August 8, 2007
Stop Washington Square farce!
To The Editor:
The Villager has published thousands of words about Washington Square Park over the past two to three years. It has described lawsuits, meetings and resolutions and published letters back and forth between protagonists. As chairperson of Community Board 2’s Parks Committee — and of the Washington Square Task Force until recently — I felt constrained to hold my personal views to myself while I worked to build as great a community consensus on the board and in the community as possible.
For all the complicated arguments, the dispute around Washington Square Park can be boiled down to some very simple issues. And the solutions, too, are not that complicated.
After chairing several dozen meetings about Washington Square Park, and having spent a lot of time in the park myself, there is no question in my mind that there are certain basic elements in the redesign plan that are wildly unpopular. Yes, the plan has its supporters, and yes, at some point in the distant past a heavy-handed chairperson of C.B. 2 pushed through an approval of the plan by C.B. 2. But today those who speak in favor of the current redesign plan mainly argue that if we don’t do what the Parks Department wants, we will never get anything. That is not public support. And C.B. 2 has withdrawn its approval of the plan.
There are basically three reasons why the plan is unpopular:
First, Washington Square Park doesn’t need a fence. Washington Square Park with a 4-foot fence is not Washington Square Park. It is Gramercy Park or City Hall Park. We are told that the fence is needed to keep dogs out. But at Father Demo Square, the Parks Department installed a 30-inch fence in order to keep the park closed at night. A 30-inch hedge could create a similar barrier at Washington Square Park and be far more beautiful.
Second, the reduced plaza, as proposed, takes away too much of this historic gathering plaza. I am not addressing only the space between the fountain and the stone seats. I am talking about the entire paved area around the fountain. This is a space which has worked for dozens of years; Parks wants us to trade it for more grass — grass with a chain blocking easy access. But this part of the park is for singing and dancing and running and playing, not sunbathing. Washington Square Park is an urban park, and it should stay that way.
Finally, Washington Square Park is like the Village: nonsymmetrical, quirky, a place where a walk can be an adventure. The new plan is just the opposite. It’s not our Washington Square Park.
It is time for Councilmember Alan Gerson, the principal funder of the park renovation, and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn to say to the Parks Department: “Change the plan, respond to the community, or we will withhold the funds.” For the last year or more, the community, including our elected officials, has begged Parks to be cooperative. It took Herculean efforts by the Council speaker to get Parks to publicly present its bid documents a mere 10 days before the bids were set to go out to the world. The Parks Department’s approach to growing community dissatisfaction and to opposition by most of our elected officials has been an arrogance reminiscent of the worst days of the Giuliani administration. It’s time to move beyond timidity!
Without a stand on funds by Councilmember Gerson, and support for such a stand by Council Speaker Quinn, Parks may be able to get away with its disregard for the community, for the community board and for our community’s elected officials. Yes, Alan, in the two years you have left, you can create your legacy: not the park redesigned by George Vellonakis, but the park you grew up in and played in; a park cleaned up a bit, replanted, with new plumbing and repaved, with some new benches. A Washington Square Park preserved as the gem it is.
Arthur Schwartz
Schwartz is Democratic state committeeman for the Village, Soho and Tribeca and chairperson, Community Board 2 Waterfront Committee.