the temperatures cool, instead of concrete that will increase it. That is a lot of unwarranted trust on for profit developers.
Curious what you would have done if you were in the position of the ESG volunteers?
It is certainly an unenviable position to be in.
I'm not sure what the ESG team could have done to save the garden, given the city's firm legal footing to develop it. Whatever they could have done probably needed to have happened years ago though.
One could think of many "could haves," like funding a 197-a development plan that would have taken a deeper look at the area and other development sites, and that might have been a good enough lever to help change the outcome by being part of a larger redevelopment effort.
I'd be interested to hear if you think of anything too. It's good to think about for other projects around the city.
I appreciate you writing this up!
I think I agree with most or all of your points.
To me, the big thing is really just how sad the whole situation is. I remember stumbling across ESG by accident a couple years ago and thinking how lovely it was, particularly compared to a lot of NYC neighborhood parks, which IMO are mediocre. And so it was so heartbreaking to hear about what will happen to ESG, and also to see a lot of drive-by Twitter takes from people who have never been to ESG, e.g. “Didn’t you know Central Park exists?”
It’s especially sad to see one of the nicer neighborhood parks in the city being partially developed when: (A) much of the city is zoned for low-density housing, and (B) even if we’re going to build on parks, the city has tons of more mediocre ones that are better candidates. Of course there’s no magic button we can push to make this swap. But still, it’s just really sad. 😢
Having recently had an extremely unpleasant and upsetting interaction with Joseph, who perceives himself as the steward and gatekeeper of the space, I think the garden needs to go and be replaced by a genuinely public space that is outside of his control. The vindictive entitlement he clearly feels towards this public property that is not his and that he does not own needs to come to an end.
Why do you assume the best of this new proposed space and that the development will keep its word on including green space?
Even if they did, most public use spaces are concrete and blocked of natural light. ESG is not only magical but provides legit greenery and keeps the temperatures cool, instead of concrete that will increase it. That is a lot of unwarranted trust on for profit developers.