Hits: 0
WPCNR PLAYLAND ROUNDUP News & Comment by John F. Bailey. APRIL 3, 2013 UPDATED 7:00 A.M. E.D.T. April 5, 2013:
Thursday, the County Executive’s major announcement about Sustainable Playland answered a lot of questions. But, not much has changed.
Late Wednesday afternoon a group opposed to the Sustainable Playland plan, change.org listed 14 well-known attractions plus the midway that Sustainable plans to eliminate from the park.
The Sustainable wrecking ball will eliminate the Log Flume, Flying Witch, Playland Plunge, Double Shot, Catch a Wave, Starship 2000, Thunderbolt, Wipeout, Go Carts, Family Flyer Roller Coaster, Auto Scooter Bumper Cars, and Sky Skater as well as Midway buildings dating from the 30s, which hold game concessions, the House of Mirrors and the Zombie Castle ride.
By WPCNR count this would leave the Dragon Coaster, Kiddieland, the Merry-go-Round, the Steeplechase, the Ferris wheel. Playland loses much (about half of the present amusements) of its charm and old-time feel for just another park.
One of the statements in the video is Sustainable Playland vision gives you more park, less paving. Exactly.
It also loses a great deal of parking capacity (about 50%). So, how are you going to sustain the clamor for beach and amusement on those 90 degree days when you cannot handle the parking? Remember parking was all the way outside of Playland and down Playland Parkway on those sweltering days two summers ago. The parking plan is actually seeing less people using the park, perhaps better “heeled” with fatter wallets.
Another annoyance is the county high admission price which is anything but family friendly. Having just seen the latest Sustainable Playland video on their website, I wonder about statements that say this will bring the family back to the park. Well if it did not cost over $30 bucks plus parking per rider in the family, you might not have that problem. Secondly, the new mission is to make the park more usable all year round, replacing half the park with a field house and play fields. Plus, upscale concessions.
“Message” statements appear in the video about making the park more attractive to Westchester residents for which it is intended.
To wit:
“I saw an opportunity that even back in the laste ’70s, Playland wasn’t what it originally was, certainly, and it wasn’t serving the recreational needs of Westchester County.”
“We looked at an expanded ice rink. We looked at bringing new food facilities with higher quality food facilities. We looked at bringing the idea of indoor and outdoor fields to Westchester County, which is in great need of those fields.We looked at the idea of amusements and where the amusement business is going and could an amusement park that was focused on family rides, as opposed to the big thrill rides thrive, and in all cases that the elements that were very thoughtfully put together really have demand in the market, we feel are both market-supportable and more importantly financially sustainable.”
“The (new) sources of revenue includes sponsorships, public event revenues involving private sector companies, concession revenues enhanced way beyond what the numbers were before.”
“We plan on investing several million dollars to bring this park back. The truth is, it actually includes eliminating a small portion (14 rides,Midway, funhouses)of some of the ride attractions.”
“It’s a fantastic business (Field House) if you find the right location. You really need the demand and it’s possibly one of the best areas in the country to build something (indoor fields)because there’s so much demand around here (for fields). (waving at parking lot),if we put it up right over there which is the plan, it won’t be much different for any of the (Rye) residents over there.So that’s kind of exciting too. It is an empty parking lot expecially at this time of year so it’s exciting to sort of have year-round use for this facility.”
“There are some folks talking about investing $13-14 Million in one element of this plan. The overall investment will be about 33-1/2 Million dollars. When people are willing to put up significant dollars that’s a real validation of the plan.”
“The input of the community is what is making this such a great place.”
“This is the kind of park that for decades,is going to be relevant to Westchester residents. But it’s also sustainable in a sense that it is going to be the right thing for the environment at this location.”
“What I think is important (about the plan)to recapture and preserve is the original elegance and original continuity the park originally had.”
“Sustainable Playland is poised to bring the families back to Rye Playland.”
“It’s time really for Playland to be rethought. It’s time for it to become a better neighbor. It’s time for it to be a better integration into the way the county needs to use this property for recreation.”
“We’ve established a broad base of support both at the bottom level with the rank and file people, the users, to the senior level with some of the people of heads of businesses, heads of government, and localities that we have here to be able to come together and set their differences aside and actually think about what is in the best interests of the people in the county of Westchester.”
This oblique attitude subtlely projected by these quotes has an uncomfortable feel to it to me.
You see this video first on the Sustainable Playland website, and it gives to me the feeling that somehow Playland is now attracting the wrong kind of crowds: perhaps too poor, not from Westchester, and perhaps not white enough, not rich enough. That the park is rundown.Its elegance has been lost.
Wait..and tearing down half the rides and midway is going to preserve that elegance?
It is not.
This is a myth that the park is rundown.
Despite the $30 and up per person to use the rides, the park still attracts families of all walks of life, creeds, and ethnic persuation. The crowds are very diverse. Playland despite the county absurdity of worrying about it losing $3 million a year, (which the county burns regularly at the blink of an eye)is a place so many people love.
They love it because it is safe. It is people-friendly (or used to be before the county started viewing it as suddenly not an asset). Everybody smiles all day at Playland unless it is raining. People black, white, tan, all get along.
Does snooty Westchester not like that?
When these rides go for good, and this whole Sustainable concept is created, (and it is not going to happen all at once–who wants to go to a perpetual construction site? Will they allow soccer games on the great lawn? Will they have an affordable ice casino?
Will admission to the park be reasonable? Will the restaurants be Tikki Bar and Seaside Johnny expensive, or Nathan’s Famous? That is the question.
This may be a sophisticated park when it finishes up, but Playland instead of the living, breathing human park of memories will become a curiosity with no soul.
Why kill the Midway? The clang of bells, the colorful stuffed animals to win, the politically incorrect shooting and hoop-tossing, win-a-bear-for-your-date galleries, that is history, excitement–that makes childrens’ eyes widen…the sights the sounds you never forget it or fail to enjoy it.
Kill the midway and you take the soundtrack out of Playland. Playland involves you. This outfit wants to turn it into a passive park that appeals to the sophisticated, the wealthy and the white, and make a lot of money doing it.
Robert Moses, to his everlasting credit, opened up beaches to the poor and introduced the concept that the masses needed recreation that was reasonable. Now, that idea is passe’.
Now parks have to be places where chablis and brie can be consumed in quiet out of a hamper without the cacophony of real life, real people.
I like what was done by the persons connected to the Highland who are in this group, but let’s face it — the High Line in Manhattan is passive. It is for strolling. Same with Central Park.
And the Zombie Castle, the Hall of Mirrors — they never fail to amuse your kids or your date. But, no they are unsophisticated the swells say.
Financing behind Sustainable Playland has not been made public. (In the news conference completed yesterday, investments by other Sustainable Playland partners were announced.)
A call from WPCNR to Sustainable Playland spokesfirm, Thompson & Bender to ascertain how Sustainable Playland is doing raising the millions of dollars they promise to pay the county for their first year of their lease, was not responded to.
Sustainable Playland also has not commented at all or made any public effort to deal with the cleanup of Playland, due to open May 11. That is a blunder on their part from a public relations standpoint. Why do doublework? If the County is going to fix up the ice casino, why do it, if Sustainable Playland is going to redesign the interior. Sustainable Playland should ante up in this time of crisis, don’t you think? They should show us their “fund balance.”
Playland Boardwalk and fishing pier and ice casino appear to have been untouched by county worker hands since the big storm and look much the same as they did in November. Five and a half months of good work time have been wasted by county inability to get moving on the repairs due to bureaucratic bickering between the legislators and the County Executive. It seems to this reporter that the county is trying to kill this park for good.
A press release Wednesday afternoon from a group opposed to Sustainable Playland takeover of the park, which will essentially based on the amazing number of rides they are going to remove that have long been part of park lore, notes:
An internet petition against Westchester County’s chosen future operator of Playland Park, Sustainable Playland Incorporated (“SPI”) removing rides and reducing the size of the amusement park continues to grow and gain support. To date, the electronic petition, located at Change.org (http://www.change.org/petitions/save-playland-amusement-park) has received over 2000 signatures, at least 740 of which are from Westchester County residents.
Most of the remaining signatories are tri-state area inhabitants or people with local ties to Westchester that currently use the amusement park. Many comments by the signatories are left publically accessible on the petition website. Comments state that as users of the current amusement park, the signatories are not apt to travel to Playland to spend money at a reduced amusement park combined with more locally appealing amenities such as the ball fields and the great lawn proposed within SPI’s plan.
SPI, who announced further details of a contract with the Westchester County Executive to take over management of the park, seeks to remove 30% of the amusement rides and approximately 50% of the amusement park area to create passive parkland and green space. Based on the presentation of SPI’s plan (http://westchesterlegislators.com/pdf/PlaylandPresentationSustainable_Playland.pdf)
