Introduction

There is no doubt that despite the important issues of park development that were on the agenda at this meeting, the night was stolen by Gina, the Audubon Zoo female elephant who was coaxed to the very door of the Audubon Tea Room to be entertainingly presented. Apparently, Audubon is looking to artificially inseminate Gina as has been successsfully achieved on only a handful of occasions in US zoos.

We look forward to the birth announcement, and hope that at least this new Audubon development will not be a white elephant.

Financial Report

A brief review of the Audubon 2001 financial report was given, along with an even briefer taster of the new 2002 budget. Remarking that 2001 had been a difficult year, not least because of the events of 9/11, an Audubon spokeman remarked that Audubon had recovered from the setbacks because of the diversity of its revenue stream, and especially the strength of its food and beverage operation.

While we did not previously think ourselves naive, it was a little alarming to find that the Audubon Nature Institute, with its world-acclaimed and publicly funded zoo, aquarium and nature centers, is in fact in the business of flipping burgers for its profits. What this says about the likely future of the new golf clubhouse eating facilities can only be imagined. While represented by Audubon as primarily a "refreshment facility" for whacked-out golfers, how long will Audubon be able to resist the profitability promise of a general purpose restaurant in Audubon Park?

Management Agreement

At the October 24th Audubon Commission meeting, a new management agreement was approved by the Commission, increasing the length of contract between the Commission and the Institute from 5 to 10 years. Additionally, the new agreement appointed Institute CEO Ron Forman as CEO of the Audubon Commission.

At the current meeting, Audubon attorney Tut Kinney described an amendment to the agreement which appears to cancel the installation of Forman as CEO of the Commission, but instead authorizes him to execute documents on the Commission's behalf.

A brief but heated debate then ensued between Mr Kinney and Mr Forman for Audubon and audience-member Keith Hardie. Mr Hardie contended at the October 24th meeting that the new arrangement was illegal as it represented a conflict of interest between Mr Forman as CEO of the private Audubon Institute and Mr Forman as CEO of the Institute's only client, the Audubon Commission. At the current meeting he raised the issue of illegality again, but we were all assured that the arrangement does not contain even "a hint of impropriety".

Whatever the new contract arrangement means in legal terms, the fact remains that the arrangement as approved at the October 24th meeting was illegal, and the changes do not remove the strong suspicion in some quarters that the publicly appointed Audubon Commission and its agent the Audubon Nature Institute are just a little too cozy. While the stench of illegality may have been removed, more than a whiff of impropriety remains.

Golf Course Landscaping

Having been built upon the utter destruction of the historic Olmsted-designed central meadow,we agree that the new Audubon Golf Course will require some serious landscaping. However, Mr Dale Stastny's presentation to the Audubon Commission of the request for approval for landscaping work contained an extraordinary element of hubris.

Apparently, while the so-called "founder of American landscape architecture" Frederick Law Olmsted had merely envisioned a "pasture" for passive enjoyment that would not interrupt the park-goers view across the park, new uber-founder Stastny declared that his unfortunate aglomeration of lakes, hills, deserts and forests will in fact constitute an "incredible visual experience for all park users".

While we disagree that the Institute's vision was intended for "all park users" at all, we cannot disagree that, given the sacrifice of an historic Olmsted park, the new vista will indeed be... "incredible".

Clubhouse Design

Mr Stastny went on to give a presentation on the new golf clubhouse design. Before moving on to the motion to approve the design and request bids for its construction, Stastny first wanted to talk a little about "how we got here", which is indeed the subject closest to our hearts.

He touched on the public discussion of 10/15/2001, and described the way that the original plan was modified in the light of this public input to move the clubhouse to the Magazine side of the oak grove, to reduce its parking, and to reduce the size of its "interior spaces" - this was the plan, he said, that was approved at the Audubon Commission meeting of 10/24/2001.

Mr Stastny did not mention the fact that most speakers at the Audubon Institute meeting of 10/15 and the Audubon Commission meeting of 10/24 opposed not just the size of the "interior spaces", but also the size of the structure overall. In Audubon's compromise floor plan the controversial dining and kitchen areas were reduced but compensated for by an increase in veranda area. The supposedly "smaller" clubhouse was reduced from 8,500 sq ft to a piddling 7,900 sq ft. Nor did he mention that speakers at the 10/24 Commission meeting were still unhappy with the size of the parking proposed by the Institute, and only preferred the new Magazine location over the old Oak Grove location in the most limited way - to quote Helen Schneider at the Audubon Commission meeting "given the choice between A and B, B is the better solution" - which was scarcely the kind of endorsement that Audubon now claims itself to have.

Mr Stastny was then fortunate enough to field a friendly question from the Commission, essentially asking him to confirm that questions from the public had been taken into account and that the site and design were what the public had asked for.

At no time did he acknowledge that the public discussions about the clubhouse had never covered the exterior design of the building, nor that the somewhat vague exterior view that was on show as part of those earlier presentations has been entirely dispensed with and replaced with the current design. That view showed a much lower-profile building than the new design.

Say what?

Mr Ogden illuminated this switch in design by remarking that many people were pleased by the reduced size of the building but wanted something with more "historic referencing". Accordingly, the Commission and Institute began work on a redesign that would use as reference the old Audubon Tea Room and the old Audubon clubhouse. According to Mr Ogden, the design includes a cupola merely to demonstrate that the building is "not a house or celebratory structure, but a clubhouse".

We would contend precisely the opposite, that the high pitched roof and cupola demonstrate that the building will be a "monumental" or "celebratory" structure and that something far more modest would be quite adequate if Audubon was really interested only in providing a clubhouse for its golfers.

Mr Ogden concluded his interruption by stating that the design was "understated", and offering his congratulations to Mr Stastny, his consultants, and the designers.

There then followed a period of what the Audubon Commission likes to term "public input"

Debra Howell (SaveAudubonPark): Don't you think that there should be an opportunity for the public to comment on this design?

Dumas: This is your opportunity!

Howell: The plan deserves review without this haste... the design looms above the trees...

Ogden (APC): This has not been hasty. We've had plenty of public input and we need to move ahead. We've made adjustments (as to size etc) and the design does not "loom" above the trees, in fact the trees "loom" over the clubhouse.

Question from floor: How high is the clubhouse, how high are the trees?

Carlos Cashio (designer): 36 feet, don't know how high the trees are.

Howell: 36 feet to the top of the Cupola?

Carlos Cashio: No, add 5 feet for the cupola.

Forman: This is not new, the design has been around for months. We tweaked it based on public input, but now it is this board's DUTY to move ahead.

This comment came within a half hour of both Mr Stastny and Mr Ogden acknowledging that the design and the drawings are new! Until posted on the ANI website on 01/11/2002 nobody had seen this particular design of the outside of the building. The floorplan of the building is controversial enough, the exterior design and particularly the height has not only never been discussed, it is an outrageous intrusion by the Audubon Institute on what was formerly a public park.

Maria Kron (Uptown Neighborhood Improvement): The design we saw at the neighborhood group meeting was more low-slung. The pitch of the roof and the cupola make the building visible from Magazine St. We have said many times that we don't want the vista (across the park) interrupted. The design was just put on the Audubon Institute website on Friday (1/11/2002). The neighborhood groups met with Ron Forman only 2 weeks ago and he didn't say anything about it!

Point of Ordure

Clearly, Ms Kron's points about the process were entirely irrelevant, because Mr Dumas went on to attempt a vote on the motion for the clubhouse.

Mr Hardie interrupted with a question and was ruled out of order by Dumas.

However, Mr Hardie pressed ahead and asked "How do the architect and the Audubon Commission plan to get around zoning provisions that a restaurant is not allowed in the park?"

Mr Ogden, from the Audubon Commission, replied "it is not a restaurant". Mr Hardie attempted a follow-up question but from this point on the heated exchange exceeded the shorthand capabilities of the current author. Suffice to say that the Commission declared the discussion closed and proceeded to take a vote which, unsurprisingly, was unanimously in favor of approving the design.

It seems to this observer, that the Audubon Commission does not acknowledge that the general public has a right to be consulted before large new buildings are constructed on public property. While under severe public pressure in October, the Commission did accept some compromise on the location and square footage of the building, it has now reverted to type and accepted a design from the Institute that the public may or may not like, but has no say in.

Note on Restaurants in Audubon Park

1. Zoning forbids a 'restaurant' in Audubon Park outside of the zoo but does permit some kind of food service in the context of a golf clubhouse. Inside the zoo, zoning forbids a "fast food" restaurant.
2. Inside the zoo, the McDonalds is referred to by Audubon as a "concession" rather than a "fast food restaurant".
3. Interestingly, McDonald's own website states :

   "McDonald's vision is to be the world's best quick service restaurant experience"

4. Given that the world's most famous and successful "fast food restaurant" can, for the purposes of zoning, become a "concession", how long before the clubhouse's "food and beverage service" for golfers becomes a full-service restaurant?