Balancing Public and Private Interests

For purposes of definition, “public” interests are issues raised by, concerning, or affecting the community. “Public” community groups may be grassroots organizations, civic organizations, or governmentfunded institutions. “Private” interests spring from entities not available for public use, control, or participation, such as commercial enterprises.

Balancing public and private interests is another guiding goal of the plan. The Study Area has a history of publicprivate conflict over the fate of buildings, from the Zeckendorf Towers that rose to obscure a view of the beloved Consolidated Edison clock tower, to the recent “demolition-over-night” of Morris Lapidus’ Patterson Silks building, which had been awaiting its hearing before New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission (Figures 2 and 3).

The fact that 14th Street divides many different community boards presents a serious barrier to communication among different interest groups; this dynamic has been acknowledged as a problem by representatives of many of the Community Boards. Improving both the communication between Community Boards that border each other and between Community Boards and the City—about not only demolition and new construction but also about alterations to historic buildings—would ameliorate this problem. Further, giving Community Boards the power to call for such things as a “Delay of Demolition” would better balance their interests with the private forces that shape the public environment.

Our Study Area provides many examples of the complexities involved in balancing public and private interests. Two recent and highly publicized examples particularly illustrate how the desires of the general public have not been successfully incorporated into citydirected private initiatives.

Example: The High Line Park

The High Line project is a city-funded plan currently underway for the creation of a landscaped public park on the High Line elevated railway. The High Line represents a unique public-private interface in that the proposed design for the High Line would create a public park that runs through privately owned buildings, as well as the development of private spaces on top of and underneath the park.

The plan was conceived by a grass-roots organization called Friends of the High Line, but, as it gained citywide popularity, it was adopted as a cause by celebrities and the wealthy residents and merchants of Chelsea and the Meatpacking District (Figure 4). The winning proposal for the park transforms the High Line into a sleek, glassy, statement of design that is elegant but ultimately fails to reflect the industrial history of the area (Figures 5 and 6).

The Department of City Planning has considered the risk that the public will view this as the City catering to private developers and the area’s wealthy constituents. City Planning has addressed this by ensuring equal public and private access at all entry points to the park, and creating the High Line Transfer Corridor, which is a zoning mechanism to prevent new tall buildings from crowding the High Line (see the Tools Appendix for a detailed explanation).

Our hope is that the original meaning of the Highline is not lost in the city’s willingness to “package” public places as consumer-and-leisure oriented “experiences” of urban New York.

We have not chosen to focus on the Highline for new design proposals; however, we recognize it as a distinct public/private interface and through established advocacy channels would like to insure that its industrial meaning is preserved.

Example: The Pavilion in Union Square Park

One element of the Department of Parks and Recreation’s proposal for Union Square Park is the establishment of a permanent seasonal restaurant to occupy the park’s Pavilion building, which is in need of substantial conservation work. Since 1992, a “temporary” seasonal restaurant, called Luna Park, has existed adjacent to the Pavilion, using the Pavilion’s facilities and providing outdoor seating for paying customers (Figure 7).

From its beginning, many members of the Union Square community have voiced their opposition to a private restaurant operating within a public park, particularly since people who want to use the seats and tables outside the Pavilion are escorted there by a maitre d’ and must be paying customers of the restaurant. When asked why he found the restaurant offensive, Jack Taylor, longtime resident of the area and vociferous member of the Union Square Community Coalition, said, “You are escorted to a table by a maitre d’ in the most proletariat square in New York City.”

Taking into consideration these sentiments, but also recognizing that the public has come to accept the presence of a restaurant (and indeed enjoys its services), we feel that an appropriate solution would be to locate an entirely non-profit, self-service restaurant within the Pavilion. Currently, the restaurant operators pay the city $130,000 of rent annually, all of which goes to the city’s General Fund and does not benefit Union Square in any way. Our proposal would call for a portion of all restaurant proceeds to be invested directly into maintenance and restoration of the Park and the Pavilion, modeled on the organization of the New Leaf Café at Fort Tryon Park. Greenmarket produce would be a featured ingredient in the food offered by the restaurant, and customers would serve themselves, eliminating the need for a wait staff. The Parks Department’s preliminary design called for the raising of the seating to the Pavilion level, and the connection and extension of the playground. This plan would still be used, but the seating would be available for use by the general public. No maitre d’ would be needed, ridding the Pavilion of the perceived air of exclusivity it currently has.

Our justification for continuing a private use within the Pavilion is that any use is better than no use at all, with respect to the long-term maintenance and preservation of a building. Our proposal provides for limited private use, while broadening the public sphere associated with this use.