A New Vision for Prospect Park’s Vale of Cashmere Sparks Controversy at Landmarks Hearing

Prospect Park Alliance’s $27.5 million vision for the restoration of the park’s Upper Vale in the Vale of Cashmere faced some tough questions at a Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting on Tuesday, especially in regards to the overall layout of the space and the design of a new restroom facility.

Prospect Park Alliance senior architect David Yum and senior landscape architect Svetlana Ragulina presented plans to the LPC to construct a new building and an arbor with retaining/seating walls, reconfigure pathways, replace paving, and install fencing, play equipment, and furnishings. The project, which will also include restoring the lower Vale, received city funding of $40 million in 2021.

Over the last few years, the alliance had undertaken a public engagement process to find out what locals want to see in the upgraded Vale area, leading to the plans that were presented to LPC. LPC does not have any binding say on what is built, but is tasked with issuing an advisory report to the Public Design Commission, the agency that will eventually approve the plans.

Much of the comment at Tuesday’s public meeting was focused on two main topics: how the Vale should be divided, and if it should be divided at all, and the appropriateness of the design and location of the new restroom and observation pavilion.

In the plans, new pathways and inclinations and plantings divide the upper Vale into three distinct and somewhat separate spaces: the new lawn, a play area, and a fenced off pollinator garden. Commissioner Michael Goldblum said it seemed the original intent of the Vale, originally designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux and built between 1866 and 1873 as children’s play area and naturalistic park, and its following iteration as a rose garden and public space were the same: to keep the area a unified space, whether that was for play or relaxation.

“Help me understand why, from an appropriateness perspective, it’s okay to break up the space into what basically will become three spaces: the pollinator garden, the discovery area, and the new lawn. Why is that, from an historical preservation perspective, the right choice to make?” Goldblum asked.

Ragulina said that while it might not be a satisfying answer from an historical perspective, the design was chosen to make the space more accessible, and the path weaves through the spaces to reach areas throughout the upper Vale.

“By creating the path we were already splitting it, so to speak,” Ragulina said. Another major factor, she said, was the existing large trees that the team worked around. “Those two factors contributed to the sort of layout of the spaces, one is accessibility and making sure we have, you know, the right slope with that path in order to go from one side to the other. And then we were confined by all these tree root zones that border the spaces.”

Other commissioners agreed with Goldblum’s vision of having a more unified space in the Vale, and asked the Alliance to revisit that. A number of commissioners said the planned pollinator garden should not be fenced off from the public, although some were in support of fencing to protect it from people walking through.

On the new restroom facility, much of the discussion was centered around the structure being “too heavy” or “aggressive” for the space, especially with its angular, modernist style roof. Commissioners called on the architects to adjust the building, and some even questioned whether the structure’s second roof, covering the viewing platform, is necessary at all.

“Why do you need to cover the pavilion at all? Why does it need to cover? Why can’t it just be a belvedere for instance?” Commissioner Fred Bland asked.

Yum responded that the roof was largely there in response to the community’s requests for a covered space in the area. Other commissioners questioned the materials used for the roof, and whether it could be made lighter and to blend more with the surroundings. Commissioner Everardo Jefferson said the color of the entire structure should be changed to make it blend more with its surroundings.

The public was also invited to comment on the designs at the LPC, which attracted a range of views that spanned from full support to full rejection of the plan.

On one hand, council members Crystal Hudson and Shahana Hanif alongside community groups Park Slope Civic Council, the Brooklyn Borough Board, Prospect Park Community Committee, Prospect Lefferts Garden Neighborhood Association, caribBEING, and Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council all supported the alliance’s plans for the revisioning of the area, either testifying at the hearing or writing a letter in support.

A major reason for that support was the community’s desire for more restroom facilities in the park, and the significant underinvestment in the Vale over the past half century.

Others didn’t agree with the layout of the space and said the design should honor the original intent of the Vale and its subsequent history, while others were fine with the space but didn’t agree with the design of the new restroom facilities.

Amanda Davis of the New York City LGBT Historic Sites Project said she joined with the Victorian Society of New York and the Historic Districts Project in having major concerns about the planned redevelopment. “These changes would irreparably alter the look, feel, significance, and use of this landscape that was designed as a place of natural beauty with later City Beautiful elements and for passive activities,” Davis said.

“In the 1970s, if not earlier, the Vale of Cashmere became an important cruising, recreational, and social gathering space for the LGBTQ community, particularly for the Black queer community,” Davis said. “It is imperative that the Prospect Park Alliance conduct immediate outreach with these two communities and that the process be far more transparent and inclusive so this socially significant LGBTQ landscape is preserved and interpreted, rather than erased from the history of Prospect Park.”

Lucy Levine of the Historic Districts Council told the commissioners HDC objects to the plans on a number of grounds, including that there is no relation between the existing Vale and the new proposal for the space. She said the basins and existing arbor should be retained and restored to serve a contemporary purpose, and that the new restroom facility should not be a prominent feature of what is supposed to be an open space.

“HDC acknowledges the need for bathrooms, but we are concerned that this proposal inappropriately makes a building the focal point of an open space,” Levine said. “We hope that the applicant will continue to heed the extensive community input that the new buildings should be as unobtrusive as possible and set the building back into the hillside while also offering a design worthy of the space.”

LPC will now craft a report on the plans for the Public Design Commission, which will work with the Prospect Park Alliance to finalize the designs for the park.

[Renderings via NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission]

Related Stories

• Restoration of Prospect Park Vale Kicks Off With $40 Million in City Funding
• Follow the Whirling Sound of Pinwheels to the Prospect Park Rose Garden
• Walkabout: An Old Fashioned Walk in the Park

Email tips@brownstoner.com with further comments, questions or tips. Follow Brownstoner on Twitter and Instagram, and like us on Facebook.