museum expansion goes public

“This park is your park, this park is my park, from Columbus Avenue to Central Park West. From 77th Street to 81st Street, this park was made for you and me.”

So sang a group of roughly 50 people who gathered in the shade of Theodore Roosevelt Park last week to protest a planned expansion of the American Museum of Natural History. The museum sits within the park. A proposed new Gilder Center announced last summer would encroach on 11,600 square feet of the park by the Columbus Avenue/79th Street entrance.

Cary Goodman, a neighbor to the museum and fierce opponent of the Gilder Center, emceed the Sept. 13 rally before leading his group to an information session the museum hosted that evening. The official plan was presented to the Landmarks Preservation Commission to the public.

Many of the roughly 100 attendees had already seen some of the renderings and facts presented at the hearing, but it was the first time the architect Jeanne Gang, who designed the Gilder Center, was available to answer questions. Museum President Ellen Futter, preservation historian Bill Higgins and landscape architect Joe James were on the panel with Gang to break down the museum’s application to the commission, which was required because the museum is a landmark.

Though most aspects of the project stayed the same, the square footage was recently increased from 218,000 to 235,000. Opponents at the rally beforehand expressed outrage over the added space, which had already been revealed by the press the week before. Critics did not seem to care that the plans for the building’s footprint in the park would remain the same.

“This is the perfect definition of the word ‘chutzpah,’” Goodman said. “If somebody tells you it won’t affect the dog run, who knows? They’ve changed the plan three times already.”

According to museum officials, the extra square footage is a result of renovations and modifications that will be made to existing museum space to better integrate it into the new Gilder Center.

“Through the process of moving from concept to schematic design, that square footage has adjusted,” said Senior Vice President Anne Siegel. “And again that’s the project, not just building per se. You heard Jeanne [Gang] talk about the over 40,000 square feet of existing campus that’s being extensively renovated that’s adjacent to the Gilder Center, which is a significant part of that adjustment. It will house programs that closely coordinate with the Gilder Center.”

Other questions posed by neighbors and community members at the information session last week addressed a range of issues. They included: the fate of a time capsule buried in the construction zone; the location of any chemicals and mechanics that may be used; the sustainability of the new building; and the traffic flow of school buses and children, given that the Gilder Center is designed to attract more use as a second main entrance.

“Why is the public being asked to provide precious public park land which, by the way, they’re not making any more of, and public funds for this project?” asked Bill Raudenbush, referencing the $16 million in city funds Council Member Helen Rosenthal helped secure for the project last fall. Rosenthal was disparaged at the rally for that move.

Raudenbush later added that he thought the museum could accomplish its goals in the space it already has.

Another common complaint: the museum hasn’t worked sufficiently with the community to hear feedback and accommodate suggestions. But the museum did announce this summer that a park working group, comprised of museum officials and residents, had figured out a way to save two beloved canopy trees — reducing the estimated tree casualties from nine to seven.

The working group also collaborated on a new design for the section of the park between the Nobel monument and the 79th Street entrance, so that visitors could retain their respite and play space without being disturbed by foot or vehicle traffic.

The day before the public session, the museum hosted a meeting with several residents, at their request, to hear still more concerns. Afterward, resident Dee Rieber sent an email to the museum officials saying the meeting had raised more questions than it answered.

“It is still unclear as to why the museum persists on a plan using public funds, which requires the destruction of trees and ultimately wildlife,” Rieber said. “Not to mention the usurping of the green space we now enjoy. Why would you think this is going to be acceptable?”

In response to residents who aggressively grilled the panelists at the hearing about issues that had been brought up before, one attendee could be heard expressing her annoyance in a whisper: “It’s the same questions every single time.”

Next Tuesday, at Goddard Riverside Community Center, there will be another opportunity for dissenters to say their piece at a joint session of Community Board 7’s parks and preservation committees. The museum will present their landmarks application to the committees for their recommendation, which will then go to the full board for a vote at their next meeting on Oct. 5.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission is expected to schedule a discussion on the application sometime this fall.

Madeleine Thompson can be reached at newsreporter@strausnews.com