Bryant Park (Hall of Shame)

42nd Street between 5th and 6th Ave.
New York, NY

Submitted by: Project for Public Spaces

This park is becoming ever more privatized at the expense of thousands of everyday users.

Click on any image for slide show

For more images of Bryant Park (Hall of Shame) or other places, try searching our Image Collection

02/18/05 Edward Janoff said:

I am a huge fan of Bryant Park and a public space advocate. I too dislike the private fashion shows' use of Bryant Park. However, I feel the need to contest your evaluation of Bryant Park as one of the ten worst parks in the world.

Nobody cares that the shows are there in February when the park is wet and cold and empty. The 21 or so days that are lost in September are very unfortunate, but here are few things I have learned from the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation that make it entirely excusable to me:

First of all, you make it sound like the whole park is closed during fashion week, and that you can forget about eating lunch there. In reality, it's just the lawn and fountain area which are closed. This is about one-third of the park. The lawn may be the nicest area of the park and it is a shame to see it occupied, but there's no need to go saying that everyday users find themselves shut-off from the park for two months a year. I am an everyday user and it doesn't really bother me. Realistically, one only has to put up with three weeks in September where you can't use one part of the park, but instead have to sit elsewhere. There are still thousands of people in the park at lunchtime during fashion week.

Second, Bryant Park does not receive any government money - it is entirely privately funded. Bryant Park consumes no tax dollars, and doesn't do any fundraising. The events at Bryant Park bring in something like 40% of the money that maintains and improves the park year after year. Bryant Park comes at no cost to the public, which is something that cannot be said of any of the top 24 "Best Parks" listed on this site.

Third, the fashion shows are the only annual event in Bryant Park that is private. There are so many other wonderful events like the Film Festival and Broadway in Bryant Park that are not only open to the public, but all completely free.

Fourth, the fashion shows replace the park's lawn twice a year, following the shows, which is what gives Bryant Park one of the world's best lawns.

Fifth, the fact that the fashion shows have repeatedly begged the mayor to be put in Bryant Park rather than an arena or convention center just goes to show how distinguished this once degenerated park now is.

Most public space organizations put Bryant Park in their top ten, including New Yorkers for Parks who rated it the best park in New York with a perfect score. I happen to agree and I find it disappointing to find Bryant Park on your Hall of Shame, especially considering the New York Public Library is your "Space of the Week," while the outside of the library is part of Bryant Park. I recommend you reserve your Hall of Shame for public spaces that actually deserve it.

11/23/04 Paul Steuben said:

PPS is the John Kerry of park ratings. On the one hand, its website extols the virtues of Bryant Park and on the other, it trashes the park. What's really going on here? Can you say "flip-flop?"

01/13/05 Theodore Lemons said:

I agree entirely with the previous two posts. Placing Bryant Park into the 'Hall of Shame' just discredited everything else on this PPS website. There are many more privatized public spaces much more worthy of critique.

02/16/05 Andy Wiley-Schwartz said:

The comments above are legitimate and well-taken here at PPS. A few careful responses:

1. Bryant Park is an amazing place, and we love it. That is why it will always make our list of Great Parks and great public spaces. That is also why we feel we must cry out when we see the park being privatized in this way. We include it in our Hall of Shame for what we feel is an unforgivable breach of the public trust.

2. The fact that Bryant Park uses no public money is not an excuse to close off so much of the park to users for two months of the year. It is still a public park and a public place. Ironically, Rockefeller Center's Channel Gardens would never close off to the public like this, and they are a privately-owned public space. Their events, like the orchid show and others are always free and open to the public.

3. The Fashion Show happens twice a year. Once in September when the weather is usually excellent—there no excuse to limit use then whatsoever. Then again in February when it is cold. The comment above noted that the park is not well-used then. However, many, many excellent parks around the world come up with interesting ways to engergize and enliven their parks in winter. It should be a challenge to all park managers to keep the park as vital in winter as in summer. We have dozens of examples of this, from Sweden to Portland, Oregon. Again, no excuse to close off the park.

4. There is no reason why the fashion show needs to be in a public, city park, especially if it wants to remain an invitation-only event. Why can't they choose an armory or other venue--even one that they could enliven with their energy and funds? The show doesn't need Bryant Park, and, in our opinion, the park doesn't need the show. We understand that it is difficult for any organization to turn down a lucrative deal like this, but it is not in the public interest and we urge both the Bryant Park Restoration Corp and the City to tell the Fashion show to move elsewhere.

04/02/05 Mary Sz said:

I remember when Bryant Park was populated exclusively by the drug trade during the 1970's and 80's. I worked in the area and it was a treacherous place to walk in—even in the middle of the day. The hyper-vigilant way the Park is maintained today reflects the fear that without a constant round of organized activities the park will descend again into lawlessness. Last summer, in Manhattan with time to kill, I spent mornings sitting in the Park. Despite its gentrification, there were still homeless people there who had obviously spent the night. I would argue that the partial privatization of the Park actually makes it a safer place for the homeless. In the "old" Bryant Park they would have been robbed or worse. Gentrification and privatization involves trade-offs and carries unintended consequences. In this case, a public policy intended to attract tourists and office workers to use Bryant Park has had the welcome effect of making it a safer and more comfortable space for the very poor who have nowhere else to go.

07/19/05 Christian Calleri said:

I think Bryant Park is a beautiful experience. Perhaps the person who nominated it for the Hall of Shame simply had a bad experience, or was there on the wrong day. Most people, including nearly every urban designer and architect I know, feel it is a near perfect urban experience. This is an odd nomination. It ought to be nominated to be one of the great parks, not something shameful.

11/09/05 Emily Grigg-Saito said:

Before you criticize Bryant Park, please read the book, "The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces." This book also cites Bryant Park as an awful space worthy of a hall of shame, however, this was in the late 60's, early 70's, when Bryant Park truly was worthy of such a title. Maybe today you are not happy with how privatized Bryant Park has become, but look at how much it has changed. At least people are not afraid to go there anymore. Free outdoor movies during the summers are one way we can all use Bryant Park if we like. This is a lovely small city park, and it is a shame that we lose it to events like fashion week. But ask yourself, isn't it worth the cost, so that we can have a safe place to eat lunch?

01/06/06 Gil Penalosa said:

Sorry PPS. I love most of your work, articles, and highly recomend your great web site. Nevertheless, you really "missed the boat" when you included Bryant Park in the Hall of Shame. No excuse. It's not perfect, but Bryant Park is currently one of the best urban parks in the world! It is beautiful, well maintained, and full of activity: concerts, movies, ice skating, bocce, reading, charming chairs, stunning trees and lawn, food, flowers, good access, a fantastic place to "people watch". Great for all, men and women, young and old, rich and poor, all!

03/23/06 Virginia Terry said:

You have really hurt your credibility by putting Bryant Park in the Hall of Shame, and you contradict yourself with your justification for it. By definition Bryant Park is a great public space because great numbers of the public use, love it, and visit every day. This is a park that has made a major difference in people's lives and in the profile of New York City. People (the public) LOVE this park.

Yes, we all agree that in a perfect world, government would pay all the considerable expense of maintaining this park in beautiful condition. But that is not the reality that we live in, and hasn't been for some time. Parks all over the world are struggling to find money for regular maintainance and capital improvements, but they are competing with the costs of public education, police and fire departments, medicare, etc. and so parks have to look for new and innovative ways to find funding.

Bryant Park has done this in remarkable way. The private events that take up a portion of the park for a very limited number of days each year are a small price to pay to give New Yorkers this magnificent space.

PPS, you need to find a graceful way to come around on this and remove Bryant Park from the Hall of Shame. No one is ashamed of Bryant Park - they are proud of this exquisite park and all that it has to offer to people from all walks of life.

07/30/06 Heather Shank said:

It sounds like many people are offended that Bryant Park has made the Hall of Shame list, but I have to say, I understand and support PPS for using this venue to bring up an important point. The privatization of public space has been slowly and insidiously increasing, to the extent that many of us just accept that this is now how the world works. If we accept that a private interest is going to maintain our space, then we also have to accept their terms, and realize that their intentions may not always be in sync with the public interest. It doesn't surprise me that many New Yorkers don't mind their space being co-opted for brief interludes. Many people also accept walking around as branded advertisements, it can seem like such a small thing. But where do we draw the line? Is this a trend that is or will slowly increase in the park? It sounds like that is what PPS is trying to draw attention towards. It sounds like they've added it to the list because they love it so much and they don't think that a private interest has the right to exclude the public for any length of time or for any non-public purpose. A privatized public space may be safer for homeless people to sleep in, but it's also a place that can exclude the homeless from being there at all.