The section of Teddy Roosevelt Park where the museum plans to construct a new building.
Defenders of Teddy Roosevelt Park, the original group opposing the Museum of Natural History’s plans to construct a new educational building on its Upper West Side campus, has essentially declared victory and is now advising the museum on ways to make sure the project is nature-friendly. The group says it “secured a 50% reduction in parkland lost to the museum’s proposed expansion.”
(The museum raised hackles among some neighbors when it first said it would be using some of the surrounding parkland for its new structure; but renderings showed that the actual footprint of the new site would take up a relatively minimal amount of land.)
But a new group called Community United to Protect Teddy Roosevelt Park has formed to take a harder stance against the expansion. “Don’t be fooled: We have won no victory!” the group wrote in an email to supporters and journalists along with a link to a petition fighting the expansion.
For some reason this line makes me think of the Teddy Roosevelt statue on the museum’s park side.
The email goes on to say:
Virtually NONE of the problems the construction will cause have been eliminated!
NOTHING HAS BEEN SAVED!
NOT the trees and gardens in the present entrance. In fact, probably more trees will be lost than those targeted last July, because the plan also includes reconfiguring the 78th Street entrance to the Museum’s underground delivery area with extensive tunneling which will destroy the root systems of all trees above it. The Museum’s plan for new plantings is no substitute for the old-growth canopy we would lose.
NOT the birds that will crash into the enormous glass structure.
NOT the years of air pollution, noise pollution and traffic congestion during construction, or the increase in noise, pollution, traffic and influx of street vendors that will inevitably accompany the new facility.
NOT the integrity of the neighborhood. Erecting a massive new commercial enterprise with its major entrance inside a tranquil park will change the character and function of our neighborhood forever.
This is unacceptable.
Defenders of Teddy Roosevelt Park disavows the new group. “We consider their position well-intentioned but unrealistic. Our approach is reasonable, relevant and productive.” The Defenders now have representation in a working group looking at the parks’ redesign.
The museum has created two working groups, “one to advise on the proposed redesign of Theodore Roosevelt Park’s west side, which is currently underway in coordination with the design of the Richard Gilder Center for Science, Education, and Innovation, and the other to advise on the existing transportation conditions surrounding the Museum, which it had previously been addressing separately with interested neighborhood groups. They are known as the Park Working Group and the Transportation Working Group.”
See a slideshow of renderings for the new building here.
The full email from Defenders of Teddy Roosevelt Park to its supporters is below:
The “Defenders of Teddy Roosevelt Park” measures victory by making sure our community’s voice is heard by the American Museum of Natural History. And it’s working. We secured a 50% reduction in parkland lost to the museum’s proposed expansion.
Now we’re at the table, as members of the Park Working Group, pushing to make decisions that ensure we keep the tranquil gathering space we have come to love. We are working with our neighbors and the museum to design a place that replaces what was lost. But better.
However, a splinter group recently formed: “Community United to Protect Theodore Roosevelt Park.” They oppose any loss of parkland whatsoever. We consider their position well-intentioned but unrealistic. Our approach is reasonable, relevant and productive.
We’re moving forward. And that is a victory for us and our community.
We thank you for your support, Defenders of Teddy Roosevelt Park Inc
I like these people. They’re unabashedly crazy. There’s something endearing about that. Even their logo looks culty.
Scream at the clouds, my friends! We’ll be at the museum.
Can’t wait to walk past these people when my kids and I visit the wonderful new AMNH expansion. Oh, and then we’ll take a one-block walk to Central Park and have a picnic!
Birds hitting glass and pollution are two of their complaints? They’re really grasping. Leaving them out would have made for a stronger argument. Those two complaints just make them look unreasonable and make it easier to dismiss their one legitimate complaint.
It’s probably worth mentioning that this “effort” seems to be just a few broken toys from 147 w 79th, shepherded by the intrepid gadfly Bob Weingarten. He seems to be trying to hide his name for some reason, but he’s a well-known extremist on this issue.
What’s so wrong with being an advocate for nature? The park is beautiful and the surrounding greenery around the museum bring a natural elegance and peacefulness to the neighborhood. So what if Central Park is a block away. This is a wonderful extension of it. But sadly the concrete jungle will win as people could give s crap about nature and the natural ecosystems of life. It’s ironic that it is “The NATURAL History Museum” that holds amazing history about nature though doesn’t take into account the nature that surrounds and supports it.
These folks aren’t advocates for nature. They’re a small group of advocates for their own backwards thinking. They are new century luddites.
The birds, the pollution, and the integrity of the neighborhood arguments could be made of every new structure being built. This group isn’t protesting any of the many high rises going up on the UWS. They’d be more believable if they stuck to points that only apply to Teddy Roosevelt Park.
Who owns that park? Is it the parks department or the museum?
Central and Roosevelt Parks are anything but natural.
Community United’s concern “reconfiguring the 78th Street entrance to the Museum’s underground delivery area with extensive tunneling . . . will destroy the root systems of all trees above it” seems well-taken. Has the Museum addressed this matter?
Stan — the Defenders of Teddy Roosevelt Park are pushing for the museum to change the plans to save those trees. Personally, I think they are the more reasonable solution here than this splinter group. From their website:
“…In addition to landscape redesign, the working group will examine other issues, including the museum’s proposed underground driveway project that imperils two mature canopy trees with trunks more than two feet in diameter, one of them a stately English elm. The endangered trees and their importance to the park’s serene tone were spotlighted recently by the Defenders.”
Well, I’ve been exposed, and I didn’t even know I was in hiding. I’d gladly take credit for shepherding a few broken toys, if I knew what that meant. But I wasn’t aware I’d been doing any shepherding. I’m just a proud volunteer of Community United to Protect Theodore Roosevelt.
With that in mind I wonder who, Jeremy, are you, who seem to know much more about me than I know about myself.
Bob Weingarten
Well-known extremist
Hi Bob. I think the most fascinating part of this whole situation is that the official press phone number for “Community United” is the same number as the violent pornography website run out of 147 W 79th Street. I mean, it’s really gutsy to solicit emails **from children** from the same apartment that runs a website called “Bound and Gagged.”
Mixing kids and porn – I guess that’s what these guys mean by “community united!”
Thought the other group was bad, but these are NIMBYs on steriods — or maybe a NIMBY-saurus!
Last month, the Surrenderers were saying that they had made the museum cut back 80% from their original plan. Now it says the museum cut back only 50%. After a few more rounds with their new museum friends, their co-opted message might be that the targeted trees, birds and wildlife aren’t really needed at all.
Meanwhile, those who love the park will protect it from this land grab.
A public park is space, not lack of space. It can’t be replaced by a building.
Sounds like a Monty Python skit…
with some violent pornography mixed in for good measure (whaaa???)
Sorry, but the photo of this portion of the T.R. park looks 90% paved over to me, with a few shrubs on the periphery. Where’s the beef?
agree!
That us, agree with Patricia