on June 4 come to GROOVIN’4LIBERTY (updated)

Posted on May 25, 2019 by David Giacalone

JUNE 4, 2019, 5:30 PM at ~~Liberty/Gateway Park~~ Rain Location, Key Hall at Proctors, during DSIC’s Art Week, family event, Groovin’@Gateway

update: 11:30 Tuesday: MOVING to RAIN LOCATION: Groovin’4Liberty will be following Groovin’@Gateway INDOORS to KEY HALL in PROCTORS. Hope to see you there!

. . If you cannot join us, please see EMAIL ALTERNATIVE below to send your Ballot.

. . Meet, starting at 5:30 pm, at Key Hall in Proctors. ~~at the “Central Sculpture fixture” if the Event is Outdoors~~~~, approximately where Lady Liberty stood from 1950 to 2017.~~ We’ll be there throughout the DSIC Event (5:30 PM to 8 PM).

WHY COME TO GROOVIN’4LIBERTY?

Show your support for Lady Liberty’s Return, preserving Schenectady History, the integrity of the planning process, and for common sense
Have your photo taken with Silhouette Lady
VOTE FOR HER RETURN: You will be able to cast a Vote for Lady Liberty’s Return We will have copies of the PUT HER BACK REQUEST to Mayor McCarthy and Mary Wallinger (seen on the R) at Groovin’4Liberty on June 2. You will be able to use it as a Ballot for us to give to McCarthy & Wallinger.
EMAIL ALTERNATIVE: PLEASE if you cannot be at the Rally, attach this Request to an email and send it to Mr. McCarthy, Ms. Wallinger, and City Council President Ed Kosiur (addresses below), and other Council Members of your choice. Thank you.
To the Mayor: gmccarthy@schenectadyny.gov
To Chairman Wallinger: mmwallinger@landartstudiony.com
To Mr. Kosiur: ekosiur@schenectadyny.gov
Pick up a memento photo of Lady Liberty to show what we are fighting for (click on images below for larger version):

. . .

This collage is a 2019 version of the “poster” for our September 28, 2018 Rally for Lady Liberty. The issues are the same, and City Hall continues to thumb its nose at the Lady, the Public, and Good Government:

. . LONG STORY SHORT: Lady Liberty stood for 67 years in Liberty Park. She was removed only to protect Her from the extensive reconstruction of the Park. There was never any public thought or discussion that Lady Liberty would not be returned, and the Final, approved Implementation Plan included Her return once construction was complete, as the natural, popular choice. Nevertheless, Mayor Gary R. McCarthy, under the recommendation of designer Mary Wallinger (who has decided the Statue just doesn’t “fit” in a contemporary plaza), has chosen not to return the replica Liberty Statue. We want Her back home in Her Park.

BACKGROUND facts/photos/links and more: For background, see . . “Lady Liberty is Timeless“ & “Wallinger’s excuses for exiling Lady Liberty”. And, the Gazette‘s Memorial Day article, “Schenectady mayor teases Lady Liberty announcement” (by Pete DeMola, May 27, 2019)

. . share this posting with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/Groovin4Liberty

update (June 2, 2019): We’re sending out a warm welcome to Liberty-Gateway Park for the Schenectady Rainbow Pride Art installation. Read about it and see photos taken today, at our sister website, “suns along the Mohawk.” We think the Pride installation, celebrating progress in LGBT right in the 50 years since Stonewall, is an excellent component of a Liberty-oriented Park. Silhouette Lady visited the Installation several hours before its official dedication.

Wallinger’s excuses for exiling Lady Liberty

Posted on May 20, 2019 by David Giacalone

. .

. . above: Lady Liberty and Mary Wallinger in silhouette during Plaza Tour . .

Mary Moore Wallinger

This past Thursday, May 16, 2019, the group LocalXDesign sponsored a Public Tour of Gateway Plaza in Schenectady, led by Mary Moore Wallinger, the chief designer and construction administrator for the Plaza, and the Chair of Schenectady’s Planning Commission. The public was invited to “Come and learn how the design evolved from concept to reality!”

Although very curious about the devolution of several important aspects of the Park/Plaza from the approved Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan (see our pre-Tour “plans evolve” post), the author of this posting decided to have a low-key display of protest, rather than shadowing Ms. Wallinger to pepper her with questions during the Tour. We therefore headed to the “central sculpture and seating display” at the upper, urban plaza portion of the Park, the approximate original location of Lady Liberty from 1950 to 2017.

. . .

. . above: images during the Tour at the “central sculpture display”; its base is still empty and could readily become the re-location/return spot for Lady Liberty, pleasing many residents and visitors, and saving the expense of purchasing a new sculpture . .

. . share this post with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/WallingerExcuses

Nonetheless, I did hear two relevant comments by Ms. Wallinger, one prior to and one after moving to the upper portion of the Plaza. Here are the two telling remarks by Ms. Wallinger:

The Beer-Drinker Anecdote. Mary, early in her Tour presentation, told her audience just how dreadfully designed, over-vegetated and unsafe Liberty Park had been prior to its reconstruction [click on image to the right for photos taken September 2016, before the reconstruction started]. It seems that in 2015, Mary was at the old Park, taking photographs, when an apparently inebriated beer-drinker rose up from the vegetation to ask what she was doing. She told him she was the designer of the new Plaza, and he said he liked the privacy of all the bushes and trees. The beer-drinker then asked if he could make some recommendations. Mary’s reply was: No, we already have an approved Plan, so we can’t make changes. [paraphrased] Ms. Wallinger did not seem to see the irony of that statement, at least from the perspective of those protesting her significant changes to the approved Plan. ……………………………………………………….
The REPLICA EXCUSE: When the Tour group was approaching the upper plaza, someone must have asked Ms. Wallinger about the protestors or the missing Lady Liberty, or she simply felt the need to comment. I heard Mary speak dismissively of the significance of any dissent to her change in the Plan. Then, to justify the absence of the Statue, Mary added what was to me a new excuse for the exile of Lady Liberty. To paraphrase her explanation:

This Plaza is meant to welcome people to Schenectady and to symbolize its future. As a replica, the Statue of Lady Liberty is not an appropriate sculpture, given the location and purpose. The piece should be something original.

. . see #6 in Plan Legend, “Relocated Statue of Liberty Replica”. .

Of course, I am not a certified urban planner, nor a (landscape)architect. But, I do wonder whether this No Replica Principle is widely accepted within the professional planning and design community, much less that it has been embraced by the American public. Our Lady Liberty Replica was known to be a replica, and called a replica, at the time Ms. Wallinger and her colleagues placed her in sketches, legends and renderings of the proposed Gateway Plaza. (for example, see image above this paragraph, and detail at left). This is surely not a situation where someone might confuse Schenectady’s 110″-high replica with the original Statue of Liberty. Like an adolescent who keeps adding (weak) explanations and excuses to justify a misdeed, Ms. Wallinger becomes less and less credible and trustworthy with each excuse.

By The Way, as for authenticity:

A rendering of the proposed Pedestrian Walkway used in the Final Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan (and in prior drafts) shows what I assume is a replica of Venus de Milo, and not the original, in Gateway Plaza. (See detail to Left.)
More apt, Mary Wallinger is the designer who waxed poetic about the symbolism and “story” to be told by a proposed Wind Turbine sculpture to be used at the Central Focal Point of Gateway Plaza – a reference to our historic technological innovations, future accomplishments, and ecological aspirations. Instead, with no chance for public input, she gave us as “modern urban sculpture”, three Cor-ten, fast-rusting, off-the-shelf pillars/girders, which do not seem to tell a story, but (intentionally or not) many folks in Schenectady believe may have been part of the destroyed World Trade Center towers. (see our post “pillaried at the Plaza“)

. . above: Tour group at the Plaza’s “urban sculpture” focal point . .

CRITERIA for CHANGING APPROVED PLAN? Of course, the biggest absence to date in the “explanations” from Mary Moore Wallinger, as both a prolific designer and Chair of the City Planning Commission, is any acknowledgement that there is a difference between plans changing from earliest concepts through drafts, steering committee sessions, and public workshops, and changes after official resolution and approval of a Final Plan by the City Council and Mayor.

By The Way, Resolution No. 2013-206, approved by City Council on Aug. 12, 2013 (and by Mayor Gary R. McCarthy, on Aug. 14, 2013), stated (emphases added):

WHEREAS, three public meetings of this plan and a public presentation to the City Council have been held, and changes to the plan were made based on comments received:

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT

RESOLVED, that the City of Schenectady adopts, as an official document, the “Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan”.

Moreover, there is no indication from Mary Wallinger as designer or as Planning Chair, as to what the standard should be for changing a significant aspect of a “Final Plan” adopted after the formal planning process is completed. We also wonder what role renderings are meant to play that are submitted during the planning process and as part of a final draft. [viz., Are they in reality meant to mislead, calm, and disarm those in favor of preserving some aspect of the location?] From years of observation, such changes are “justified” by citing engineering reports that claim serious safety or financial difficulties, necessitating varying from an approved plan; changes in a designer’s stylistic preferences do not warrant such changes.

Procedure for Alterations? Another important question, of course, is what the procedure should be for making any such changes after an implementation plan has final City approval. For example, what is the role of the “construction administrator”, Planning Department, Mayor, and/or City Council? What process is appropriate when there are no deadline pressures?

One More (Major) Irony: Before I list the excuses given by Mary Wallinger for her refusal to return Lady Liberty to Liberty Park, there is one major ironic coincidence to mention about last week’s Tour of Gateway Plaza: The Grand Opening of the Statue of Liberty Museum took place earlier that very day on Liberty Island. That’s right, despite claims to the contrary, Lady Liberty is so relevant to present-day America and its future, that $100 million was spent to create this museum that explores and celebrates the meaning of the Statue of Liberty. See “What does Lady Liberty stand for? A look at changing attitudes” (Christian Science Monitor, May 16, 2019, by Harry Bruinius)

“Liberty Enlightening the World”. By the way, our Mayor and Planning Chair are quite enamored with the notion of a Renaissance in Schenectady. They could do worse than remembering that, beyond craft beer, mediocre façades, revolving restaurants, and the casino of their “renaissance”, our City could use more stress on culture and Enlightenment. The Liberty Statue in New York Harbor was named “Liberty Enlightening the World” by its creator. One commentator had this to say in contrasting Renaissance and Enlightenment political philosophy:

The political philosophy of the Enlightenment is the unambiguous antecedent of modern Western liberalism: secular, pluralistic, rule-of-law-based, with an emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. Note that none of this was really present in the Renaissance, when it was still widely assumed that kings were essentially ordained by God, that monarchy was the natural order of things and that monarchs were not subject to the laws of ordinary men, and that the ruled were not citizens but subjects.

. . . It was the Enlightenment, and thinkers who embodied its ideas, like Voltaire and Benjamin Franklin, who were the intellectual force behind the American Revolution and the French Revolution, and who really inspired the ideas behind the great political documents of the age like the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.

In this context, Lady Liberty seems, to most of us, an excellent symbol and reminder of our past, and bridge from our present to our future.

WHY EXILE LADY LIBERTY from HER PARK?

Below are the reasons that Mary Moore Wallinger has given for her feigned change of heart in refusing to return the Replica of Lady Liberty to the expanded Liberty Park, a/k/a Gateway Plaza. Many of us believe that none of these excuses would have been accepted — and most would have been ridiculed, or at least soundly defeated on the merits — during the actual planning process for Gateway Plaza. That might be why Ms. Wallinger never raised them at the time.

. . too small? of course not.

The STATUE IS TOO SMALL, so that the Statue would be overwhelmed in the big Plaza. This was the reason that Mary told me in an email, when I first asked why Lady Liberty was not returning to Her Park. [Response: She’s not too small in the scale rendering done for the Implementation Plan (see detail at right from this rendering). In addition, Lawrence the Indian is almost three feet shorter and commands his Circle, as is Thomas Edison down at Erie Blvd. and S. Ferry. An experienced landscaper should be able to create a niche for the Lady somewhere at this large Plaza, honoring Her, without creating a space that is too-enclosed for safety.]
“PLANS CHANGE“: In defending her wish to keep Lady Liberty out of the new Plaza and to send Her to Steinmetz Park instead, Mary told the City Council Meeting of March 26, 2018 that “Plans change,” giving the example that the design team had originally planned to have a road going through the Park. As discussed above, this justification for failing to return Lady Liberty ignores the distinction between the many stages of an open-minded planning process and the decision to change, without public input or return to City Council, a major aspect of a Final Plan that has been through public workshops and approval by the City Council. Neither Mary Wallinger nor the Mayor claimed any safety or engineering issues for not returning Lady Liberty. (The presentations “from the floor” to the March 26, 2018 City Council Meeting are discussed more fully in the posting “Lady Liberty is Timeless“.)
NOT SIGNIFICANT PART of the PLAZA PLAN
- Mary told this to the City Council the evening she appeared to support sending Lady Liberty to the Veterans Memorial planned for Steinmetz Park. Response: Mary is confusing square footage with significance, and overlooking both common sense and the clearly stated preference of the public for the Lady’s return. Returning Lady Liberty was fully supported by all commenters in the Public Workshop. As the Gazette reporter who attended the Public Workshops wrote on June 13, 2013:
  - “Residents . . expressed a strong desire to keep the park’s identity in line with its name: Liberty. The Lady Liberty replica has sat on its pedestal in the park for 62 years would still remain. But it would likely move closer to the State Street border.”
- Wallinger also told City Council that only a few members of the public took part in the Public Workshops, which she noted were held because the State requires them when funding is requested. Response: This is, for many obvious reasons, a scary argument for the Chair of our Planning Commission to make. Moreover, had Ms. Wallinger frankly advocated to replace Lady Liberty in the Park and send Her away, there certainly would have been a larger and more assertive public presence and outcry at the Public Workshops, and by City Council, the media, and the broader community.
Cover of Final Plan

NOT IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Ms. Wallinger, who surely drafted the Executive Summary, noted in passing to City Council that Lady Liberty was not mentioned in the Executive Summary of the Final Implementation Plan. Given placement of Lady Liberty in renderings submitted with the Final Plan, and on the Cover of the Final Plan (see annotated image at left), its mention in the text of the Plan, the cost projections, and explicit discussion of the Return in the public workshop, leaving Her out of the Executive Summary may well have been an intentional action, perhaps meant to foreshadow and excuse the future exile of Lady Liberty.
Goose Hill Petition

NEGLECTED FOR FIVE YEARS in STORAGE. Mary Wallinger did not make this argument directly, but she let her friends and allies on Goose Hill make the argument in March 2018, and put it in their petition to City Council and the Mayor, seeking to have Lady Liberty sent to Steinmetz Park for a Veterans Memorial. Wallinger never corrected this misinformation, and did not advise City Council of the erroneous claim. As administrator of the construction plan at Gateway Plaza, Ms. Wallinger was well aware that Lady Liberty was not removed from Liberty Park until August 2017, and only to protect the statue during construction.
NOT CONTEMPORARY ENOUGH to fit in with the intended style of the new Plaza, which she insists is meant to “celebrate the future” of Schenectady. [Response: (1) That formulation truncates the original goal written by Wallinger in the Implementation Plan: the Plaza will “celebrate the past, present, and future” of Schenectady. And, (2) One is hard-pressed to find a “style” of design at the Plaza, and the well-known and beloved appearance of Lady Liberty might take the edge off the mood set by rusty girders and light-sabers. In general, urban design that tries to seem contemporary often seems merely “temporary” and quickly dated.]
“SHE’D LOOK LIKE SHE’s CATCHING a BUS”. [Response: This flippant remark to a reporter is from the designer/planner who chose the relocation spot for Lady Liberty next to the bus stop, and (see image to right) insisted the Statue would seem grander there and have more exposure. At this website, we worried that CDTA buses would line up blocking out the view of Lady Liberty from State Street much of the day — another reason to return Her to her original location in the Park, now called the Central Sculpture Area].
The STATUE is VERY DAMAGED, VERY EXPENSIVE to REPAIR. Response: This damage and expense were not mentioned until months after the decision to send the Lady elsewhere was made (she looked pretty good next to Director of Planning Diotte, in photo to left). Also, there has been no description of the damage, or apparent action to get an estimate, much less get it repaired and back in public view. Some of the expense should have been part of the original Plaza budget (which did show a $20,000 expense for relocating the Lady Libery within the Plaza, since the statue and base would have been slated for at least refurbishing, if Ms. Wallinger ever planned to return the Lady to Liberty Park. Also, the money saved by not buying a new sculpture for the Main Sculpture location should go toward any needed repair, followed by placing Lady Liberty at the main sculpture spot, approximating her original location.
IT’s THE MAYOR’s DECISION, Not MINE: Response: Of course, the Mayor (or a City Council with backbone, or a court) can try to settle this, but there is no doubt that it was Mary Moore Wallinger who has spearheaded the notion of not returning the Lady. Mary’s failure to take responsibility suggests how weak the many arguments are underpinning her subjective desire to exile the Lady for Wallinger Plaza in secret, and echoes her complaint to me that I was making her look like the “bad guy”. On the other hand, there is little doubt that Mary Wallinger, as the Mayor’s “Design Team” and his much-needed partner moving projects through the Planning Commission, could successfully lobby the Mayor to follow the approved Implementation Plan and return the Lady to Her Home, Liberty Park at Gateway Plaza.
[Surprise,] IT’S A REPLICA: [scroll back up this posting for commentary on this sad excuse for an excuse.]

A Final Thought: The UTICA EXAMPLE:

. .

. . above: [L] Schenectady’s Liberty Replica in warehouse storage room since August 2017; [R] Utica’s Liberty Replica in a workshop where She was fully restored, June 2017

Our neighboring upstate City, Utica, New York, also received a replica of Lady Liberty in 1950, thanks to their local Boy Scouts. It is apparently two feet shorter than Schenectady’s and had deteriorated badly. Nonetheless, thoughtful people of Utica decided to pay for a complete restoration of their Liberty Replica (with donations to cover the $10,000 expense), to reestablish its grand presence on their Monument Parkway. See the May 17, 2017 Newsletter of the Central New York Conservancy.

. .

. . above: Utica’s Lady Liberty at Monument Park [L] before and [R] after the restoration by Michael H. Mancini, MHM, Inc., of St. Johnsville . .

Thank you for the heads-up from Gerald Plante, who featured Utica’s Lady Liberty replica at his Facebook Page, where he frequently advocates for the return of Schenectady’s Lady.

follow-up (Feb. 11, 2021): Please see our posting “Will civic pride save Schenectady’s Liberty replica“, arguing that our Replica has over a hundred sister 1950 BSA statues extant and located in more appropriate locations, and showing the superior treatment of the BSA Liberty statues at each of the five other NYS locations.

ll-locationcompare . . mistreated

comments on the Stockade Streetscape Plan (with updates)

Posted on May 4, 2019 by David Giacalone

The Stockade Association’s Infrastructure Committee has put in a lot of work on the Stockade Comprehensive Streetscape Plan – “Streetscape Vision Project“, and I thank all of the members and officers for their efforts. Their accumulation of information on appropriate materials and tree replacements seems quite thorough and gives helpful guidance as we move forward. I offer the thoughts below constructively, and with the knowledge that reasonable minds can differ on goals and strategies, and the hope that differences will be heard (on all sides) with an open mind and without rancor. As always, these are merely “my opinions”, based on my own aesthetic values and experiences, and offered to get others thinking.

No matter whether you agree with my opinions and comments or not, I hope you will let the Association Streetscape Committee know your views. You can share this posting using this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/StreetscapeComments

Click: For a copy of the 55-page Streetscape Plan, [update: click for the Final Plan] and for the 80-page draft Appendices [or the Final Appendices]
The Stockade Association [“SA”] asks that comments be submitted by today May 4, 2019, on the Planning4Spaces Survey page. The form is not really a survey, but simply asks “Do you have any comments or questions about the Comprehensive Streetscape Plan?”
I apologize for putting up these comments on the last day, and hope that Streetscape Committee chair Suzy Unger will accept you comments even if they are slightly late.

follow-up (Dec. 23, 2019): There is a public hearing regarding Adoption of the Final Stockade Streetscape Plan at the Schenectady City Council meeting of December 23, 2019, at 7 PM. Click this link for a copy of the one-page comments submitted by David Giacalone for the Public Hearing.

NOTE: Correction: As stated in the follow-up in the Public Art section below, there is an error in my Comments to City Council. While the use of Street Art is still proposed, the recommendation in the Final Draft of the Streetscape Plan that utility boxes be painted has been removed (as requested in this webpost).

The Literal VISION of the Stockade

When focusing on our Stockade streetscape, I believe is is especially important to reduce Visual Pollution in our lovely neighborhood. That might be especially important at a time when our society is trying to reduce distracted driving and walking, but it is surely a campaign for the ages. Therefore, I believe that the Stockade Streetscape Plan [“the Plan”] should be explicitly trying to reduce or limit as much as possible, and not support, increased visual clutter, obstructions, and distractions.

PUBLIC ART.

First, then, I disagree with the recommendation that “Functional features in the street environment, such as sound abatement, retaining walls, and utility boxes can provide opportunities for public art,” no matter who is providing the art or reviewing it. [click here to see the page in the Plan on Public Art.] Despite the good intentions and talents of the Schenectady Art Society, and no matter how much street scenes in other parts of Schenectady may need to be perked up, our Stockade streetscape does not need and will not be enhanced by covering “empty” spaces with splashes of color and public artistry, such as the painted signal box to the right, which is at the SW corner of S. Church and State Streets, and the one below at the SE corner of Erie Boulevard and State Street.

Utility and signal boxes are bland for a reason – to be inconspicuous. Drivers and pedestrians (as opposed to casual strollers?) can do without additional distractions, especially at intersections. Click here for examples of SAS public art on utility boxes. It should not matter that the “art” is fun, cute, colorful, or “nice”. The question is whether the Stockade Historic District will be enhanced, and its appearance preserved, by the additional visual display. We might also wonder about needless controversy over a design that might be in place (and possibly deteriorating) for a very long time on your block.

Follow-up (Dec. 23, 2019): Although the Final Streetscape Plan continues to propose the use of Street Art in the Stockade (at 27; see screen shot of the page to the Left), the recommendation that utility boxes be painted has been removed. See Final Appendices, Appendix F, last Comment and Reply, p. 88). The removal of one of the most worrisome recommendations in the Draft Plan is much appreciated.

BANNERS

In 2011, I wrote and illustrated with photos that the Stockade had acquired “an embarrassment of banners,” when 31 nicely-designed brown banners were hung from telephone poles and lampposts on Union Street and South Church Streets in the Stockade. The first batch of banners were apparently deteriorated enough to require their replacement last year with similar blue banner, like the one on the left, which hangs on Union Street. The banners have increased in number, with additional blocks covered. As I said in 2011, they are too much of a good thing, even if someone else paid for them. The many arguments that I made in the 2011 posting seem just as valid today. For example:

It does indeed make sense to have a welcome banner at the various entryways to the Historic District, aimed at both intentional visitors to the district, and accidental or inadvertent visitors or through-farers. But, it’s rather difficult for me to fathom why anyone would want these banners on virtually every lamppost of our high-traffic blocks once you’ve entered the Stockade. . . .

.

Unlike many other business and mixed-used sections of the City, Union Street in the Stockade is not a barren or blighted Schenectady streetscape that needs colorful or fluttering banners to improve its appearance, distract the eye, or provide faux festivity; nor is Church Street.

It comes down to aesthetics. . . . putting up so many banners just seems like overkill — much too much of a good thing; and it sets an undesirable precedent for the creation and acceptance of visual clutter, and for the spending of money just because it’s available and offered to the Stockade.

To my eye, an overabundance of banners — a plethora of pennants — clearly distracts from the appearance of our community.

When looking east up Union Street from the corner of Ferry and Union, it is possible to

see a dozen of the blue Stockade District banners (when the leaves are down). Here are images of those banners taken May 2, 2019, with the banners numbered; click on a photo for a larger version:

. .

. .

Also, to further diminish the image and brand of our Historic District, the blue banners are flying on two of the least attractive blocks in the neighborhood (S. College and S. Ferry from State St. to Liberty St.), which are NOT a part of the Stockade District:

. .

The Streetscape Plan and SA should, therefore, ask that DSIC remove the Stockade banners that are not actually serving a useful informational purpose at an entryway corner of the actual Stockade. Even 8 years after their first appearance, and with increased memory problems, I for one do not need to be reminded a dozen (or even four) times on one block that I am in the Stockade Historic District.

WIRES

No Stockade Streetscape Plan should be complete without a protest, and a strategy, concerning the increased density and ugliness of the utility wires that plague our skyward vision. That is especially true, because the wires have been rapidly descending lower and lower, creating an excuse to further cut back (amputate and mutilate) our trees. I think a lot of my neighbors have stopped looking up when on foot and in vehicles here in the Stockade, and all around our City.

When preparing photos of the recent crop of Stockade cherry blossoms for sharing online and with email, I found myself close-cropping virtually every image to minimize seeing the mess of wires. For example, here is the actual and the cropped version of a cherry blossom scene just north of Union Street on N. Ferry:

. .

What can we do about the utility wires? A brain-storming session among neighbors and our governmental leaders could surely come up with a longer or better list, but here are a few suggestions:

State that it is the Policy of the Stockade Association to actively work with local and state authorities and utility companies to improve the visual impact of utility wires, with better-planned and revamped arrangement, and perhaps use of technological advances that reduce the number of wires needed for any block or intersection.
- Explore funding that might be used to raise wires rather than destroy the beauty of especially attractive street trees.
Meet with City and State elected representatives to seek action that curtails the visual pollution caused by utility wires.
Include in any weighing of whether or not to save a particular large street tree, or parts thereof, its role in helping to block the view of utility wires. The removal of street trees often leaves quite a shock due to the unveiling of Wire Terror.
As this is a citywide problem, other neighborhood associations and civic groups should be encouraged to join in efforts to remove or reduce utility wire blight.

. TREES

.The Stockade Streetscape Plan needs strong, definitive statements that it is the Policy of the Stockade Association that:

Mature Shade Tress along our streets are valuable assets (aesthetically, environmentally, and financially), and all practical measures must be taken to save every mature shade tree that is not dangerous or dead, including the use of alternative sidewalk improvement measures, and consistent maintenance. [see the information compiled at our Save Our Trees portal]
Walkability and desire to visit, shop, and walk in the Stockade are often reduced when long stretches of sidewalk have no shade and offer little protection from precipitation.
Any trimming of trees for utility purposes must be done to the minimal extent possible, with attention paid to the attractiveness of any trimming.
Neighbors and the association should have the meaningful opportunity to comment before any large street tree, or shade tree clearly visible from the street, is allowed to be removed by the City, or its agents, or a property owner, unless there is an immediate safety emergency.
The City, especially since it points to its status as a TreeCity, must employ a certified arborist, who is allowed to make professional judgments about preserving particular trees without interference from the City Engineer or Mayor.
An official request should be made to the City’s Historic Commission by the Stockade Association for a policy regulation or recommendation to City Council for protection of mature trees in our historic districts.

Obviously, even when a tree is removed for legitimate reasons, it still can have a major impact on a block or neighbors. That should mean not only a careful assessment and transparent process before removing a currently healthy, non-dangerous tree, but also the implementation of a plan to assure proper maintenance.

. .

. . above: Campbell Row on Washington Ave. [L] a few years ago; [R] 2019 . .

It is worrisome that the draft Plan states (at 31; emphasis added):

“The Stockade’s street tree population should have an abundance of newly planted and young trees, with established, maturing, and mature trees present in lower numbers”

A theoretical standard that calls in general for urban forests with particular percentages of young and mature trees, should not become an excuse for indifference over the loss of any particular, existing mature tree. Mature shade trees and their canopies are indeed particularly valuable in historic districts, and often in fact delineate sections of cities that deserve protection due to their special ambiance and appeal.

Frankly, the following formulation, at 37 of the draft Plan, leaves too many potential excuses to take down otherwise healthy street trees:

“Although tree removal is usually considered a last resort, there are circumstances in which removal is necessary. Trees fail from natural causes such as diseases, insects, weather conditions, and from physical injury due to vehicles, vandalism, and root disturbances. DRG recommends that trees be removed when corrective pruning will not adequately eliminate the hazard or when correcting problems would be cost prohibitive. Trees that cause obstructions or interfere with power lines or other infrastructure should be removed when their defects cannot be corrected through pruning or other maintenance practices.”

Optimistic statements from neighbors that “we can trust the City” not to take down street trees without significant and legitimate reasons seem, in the light of actions and statements from City Hall and the City Engineer, unrealistic — and dangerous to our streetscape, given the permanence of a loss tree. Do not forget:

No. Ferry Street. The City took down every mature street tree on N. Ferry Street, in 2008, when it put in new sidewalks. Half a dozen years later, a responsible employee of our Engineer’s Office assured me that, in only 6 or 8 years, replacement trees will create a scene just as attractive as the lost canopy of mature trees. The reality on N. Ferry Street as of this week, 11 years after replacements were planted, is quite different. See image to the right. And, see a N. Ferry Street Deforestation Collage put together a few years ago.
2010 Washington Avenue Project. In 2010, the City Engineer said they would take down every mature street tree in order to replace the sidewalks of that quintessential Stockade block.
City Hall Cherry Trees. We recently saw that the City could not be bothered to find a way to save its gorgeous display of cherry blossoms while planning a project to replace City Hall windows. Frivolously claiming that they were too close to the building or blaming the failure of the City to correctly prune them over the years, simply do not add up to a viable excuse for the loss. See in mem. City Hall cherry blossoms (April 25, 2019, at suns along the Mohawk)

[L] 2019; [R] 2018 . .

There is little reason to believe that the City Engineer, Corporation Counsel, and Mayor have changed their view about the need to remove a street tree when its roots are cut to replace or improve a sidewalk. For example, this quote and advice in the May 2018 Stockade Spy, was apparently based on discussion with the sidewalk maven in the City Engineer office:

Once a tree root begins to interfere with sidewalks, little can be done. When roots are cut to level the sidewalk, the tree nearly always fails with a few years.

Of course, I am not an arborist or engineer, but based on my reading on the subject, and practices in other municipalities, that statement seems extreme, if not basically incorrect. Last month, because he is familiar with the trees of the Stockade, I wrote to Fred Breglia, the arborist at Landis Arboretum, seeking his guidance on the issue of determining whether trimming or cutting roots in the process of replacing or repairing a sidewalk required removal of a tree for safety reasons. This is his response:

From: Fred Breglia <fred@landisarboretum.org>

Subject: Re: street treees and cut roots

Date: March 28, 2019 at 9:46:57 AM EDT

To: David Giacalone

Hello David,

Based on my experience, it is a case by case situation. It varies greatly based on species, age, time of year, health, root conditions, type of care/finesse used by the company. These are just some of the factors that can contribute to the end result. Trees are living things and just like a human undergoing surgery, the way the person will bounce back from the process cannot be determined prior to the event when things may vary during the event.

.

One suggestion is to have an arborist available or on call to watch over the process as it occurs.

.

I hope this helps,

Fred

In light of Fred’s guidance, using its existing relationship with the City Engineer, the Stockade Association and its Streetscape Plan should advocate a far more nuanced approach to the fate of trees whose roots will be or have been cut in the process of sidewalk repair or replacement. [For example, the engineer’s manual in one city states that a tree must be considered for preservation by an arborist when less than one-third of its roots have been removed.]

follow-up: Here are images of the street view of 1089 Ardsley Road from 2011 (Google Street image) on the left, and early in October 2019, after the Sidewalk District repaving was completed. We need to ensure that each Stockade tree is evaluated by a competent and neutral arborist before a healthy tree is removed.

BICYCLES

The Stockade Association has never, to my knowledge, surveyed its members or the community as a whole, on their opinions regarding the City’s plans to convert Riverside Park’s only walkway into a bicycle-pedestrian path. Therefore, in using materials taken from the Bike Schenectady, I suggest:

Adding a disclaimer regarding the designation of Riverside Park as a bike path, especially since the Schenectady Zoning Ordinance to this day permits the use of a bicycle on any park path only by those under ten or disabled. [see image to right]
Stating that the designation in Bike Schenectady of the portion of Washington Avenue from the River to the Historic Society as a future bike path (as opposed to a shared auto-bike roadway) appears incorrect and not practical. [Motorized vehicles such as cars and SUVs, and trucks, may not travel on a bike path.]
Requesting that the Overlook at Riverside Park no longer be used as a Bike Share station, as it disrupts a space designed to be serene and damages its masonry, and sits alongside a walkway where bicycles are not permitted under the Zoning Code.

TRAFFIC CALMING, CROSSWALKS, STOP SIGNS, INTERSECTIONS & PARKING

Stop Signs Needed. For safety and peace of mind, a stop sign is needed on Washington Avenue (1) at Union Street for traffic coming north from State Street, and (2) at Front Street for traffic coming north and turning onto Front Street or Cucumber Alley. Currently, vehicles come at excessive speeds around blind or almost-blind corners. Also, more and more, bicyclists come the wrong way on Front Street between Church and Washington Ave. Vehicles turning from Washington Ave. cannot see them coming.
Delineating Parking Spaces with “tees” seems impractical and may actually lose spots when vehicles come in so many disparate lengths. If the tees are far enough apart to accommodate long vehicles, space will often be wasted. If the tees are too close to each other, longer vehicles will hang over onto the next space.
Parking Too Close to Corners. Tall, wide vehicles park are very prevalent and too often park far too close to intersections and crosswalks, making it difficult to see around them and know if vehicles, pedestrians, or bikes, are in the roadway. Although it may be impossible and undesirable to have vehicles park the full distance required under the Vehicle and Traffic Law from stop signs and cross walks, signs closer to each of them saying “No Parking Here to Corner” or “. . . to Crosswalk” are far more likely to be obeyed or to be policed.
Correction (in case you missed it): The list of one-way streets (at 10) incorrectly states: “Washington Avenue (except between State and Union)”.

Thank you for considering these suggestion. Please feel free to leave your polite comments, and please let the Stockade Association know your opinions on these topics and any others that concern you.

News10 ABC’s special Valentine to Lady Liberty

Posted on February 18, 2019 by David Giacalone

You can find the Special Report here.

On Valentine’s Day 2019, the team at News10 ABC aired a Special Report about a very special Lady in distress, the City of Schenectady’s beloved replica of the Statue of Liberty. Titled “Local Treasure Locked Away“, the 3-Minute Report by Louis Finley focuses on the hope of many Schenectady residents that the Lady Liberty replica be returned to her home at Liberty Park. Although the City had promised to return the Statue, which was removed for its protection during the reconstruction of her park at Gateway Plaza, Lady Liberty is still looked in a City warehouse 8 months after the completion of the Plaza.

Share this posting with this shorter URL: https://tinyurl.com/LadyCh10
Reporter Louis Finley interviewed Goosehill resident Matthew Sosnowski, Schenectady County Historical Society education director Michael Diana, and Stockade resident David Giacalone (the proprietor of this website) for the Special Report, and included them in the presentation. .

The Albany ABC News Team was able to do what citizen proponents of Lady Liberty’s return home could not: Capture Her forlorn image “locked away” in the City’s Foster Avenue Warehouse, where she was taken in August 2017 for protection while the ground under her was literally being moved and removed and the Park reconfigured.

Unfortunately, what News Ten could not do is pry a commitment from Mayor Gary M. McCarthy or Mary Moore Wallinger, the primary designer of Gateway Plaza, that the Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan would be followed and Lady Liberty returned to her home of 67 years. The Implementation Plan was adopted in June 2013 by the City Council and Mayor, after being formulated and presented to the Public and Council by Ms. Wallinger. It clearly called for only a temporary absence of the Statue from the Park/Plaza during construction. The first public mention that the Statue might not be returned to Liberty Park came in a newspaper article in December 2017, with no explanation given for ignoring a fully approved Plan. Instead, almost eleven months after the issue was first raised at a City Council meeting, Mayor McCarthy told News10 that a decision would soon be forthcoming. [follow-up: As of May 16, 2019, neither Mary Wallinger nor the Mayor is telling the public what will become of Lady Liberty. Wallinger told the Times Union this week that:

“I know it’s in storage. I know it’s going to cost a lot of money to make the repairs that need to be made, but I also know it is not my decision,” she added.

McCarthy did not return a call Tuesday seeking comment.

See “Schenectady’s Gateway design celebrates diversity but missing Lady Liberty” (by Paul Nelson, May 15, 2019); and “Gateway Plaza installation in Schenectady taking shape: Construction likely to begin this week” (Daily Gazette, by Pete DeMola, May 16, 2019)

Follow-up (Aug. 18, 2019): Mayor McCarthy, with no announcement, placed Lady Liberty in exile, at the unsightly location of Erie Boulevard and Union Street. See our posting, “McCarthy disses Lady Liberty again“.

Dedication Day. The procrastination of our current Mayor and his carefree attitude toward Lady Liberty, her proponents, and the Planning and legislative process, is in stark contrast to the importance of the Statue to the City at the time of its Dedication. The Special Report shows the front page of the Schenectady Gazette on November 9, 1950, and the prominence given the story. The article states that 2500 scouts and scouters marched in a parade to the Park, with a crowd of 3,500 persons overflowing the small park for the dedication ceremony. Then Mayor Owen M. Begley called it a “beautiful, beautiful gift,” commenting that the replica here will be a great emblem in Schenectady of our great heritage of liberty

Another issue that News10 apparently could not pin down was the nature of the purported damage to the Statue that is allegedly keeping it from being re-installed. One aspect of the damage claim is why the million-dollar-plus budget for Gateway Plaza does/did not include funds for any needed rehabilitation of the Statue and its base before its return.

News10 anchors Lydia Kulbida and John Gray mentioned their intent to followup on this story. We hope that will include investigating the City’s claim that the name of Liberty Park has already been officially changed to Gateway Plaza by City Council and the Mayor. See our posting “the name is Liberty Park” for rebuttal on that point. (The renaming controversy is the context of my remarks in the Special Report comparing the significance to the public of the names Liberty and Gateway.)

For a discussion of the many issues raised by the failure to return the Lady to her Home, see our posting “Lady Liberty is Timeless,” which was written in reaction to the claim by Ms. Wallinger that the Statue did not fit into her contemporary vision of the Plaza. That posting and others at this site contain relevant images and links to documents, Click on the collage to the right of this paragraph for a summary of the relationship of the Replica Statue to the Implementation Plan, including a photo of Lady Liberty in the Park prior to her removal, and details from a rendering and plat that show the replica Statue returned as part of the Implementation Plan. Also, click here for a collage showing why people were so fond of the beautiful statue and its original home.

Thank you, News 10 ABC, for spreading the word about our exiled Lady Liberty and showing the passion of her supporters for her return.

. . [L] photo of Liberty replica statue dedication event (Schenectady Gazette, Nov. 9, 1950, front-page) . .

Bring Lady Liberty Home

Posted on March 6, 2018 by David Giacalone

follow-up (March 26, 2018): see “Lady Liberty is Timeless“, where you can find a summary of the facts and issues, with important links and images, in the controversy over the failure to return Lady Liberty to Liberty Park. And see, “Rally for Lady Liberty Sept. 28“. BUT SEE:

“McCarthy disses Lady Liberty (and all of us) again” (August 28, 2019), a posting with photos of the dreadful spot actually chosen by Mayor McCarthy, and a summary of the sad saga of our Statue.

Summary: Unless the Mayor of Schenectady, Gary McCarthy, is convinced to change his mind, the Statue of Liberty replica erected in Liberty Park in 1950, which was donated by local Boy Scout troops, will not be returned to her renovated home, the new, (unofficially) renamed Gateway Plaza. Instead, Schenectady’s “Lady Liberty” will be getting a different “Foster Home” elsewhere in Schenectady (apparently, as part of a Veterans Memorial at Steinmetz Park). The original Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan, which was natural, popular, and adopted by the City in 2013, was to bring Liberty back to Her Home, in a visible new location, once Park reconstruction was completed. We should insist that this piece of the Park’s history, and our history, be restored to a place of honor in her Park, and the City’s promise be kept, especially because there is no safety or budgetary reason to exile Her. Contrary to current excuses, she is not too small or too old-fashioned to serve the goals of Gateway Plaza. Full discussion below.

.. share this post with this short URL: http://tinyurl.com/BringLibertyHome

. . and, (March 14, 2018): for an updated summary, after the March 12 Council meeting, see “The Lady, and the Mayor, and the Council“.

.. follow-up: See “Wallinger’s Excuses for exiling Lady Liberty” (May 5, 2019)

. .

Above: [L] Lady Liberty in Liberty Park shortly before being put into storage for the Gateway Plaza reconstruction project (Sept. 2016); [R] detail from a rendering in the final Implementation Plan (Nov. 2012) showing Liberty relocated closer to State St. and the CDTA bus shelter. Right: a collage showing Lady Liberty in her Park on September 15, 2016 (please click on the collage for a larger version).

Until very recently, there seemed to be no reason for members of the public to doubt that Schenectady’s replica of the Statue of Liberty (a/k/a “Lady Liberty”), which had stood in Liberty Park from 1950 until August of 2017, would be returned from storage to the Park, after its reconstruction and expansion into Gateway Plaza. But, now, the opposite is true, and Liberty will end up elsewhere in Schenectady, if we do not quickly persuade City Hall, Metroplex, and/or LAndArt Studio (the project’s designer and construction administrator), to restore our small version of the Statue of Liberty to its original home, as promised.

The Gateway Plaza project has as a major goal: to “Celebrate Schenectady’s past, present & future”. Gateway Plaza’s clean, modern design points to the City’s vibrant present and hopeful future. But, in fact, there is and will be little tangible and readily visible “celebration of its past” without Lady Liberty continuing to grace the scene.

If you are not yet familiar with the newly-opened Gateway Plaza, click on the collage to the right for a quick visit. For a more comprehensive introduction, check out “first look at Gateway Plaza“, at suns along the Mohawk, our sister website. You will find about 30 photos taken on Feb. 26 and March 3, 2018, along with a brief summary of the goals of the Project, as stated in the Final Report City of Schenectady Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan (November 2012, 119 pp. pdf.).

Where did Schenectady’s Lady Liberty come from, and why should we care about her fate? As Waymarking.com explains, in part:

Statue of Liberty Replica -Schenectady, NY

In Liberty Park, a small triangle of land in downtown Schenectady, NY, there is a replica of the Statue of Liberty. It also has the same five pointed star base as the original.

In 1950, the Boy Scouts of America celebrated their 40th anniversary, with the theme Strengthen the Arm of Liberty, by donating approximately two hundred 100-inch tall, 290 lb. replicas of the Statue of Liberty. [click for a list of locations] They were given [through contributions by local Scouts] to communities in 39 different U.S. states and several U.S. possessions and territories. Of the original copies, approximately 100 can currently be located. These copper statues were manufactured by Friedley-Voshardt Co.

In a 2012 Schenectady Gazette article, the story of our Lady Liberty is told through the eyes of several local Boy Scouts from the troop that met at St. Anthony’s Church, and worked to save up the $350 to purchase the sculpture in 1950. “Lady Liberty replica has 62-year-old story to tell” (by Bethany Bump, Jan. 15, 2012).

It was an endeavor that dovetailed nicely with the Scouts’ basic mission: prepare youth to be responsible and participating citizens and leaders. And there was no better symbol of leadership and American citizenship than Lady Liberty.

. . . Just like the 305-foot-tall national monument in New York Harbor, Schenectady’s lady offers an inspirational message: “With the faith and courage of their forefathers who made possible the freedom of these United States, the Boy Scouts of America dedicate this copy of the Statue of Liberty as a pledge of everlasting fidelity and loyalty.”

At the Wikipedia page for the Boy Scouts’ Strengthen the Arm of Liberty program, you can find details about the origin of the project and its manufacture, and we are told (emphasis added):

The classical appearance (Roman stola, sandals, facial expression) derives from Libertas, ancient Rome’s goddess of freedom from slavery, oppression, and tyranny. Her raised right foot is on the move. This symbol of Liberty and Freedom is not standing still or at attention in the harbor, it is moving forward, as her left foot tramples broken shackles at her feet, in symbolism of the United States’ wish to be free from oppression and tyranny

detail of Phase 1 & Phase 2 sketch

Throughout the planning stages that yielded the Final Report of the City of Schenectady Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan (November 2012), the text of the proposed plan and documents shown to the public and Steering Committee depicted Lady Liberty back in Gateway Plaza at a prominent spot near its original location — closer to State Street, between the existing great maple tree and CDTA Bus Plus structures. See the rendering at the top of this posting (which is a detail from this view of the Plaza), as well as the sketch immediately below of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Gateway Plaza project; its Legend shows item #6 (at the top, near State Street and a CDTA shelter), as the “Relocated Statue of Liberty Replica”:

. . click on image for a larger version.

Indeed, every single depiction of options for the planned Gateway Plaza presented for its Public Design Workshops showed Lady Liberty relocated to that spot; e.g., sketches of so-called Concept A and Concept B; and, a Birdseye View of the project. Also, workshop materials showed Liberty as a primary example of study area history. [See Implementation Plan, Appendix G, Public Workshops and Meeting Minutes]

. . annotated detail from Birdseye rendering. .

Moreover:

Every public comment about the Liberty statue was positive for keeping her at the Plaza (App. G, at 94, 110), with notable support to make Her more prominent, keeping Lady Liberty at her original location in the renovated “urban plaza” area.
The Minutes for the Workshops contain no indication of any reservation by the designers or Steering Committee to place Lady Liberty elsewhere in the City.
Through its City Council, the City of Schenectady adopted the Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan “as an official document”, on August 12, 2013 (Resolution No. 2013-206). The only Plan submitted to the Council included bringing Lady Liberty back to be relocated in Gateway Plaza.

Only six months ago, on August 14, 2017, City Councilman Vince Riggi responded to constituent inquiries about whether Lady Liberty would be coming back to her old home, by sending a text message to Paul LaFond, the City’s Commissioner of General Services. Mr. Riggi asked, “is the Statue of Liberty going to be returned to Gateway Park after construction.” Commissioner LaFond replied less than an 90 minutes later: “Yes when the park is complete.” [see screenshot to the right]

Lulled into an unusual complacency regarding Schenectady City Hall and the preservation of Schenectady history, the author of this posting missed the Gazette article “Statue of Liberty replica will find new home: It was 1 of just 6 erected in New York state communities” (Daily Gazette, Dec. 14, 2017, by Bill Buell). The article, which also tells of the Time Capsule placed under the Statue, states:

Due to construction in that area of State Street, across from the former YMCA, the replica has been put in the city garage on Foster Avenue for safekeeping. But Mayor Gary R. McCarthy expects it to have a new home soon.

“Potential sites are being evaluated, and I’m sure we’ll find a place for it soon,” McCarthy said. “One scenario has it back in Liberty Park, and other possibilities might be near the police station, the train station or somewhere along Erie Boulevard.”

Note that Mayor Gary McCarthy calls the City-approved and promised return of Liberty to Gateway Plaza merely “one scenario” being evaluated, but he did at least suggest that the return home was still under consideration. [Keep reading and form your own conclusion.]

On February 24th, however, I was jolted out of my complacency when I saw the item at the head of this paragraph on page A3 of the Albany Times Union. It is merely a photo with a two-sentence caption; there is no explanatory article. The headline says “Symbol heading to a new home.” That’s Schenectady’s Director of Development, Kristin Diotte, with Lady Liberty, in a storage area on Foster Avenue. The caption states: “It’s destined for a new home, most likely Steinmetz Park on the city’s north side in Schenectady.”

Soon after seeing the Times Union item, I wrote to Mary Moore Wallinger, who is the principal in the design firm LAndArt Studio, which has been responsible for design, construction documents and construction administration of Gateway Plaza. Mary has been a lead actor in the design and execution of Gateway Plaza from the beginning, when she was employed by Synthesis Architects, LLP. Mary is also the chair of the City of Schenectady Planning Commission. The Planning Office staff is directly under Kristin Diotte, Director of Development. Thus, I was fairly sure Mary Wallinger would know the status of Lady Liberty’s planned location and the reasons for the changed Plan. My email to her included the Gateway Landing photo collage posted above, and also asked why the Liberty replica was not being returned home. Here is Ms. Wallinger’s entire reply:

On Mar 1, 2018, at 8:37 AM, Mary Moore Wallinger <mmwallinger@landartstudiony.com> wrote:

Hi David,

Thanks so much for sharing this [a collage of Gateway Plaza images] – you made my morning!

In regards to the statue, there is a plan to include some sculpture in the park at some point, but the Statue of Liberty is actually quite small and would look very out of scale in that location. She worked there originally because all of the berms and plantings helped to exaggerate her scale, but as you know, visually secluded areas in public parks are a safety concern and it was critical to open up the visibility in this location. I have been working with the City and a group of local residents and I think we have found a very exciting new home for her where she will continue to be enjoyed by residents and visitors and be greatly appreciated and loved, while continuing to inspire all those around her. There have been a few interested parties with various interesting proposals for new locations and I know the City is contemplating the different options, but I expect they will be making an announcement soon and something will likely happen in the spring. She cannot really be moved until the ground has properly thawed out and a proper footing put in place. The good news is that she is well loved and there are lots of good ideas circulating for her placement in the city, as well as a commitment to seeing this happen once weather permits.

Have a wonderful day and thank you again for your photos!

Best regards,

There is no mention that the long-standing Plan to return Lady Liberty has been reversed. Instead, two reasons are given for sending Lady Liberty to what I call a Foster Home:

“there is a plan to include some sculpture in the park at some point, but the Statue of Liberty is actually quite small and would look very out of scale in that location.” My response:
1. The statue would not be there as sculpture, but as a part of the City’s history (and future).
2. Lady Liberty is the same size as when Mary oversaw plans to bring her back to the Park/Plaza. And, the Lady’s scale looks fine in the rendering showing her at the planned relocation spot. [image at right] Some might say the original location, with the giant maple and other trees and vegetation, plus surrounding berms, in some ways made Lady Liberty look smaller.
“visually secluded areas in public parks are a safety concern and it was critical to open up the visibility in this location”.
1. The berms and most vegetation have been removed and visibility is good
2. The Planned relocation spot is very visible, and not secluded, without the statue being so large as to block views of the Park.

The reasons given for failing to return Lady Liberty to her home are (euphemistically) very weak.

.. follow-up: See “Wallinger’s Excuses for exiling Lady Liberty” (May 5, 2019)

Lawrence on the ground with Stockade resident Peter Delocis

As a statue, the Liberty replica is certainly not too small to have an adequate and appropriate impact. As I have written back to Mary Wallinger, the Liberty replica is 100 inches tall, 8′ 4″. The Stockade’s famous and beloved statue of Lawrence the Indian is 67 inches tall, a mere 5′ 7″. That is almost three feet (and 33%) shorter than Lady Liberty. At that smaller size, Lawrence nonetheless commands his space in an open traffic circle (in color or b&w):

.. ..

As a piece of sculpture, the best comparison I can find is the only comparable sculpture shown in the Gateway Plaza renderings: Venus de Milo on the Pedestrian Way. See the image to the right, which is a detail from this rendering. That Venus sculpture appears to be the same size as the original: 6′ 8″, twenty inches shorter than Lady Liberty, and holding her own.

BTW: At 8’4″, Lady Liberty is significantly taller than the Edison and Steinmetz sculptures, which were ensconced in May 2015 at their Memorial pocket-park, on the corner of Erie Blvd. and So. Church Street. According to the Memorial’s primary midwife/godfather, Brian Merriam, the life-sized sculptures present Edison at 5’10” and Steinmetz at 4’6″.

Fire Sta. #2: plans/schmans

What are we to make of such lame excuses for once again reneging on a development plan that included preserving an important or well-loved piece of Schenectady’s history? How can we not think about the façade of the IOOF’s Temple, the loss of the Nicholaus Building, or the fate of and sad replacement for Schenectady’s Old Fire Station #2? The Fire Station #2 tale is instructive for many reasons, one of which is that the Planning Office staff decided that proposed changes in the approved plan were “minor” and did not have to go before the Planning Commission or the public, leaving us all in the dark until the actual construction of a building that looks like an auto mechanic shop. (Take a look at the Story Collage to the left of this paragraph, if you do not recall the sad precedent.) Of course, we do not know when or by whom the decision was made to exile Lady Liberty from her Park, but the decision was certainly not done in public nor brought to City Council.

The three tarnished examples mentioned in the last paragraph at least had last-minute “engineering studies” or money-saving business imperatives to “justify” them. Here, we are left with asking:

“Which important persons did not like Lady Liberty or her aesthetic or unfashionable effect on the Plaza, or liked her so much they asked the Mayor to send her to their part of town?“

follow-up to the above question (March 6, 2018): This afternoon, Mary Moore Wallinger responded to 93-year old Stockade resident Jessie Malecki, who wrote supporting the return of Lady Liberty to her home. Mary’s reply avoids the “too small scale” notion, and confirms my suspicion that the Liberty replica is simply not modern enough for Ms. Wallinger. She wrote to Mrs. Malecki:

“I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. As per the Route 5 Transit Gateway Study, the park has been redesigned as a new gateway to the City and is intended to have a more contemporary feel that celebrates the future of our great city.

In her email on March 1 to me, Mary Wallinger said:

I have been working with the City and a group of local residents and I think we have found a very exciting new home for her . .

Well, she certainly has not been doing this in a way that would have alerted members of the public who were at the Gateway Plaza Workshops, or those who actively promote our Heritage, or are part of the Stockade community, which the design was supposed to attract and embrace.

Please Speak Out: What are we to make of Lady Liberty being sent to a Foster Home? I think we should make a lot of noise; make use of the short time we do have before Spring temperatures allow her to be re-erected anywhere; and make sure Mayor Gary McCarthy [email: gmccarthy@schenectadyny.gov], Mary Moore Wallinger at LAndArt Studio [email: mmwallinger@landartstudiony.com], and the local media [e.g. opinion@dailygazette.com] know how and what you feel about the secretive and unjustified change of plans, and the importance of preserving important pieces of our history, such as Lady Liberty.

. . above: Bring Lady Liberty Home advocacy collage; click to enlarge; you may copy this summary, if desired, to help this campaign . .

update (March 6, 2018) See “Dispute brewing over city park site for Schenectady’s Statue of Liberty” (Albany Times Union, by Paul Nelson, posted online March 6, 2018; newsprint screenshot at left). The article starts:

Schenectady’s Statue of Liberty appears destined for its new home in Steinmetz Park as part of a planned memorial for military veterans who lived in the Goose Hill neighborhood.

And while Mayor Gary McCarthy said it’s not set in stone, the idea isn’t sitting well with Stockade resident David Giacalone, who has mounted a Bring Lady Liberty Home campaign to return the statue to Lower State Street and Washington Avenue.

And, ends: “I’m sure whatever decision I make that Mr. Giacalone will be opposed to it,” said the mayor, adding he will soon make his final decision public.” [Of course, Mr. Giacalone would be thrilled if the Mayor simply implements the Implementation Plan.] In between, the article fails to say why I characterized the Mayor’s reason for not returning Lady Liberty home as “asinine,” although I did tell the reporter why. If you’ve read this far, you do not need additional explanation.

update (March 23, 2018): Click the thumbnail to the left to see a Letter published in the Albany Times Union today (click for online version).

p.s. By the way, the originally planned location for Lady Liberty in Gateway Plaza is still available for her; photo to Right taken March 3, 2018.

. . the Lady is Just Right!

follow-up (March 14, 2018): See “the Lady, the Mayor and the Council” for an account of the Lady Liberty issue being raised at the March 12, 2018, City Council meeting. Mayor McCarthy passed the buck to the “Design Team.” His four-sure-votes said not a word on the issue. This being Sunshine Week, the posting also asks what good sunshine laws and policy are if an open design process, with community input and support, can be undone secretly a few years later, just before the Plan’s is completed.

Other Voices on Lady Liberty . . check out these Letters to the Editor:

Continue reading →

guardrails to boulders: a bad process leaves many concerns

Posted on September 21, 2017 by David Giacalone

The Boulder Bunch Design Committee

BoulderGate! BoulderDash! Frankly, I’ve been virtually seething over the process used by the officers and board of the Stockade Association [SA] to achieve the replacement of old metal guardrails with boulders where Riverside Park meets the dead-end parking/turn-around areas of three Stockade streets. The deliberate decision* of SA leaders not to inform members and neighbors of the boulders-for-guardrails project, specifically because they expected strong opposition, shows a great disrespect for the Stockade community, and disregard for their obligations.

*follow-up clarification (Sept. 23, 2017):

SA President Carol DeLaMater sent me an email yesterday morning (Sept. 22), saying “David, very disappointed in your assumption about Board behavior regarding support for a proposal to improve the area at the end of North St. It had none of the deliberate motivations you describe.” Please Note: My information on the reason the Board failed to inform the community comes from a person who attends SA Board Meetings, has no apparent axe to grind, and who I have always found to be most trustworthy and reluctant by nature to foment controversy. The account also rings true, because Board fear of opposition to the boulders is about the only reason that seems to explain the failure to request or allow “outside” input over perhaps a period of two years. I do not believe that responsible Board members and officers considered this major change in the appearance of the Park and streetscape to be too trivial to bring to the membership.
In addition, SA Recording Secretary Suzy Unger wrote yesterday evening (Sept. 22) to myself and the 400+ members of the Stockade Yahoo email list, to point out that, in the September 2016 Stockade Spy, in the section with the minutes of an August 3, 2016 SA Board meeting : “The boulders and the letter to the city are referenced, clearly contradicting David’s assertions.” I, of course, checked out Suzy’s claim, and discovered that the Spy states, regarding the boulders: “Board approved . . . letter to City requesting replacing battered guardrails with decorative boulders at end of North St. and others ending at Riverside Park.” (screen shot of page at left) After considering that fact, I replied to Suzy and the Yahoo email list, thanking her for the clarification, and noting that:

checkedboxs “(1) The Board acted to ask the City to replace the guardrails with boulders without first informing the membership or neighborhood about the issue. And, (2) Although the initial request to the Board by residents was only about North Street, the letter expands the request to other streets along the Park, without notifying residents of the other streets.”

back to Original Posting

Perhaps more importantly, the failure to inform members and the community about the requested boulder project demonstrates why any substantial proposal needs the input of “outsiders” (people other than the proponents of a plan and their close friends) to assure that significant concerns are raised, unintended consequences pointed out, alternatives offered (and expensed), and the thoughtful wishes of the neighborhood heard. Nonetheless, I am attempting to write in a civil tone, and keep my sense of humor (see image of the Boulder Bunch Design Committee, above).

There may be reasonable responses to the concerns discussed below, but we were never allowed to raise the issues or test the responses before 110 tons of rock were deposited in Riverside Park.
Why am I so upset at the process? To better focus on facts, research, and common sense concerns relating to the use of the boulders, I expand on my reasons at the foot of this posting*. I also explain why even non-members of the Stockade Association have the right to be concerned and to point out failures in the process and outcome.
Share this webpost with the short URL: http://tinyurl.com/BoulderGate

In case you are not aware of the situation at Riverside Park, here are some images (and, note, none of the photos has been staged; I found the situation and snapped the picture):

. .

. . above: [L] a car parked at North St. boulders; [R] a toddler about to climb a boulder at the end of Governor’s Lane . .

. .Also, a portion of the end of North Street near the playlot, showing the old guardrails:

. . and, the same portion with the new boulders:

For a fuller picture at each location, click on the collage thumbnails below to see both the prior green guardrails and the new boulders at the end of Ingersoll Avenue, North Street and Governor’s Lane:

. .North Street

. . Ingersoll Avenue

. . Governor’s Lane

CONDITION of GUARDRAILS: I have no argument with the assertion that a sufficient number of the green metal guardrails are old, dented and rusted to warrant replacing all of them. The question, of course is “replacement with what?” (see below).City Engineer Chris Wallin told the Times Union last month that the price for removing the guardrails and purchasing the gray limestone boulders was $16,000. We have no idea what other options might have cost, because they were never pursued
Google Map North Street 2011

NORTH STREET Focus: To simplify the discussion, this posting will focus on the situation at the end of North Street. According to SA President Carol DeLaMater, it was North Street residents who first suggested replacing the old green, bumper-high metal guardrails with large rocks or boulders, where the street dead-ends at Riverside Park, in a small, circular, paved area used for parking and turn-arounds. The street is one block long starting at Front Street, north to the Mohawk River. There is only one travel lane, which must be used by two-way traffic, making turn-arounds important and requiring the accumulation of snow at the dead-end or the Park. The Park’s playlot, aimed at young children, and almost totally renovated by the City in November 2016 for safety reasons, is located about 25′ from the parking area.

North St. parking area seen from Playlot (Aug. 2106)

Repair/Replace ASSUMPTIONS. We Stockade residents are used to the principle that you replace things in a historic area with something as close as possible to the original material and without a drastic change in appearance [e.g., Sch’dy Code. §264-76]; that more and bigger are not always better; and that maintaining longstanding streetscapes, park-scapes, and scenery are important goals that should only be circumvented or ignored for very good reasons. Such principles may not be a legal requirement in this instance, but they reflect important historic district values and expectations. Here, no alternatives were discussed (for example TimBarrier LotGard), and no reason given for the drastic change, other than “the old guardrails are ugly”, “the boulders are beautiful and natural”, and “the City has a grant.” Others boulder supporters have waffled a bit, “we only asked for lower, large rocks, wanting them to be smooth and useful for seating, too.”

REPLACEMENT WITH WHAT?

When replacing a utilitarian element like guardrails, we should probably start by asking what purposes the guardrails serve, whether they have been serving those purposes well, and whether some performance factor can be improved at a reasonable cost. We surely need to ensure the replacement situation is just as safe and effective, and hopefully adds no new maintenance worries or costs.

Note, however, that in support of his boulder proposal for North Street, Dennis Meyer told the Times Union that “boulders would also satisfy the city’s 2020 comprehensive action plan to “remove guardrails from parking areas and install a more appropriate barrier”. That, of course, begs the question of what constitutes an appropriate barrier at the particular location.

GUARDRAILS vs. BOULDERS

As Parking Barriers: NEEDS of DRIVERS When PARKING

No driver that I know of has ever been intimidated by bumper-high metal or wooden guardrails. It seems, however that a significant number of drivers fear getting too close to the Riverside Park boulders when parking:

boulders are unforgiving. they will beat your doors, fenders, bumpers and side-panels every time you engage them. also their non-uniform shape means you cannot always tell how far away the vehicle is from the boulder merely by seeing its top.
the boulders are much higher than passenger car bumpers. drivers backing in have to worry about being able to open their rear doors.
parallel parkers very much need to have full control of their doors when exiting and returning to the vehicle.

. .

NEEDS of DRIVERS When TURNING AROUND

Because drivers often do not park as closely to the boulders, there is considerably less space to maneuver when pulling out of a parking space or turning around at the dead-end.

SNOW REMOVAL

We know how the guardrails serve snow removal needs, but we have to wonder how major snowfalls will be handled, and what major accumulations will mean. Guardrails permit some snow to be pushed under them and are low enough for plows to dump snow over them. Boulders seem to have neither characteristic. One SA officer wrote that snow can be pushed between the boulders. Maybe by hand, but the suggested process seems to be a great way to break a plow blade or push boulders onto the park lawn.

SAFETY

It seems highly likely that small children will be attracted by the boulders, which do not offer the foot and hand holds of artificial climbing boulders certified for playgrounds. Instead, these unpainted, rough limestone boulders have many sharp edges, and splinters chipping off, and those falling will not have the required surfacing found on playgrounds (which mandate 6′ of such buffered ground around the entire climbing element).

Even with a parent readily at hand, small children will likely have mishaps, and older ones will challenge each other and themselves in hazardous ways. It seems clear that the City, especially where it has put boulders between parking and the playlot only 25 – 30 feet away, may be liable for creating an “attractive nuisance.” For example, see this legal discussion:

An “attractive nuisance” is any condition on someone’s property that would attract children, who are fascinated by it but don’t understand its dangers. If a child is injured or killed by an attractive nuisance, the property owner could be held liable for damages in a personal injury case.

INSTALLATION

The Parks Department appear to have ignored basic elements for safe installation of boulder, making them dangerously unstable. For example, see Vehicle Barriers: Their Use and Planning Considerations (USDA Forest Service, June 2006):

Construction techniques: Bury one-third of the rock for stability, anchoring, and a more natural look. [see sample sketch]

Similarly, a Best Management PracticesToolkit for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has a number of pointers related to Parking and Vehicle Barriers. Included are (emphases added):

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

 Parking barriers shall be treated as potential visual features and shall have consistency with neighborhood and regional character and with other landscape elements such as lighting, adjacent building details, and street furniture.

 Cluster and stagger boulders to mimic natural conditions.
INSTALLATION CONSIDERATIONS

 Boulders shall be greater than 3 feet in diameter and be keyed in to the soil a minimum of 6 inches. [see figure to the left, which suggest that one-half to one-third of the boulder should be below the surface]

 Shrubs and vegetation can be used as parking barriers.
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: Ensure parking barriers are sized and spaced correctly so they remain intact. Yearly maintenance may be necessary to repair damage from snow removal activities.

TAGGING-GRAFFITI

According to Paul Nelson’s Times Union article, “The city engineer said he is not overly worried about the rocks being spray-painted because they can be power- or sand-blasted without being damaged.” (“Boulders make a big difference at Riverside park in Stockade neighborhood,” August 16, 2017) . That seems rather optimistic. The rocks are already flaking away; they are soft, limestone. Also, they are oddly-shaped, not smooth granite-type rocks, or already painted, and are not securely anchored. Because there are so many crevices, the idea of power cleaning, especially near parked vehicles and playing children, seems unrealistic.

FLOODING

We know the guardrails stay put in a flood. Can we say the same for the poorly anchored boulders? Where might they end up if there is a flood? What about with ice-jam-related flooding? A FEMA training material states that flash flooding can move very large boulders, and then states (at 2-9).

North St. boulder

Flooding caused by ice jams is similar to flash flooding – the formation of a jam results in a rapid rise of water both at the point of the jam and upstream. Failure of the jam results in sudden flooding downstream.

AESTHETICS

Many in the Stockade community appear to disagree with the notion that the boulders are “beautiful” and look “natural”. Aesthetics are a matter of subjective evaluation, but the opinion of a significant, and perhaps majority, element of a neighborhood should not be ignored, and should at least be solicited. That is especially true when several years ago a similar boulder proposal for the Park inspired strong opposition when presented to an SA membership meeting.

When we are dealing with Riverside Park, which has been called “perhaps the finest thing of its kind” by the editor of Architect Forum, “nice”, “I’ll learn to live with it,” or “better than those old, dented guardrails”, is simply not good enough.

. . beautiful and natural?

The Forest Service Vehicle Barrier Guide also states in its section on the use of Large Rocks and Boulders (emphasis added):

How to use: Mimic nature by planting rocks in clusters of one to five and varying space between the rocks and the clusters.

Where to use: Use where large rocks occur naturally. If large rocks are not common, do not use them; they will appear out of place.

Furthermore, I have not been able to find even one example of analogous boulders of similar size being used as barriers along parking spaces — that is, none are in places where drivers must pull or back up to a boulder to park. The City Engineer told the Times Union last month that the rocks in the Stockade are similar to the ones in found in Collins Park in Scotia and Indian Meadows Park in Glenville. My investigation suggests the contrary.

I could find only one “boulder” in all of Collins and Freedom Park, and it is nowhere near a road or parking space.
There are many boulders at Indian Meadows Park in Glenville, but not one is next to a parking space and, especially, none are along the parking spots at the playground. Also, the Glenville boulders, which are really homely when in large groups, are there to keep vehicles off of the lawns, and have plenty of open space available nearby for depositing plowed snow.

. . . .

above: Indian Meadows boulders: [L] none are near the parking spaces for the playground; [M] used along no-parking road to keep vehicles off lawn; [R] along driveway to Park Dept. garage to protect lawn. [click on an image for larger version]

Glenville follow-up (added Sept. 26, 2017): While leaving a medical appointment at Socha Plaza today, I noticed how they use boulders at that parking lot. The decorative boulders are quite a bit smaller than those at Riverside Park, preventing visual assault, and present none of the parking issues caused at our Park. With the boulders set on medians, there are curbs and additional space between vehicles being parked or driven in the parking lot and the boulders. (see photo at right and collage immediately below)

I hope the main points made above will help ensure a far more open process within the Stockade Association, and may help the City decide to find a better solution for the Park and a more appropriate home for the costly boulders.

Continue reading →

Not In Our Park!

Posted on April 27, 2017 by David Giacalone

follow-up: Two resolutions passed by the City of Schenectady City Council on June 12, 2017, represent a compromise solution that we hope will sacrifice, at most, less than 0.1 acre of parkland at Riverside Park. See the posting “what the parkland alienation resolutions mean” (June 12, 2017), at suns along the Mohawk.

Please Note (Monday, May 3, 2017): For a detailed summary of the May 2 informational meeting on the Project, see our post “strong, thoughtful opposition to pump station in the park” (May 3, 2017).

Click this link to see the 25-page Presentation to the Stockade Association Board of the proposed North Ferry Pump Station Project, given on March 1, 2017, by architect Frank Gilmore and CHA’s lead engineer Mike Miller. And, click this link for treatment of the Pump Station in the May 2017 Stockade Spy.

Original Posting

. .

. . above: [L] the West Lawn of Riverside Park; [R] a rendering (from March 1 Presentation to SA Board) of a proposed pump station to be located on the West Lawn. . . For many more photo images, please see “the at-risk West Lawn of Riverside Park” . .

below: a scene from the Stockade Association Memorial Day Picnic on the West Lawn (1970s; from “The Stockade – A Past Reclaimed,” Stockade Association)

This afternoon, April 27, 2017, I sent substantially the following email message to the Stockade Historic District Yahoo! Email group:

Thank you, John [Samatulski], for saying aloud and in print what has to be said, and saying it so well. [click here for John’s email to the Stockade Yahoo Group]

These points need to be made about the Stockade Association Board’s failure to report in a timely manner to the SA membership and the neighborhood on the character of the proposed Pump Station Project:

When presented months ago with the Renderings of the New Pump Station Project there was NO OTHER PROPER RESPONSE FOR THE BOARD of an Association chartered to protect and preserve the residential nature of the Stockade, than to say “NOT IN OUR PARK” and “NOT BLOCKING the VIEWS of and from Stockade properties”.
1. That is even more imperative when the Objectives stated in the SA Constitution and By-Laws include “Development and improvement of the riverfront area”; Protection of historic properties [including their economic value]; and the Promotion of safety and the “aesthetic and physical improvement of the neighborhood”.
2. And, because SA has taken upon itself, and is seen by the broader community as having, the role of “Representation before any City or County governmental agency or component on matters affecting the neighborhood”, its failure to strongly oppose a proposal allows the Applicant, and City Hall, including the Mayor, and the planning and historic districts commissions (and their staffs), as well as the Media, to say with emphasis, “Even the Stockade does not oppose this!” [They literally did that with the Casino.]
It does not take an engineer to know that a new pump station is totally inappropriate in Riverside Park, a small gem of a Park, with very limited lawn space.
A pump station project, and probably any project, that greatly blocks the viewing of the Stockade from any public space, especially rare views of our backyards, lawns and gardens, is totally inappropriate.*/
Our job — as residents, owners, and lovers of the Stockade, as well as the Board and the entire Association — is to say “NO! NOT IN OUR PARK! FIND ANOTHER SOLUTION.” The job of the City and its experts is to find a solution that meets the wastewater requirements of the City and State, or prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the new Station must swallow up part of the Park and destroy the Stockade viewshed.
Delay This! By not alerting the neighborhood of the project proposals that were presented months ago to the Advisory Committee and then the SA Board, the Board has played into the hands of the City, its lawyers, and the project proponents, who will surely use a purported lack of time for complying with its agreement with the State as an excuse for not finding a suitable alternative. The Board members’ job was not to wait around for fine-tuning or the eventual unveiling by the proponents, so that they could say that comments were addressed, and a shrub or two was added or window glare reduced. Their job was to sound the alert that the quality of life in the Stockade was being threatened.
An SA officer or Board Member, or candidate for those positions, who does not agree with one or more of the points above should declare their disagreement and give reasons.

You can find photos of the endangered West Lawn of Riverside Park, and images of the Renderings, at “suns along the Mohawk”, at http://tinyurl.com/WLawn .

On a personal note, I must say that it is a relief to have others raising, in public and forcefully, issues that I have been addressing, and more. We cannot hope to protect the Stockade by playing (silent and minor) partners to so-called Partners in Progress at City Hall. Advocates need to advocate avidly to achieve their goals, and to be respected by politicians. And, we need to use all the available means of communication, such as email and the Stockade Association website, to keep the Stockade neighborhood informed ofnimportant matters.

Thanks for taking the time to consider these points. Please plan to attend the public presentation by CHA of its Pump Station Project on May 2, ~~I hope we can be told the location and time ASAP.~~ at 7 PM at St. George’s.

David at Cucumber Alley

______________________________________________

*/ Any Board or Association member who is asked to review a project in or impacting the Stockade neighborhood should have on the tip of his or her tongue or fingers reference to The Dept. of Environmental Conservation’s policy statement on Visual Impact Assessment [available at http://tinyurl.com/VisImpactDEC]. The DEC Visual Impact Policy Statement, among other things, says that a formal visual impact assessment is needed, with at least a line-of-site survey, whenever any component of a project can be seen from an historic district, such as the Stockade, with adequate mitigation measures taken to prevent any significant visual impact on or from the District. [The Visual Impact Policy should also be posted at the Stockade Association’s very underutilized website.]

Even The Galesi Group and Rush Street Gaming stated, in their Application to the Casino Location Board for the Schenectady casino license, that a Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) in accordance with the NYSDEC Visual Assessment Policy was needed to identify the potential impact of the proposed development scenario on the visual character of surrounding neighborhoods. [Because they ignored the 80’ pylon tower in their own VRA and stressed the low-rise nature of the casino complex, they said it would have no impact on the Stockade.]

What’s So Special About Riverside Park?

Riverside Park is only 6 acres of land, stretched along 1/3rd of a mile of riverbank. In thinking about the impact on the Park, I hope decision-makers will keep in mind three sources of praise and caution from outside the Stockade:

On January 26, 1998, a Resolution of the Schenectady City Council resolved, that Riverside Park “is recognized as a unique component of the [Stockade Historic] District and best serves residents and visitors as a quiet place to view the natural beauty of the Mohawk River.” In addition, the Resolution stated that “to change its special nature would deprive visitors and disadvantage the homeowners who are the caretakers in this Historic District of national importance.”

With its combination of urban waterfront beauty and relative tranquility, Riverside Park was praised by the editor of Architect Forum as “probably the finest thing of its kind in America.” (Dec. 1961)
In addition, and not surprisingly, the Mohawk River Waterfront Revitalization Plan for Schenectady County (2010) has noted that even recreational changes to the Park have been controversial. Therefore, the Plan notes (at 71): “Identifying the appropriate intensity of recreational use along the river has been a sensitive issue in the area of the residential Stockade neighborhood. Riverside Park provides a walking trail from which neighborhood residents view the river. The most active use relating to the river is the occasional fisherman. Thus, the nature and location of the Park “inhibits any significant expansion of use other than to improve it as a scenic overlook and to improve pedestrian and bicyclist access and connection to adjoining areas.” As a result, the only recommended projects in the Plan for Riverside Park involve making improvements in the park’s “current amenities,” connecting it to East Front Street Park and the Union Boathouse, better accommodating bicyclists through path improvements, and creating an alternative Bike-Hike trail. [Nope, nothing about losing a major piece of the Park for a modern, industrial-like project.]

appreciating and mourning IOOF’s Temple of St. Paul (with demolition update)

Posted on November 20, 2011 by David Giacalone

follow-up: . . . October 2012: another bait-n-switch? Click on collage to see the story . .

and, see Nicholaus Building demolished (April 8, 2017)

. . .

. . . [L] IOOF Building (2017); [R] Transfinder 2011 rendering preserving façade . .

– above: demolition of a graceful and “strong little structure” (Gazette, A1, Jan. 31, 2012) –

. . below: the finished, modern Transfinder Building (April 2020):

update (Jan. 31, 2012): Today’s the fifth day of the physical demolition by Jackson Builders of the Odd Fellows Hall at 440 State St. The terra cotta façade is gone and the entire building will be removed over the next few weeks. This slideshow includes photos taken about 7:30 on this gloomy-gray morning at the site plus shots taken on November 20, 2011, when Tom Hodgkins and his children held an Architecture Appreciation Party for the building. That story is below in the original posting. At the bottom of this posting you will find a Gallery with each of the photos; clicking on a Gallery image will bring you to a larger version; scroll over a Gallery image for a description.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

. . below: the Transfinder Building: [L] Nov. 2019; l[R] April 2020 . .

. .

ORIGINAL POSTING

. . .

– condemned façade of St. Paul’s Temple – IOOF Hall – during the Hodgkins Family Appreciation Party and Protest (20Nov2011) –

Tom Hodgkins and his three kids had an Architectural Appreciation Party in front of 440 State Street the past two mornings. As Tom explained in a message to our Stockade neighborhood email list Saturday night:

“We had fun today at our architectural appreciation party. The kids played music, carted around the wagon, ate candy and fruit, while I discussed the fate of the building with pedestrians.”

. . click on a photo for a larger version; scroll over it for a description . .

Tom told the Gazette in the Sunday paper today: “We’re just appreciating this building and the values it embodies before it’s gone. It’s already been done. The city’s been bought out. It’s done. We’re just here to appreciate it before it’s gone.” See “Man stands alone in protest of plan to raze historic Schenectady hall” (Sunday Gazette, by Bethany Bump, November 20, 2011, at B5; online by subscription) More of the story can be found in Thursday’s Gazette, in “Planners approve demolition of historic Odd Fellows hall” (Daily Gazette, by Justin Mason, November 17, 2011, at B1; online), which explained:

“Wreckers await the former International Order of Odd Fellows hall in the very near future.

“Members of the city Planning Commission narrowly approved drastic changes to a plan they approved in July, allowing building owner Tony Civitella to demolish the entire structure at 440 State St. . . .

“The approval will allow Civitella, the president and founder of Transfinder, to immediately move forward on demolishing the entire building. His original plans called for the leveling of the rear of the structure, but to retain the ornate terra-cotta facade and about 20 feet of the building’s front.”

The Planning Board majority, with virtually no time for the public to weigh in, rushed to impose the death penalty on the Temple after Civitella came up with an engineering report saying the façade cannot be saved, and pressed for immediate action on his new plan due to imminent winter weather. We’re supposed to believe that no one at Metroplex, no one in Civitella’s organization, and none of his architects or engineers thought to ask the obvious question last Spring, when Metroplex promised grants — including a $60,000 façade grant — and the project was announced with great fanfare and applause for Mr. Civitella and Metroplex: “Can the façade be saved and can we afford to do it?” In July 2011, the purchase was finalized.

If there was no engineering report prior to the first approval, lots of heads should roll. Ditto, if there was an engineer’s report that endorsed the façade-saving plan.

For me, it’s much too much like the sorry Gillette House bagel shop story from January, 2011, leaving the same bad taste in my mouth. Shortly after much hoopla and back-slapping over a plan to “save” an important historical building, the shrewd businessman-buyer discovers his original plan is simply no longer viable, and civil servants with the obligation to look hard at the situation and to preserve and protect our architectural heritage give in without demanding lots of facts and taking time for appropriate consideration. It is outlandish that a decision could be made when Civitella only submitted his drastically altered plans two days before the Planning Commission hearing.

There should never have been such a rush. The Gazette tells “In mid-August, Transfinder paid the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation $150,000 to lift a covenant placed on the building that would prevent him from demolishing it.” Transfinder knew it wanted to demolish the building soon enough to negotiate the covenant buy-out in August. And, yet, this big rush to beat winter was delayed until filing for the drastic change and demolition permission in mid-November. It seems far too convenient that it happened so far into winter that the Commission could hide behind weather as a reason for its hasty action.

You can bet there will be a great rush to knock that building down, especially the troublesome façade. A lawsuit will be complicated and expensive, and have only a slight chance of finding a sympathetic judge who could act in time to save this fine old building. [Followup: As reported by the Gazette, demolition started the last week of January, 2012.]

Thanks go to Planning Commission member Matthew Cuevas for trying to slow down the process by tabling the measure. And, thanks to Schenectady Heritage Foundation Chairwoman Gloria Kishton, for frantically piecing together public opposition over such a short timeframe. Especially, thank you, Tom Hodgkins and kids, for reminding us what we’re losing. As Tom told our email group yesterday:

“Spending time in that location really gives one some perspective on how few historic buildings remain downtown, and the loss of a building built by the people for the people in the name of love is a crime. It’s not the loss of a bank, or some industrialist’s residence, it is the loss of a temple. “

The Hodgkins kids always make me grin (often due to their photogenic charms). But, seeing them at this Party-Protest had me smiling even more, hoping some of their dad’s zeal will rub off, so they’ll never simply take for granted the old buildings they see every day around their Stockade home. At the rate they’re coming down despite laws meant to protect them, there soon won’t be any historic buildings left to preserve in downtown Schenectady. The only, slight consolation will be that Tom and Gloria and I, and other lovers of our architectural heritage won’t have to have our Thanksgiving meal ruined with a holiday case of Demolition Agita. This year, however, I’m heading to my medicine cabinet for a second helping of architectural-size antacid.

. .

– share this post with the short URL http://tinyurl.com/AppreciateIOOF –

	Respecting Lady Libe… on Letters for the Lady (with…
	Gerald F. Plante on Schenectady DRI should fine-tu…
	David Giacalone on Schenectady DRI should fine-tu…
	Gerald Plante on Schenectady DRI should fine-tu…

snowmen at the gates

. . . . . . . . . watching Schenectady's sleepy watchdogs

Tag Archives: preservation problems

on June 4 come to GROOVIN’4LIBERTY (updated)

Wallinger’s excuses for exiling Lady Liberty

comments on the Stockade Streetscape Plan (with updates)

News10 ABC’s special Valentine to Lady Liberty

Bring Lady Liberty Home

guardrails to boulders: a bad process leaves many concerns

Not In Our Park!

appreciating and mourning IOOF’s Temple of St. Paul (with demolition update)