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.
While I am of course pro-housing, in this particular case I support saving ESG. In part because my worries about affordable housing go hand are related tangentially with the of decline of third spaces. ESG is a special, communal place where I've met many people I otherwise would never have.
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. 😢
Isn't the reason that why it "looks beautiful" is because it was never meant to be a park by its operators?
If anything, their hands were forced.
As they say: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
And yes, it's pretty reasonable to ask you can contribute towards making the actual parks better — instead of singing praises of a luxury, private garden?
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.
Not a New Yorker, not even an American: But you don't need to make the effort of treating me "like a 5-year old" because I'm a voracious-researcher.
After 4 whopping mayoral administrations, somehow this was the only real estate which was being made online into some election issue.
Your article gives insight into it, but fails to dive into the heart of it.
The YIMBY proponents of Heaven Green also claim that the only reason this park has been made into such a lighting rod is because of class, and race.
Is that true?
I don't believe in idpol that much but I certainly see the clear-cut aspect of NIMBY class warfare here if it's the one-&-only place in the largest metropolitan area across the Human Civilization. But yeah, the fact that it's right there in Chinatown with many of the elders from those communities still surviving without housing — does make it extremely difficult to deny the racial underpinnings.
And the comments about "druggies" and "homeless" and so on about the Sarah Roosevelt park by ESG proponents only furthers that view, when suggested why they don't contribute to improving that park if they really care about green spaces.
I see that you hardly touched on it, that's quite a lapse given the proximity of it.
What's your take?
*UPDATE:* This was posted in light of the fact that the 4th mayor has made a total about-face and is now thwarting his dramatically charismatic projected successor by declaring it parkland with the news publishers claiming it's a done deal and now can only be overturned by the Assembly. Is that true? You need to post that update A-SAP! [But if it were to happen which "may take years" with no guarantees, it's somehow still gonna take lesser time to start construction than choosing a new site. Is that also the case?]
One point that has been overlooked is that if the garden is allowed to remain the City will be less likely to allow the use of other spaces as community gardens, given the City may never be able to regain possession of those spaces.
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.
While I am of course pro-housing, in this particular case I support saving ESG. In part because my worries about affordable housing go hand are related tangentially with the of decline of third spaces. ESG is a special, communal place where I've met many people I otherwise would never have.
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. 😢
Isn't the reason that why it "looks beautiful" is because it was never meant to be a park by its operators?
If anything, their hands were forced.
As they say: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
And yes, it's pretty reasonable to ask you can contribute towards making the actual parks better — instead of singing praises of a luxury, private garden?
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.
Can't the same could be said for why don't you trust Sarah Roosevelt Park which is just 2 blocks away, instead?
Not a New Yorker, not even an American: But you don't need to make the effort of treating me "like a 5-year old" because I'm a voracious-researcher.
After 4 whopping mayoral administrations, somehow this was the only real estate which was being made online into some election issue.
Your article gives insight into it, but fails to dive into the heart of it.
The YIMBY proponents of Heaven Green also claim that the only reason this park has been made into such a lighting rod is because of class, and race.
Is that true?
I don't believe in idpol that much but I certainly see the clear-cut aspect of NIMBY class warfare here if it's the one-&-only place in the largest metropolitan area across the Human Civilization. But yeah, the fact that it's right there in Chinatown with many of the elders from those communities still surviving without housing — does make it extremely difficult to deny the racial underpinnings.
And the comments about "druggies" and "homeless" and so on about the Sarah Roosevelt park by ESG proponents only furthers that view, when suggested why they don't contribute to improving that park if they really care about green spaces.
I see that you hardly touched on it, that's quite a lapse given the proximity of it.
What's your take?
*UPDATE:* This was posted in light of the fact that the 4th mayor has made a total about-face and is now thwarting his dramatically charismatic projected successor by declaring it parkland with the news publishers claiming it's a done deal and now can only be overturned by the Assembly. Is that true? You need to post that update A-SAP! [But if it were to happen which "may take years" with no guarantees, it's somehow still gonna take lesser time to start construction than choosing a new site. Is that also the case?]
One point that has been overlooked is that if the garden is allowed to remain the City will be less likely to allow the use of other spaces as community gardens, given the City may never be able to regain possession of those spaces.
Ha!
It's one of the key points which I think he has been careful to avoid.