Gramercy Park

[BigMac]

New York Times
November 19, 2006

With the Gate Ajar, a Kingdom in Danger?

By JENNIFER BLEYER

In a neighborhood whose jewel is a famously exclusive park, few things involving that park go unnoticed.

This was apparent last Sunday, when Sallie Scripter, a local resident who was leaving Gramercy Park with her 19-month-old daughter, saw that the north gate of the park was standing wide open.

This was not the first time in recent months that Ms. Scripter had noticed the wrought-iron gate ajar. In August, Ian Schrager reopened the Gramercy Park Hotel, equipped with Italian linen, art by Andy Warhol, and keys to the park. Ever since then, local residents, who also possess keys to the park, have occasionally remarked that the gate had been left open.

An open gate may not seem a terribly pressing issue, but keys to this kingdom are highly prized. The hotel keeps its six keys for guest use on giant silver rings, each about the diameter of a Frisbee and decorated with a showy gold tassel.

Arlene Harrison, a park trustee, says she thought that hotel guests occasionally left the gate open because it was too heavy to close, or simply because they didn’t realize that according to park rules, it must be closed and locked even when visitors are inside.

And anxiety about the open gate may have less to do with the presence of guests at the hotel, where prices start at $525 a night, than of other people. “The terrible threat,” Ms. Harrison said, “is that with the gate wide open, hordes of people may come in.”

Last week, in response to complaints, the hotel set forth what may be one of the most formal procedures ever devised for a walk in a green space. According to Ellis O’Connor, the hotel’s general manager, park-bound guests will be escorted there by a hotel worker, then educated about the park’s history and rules, including its bans on alcohol, pets, and groups larger than six. The worker will open the gate, close it behind the guests, and give them a key to let themselves out.

Still, Ms. Harrison intends to keep close tabs on it. “I speak to the managers there once or twice daily,” she said. ”And I talk to Ian Schrager at least twice a week.”

But if the park key holders are now happy that their space is safely private again, Courtney Spencer, a marketing executive who was walking nearby one day last week, was not. “I’m not nuts about the fact that it’s so exclusive,” he said. “It’s a nice-looking park, but it feels a little like a fortress.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[MidtownGuy]

"Ms. Harrison" should go jump in the river.
with silver rings and gold tassssssels attached.:rolleyes:

[nycla3]

Pompous and funny..."hordes...."

But to put it in perspective, I lived on E 18th St. for many years in the 70's and 80's. I walked by Gramercy Park almost every day and nobody invited me in so I just never got too worked up about it. It looked fabulous and quaint and if that was the way it was...OK by me...

I don't have any issues with this being a private park. If it were open, it wouldn't take much time for it to resemble any other public space in New York...and that would be a damn shame.

I bought a membership to an airline club after many years and, well....membership does have privledges. I get it.

[brianac]

The Guardian of Gramercy Park’s Leafy Seclusion

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/06/19/nyregion/19grammercy.600.jpg Librado Romero/The New York Times
Arlene Harrison at the gate of Gramercy Park, one of two private parks in the city. Only those who live adjacent to the park have access.

By ERIC KONIGSBERG (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/eric_konigsberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: June 19, 2008

Arlene Harrison calls herself the mayor of Gramercy Park, and she does not just mean that she knows almost everybody who walks through the lush, private two-acre expanse in the East 20s enough to say hello. Ms. Harrison’s influence over that particular piece of prime Manhattan green space and its neighbors — some 900 units in 39 buildings border the park — is felt in the “Keep off the grass” signs and the holly bushes she had installed recently “to block out the streets and the sidewalk.”

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/06/19/nyregion/19grammercy2.650.jpg
Librado Romero/The New York Times
Gramercy Park, two acres in the East 20s, at a level of use that is close to typical, even when the weather is good.

Since Ms. Harrison started the Gramercy Park Block Association in 1994, after her son was attacked and beaten up in front of their apartment building at 34 Gramercy Park, she has effectively remade the area in her own image.

She has added to a list of regulations (no dogs, no feeding of birds, no groups larger than six people, no Frisbees or soccer balls or “hard balls” of any kind) that, in turn, have served to dictate how the park is — and is not — used. Most recently, she helped pave the way for Zeckendorf Realty to redevelop a 17-story Salvation Army (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/salvation_army/index.html?inline=nyt-org) boarding house on the south side of the park, and for the company’s plan to convert the 300 rooms into 14 floor-through apartments plus a penthouse duplex. The company would not confirm the transaction.

“One of Will Zeckendorf’s best friends lives in my building and I liked him,” she said. “I like what they did with 15 Central Park West. I think they’re the best developers for the job.”

She added: “It will change the neighborhood for the better. It will be less use on the park.”

Indeed, while a key to Gramercy Park — or, more precisely, an address that entitles one to such a key — is among the most coveted items of New York real estate, under Ms. Harrison’s stewardship, the park has become perhaps the least-used patch of open space in the city. Most days, in nice weather, one would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people in the park at once, and few linger.

Gramercy is one of two private parks in New York City (the other, in Queens, is Sunnyside Gardens Park), and a key is required not only to enter, but to leave through a gate in its wraparound wrought-iron fence.
Each of the 63 lots on which the current 39 buildings sit gets two keys, which residents (and guests at the Gramercy Park Hotel) may borrow from their doormen. In addition, residents of those buildings — but only those — may purchase keys for $350 per year; the keys are all but impossible to copy and cost $1,000 to replace.

About 400 people now have keys, but many of them apparently sit unused in junk drawers in the grand foyers in the apartments overlooking the park. One sunny morning last week, as Ms. Harrison chatted with the Rev. Thomas F. Pike, rector of Calvary-St. George’s Church, there were three others in the park: a woman checking her BlackBerry, a custodial worker and a jogger. On a Saturday morning three days later, about two dozen people could be spotted in the park over the course of four hours, and never more than six or eight at a time.

“Honestly, we don’t use it that much,” said Gale Rundquist, a real estate broker who has lived on the park for five years. Still, she said, access “adds a lot to a listing; it’s panache.”

“Because we work during the day, and we leave town on the weekends,” she explained of her own nonusage. “But it’s beautiful to look at.”

Actual use of the park is not Ms. Harrison’s measure. “It was always an ornamental park,” she said. “A lot of people don’t even go in to enjoy it.

They’re so thrilled just to see it. It’s like a hotel room with a view of the ocean.”

Mr. Pike, who like Ms. Harrison is on the park’s five-member elected board of trustees, noted that his dogs were not allowed inside, “but they love to walk around it.”

Over the years, Ms. Harrison and her supporters have feuded with O. Aldon James Jr., president of the National Arts Club (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_arts_club/index.html?inline=nyt-org) (which is on the park and thus is entitled to a few keys), and his supporters. There have been fights over regulations, pruning and birds. There has been a discrimination lawsuit (quietly settled). Today, the rift has essentially come down to access (he is for more, imagining the space as a delightful one for arts club functions).

For years the two were friends, but after a falling-out Ms. Harrison aligned herself with Sharen S. Benenson, a park trustee who up to then had been the primary object of Mr. James’s populist agitations.

“There used to be concerts and dance recitals in the park, but Arlene Harrison is afraid of who’ll show up,” Mr. James said in an interview last week. “It would be much truer to the spirit of the place if more people from the community could use it.”

The park is beautiful and tranquil. There are well-manicured flower beds, statuary, grand American elms, plenty of usually empty benches, and those holly bushes. “It creates seclusion,” Ms. Harrison said, adding that night club traffic along 21st Street is “too much.”

Ms. Harrison, a smallish, high-spirited woman, patrols the park and its surroundings every day from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., clipboard in hand. “I talk to the all the buildings’ supers about their concern,” she explained. “Quality of life issues. Individual renovations. Noise.”

She knows the rhythms of the park intimately. “Between 5:30 and 6:30 in the morning, there are two people here,” she said. “One walks, the other breaks into a jog and stretches occasionally. Two women walk here at 7, and then a third joins them at 7:15. The nannies come in with the small kids around 11, and then again around 4.

“Saturday, it’s empty,” she added. “People are doing their errands.”
There is, to be frank, not much to do in the park. Music is forbidden. So are alcoholic beverages, bicycles and furniture. A gravel path around the perimeter provides the only opportunity for low-impact play, or, for that matter, running or walking. Ms. Harrison said parents constantly offer to donate playground components for the park, but she won’t have it.

“Too much wear and tear,” she said. “But do you know what? The children who grow up here learn to use their imagination.”

Just past noon on Saturday, a maintenance worker asked two young women enjoying a picnic lunch to produce their keys, and, when they could not, politely asked them to leave. They politely agreed and headed for the gate, but had to be let out by a stranger with a key.

“I didn’t know it was a private park — we just followed somebody in,” said Elizabeth Heyman. “I’ve heard of Gramercy Park. Which is the one with all those rent-stabilized apartments with the old people?”

Ms. Harrison, who worked for decades as a special-education teacher in the public schools, supervises the block association’s extensive philanthropic projects and community advocacy. These have ranged from preventing a disco from opening in the neighborhood to volunteering with the local police precinct and raising money for Hurricane Katrina (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/hurricane_katrina/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) victims.
She has lived on the park since 1971, when she and her ex-husband, a financier, bought an apartment for “around $68,000,” she said, adding that it is worth “millions” today.

Steven Leitner, the longest-serving park trustee, said that as Manhattan real estate values have increased, most residents of the buildings on the park are not very interested in park governance and see the debate as quaint.

“We live in an era when people are so concerned with making money,” he added. “These people don’t have time to use the park or to make much of a fuss about it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/nyregion/19gramercy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=nyregion

Copyright 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[MidtownGuy]

I think Harrison's a total nutcase with her little clipboard. Poor thing was probably never the same since her son was attacked. Now she is afraid of people.

Someone should blow the gates apart and bring in a classroom of laughing children and a busload of old folks from the nearest nursing home.

[Sunnygirl]

I understand the advantages of a private park - and don't have a problem with it being private... I do find it amusing that Ms. Harrison is so concerned about "hordes" of people coming into the park, though.

However, what is really sad, is all of the restrictions put on the people that have access to the park. It's as though they can look at it, but don't you dare have fun in it. Those poor little kids... kids like to run & play in parks. Ms. Harrison's comment about how they do not need playthings in a park, that they should just "use their immagination", simply makes her look like the Grinch of Gramercy Park. I bet she bought heirloom toys for her son when he was growing up, that he was able to "look" at, but not "play" with... which is just how she is running the park.

It is very sad that such a beautiful space can not be fully enjoyed by it's members, especially considering that they pay such a high price to live there. Then again, I guess if they really cared, they would have exiled Ms. Harrison long ago... I know I would have.

What a shame.

[Alonzo-ny]

no dogs, no feeding of birds, no groups larger than six people

Get the f*** outta here.

[brianac]

Streetscapes | Lexington Avenue at Gramercy Park North

On the Trail of Stanford White

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/26/realestate/26scap-600.jpg
Left, Bettman/Corbis; Right, from "Stanford White, Architect"/Rizzoli - Museum of the City of New York
GILDED AGE The sumptuous interior of Stanford White's renovated brownstone on Gramercy Park was a virtual advertisement for his decorating style. The house, its exterior shown at left, no longer stands.

By CHRISTOPHER GRAY (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=CHRISTOPHER GRAY&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=CHRISTOPHER GRAY&inline=nyt-per)
Published: October 24, 2008

“STANFORD WHITE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/stanford_white/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Architect,” a book published this month by Rizzoli, is a sumptuous look at the designer’s most inventive commissions, from the Lovely Lane Methodist Church in Baltimore to the Century Association in New York.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/24/realestate/26scap-2-190.jpg From "Stanford White, Architect"/Rizzoli - Museum of the City of New York
Stanford White

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/24/realestate/26scap-3-500.jpgAndrea Mohin/The New York Times
Samuel White, a grandson of the architect, and his wife, Elizabeth, below center at White's Washington Square Arch, have written a book on his work.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/24/realestate/26scap-4-500.jpgJonathan Wallen
Exterior detail from an 1882 White house.

But one project the authors, Samuel White, a great-grandson of the architect, and his wife, Elizabeth White, feature prominently in the book is long gone: Stanford White’s own residence, a renovated brownstone on Lexington Avenue at Gramercy Park North.

Born in New York on Nov. 9, 1853, Stanford White was accomplished early at drawing and painting, and soon showed remarkable design ability. He joined forces with Charles McKim and William Mead in 1879, and within a short time the firm was at or near the top of architectural practice in America, with contracts even in its earliest years for the Newport Casino, the Villard Houses and other major projects.

Throughout their partnership McKim played the intellectual, learned classicist, poring over reference books; Mead, the steady hand on the business side; and White, the impulsive creative genius, always in a hurry but completely assured in his ideas.

Samuel White is an architect, and his wife, Elizabeth, is an editor. Their book is particularly notable for Jonathan Wallen’s photographs. Their close-in views allow the reader to get nose-to-nose with the brilliant details emblematic of White’s originality. And ill-lighted interiors seldom seen by the public, like the rooms at the Seventh Regiment Armory, at Park Avenue and 66th Street, with their intricate chain and other decorations, are brought out of their usual smoky gloom.

At the shingle-style Alden house in Cornwall, Pa., the Whites pay tribute to tiny matters like two stucco panels, one filled with pebbles and bits of glass, the other with painted wooden leaves and anthracite coal.

Out of such humble materials, Stanford White could conjure elegance. Marine serpents for porch brackets, a Colonial bed warmer used as a panel decoration, inch-worm-shaped screen perforations, keystones bursting into flames: these were the products of his genius as much as majestically proportioned ballrooms or Renaissance-style facades.

The Villard houses, at Madison Avenue and 50th Street, feature dreamy blue- and white-veined marble, cut in one instance into a great scallop shell — a hypnotic quarter-sphere of blue cheese.

And the astonishing mirrored Venetian Room in the house built for Payne Whitney, at Fifth Avenue and 78th Street, has a series of porcelain flowers woven into the gilt basket-weave screen that forms the ceiling.

White’s own house on Gramercy Park is presented in black and white; it was demolished in the 1920s, for what is now Ian Schrager (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/ian_schrager/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s Gramercy Park Hotel. White moved into the half-century old brownstone in 1898 and proceeded to rebuild it into a temple of decorative art.

The parlor was practically a salesroom for European decorative arts, walls of antique red velvet flanking a colossal fireplace assemblage: an Egyptian-style mantel, topped with an intricate gilt screen over a mirror, and flanked by bulbous twisted columns crowned with improbably small Corinthian capitals. The third-floor picture gallery had a beamed, skylighted ceiling; a baroque-style doorway; and an iron grille guarding White’s collection of Renaissance and contemporary art.

Anyone enthralled with the romance of Stanford White should read as a complement Paul R. Baker’s sobering “Stanny: The Gilded Life of Stanford White” (Free Press, 1989). The last decade of White’s life was a maelstrom of spiraling debt, compulsive buying and troubled health, masked all too well by an exuberant good nature.

Prof. Baker quotes a letter from White in 1899 saying he faced “debtor’s prison” over cost overruns on the Gramercy Park house. In 1905 a warehouse fire destroyed $250,000 worth of furniture and artwork which he had planned to sell to offset bills of over half a million dollars. Prof. Baker’s book recounts how White was in “stony misery” for two days, and then broke down and sobbed “like a child.”

White was shot and killed in 1906 by Harry K. Thaw, the jealous husband of a former lover. According to an autopsy, his health was so fragile that he was unlikely to have survived another year.

E-mail: streetscapes@nytimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/realestate/26scap.html?ref=realestate

Copyright 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[Alonzo-ny]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/24/realestate/26scap-3-500.jpg

Sam is one of the partners at the firm I used to work for, great guy.

[Merry]

Two Sides Square Off Behind Locked Gramercy Park Gates

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NY-AF559_GRAMER_F_20100516190249.jpg

Gramercy Park is lovely in the full bloom of spring, but what goes on around the park isn't always so pretty.

For those with keys to its iron gates, Manhattan's only private park is very much a small town, complete with bitter squabbles and decades-long grudges. The neighbors have gathered into two main camps of combatants.

In the official corner are the park's five trustees. Elected to lifetime terms by the owners of lots along the park, they interpret and enforce the 1831 deed created by developer Samuel B. Ruggles. Although James M. Clark Jr. is the trust's chairman, its most visible member is Arlene Harrison, who in 1994 founded the Gramercy Park Block Association, a nonprofit community group.

Leading the opposition is O. Aldon James, president of the National Arts Club, at 15 Gramercy Park. Mr. James, who lives in one of the club's 48 residential units, has objected—sometimes with legal action—to many of the trustees' moves over the years. His most recent frustrations: The park was double-locked for five days in April, preventing even key holders from entering; and on May 5, Mr. Clark reprimanded him for bringing 20 architecture and art history graduate students from Columbia University into the park.

Park rules stipulate that the maximum number of guests is six (for events not organized by the trust), of which Mr. James was reminded in a letter signed by Mr. Clark—accompanied by a photograph of the tour group in the park.

"It's Big Brother stuff," Mr. James exclaimed.

"I just reminded him that he was breaking the rules," Mr. Clark said.

Mr. James acknowledges that the rules exist, but he wants them loosened to encourage greater use and enjoyment of the shared space. (He does not, however, argue that the park should be made public.)

One former resident, who lived on the park for five years, describes the scene inside the gates: "Unfortunately, the park itself is not that functional for younger residents. I spent little time there, which is a shame considering it is a beautiful place with lots of history, as well as interesting art. You are not able to walk or relax on the grass, and the benches are definitely not intended for socializing."

Mr. James's ire is directed squarely at Ms. Harrison, though she considers this a one-sided fight. "This is a peaceful community," she said. "It's not the least bit of a war."

In addition to her official capacities, Ms. Harrison is a self-appointed warden. She walks the park every morning at 6:30 a.m., making notes on the conditions inside. She circles around to the doormen of park buildings—then circles back in case there is any news that needs to be shared. She returns to the park interior again later. "I come in from 3 to 5:30 to be with the children and the nannies. I talk to them," she said. "I work seven days a week."

She regularly e-mails news and photographs—of anything from gardeners at work to children at Easter—to about 700 residents on the park. She is also now leading the charge against a proposed bar at 38 Gramercy Park. "I am devoted to this neighborhood. Every inch of it," she said.

But in Mr. James's view, Ms. Harrison's devotion doesn't necessarily confers legitimacy: "She does not speak for the trust. James Clark is the chairman."

According to Mr. Clark, the tensions are, at least partially, left over from another era of leadership. In 2001, Mr. James sued the trust and its chairwoman at the time, Sharen Benenson, claiming she prevented him from escorting a group of minority schoolchildren into the park. "The current trustees were not the trustees when the National Arts Club president brought the lawsuit," Mr. Clark said. "But because of the lawsuit and what it has cost to settle that, there is some animosity."

The suit was settled out of court in September 2003 and the terms were sealed.
It was not the first such tussle. In 1994, Mr. James and others objected to the removal of 10 trees (he still refers to it as "arboricide"), and accusations of pigeon poisoning followed, in 1998.

During the recent lockouts, Mr. James chose physical, rather than legal, action. On April 29, he scaled the tall, iron fence with two ladders—just as he did on April 13, when he was confronted with signs reading: "For your safety, the park is closed today."

Ms. Harrison confirms that the park was closed five times—for a routine spring cleanup and for tree management. "We had 12 crab apple trees that were in various stages of decay and dying. It was in danger of spreading to other trees," she said, adding that the tree experts tried "various techniques" that necessitated closing the park, lest children should be put in danger.

Mr. James said he wasn't informed that the park would be closed. Ms. Harrison says that's because he has not asked to be on the e-mail list. Mr. James confirms he is not on the list—as a matter of representation.

"To get her e-mails, you have to belong to the Gramercy Park Block Association," he said. "We are members of the Gramercy Neighborhood Associates."

The GNA, which Ms. Harrison was a part of before splitting off to start her own group, includes residents on the park and in the surrounding neighborhood. GNA's president, Alan Krevis, declined to comment on the differences between his group and Ms. Harrison's. He did, however, praise one of his constituents: "Aldon James has been very generous to our organization."

Ms. Harrison says she started her group—it has 1,600 members on the park and beyond, she says—to reach out to new residents and young families. The difference between the two groups, she says, is based on the breadth of activities: "They are into historic preservation. We work on safety, security and quality-of-life issues."

Thomas F. Pike, a trustee for three years and a resident of the area for 40, defends Ms. Harrison's work for the neighborhood, which he says has the tensions of any family—one with "discretionary money and discretionary time."

"Arlene can walk into the park and name every child in there. She's like a grandmother to everyone," said Mr. Pike. "She's vigilant in protecting the park. She's also a civic activist—and because she's an activist, she can be gristly."

Elected in 2003, Ms. Harrison says the trustees emphasize communication because previous leaders did not. "There was never communication. Nothing that I can remember," she said.

When elected, she and Mr. Clark started sending annual reports to all residents. After the 2001 lawsuit was settled, the trustees drafted formal rules for the park and had them approved by lot owners. The rules—which are posted—are also sent annually. They include: No standing or sitting on the grass. No alcohol. No pets. No Frisbees, soccer balls, footballs or baseballs. No musical, theatrical or other entertainment unless organized by the trust. Wedding parties (no guests) may take photos—while standing only on the graveled areas.

Keys to the park cost $350 per year, and there is only one per residential unit. Buildings may buy two keys per year at $1,000 apiece. In addition, lot owners pay $3,000 a year for normal operating expenses and $2,500 for capital assessment.

Mr. Clark says the rules are an interpretation of the original deed. Written in 1831, it does not ban Frisbees. It does, however, offer specifics on what types of business are not permitted: no tanneries, no brass foundries, no museums, no circus.

Clubs, however, pass muster. And new residents quickly discover that the trust is more closely allied to The Players—the club founded by Edwin Booth in 1888 that is located at 16 Gramercy Park—than the National Arts Club. "It's very low-profile," Ms. Harrison said of The Players. "The community has a caring relationship toward it. We don't want it to disappear."

Although the National Arts Club itself may receive the same consideration, its president does not. "I don't think I spend 10 minutes a year thinking about Aldon James, except when he pulls these stunts," said Mr. Clark. "There's not much you can do about it."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703745904575248273175885124.html?m od=rss_newyork_main

[BBMW]

Maybe it's time for the city to take this by eminent domain, and make it public?

[scumonkey]

on what grounds?

[lofter1]

incessant bickering.

[ablarc]

Because I was staying at the hotel, I was given a key. My kids loved it in the snow --up to a point. They understood their privileges were conditional.

[ZippyTheChimp]

They should open it up for croquet matches.

http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/p-0519.jpg

[BBMW]

on what grounds?

To make it a city park. The only rules for seizure by eminent domain are that the seizure would be for public use and with just compensation. Making it a public park would satisfy the first. And how much is a plot of land on which you can't build anything worth?

[lofter1]

The folks with keys would have their lawyers claim that it's priceless.

[lofter1]

Trying to make a claim on the park land would open a huge can of worms, especially based on the fact that nearby property owners have, for over 100 years, been paying property taxes which include an assessment of increased value due to proximity to the park. The 1831 deed that created Gramercy Park looks to be air-tight.

In 1909, NYC was refrained from collecting taxes on the actual park land:

GRAMERCY PARK TAX HELD ILLEGAL

Referee Finds City Can Collect Only by Raising Assessments on Surrounding Property.
PROTECTED BY EASEMENTS
City May Have to Refund Upward of $100,000 If Court Upholds Referee's Report.

NY TIMES (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CEFDA1439E733A25755C0A9649C94 6897D6CF)
February 6, 1909

Gramercy Park, the lawns and walks of which have been used exclusively by the owners of the houses facing it, since that right was vested in them by Samuel Ruggles in 1831, will not have to pay any taxes to the City of New York hereafter if the report which Referee Hamilton Odell has just completed is confirmed by the Supreme Court ...

***

CAN'T TAX GRAMERCY PARK

Appellate Division Concurs in View That It Increases Surrounding Taxes.

NY TIMES (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C00EEDE1E39E333A25756C2A9609C94 6196D6CF)
June 25, 1910

Gramercy Park, owned by the residents surrounding it, is not subject to taxation, according to the decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, handed down yesterday. This decision dismissed $1,750,000 assessments against the park by the Tax Commissioners ...

[ablarc]

They should open it up for croquet matches.
... and don't forget badminton!

[lofter1]

GRAMERCY PARK.

NY TIMES (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A06EFD71739E133A25750C0A9619C94 6095D6CF)
July 3, 1921

Editorial

In commemoration of the ninetieth anniversary of the dedication of Gramercy Park, JOHN B. PINE has compiled what he modestly calls a "story" of that interesting residential oasis in a great business centre of the city. Antedating the enactment of the celebrated Murray Hill covenant restriction by more than ten years...

*

[ZippyTheChimp]

To make it a city park. The only rules for seizure by eminent domain are that the seizure would be for public use and with just compensation. Making it a public park would satisfy the first.It wouldn't stand up in court. You would have to show cause for the action; not just that it would be public, but that there's a compelling reason for a public park at that spot.

I think the key-people are well lawyered-up.

[ZippyTheChimp]

... and don't forget badminton!I think badminton might be a little too badass.

Gramercy Park brings to mind William Powell as a stockbroker who lives in a townhouse on Madison Ave in Victorian New York.

[BBMW]

The SCOTUS, in Kelo, essentially gave the gov't carte blanche to use eminent domain for what ever purposes they see fit, includin tranferring ownership of the property to other private owners. Using it to take land for a public park wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. The trust could probably tie it up for several years with court cases and appeals (which can be done by anyone with then money for basically anything.) But, ultimately they'd lose, base on current precident.


It wouldn't stand up in court. You would have to show cause for the action; not just that it would be public, but that there's a compelling reason for a public park at that spot.

I think the key-people are well lawyered-up.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Not correct.

In Kelo v New London, the SCOTUS refused to rule beyond the scope of the particular case before it, leaving it up to individual states to determine their Eminent Domain laws. In other words, they didn't state that the CONCEPT of Eminent Domain was unconstitutional.

So how would the above case be similar to a hypothetical New York City v Gramercy Park.

[lofter1]

Ha Ha ... I'd love to hear the argument that the City would need to make: "Your honor, the City will accomplish better upkeep on the property."

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Maybe a public-need argument.

I can argue croquet for the masses before the court; ablarc on behalf of badminton.

[lofter1]

Could y'all draw up some renders of how that would fit in? Are they dual-purpose courts?

[Merry]

Too late now, but did anyone go? It's lovely.



Gramercy Park Open to Public on Christmas Eve — For One Hour

Gramercy Park's annual Christmas Eve caroling brings hundreds of New Yorkers to the private oasis.

By Amy Zimmer

slide show (http://www.dnainfo.com/20101224/murray-hill-gramercy/gramercy-park-open-public-on-christmas-eve-for-one-hour/slideshow/popup/52123)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R1074_Gramercy_Park_Open_for _Christmas.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R3340_Gramercy_Park_Open_for _Christmas.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R7972_Gramercy_Park_Open_for _Christmas.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R8140_Gramercy_Park_Open_for _Christmas.jpg

Not quite true ;).
http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R1766_Gramercy_Park_Open_for _Christmas.jpg

GRAMERCY PARK — For one hour on Christmas Eve the gates of Gramercy Park will welcome the public for caroling and hot cocoa.

It is one of the few nights a year when the Trustees of Gramercy Park open the two-acre gem to anyone other than the key-holders from buildings lining Manhattan’s only private park.

“People sing and children play and munch and mingle. A lot of people come from the neighborhood and from out of the neighborhood,” said Lys Pike, whose husband, Rev. Thomas Pike, a trustee of Gramercy Park and rector emeritus of the Parish Calvary-St. Georges, has been leading the caroling for 40 years.

“It’s a very long tradition,” Rev. Pike said, recounting the music’s evolution from acappella to a Salvation Army brass band accompaniment to a field organ. It started with fewer than a hundred singers and had grown to nearly 1,000, he said.

It is perhaps the most popular public gathering in the park — a ledge of which was recently scrawled with “Not allowed unless rich” — but there are other rare moments when the gates swing ajar.

It was open to the public earlier in the month, Rev. Pike said, for a Chanukah menorah lighting ceremony led by the Brotherhood Synagogue, at the park’s southeast corner. The park is also open on the Jewish high holiday of Yom Kippur but not for the public-at-large — there is a guard sizing visitors up and determining whether they look like they’re observing the Day of Atonement. (This year, the park closed earlier than usual, surprising some locked-out temple-goers.)

The park had been open for something called “Gramercy Park Day,” but that tradition reportedly ended three years ago.

“The park is open on occasion,” Rev. Pike noted. “The trustees have a responsibility to maintain the park. This sounds like a spin doctor, but the fence is not to keep the public out. It’s to keep the park green and beautiful.”

Several key-holding residents — some of whom noted they were not wealthy and lived in tiny apartments — emphasized that they pay for the park’s upkeep, not taxpayers, and that it was designed to be a private park ever since Samuel B. Ruggles purchased the swampland in 1831.

From the park’s beginning, Rev. Pike said, it was designed to be “ornamental, not recreational.”

It is a green oasis with frequent hawk sightings and 180 other bird species. Dog walkers came from blocks away to walk their pets (which are not allowed inside) around Gramercy Park’s perimeter, Pike said.

“There’s a Japanese concept, ‘borrowed landscape.’ That’s what this is. People borrow the beauty of it,” he said. “We want to keep it the way it always was.”

http://www.dnainfo.com/20101224/murray-hill-gramercy/gramercy-park-open-public-on-christmas-eve-for-one-hour#ixzz19BTWGV00

[BBMW]

Picking this back up a few months later....

Now in NYS/NYC we have a major precident that the state can seize private property and convey that property to another private entity (albeit a major nonprofit.) Of course I'm taking about the Columbia University redevelopment project. This is directly analogous to the Kelo situation.

In light of this, do you really think any court is going to rule against the city if it chose to seize a private park, for conversion to a public park. There's no precident to support blocking it, and many to support allowing it.

As far as the tax issues go, the owners of keyholding properties could probably file a challenge to the assessed values of their property, based on the fact that the seizure reduced their property values. The city would probably counterargue that they still have the use of the park, just not exclusively. The adminstrative law judge who reviews these things could go either way, or split the difference.


^
Not correct.

In Kelo v New London, the SCOTUS refused to rule beyond the scope of the particular case before it, leaving it up to individual states to determine their Eminent Domain laws. In other words, they didn't state that the CONCEPT of Eminent Domain was unconstitutional.

So how would the above case be similar to a hypothetical New York City v Gramercy Park.

[lofter1]

The difference here is that key holders to Gramercy Park are (1) Pretty Damned Wealthy in Comparison and (2) Well Connected When They Need to Be. That's something that folks involved with Kelo / CT and the residents / lessees / owners in Manhattanville couldn't take advantage of.

[BBMW]

^
So you're saying the keyholders could squash any attempt by political pressure? Yeah, that's somewhat likely.

But if they didn't, it got to court, and the city was willing to fight it all the way through, they city would win.

Given that, another major question would be the level of compensation the property owners (and I know know if that would correlate to the keyholders) would be entitled to.

[lofter1]

There is a written covenant for Gramercy Park. Why do you think any court would deem it void?

[BBMW]

I can't find any mention of this by Googling. If you have a link, please post it.

Also, unless the city agreed to specifically give up its eminent domain rights wrt Gramercy Park, I don't think it would impede the city in exercising those rights. And, even if it did, it could probably get the state to do the deed, then confer the property to the city, or run it as (the smallest) state park (admittedly unlikely on both counts, though).

[lofter1]

It's private property, well maintained as decreed under the original 1831 plan. On what valid grounds would the city claim it? And on what legal basis would the city "win"?

The covenant is noted HERE (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11537&p=325439&viewfull=1#post325439). More HERE (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11537&p=325437&viewfull=1#post325437).

Mentioned in the book "A city of one's own: blurring the boundaries between private and public" (By Sophie Body-Gendrot, Jacques Carré, Romain Garbaye) on Page 87 HERE (http://books.google.com/books?id=jXb8Rw7iTVEC&lpg=PA85&ots=rXYxP23aKA&dq=%22Gramercy%20Park%22%20%22Restrictive%20covena nt%22&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q=%22Gramercy%20Park%22%20&f=false)

And in the book "Privatopia" (By Evan McKenzie) on Page 34 (http://books.google.com/books?id=oTtRG7jBB9kC&lpg=PA34&ots=R5jdyPBVvY&dq=%22Gramercy%20Park%22%20%22Restrictive%20covena nt%22&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=%22Gramercy%20Park%22&f=false):

11791

Lot's of history on the creation of Gramercy Park, its deeds and covenants, and the efforts of Samuel B. Ruggles to make it all happen is HERE (http://www.oldandsold.com/articles14/new-york-74.shtml).

[BBMW]

On the grounds that they want to use it for a public park. That's all they need.

The only restrictions on eminent domain are that the property taken be for public use, and with "just compensation". You seem to be under the impression that there are significant restrictions on the reasons a gov't entity can use eminent domain to seize private property. That thinking was smashed by Kelo. And I haven't seen anything that makes me think that there's any greater restrictions on it use based on NYS law.

On what grounds did the city seize the property of private landowners and convey that property to Columbia University? That would seem to and even more egregious use of eminent domain. They took property from one private owner and conveyed it to another private owner (again, albeit a nonprofit.) And this was run all the way up the flagpole to the SCOTUS and not overturned. What about the Atlantic Yards seizures? To build a sports stadium? Would seem to be an even less public use than a public park.

The covenants you talk about seem to establish the relationship between the park, the trust that runs it, and the keyholding buidings. I don't see how the city is any part of this. Also, without taking it, they probably would have a very hard time trying to force them to open it to the public (as you point out, this has been tried.) But they never seem to have tried to seize it (likely because then they would have had to pay for it).

Now, the city, AFAIK, has no plans to try and take Gramercy Park, and has much bigger fish to fry at the moment. So for those reasons (and your issue with the political pull of the keyholders is valid) it's not going to happen at any time in the near, or even far, future. But if they wanted to they could. There's no legitimate question about this.


It's private property, well maintained as decreed under the original 1831 plan. On what valid grounds would the city claim it? And on what legal basis would the city "win"?

[lofter1]

And how would the City run this now private park any better than they run the city's public parks, most of which now demand private money and private conservancies to keep them going -- and to keep them in any condition that makes them truly useful to the public?

Kelo and other cases of eminent domain are always ruled upon individually by the courts based on the public need and the specifics of each case. What is the overriding public need that the city can show would be gained by taking this park out of the private realm?

While there may be "no legitimate question" as to whether or not the court would entertain a motion by the city to take this park, methinks you're assuming too much about how a court would ultimately rule.

[BBMW]

I'm not saying the city wants to seize it. I'm not saying it's politically viable. I'm not saying they'd do a good job running it if they did take it.

All I'm saying is that if the city did want to seize it, and they could get it past the political process, they legally could.


Kelo and other cases of eminent domain are always ruled upon individually by the courts based on the public need and the specifics of each case. What is the overriding public need that the city can show would be gained by taking this park out of the private realm?

Yes, they rule individually, but based on precident. I haven't seen any precident that could be used to block the (theoretical) seizure, and several, including some recent and local, that would support it. Also, I don't see why you think the need has to be overriding? AFAIK, that's never been a factor in any eminent domain seizure. There are some where the basis seems to be pretty flimsy (like property tax base improvent as in Kelo.) They still went through. As far as I can tell, there's no good legal basis for stopping a gov't eminent domain seizure. The most you can do is challenge the valuation of the compensation amount.

[lofter1]

Digging around for information on failures of governmental seizures by Eminent Domain, I could find none ... so I retreat, as it seems you are correct in regard to compensation being the sticking point. I find the position that our government has taken on this (via SCOTUS & Kelo) is entirely retrograde, and therefore have a problem wrapping my head around the fact that private property can be seized willy-nilly, as is the current fashion. But such is the [sorry] state of the world.

Here's an interesting history on Eminent Domain [pdf], going way back to 1066, covering the actions of various English Kings and moving forward, up through the establishment of the takings clause in the US Constitution and on to Kelo and the responses to it:



The Evolution of Eminent Domain (http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_03_04_benson.pdf)

A Remedy for Market Failure or an Effort to Limit Government Power and Government Failure?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Wow, this flimsy hypothetical is still going on?



Now in NYS/NYC we have a major precident that the state can seize private property and convey that property to another private entity (albeit a major nonprofit.)Hardly a precedent at all; happens frequently. Property was seized for construction of the NY Times building. The catchall reason, when all else fails, is blight. Maybe the can find some variety of tree blight in Gramercy Park as an argument.


Of course I'm taking about the Columbia University redevelopment project. This is directly analogous to the Kelo situation.I remember asking you a while back how the Kelo argument was analogous to a possible seizure of Gramercy Park. After all this time, you come up with a connection between Kelo and Columbia.

So what? You can add NY Times, Atlantic Yards, and Fulton Transit. They're all analogous. But how do they relate to a case for Gramercy Park?


Yes, they rule individually, but based on precident. I haven't seen any precident that could be used to block the (theoretical) seizure, and several, including some recent and local, that would support it.The Columbia case you cite was denied by the court. If the court acted improperly because, as you say, there was no precedent, then the Court of Appeals would have thrown out the lower court ruling based on that matter of law.

However, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court decision based on the arguments of the case (http://arguments%20of%20the%20case). As a matter of law, they could have upheld the original decision.

You're entire argument is based on the old adage, "They can indict a ham sandwich. That's true, but ask a lawyer how often such indictments get thrown out of court. You can't argue that it can be done just because the city wants to do it; and you can't argue that it can be done because it's popular.

All the cases mentioned have coherent legal reasons - whether they are a crock or not - for taking private property. What is it for Gramercy Park?

Meanwhile, anyone for a nice game of Croquet?

[BBMW]

Zip,

It may be a silly hypothetical. I'll admit this. But it was useful. Why? The next time some proposal comes down the 'pike that makes use of eminent domain, we don't have to go through this again. As Lofter found out, basically, the government can seize anything they want, pretty much for any purpose they want, as long as they have the political support to do it. The only issue really is how much they have to pay the property owner in compensation.

This thread can now go back to discussing the charms of Gramercy Park, and the Machiavellian machinations of those who run it (and would like to).

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
That's just the point. It wasn't useful at all, because as you said - it's a silly hypothetical.
Who brought it up?

No good argument can be made for this particular situation except "well, if the city wants to do it..."

[lofter1]

Zip,

... the charms of Gramercy Park, and the Machiavellian machinations of those who run it (and would like to).

That's where you lose me. The private interests own it. Always have, since before it was created. Nothing Machiavellian in wanting to keep what they rightfully hold.

[Merry]

Gramercy Park Residents Declare Victory in Bar Fight

Gramercy Park residents fought against Cole Miller's wine license for a tapas bar across from the park and won.

By Amy Zimmer

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R1074_Gramercy_Park_Open_for _Christmas.jpg
(DNAinfo/Amy Zimmer)

MANHATTTAN — Gramercy Park residents were serious about keeping things dry across the street from their beloved gated jewel of green space.

After hundreds of neighbors spent the past year fighting a wine license for 38 Gramercy Park, Arlene Harrison — the so-called "mayor of Gramercy Park" — declared victory.

The State Liquor Authority said they voted unanimously on Thursday to deny the application from restaurateur Cole Miller for a planned tapas restaurant and wine bar.

Neighbors worried that a bar on a narrow side street would hurt the area’s historic residential character and would bring traffic headaches and quality of life problems.

The SLA commissioners had read the many letters they received from members of the community, said Harrison, who formed the Gramercy Park Residents Group specifically to fight the proposed bar, and who is also a Gramercy Park Trustee and founder of the Gramercy Park Block Association.

The chairman of the State Liquor Authority said the neighborhood’s "uniqueness" was one of the reasons he didn’t think a bar would be "in the public interest," Harrison explained.

The SLA said in a statement that they did not approve the license because of "issues with the character and fitness of the licensees, and due to opposition from the community."

Miller, who also owns The House, a wine bar on nearby East 17th Street, was not unavailable for comment. He had told The Observer in May (http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/controversial-gramercy-park-restaurant-go) that confronting the community opposition was a "long, difficult battle" and he hired "three of the biggest traffic experts in the city" to allay residents’ fears about cars crowding the neighborhood.

Gramercy Park’s founder, Samuel B. Ruggles, imposed certain restrictions on owners around the park, Harrison noted in an email, "including restrictions on any properties being used for businesses that were 'offensive to the neighboring inhabitants.'"

"Indeed, every one who sent a letter, signed a petition, attended a community board meeting, testified, volunteered time or donated money to this worthy cause, can take pride in today's victory for Gramercy Park and the Ruggles Indenture of 1831," Harrison said.

http://www.dnainfo.com/20110107/murray-hill-gramercy/gramercy-park-residents-declare-victory-bar-fight#ixzz1AP8V3CI3

[BBMW]

Is the Machiavellian machinations within the private interests that control it.


That's where you lose me. The private interests own it. Always have, since before it was created. Nothing Machiavellian in wanting to keep what they rightfully hold.

[Merry]

Gramercy Park Nymph Statue Has Vanished from National Arts Club

Gramercy Park trustees wanted to rescue the statue from the club, but now they believe they'll never see it again.

By Amy Zimmer

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2011_04_R9991_Gramercy_Park_Statue_M issing_in_National_Arts_Club.jpg

MANHATTAN — Trustees of Gramercy Park have given up hope of ever seeing their beloved nymph statue again.

The 18-foot-tall zinc water nymph, built for the park in 1866, had graced the gated Gramercy Park for nearly 120 years before being entrusted to the National Arts Club for safekeeping in 1983 for repairs.

"It is a sad loss," said Rev. Tom Pike, a former Landmarks Preservation Commission official and current Gramercy Park trustee. "It is an important part of the history of the park."
It was also a rare example of a statue being created for a park, he noted.

The nymph was last spotted in badly damaged condition — missing both her hands and her scepter — in the club's basement in 2003.

When park trustees heard that their neighbor at 15 Gramercy Park South were cleaning out rooms that had become hoarding havens under former president O. Aldon James' leadership, they launched an "emergency effort" to find the nymph. In April, they sent a letter to the club's current president, Dianne Bernhard, to help them find the statue and restore it to the park.

The statue is nowhere to be found.

"We're working with the Gramercy Park Trustees and we're all just trying to get to the bottom of this," Dianne Bernhard, president of The National Arts Club, said in a statement Monday. She had told local weekly Town and Village last week that the "statue left this place many years ago."

Though Pike said the club had not officially informed the trustees yet about the statue's disappearance, but said he did not expect its return.

"What we're hoping for is some reasonable closure," he said. "I think the trustees want to exercise some fiduciary responsibility and clarify what happened and also underscore our commitment to preservation."

"I don't think there's any desire to be antagonistic," he added. "We just want to clarify the matter. We're waiting for clarification from the club and expect that will come soon."

The nymph, also called a naiad, had once stood over a fountain that had been the park's centerpiece until 1909, when it made way for a statue of the famed actor Edwin Booth as Hamlet, which is still situated in the exclusive green space.

The nymph was later moved eastward and put on a stone base next to a reflecting pool until 1983. She was unceremoniously removed from her perch just before the National Arts Club's 85th anniversary celebration, which included a dedication ceremony for another statue to takes its place, Greg Wyatt's "Fantasy Fountain."

That sculpture of giraffes frolicking around a moon was rumored to have been rejected by Central Park's children's zoo before it was gifted to the National Arts Club.

Several neighborhood residents blamed club president Aldon James — who is currently being investigated by the state Attorney General and Manhattan District Attorney for alleged financial misdeeds — for ditching the nymph statue to make way for the new sculpture.

Now the trustees are angling to oust Wyatt's artwork with a new sculpture, on temporary loan from a world-renowned modern artist, expected to be installed this summer.

The new piece was "a significant piece of sculpture that will enhance the atmosphere of the park," Pike said, though he wasn't able to disclose the name of the work or the artost until the paperwork for its loan was finished.

"It will be a reminder that this is not just a relic of a park, but an organic, living thing," he said, explaining that there is room for art other than nude nymphs.

"It is not to cling strongly onto the past that we felt strongly about the nymph. It's that we wanted to be good stewards of the history of the park," Pike said. "The sadness for us, even if we got the statue in 10 pieces, we probably could have raised the money to have it restored."

In the late 1860s, Gramercy Park property owners reportedly paid $5,300, or the equivalent of approximately $1 million in today's dollars, to build the naiad to stand over the park's fountain.

Pike said it was difficult to determine the present day value of the nymph statue, though it was significant "in terms of [the] historic continuity" of the park.

http://www.dnainfo.com/20110628/murray-hill-gramercy/gramercy-park-nymph-statue-has-vanished-from-national-arts-club#ixzz1QqNu1M7R