Next American City explains how public-private partnerships are seen as the new model for cities seeking to build and maintain parks, but have been used for sometime in New York City, to somewhat mixed reviews. New York City has many star-parks—Central Park, Madison Square Park, Bryant Park, Brooklyn Bridge Park, and the High Line—that sport groomed lawns and a range of amenities and programming. However, the park system also has some 1,795 other parks, and Next American City argues that the majority of these parks go neglected, creating a two class system of park haves and havenots. In their analysis, the New York City parks department hasn’t figured out how to effectively use multi-sector partnerships to maintain high-quality public space for residents in all boroughs.
The New York City Department of Parks & Recreation stretches its skimpy budget (it gets around $230 million out of a $63 billion NYC budget) by linking up with a network of privately-funded, park-specific conservancies. Meanwhile, the fundraising prowess of city park conservancies is reflected in the city’s cherished high-profile public places. These conservancies are responsible for raising funds and keeping the jewels of NYC’s park system in shape. For example, Central Park’s well-connected conservancy raises some 85 percent of Central Park’s annual $27 million operating budget. However, as president of NYC Park Advocates Geoffrey Croft points out, the result is that “New York has created a two-tier park system. One for the rich, the other for the poor.”
As an example, Next American City points to the evolution in plans for a 1.3-mile stretch of park-based piers (later named Brooklyn Bridge Park), which started in 1984. Residents soon found the project stalled because the city, which cannot borrow money for maintenance, needed to find external maintenance funds. As the residents began to raise money to move the project forward, they also hired landscape architects and consultants to figure out a feasible maintenance cost and revenue stream. In 2002, the city approved a plan, which included building a restaurant and a small hotel with a conference center, to finance park upkeep.
Two years later, the city released a different plan through the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation (BBPDC). “Gone were the playing fields, pools, skateboard half-pipe, recreation center and amphitheater. In their place was a kayaking area, ‘dune landscape’ and berths for 180 yachts. The new plan had high-rises in the park, with 1,250 luxury condos, as well as a hotel, retail and restaurants — all meant to pay for upkeep. The cost has since ballooned to $350 million.” With a new design and more amenities, the price of park maintenance also increased nearly four-fold. Next American City points to much higher maintenance operating costs, such as a $20,000 lump sum for touching up lines and markings on pavement and a $44.01-hourly-rate for hand-picking weeds, as primary causes. A retired investment banker who headed the residents’ group in the ‘80s said: “They ginned up the cost to justify the housing.”
Next American City said local condo developers were expected to reap some $700 million from the new pier parks when they are completed. Then-New York Senator Hillary Clinton visited and agreed that building condos to fund the park was “disingenuous,” arguing that ”public land should be public land.” Within days, however, Senator Clinton “backtracked.” In a letter to the BBPDC, Clinton wrote: “although I believe public revenues should support public assets. I understand that cities across the nation, including New York, have had to struggle to find dedicated revenue sources to fund park maintenance.”
Looking beyond the green and groomed, there seems to be widespread disappointment on park financing, at least among parks watchdog and community groups. The NYC Parks Department’s tiny maintenance budget faces more cuts. To pick up the slack, private conservancies may need to focus their park fundraising and future development on plans that may first benefit the conservancy, local developers, or corporate sponsors. If volunteer-based maintenance fizzles out, plans for city-wide tax for parks—similar to those in Chicago and Minneapolis—are shot down for “squelch[ing] entrepreneurial spirit.” Given this budgetary and political landscape, what type of funding structure would be best for maintaining New York City’s park system?
If the NYC parks department’s budget continues to shrink, there’s one potential solution: A city-wide private parks foundation. Seattle Parks Foundation, for example, works on many fronts: advocacy, fundraising, project oversight, park system planning, and programming. Under this scenario, local residents in wealthier areas could continue to connect with active, accountable park-specific conservancies, and poorer neighborhoods could get help from a city-wide foundation to form their own volunteer groups or conservancies and finance upkeep of long-neglected community parks. A mutually-beneficial relationship between the parks departments and a city-wide park foundation could help the city’s neglected parks win a bigger voice in discussions on city-wide park maintenance. The other less-palatable option for some: financing the upkeep of neglected parks with corporate advertising and sponsorships and local business operations within parks.
Send in your thoughts about how NYC can finance a more equitable upkeep of its 1,800 parks.
Image credit: Mullaly Park, South Bronx, New York City / NY Daily News
