Survey of Arts Management

Course blog for American University PERF-570, Fall 2014

Innovative Re-design or a Waste of Resources?

This New York Times article talks about the proposed build on the west Manhattan waterfront that would be “a $170 million, futuristic park built atop an undulating platform 186 feet off the Hudson River shoreline with a series of wooded nooks and three performance venues, including an amphitheater.”  The project will mostly be funded by billionaire Barry Diller, with a smaller portion coming from the city, the state, and the Hudson River Park Trust, roughly $39.5 million.  They plan to use this space to host many free concerts, and they hope to revitalize the area by reshaping and revitalizing the dilapidated pier.

They do address some environmental concerns with the park’s parallelogram-shaped platform that will be designed to on 300 concrete columns that vary in height to keep the structure the minimum required height above the water level post-Hurricane Sandy.

They have also attempted “to address environmental issues in an area of the Hudson designated as a marine sanctuary and spawning ground for striped bass. The platform’s height would allow sunlight below and would also guard against storms.”

So, do you think this could be a great addition to the New York landscape and arts scene, or is it a misapplication of funding that could be used elsewhere on existing projects?

Advertisements

About Jenni

My name is Jenni. I am a writer, dreamer, and theatre enthusiast. I love life. I love to travel. I love to laugh. And I think life is beautiful. Follow my Twitter: @imRoseNCrantz

3 comments on “Innovative Re-design or a Waste of Resources?

  1. gaochang619
    November 19, 2014

    I have seen several familiar words such “revitalize” and “dilapidated”, because in my memory they are connected to an abandoned theme park, “Wonderland”, in the suburb near Beijing. It intended to be “the largest amusement park in Asia” and also an entertainment complex, but it failed at last due to disagreements with the local government and farmers over property prices. And it kept standing there for 14 years with the fame of “Real Silent Hill”. Take a look at it in this link:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/12/chinas-abandoned-wonderland/100207/

    A feasible marketing plan and wise managers truly count in this case. To avoid tragedies like Beijing’s Wonderland, it is not the $39.5 million that works, but many complicated organizational and business factors should be integrated well to realize the project.

  2. carolynsupinka18
    November 21, 2014

    This is a really interesting project. In addition to the organizational issues Chang mentioned, I think another interesting source of potential conflict is in the private control of a public space issue. With one very wealthy patron funding this project, I wonder how that will affect the programming at the park, and how visitors interact with the space? The reference Assemblywoman Glick made about the history of wealthy arts patrons ‘defining’ what the classics are was great and reminded me of our reading.
    I do think it’s wonderful that an individual has decided to use his resources to create such an interesting project for the public! I’ll be interested to see how it turns out.

  3. yaoge2016
    November 21, 2014

    I think the concern that the project is a waste of resources derives from the place the project taking place – New York City, where resources and opportunities enriched, and seems not to lack another landmark. But I would view it as a good deed, for if succeeds, the place will precent free concerts which benefits the public and the construction process also creates financial benefits and job opportunities. However, I suggest it should be built in other area instead of Manhattan, which helps to improve the equality of resources allocation.

Comments are closed.

Information

This entry was posted on November 18, 2014 by .
%d bloggers like this: