The Audubon Commisson has announced that it will be holding a series of public meetings to gather public input for the development of a Master Plan for Audubon Park. The first such meeting will be on Monday, Jan 13th at the Audubon Tea Room at 7pm.

According to the Times-Picayune and the Audubon Institute website the new plan will consider all parts of the park outside of the zoo, will probably not result in radical changes in the way the park looks or is used, and will focus on "enhancements and improvements in the quality and consistency of the existing facilities and uses within Audubon Park."

Many who have followed the recent controversy over the Audubon Park golf course redevelopment and new "clubhouse" may wonder if it is perhaps a little late for a publicly debated and formally adopted strategy for the future of the park. Indeed, some local residents and the Times-Picayune itself, have been calling for a Master Plan for Audubon Park for nearly 30 years. Others might pinpoint 1992, when the Audubon Commission hired Urban Systems to conduct a survey of park users in which "renovate the golf course" was found to be of the LOWEST priority to 40% of users, as a more appropriate time to have begun a Master Plan development process.

We would like to believe that it is never too late for public input into a master planning process; however, we also believe that the process by which the plan is developed and the principles that it enshrines will be just as important as the details.

Brief Background

In 1974, in the midst of the controversy over the expansion of Audubon Zoo, the Times-Picayune editorialized that

"A master plan for the whole park should have been part of the zoo planning so that redevelopment of all parts of the park could proceed in tandem. It is late to start now, but it must be done." (12/5/74 TP Sec. 1, p. 22. Editorial)

The chief concern at that time was that since the expansion of the zoo had effectively squeezed the public out of the south side of the park, consideration had to be given to more intensive use of the north ('Front') part of the park:

"The inescapable conclusion seems to us to be that the front part of the park will have to be redesigned for traditional park use. Audubon Park [is] small to begin with, and what will be left after all the new incursions will be too valuable to devote to a golf course’s low-intensity use." (12/5/74 TP Sec. 1, p. 22. Editorial)

A separate study in 1975 by Mark, Lewis Associates concluded that the low-intensity use of the north side of the park as a golf course should be reconsidered.

SaveAudubonPark has never proposed the removal of the golf course from Audubon Park, and in fact has always asserted that the old course maintained the central meadow effect of the park's original Olmsted design and coexisted rather peacefully with other park uses. It seems to us that the Audubon Commission's recent redevelopment of the golf course was at the expense of other priorities in the park, and that the decision to entirely rebuild the course at great cost and with significant impact to the park's natural beauty was entirely wrong-headed. We also believe that no Master Plan prepared before construction on the new course began, if it had been developed with significant public contribution and based on a rational assessment of the various needs of the park's wide range of users, would have resulted in such a project being approved!

A Master Plan for All Users of Audubon Park

While we welcome the decision to finally develop and implement a Master Plan for the park, we reiterate the need for maximum public participation in its development and for the plan to enshrine some basic principles. Without strong public intervention at this stage, this Master Plan will become a mere recitation of the existing facilities within the park and an overly detailed discussion of issues such as tree, bench and path maintenance, without an acknowledgment of the underlying principle that the park needs to be better maintained, more openly managed and above all, maintained for ALL users.

1. A Master Plan should conform with the city's own Master Plan with respect both to the manner of development of the plan and of its role as a bona fide 'concept plan' not subject to ad-hoc alteration.

Rather than being developed in-house by Audubon's "staff and consultants" with pre-conceived notions and carte-blanche to accept or ignore whatever public input they choose, this Master Plan should be developed in keeping with the appropriate guidelines for public participation so that a wide range of perspectives on what is needed for Audubon Park will shape the entire plan, not just the less-important details. Only then will it reflect a wide range of public perspectives and priorities and not be dominated by the financial imperatives of the Audubon Institute itself.

In order to achieve this, the process must include:

• Maximization of public input.
• Make park plans subject to review by Planning Commission.
• Require public hearings before AC and CPC before any changes to the park's Master Plan are institituted.

2. A Master Plan should enshrine certain basic principles of accountability and due-process in the way in which the park is managed, and should ensure that the fundraising facilities originally created to support the park (the zoo and golf course primarily), should pay for the maintenance of the rest of the park.

Some of these principles are:

• A budget for park maintenance separate from that of the zoo and golf course
• Transparency in financial and other operations by park management, such as making financial records available online.
• Broadening of the membership of the Audubon Commission to make it more accountable to the public. Additional members of the Commission might include preservationists, representatives of environmental or other outdoors groups, landscape specialists etc.
• A separation of powers between the publicly appointed Audubon Commission and the Audubon Institute. The Audubon Commission must take on responsibility for the park and be available to and responsive to the public, drawing on the expertise of its membership as well as of its agent.

3. A Master Plan for Audubon Park should recognize the need to preserve the remaining greenspace and limit further commercialization in the park.

Considerations might include:

• Limiting all buildings to their current footprints.
• Putting Hurst St parking lot back into green space, and limiting size of new equipment shed to that of the old golfcart shed.
• Restricting use of the new clubhouse so that it remains an adjunct to the golf-course and a refreshment facility for other parkgoers, but does not operate as a separate restaurant, entertainment, reception or banquet facility.
• Preserving free access and 'passive' use areas in the park, and prohibit the addition of new fee-paying 'facilities'.
• Preserving the limits to further expansion of the zoo.

4. A Master Plan should promote public access to all parts of the park.

Our suggestions include:

• Restoring public access to the golf course pathways on wet days or at other times when the course is not in use, and/or by creating special times for the public to have access.
• Restoring public access to the 'linear park' along the inside of the lagoon on wet days or at other times when the course is not in use, and/or by creating special times for the public to have access.
• Offering discount days at the golf course for local residents and/or students.
• Removing restrictions on access to the playing fields on the 'Fly.
• Determining a fixed area of the park (based on a percentage) that the Commission is able to lease out to local organizations. All remaining parts of the park are not to be permanently leased out or offered for exclusive use to any one group of people.
• Implementing a noise and nuisance monitoring program on the batture such that it can be kept open at least until dark.
• Recovering park lands encroached upon by residences neighboring the park.
• Providing a separate running space for joggers and vehicles in the back of the park. This would give joggers the option of the front, back, both, or a figure 8 course
• Providing curb cuts on all sidewalks, including the back of the park, for wheelchair and stroller access.

5. A Master Plan should act to preserve and restore the remaining historical elements of the park.

Our suggestions include:

• Identifying and restoring the original elements of the park's Olmsted plan, using a qualified landscape architect/historian with an appreciation of the elements of Olmsted's vision.
• Restoring Hyams Fountain.
• Restoring Meditation Walk.