A rendering of the new AMNH educational center that was released last year.
The American Museum of Natural History will update the community on Thursday night about its plans for a new educational building on the museum campus. The five-story Richard Gilder Center for Science, Education, and Innovation is set to be built on the West side of the campus, near Columbus Avenue. The museum plans to present an official plan to the community board later this year, and hopes to open the building in 2020.
The meeting will take place on Thursday, July 21, from 7 to 9 pm, at the Museum of Natural History. People should enter at 77th Street between Central Park West and Columbus Avenue. RSVP to 212-769-5246 or GilderCenter@amnh.org.
Opposition groups have criticized the size of the building, and the fact that the project will entail destroying some existing trees. The museum has tweaked its proposal in response to community concerns, and recently announced that it would be able to preserve two of the trees. The city is also leading an environmental review of the project.
The Thursday meeting will go over:
- the work of the Park Working Group on a new design concept for the west side of Theodore Roosevelt Park, including plans to protect and conserve the Pin oak and English elm in front of the proposed new building; and
- the scientific and educational programming being planned for the Gilder Center; and
- the next steps in the public review process, when you will have the opportunity to provide your comments on the Landmarks Preservation Commission application and the draft environmental impact statement (EIS). These documents require extensive design work and technical analysis, and are still in the process of being prepared.
See some renderings that were released last year here.
Thank you WSR for informing us of the dates of upcoming meetings.
The proposed Natural Hisotry Museum addition is a vs it’s Princeton for a big donor. It has very little to do with outreach or program. It is little more than an event space inside a massive and inappropriate breezeway. Anyone one who things this project will get a dispassionate and rational analysis by the LOC or anyone else simply hasn’t been following this issue.
Pedestrian,
You are incorrect that the new building has “little to do with outreach or program”.
An expanded library, additional scientific labs, several floors of education space both for museum education programs and for visiting schools, along with public exhibit space.
Perhaps you don’t want the construction. Perhaps you are concerned about the loss of trees and parkland. Perhaps you would prefer a new science educational center elsewhere. Perhaps you (erroneously) believe that the existing infrastructure is adequate for the amount of research and the number of visitors.
But a simple look at the plans will tell you that this is not just “an event space inside a massive and inappropriate breezeway.”
Sorry Raymond but your wrong.
Unfortunately, my comment had a lot of typos so a corrected version is provided below.
The addition to the Natural History Museum is nothing more than a vanity project begging carried out at the best of a major donor. It has nothing to do with program or outreach. It is a massive inappropriate strict ion that is little more than an expensive breezeway that will be used as an event space. Anyone who thinks that the plans will receive an arms length review or analysis from any of the agencies of the city including but not limited to the LPC simply hasn’t been following the issue. Before any real planning was done according to reports the local council member invested 16 million taxpayer $$$$ in it! Hardly a sign that the project would be reviewed on its merits!
Pedestrian,
You realize that the Rose Center would not have been built without a major donating the money for the expansion, right? Is that a big deal that private money is being primarily used instead of taxpayer or increasing ticket cost?
This project seems like a win-win for everyone. It will be a ‘breezeway’ that will be put to good use and that is a positive thing, not a negative.
The article was about the public review process, and Pedestrian was commenting on that with: “Anyone who thinks that the plans will receive an arms length review or analysis from any of the agencies of the city including but not limited to the LPC simply hasn’t been following the issue. Before any real planning was done according to reports the local council member invested 16 million taxpayer $$$$ in it! Hardly a sign that the project would be reviewed on its merits!”