Rendering of the proposed Gilder Center via Museum of Natural History.
By Joy Bergmann
Calling the American Museum of Natural History’s expansion plan a “debacle” – among other things – several locals made their positions known during the open public comment portion of Community Board 7’s meeting Tuesday night.
Pamela Harwood took issue with the proposed educational mission of the would-be Richard Gilder Center for Science, Education and Innovation, saying the primary purpose of the museum should be exhibition of its collection. “Museum classrooms do not belong in our garden spaces,” she said, calling the plan an “overreach.”
Maria Fernandez from West 86th Street cited potential adverse environmental impact from construction of the center. “To encroach on our park land is very retro,” she said.
Cary Goodman chastised CB7 for posting the museum’s plan on the CB7 web site, but not posting any information on the plan’s opposition. CB7 Chair Elizabeth Caputo responded that the Board had not taken any position on the plan and had not yet taken up the issue as a matter of business but would do so later in the year.
Goodman left fliers delineating 10 reasons to oppose building the center in Teddy Roosevelt Park. Goodman did not mention his role as Executive Director of the 161st Street Business Improvement District in the Bronx. He was quoted last November advocating that the Gilder Center be built in his BID near Yankee Stadium, rather than the Upper West Side. Defenders of Teddy Roosevelt Park, the main group opposing the museum’s plans, has distanced itself from Goodman, with leader Sig Gissler contacting us to note that the group did not support a protest against Tina Fey, a museum board member.
Offering an alternative way forward, Mark Bernardo from West 86th Street suggested the museum include a publicly accessible roof garden atop the new center, thereby preserving green space whilst furthering the institution’s goals. “We should not close the door on the expansion of research that will benefit all mankind,” he said.
See the museum’s plan here.
I just want to understand this. Upper West Side “intellectual progressives” (a real contradiction) are actually protesting the increase in classroom space in their community? Nice job people, you actually divided by zero!
I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other on this specific project, but seeing someone actually take issue with a “proposed educational mission” of this museum and that a museum’s primary purpose should be exhibition rather than education may be the stupidest thing I’ve read today.
Education is *literally* part of the mission statement of the AMNH (“To discover, interpret, and disseminate—through scientific research and education—knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe.”), and it awards actual degrees.
I do like the idea of creating a roof garden to replace some of the lost green space – that would make a nice compromise.
Roof garden — that’s a wonderful idea!
So people are just nuts.
A very small yet organized minority objects to this proposal. This building improvement provides jobs, offers STEM education to our children and brings revenue to our business community. The thoughtful and brilliant architecture and plan adds a much improved experience to the five million plus annual worldwide museum visitors. The majority of Upper West Siders, and most New Yorkers, welcome yet another reason to live in or visit our neighborhood.
Now that they have presumably said their piece and been heard, I hope the “defenders” will do their civic duty and take down the hundreds of neon-paper fliers with which they have been defacing neighborhood buildings and fences — fliers which, incidentally, target individuals connected with the project in an offensive way.
Just to be clear, the “Defenders of Teddy Roosevelt Park” are not associated with Cary Goodman or Maria Hernandez and were not responsible for the fliers taped to trees in the neighborhood.
Very important that supporters of this project attend future CB7 meetings that address this plan. These folks trudged out on a cold night to say their piece; we must as well.
Most definitely will.
The selfish opponents of this project are detrimental to the health of the Upper West Side. The expansion is a wonderful plan for a neighborhood that is increasingly losing its uniqueness. I like Mr. Bernardo’s idea for green space on the rooftop, but I think the negative curmudgeons will still find something else to complain about.
@Paul RL
Respectfully, I am repeating a comment I posted relating to an earlier discussion of this issue..
In my family – extended/multi-generational – there is varied opinion on this issue as is the case with other issues. For example, one of my kids, a college student, is completely against the museum plan/expansion.
On the other side, my father-in-law is OK with the museum expansion.
It is understandable that there would be varied opinions in the community on this project.
But my concern here is the use of blanket condemnations “curmudgeons/selfish” about folks who don’t favor the expansion.
Shall I just let my daughter know that she is “selfish”?
I would note that if anyone ever wonders why people with integrity do not enter public service, I would say that the unrelenting nastiness and prospect of constant personal attacks by fellow citizens is undoubtedly a factor.
CS, you’re right – everyone is allowed to express their opinions. My first opinion is that the AMNH expansion will invigorate our neighborhood with education, science, and beautiful cutting-edge architecture, and ultimately make the UWS more desirable for residents and visitors alike. My second opinion is that those opposed to this project, especially those bemoaning the loss of a dog park or complaining about temporary construction are, well, selfish negative curmudgeons. I don’t believe that they have the best interests of the UWS at heart. But it’s nothing personal – it’s just my opinion.
From my reading, the expansion goes westward and would not impact the dog run.
Educational expansion is overreach? Really? Perhaps she could benefit from some education for herself in understanding that exhibition is only a part of nearly all museums, and education is integral to the long term success of a museum.
As for park-lands… The footprint of this is minimal in the big picture. It isn’t as if the Upper West Side isn’t already blessed with access to more parkland than anywhere else in Manhattan.
I’m pleased to read the comments here with which I’m in agreement.
New space for education, exhibition, research, and offices for a highly visited and world class science museum, already burdened for space, vs appeasing wealthy people who don’t want to watch the construction and a Bronx businessman trying to create artificial grassroots outrage so he can get some money to his district.
Have to agree that the suggestion that classrooms are not a legitimate part of the museum is hard for me to understand.
Great idea, Mark Bernardo. The current west face of the museum is undistinguished, and the expansion looks great. Replacing the part of Roosevelt Park lost to the project with public green space on the roof would be a creative way to please everyone if, that is, loss of green space is really what is troubling the objectors. Don’t know if a roof garden would be feasible with what appear to be large skylights. I’m sure the architects can rethink.
What a load of dog poop.
The rendering looks great! The addition of such a dramatic space would surely draw more visitors to an already great museum, providing a valuable educational experience to residents and tourists and helping local businesses.
Hopefully would have a possitive effect similar to that of the Rose Center for Earth and Space, the addition constructed on the northern side of the museum 15 years ago.
Anyone remember the the backlash against that project?
I don’t see what’s wrong with years of construction and the elimination of public outdoor space if it results in a shiny tall new building to replace all that nastiness.
As most of us local residents know, the museum’s cramped facilities barely have any room for educational activities. Things are looking pretty dire for the kids, and a vaguely defined “interdisciplinary learning space” is sorely needed!
AMNH is a wonderful institution, and we are very lucky to have it in our backyard. I support this expansion and the design; I don’t know these people’s motivations but I believe their cause would be better directed elsewhere. In most cases I would be supportive of a fight to protect or expand public green-space. Let’s channel that energy in some other way than to restrict a most amazing institution.
Aren’t these protesters the same people who killed the popular semi-annual Columbus Ave craft fair for encroaching on their back yard? They don’t want o live with a couple of years of construction – I get that. But their landmarked neighborhood is largely protected from any more of that so they’re better off than many other UWS-ers. And how can anyone who lives so near to Central Park feel deprived of parkland?
I reject the museum’s plan as misguided, and urge a new plan which does not destroy any more of Roosevelt Park.
I support placing a new science center in The Bronx where it could be linked to other world-class institutions like the NY Botanical Garden in the north or Yankee Stadium in the South Bronx, where I work at one of the BIDs.
Since Manhattanites have more than 100 museums, and Bronxites only have three, I think a publicly-funded, Bronx-based center is a good idea.
You are very silly to object to this wonderful project.
I reject (reject, I say!) the presence of South Bronx BID offices in their current Bronx location. They should be placed in Bethlehem PA, where they could be “linked” with the Sands Casino Hotel, or the Full of Crepe diner. Since Bethlehem has no Bronx BID offices, and the Bronx has several, they are clearly more needed in Pennsylvania.
Bravo and well done!
Plenty of museums around the country have education programs for children. Thee is a need qThey are working
The 10 reasons are not very compelling. I think developers in the city are doing a whole lot more harm than this project. The Billionaires Row projects will harm more parkland than a dozen science centers.
As someone who has actually seen the latest design and renderings for this space, I can make some factual statements as well as pose some personal observations: the latest design does not actually impinge on “public park space”. The dog park is safe. Yes 9 trees planted in the 90″s will be moved. not destroyed. There will be ample seating for folks to enjoy the park and its environs. Now for the personal: The exterior is modern and exciting yet sensitive to the original structures. The interiors are imaginative and stunning. This small group of people who rudely addressed CB7 Chair Caputo were disrespectful and wrong headed. AMNH is a treasure. Its mission of science education is more important than ever. Of course it is and always has been a research institution. To suggest otherwise is astonishing. Remember Margaret Meade? This was her home for decades. Her research was invaluable as is the work today of Dr Neil De Grasse Tyson and many others. I clearly remember the nasty fight over the Rose Center. Look at it now. Please, everyone, be calm. This is a terrific project, sensitively designed and worthy of our support. Please go to CB7’s website, (nyc.gov/mcb7) check the calendar and come to the meetings in which the plan will be discussed. Be informed. Come and have your voice heard!
Thank you for trying to clear up some of the misconceptions about this project with your comments. However; some of your facts are incorrect. The museum is removing 9 trees that were probably planted in the 1930’s not in the ’90’s, and they are moving one or two small trees. The large trees are really beautiful and would be great if they could be saved. While the expansion seems like a good thing, it can still be made even better by trying to save parkland and trees. Maybe the driveway can be moved?
Some litterbug is placing “Picket Rosenthal” posters every 5 feet all over 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenues. Could we find out who is doing this and make them stop. I am sorry if you are going to loose the bench were you feed the pigeons, but polluting the neighborhood is a bit hypocritical.
“Brilliant,”cutting edge” design?
Oh dear.
The interior looks like the view from a
tiny medical camera traveling
through someone’s innards.Lookout for that polyp!
It also looks like the inside of Pierre
Cardin’s Bubble House in Cannes that is up for sale.
The Rose Center is a jewel box. This design
is ugly, inside and out.
Curious about the acoustics of the design in the photo?
Have been to many science and children’s museums with my kids in US and mostly have found many of the newer ones to be really loud (bad acoustics among other things) and really distracting – entertaining enough but in the end not educational.
The beauty of the AMNH, the classic old halls, is that the exhibits are focused and the space quiet. For example, my kids learned much from the AMNH dioramas, being able to see and absorb the detail.
This interior kind of reminds me of a Flinstones design 🙂