Trees are Dyin': BHA Says Shut Falls Off!

The BHA wants the tree-killin’ NYC Waterfalls shut down according to a report in the Brooklyn Paper.  The organization’s Executive Director Judy Stanton says, “I think it’s enough…They’re damaging the local environment and I don’t think it’s worth it to have this question remain: Will the trees come back?”

What do you think? Is this call for a shut down a little late? Shouldn’t the BHA have vetted the “art” project before the erector-set-like falls were put up?

Share this Story:

, , , , , ,

  • nabeguy

    The BHA will sign off on anything that they believe will bring people to the area, which these certainly did. Are they experts in determining wind strength and the effect that these falls would have on the local foliage? Not really. That responsibility should be laid at the feet of the artist who either didn’t do his homework or callously proceeded knowing there might be some collateral damage. We’ll probably never know for sure, but it’s clear that these “falls” are really more “sprays” and I actually commend the BHA for their call to have them shut off.

  • esplanader

    No one could have predicted this. I still find it hard to believe that the salt spray travels so readily, but it does.
    Governor’s Island must be a mess too.
    The art works must be shut off before they do more damage to the environment. Waiting until October to shut them off is unacceptable. Where is Mayor Bloomberg on this issue?

  • yo

    anyone want to bet that tourism $$$ will win out over saving the trees?

  • nabeguy

    Yo, it’s a toss-up. While Bloomburg loves this kind of public art, it does fly in the face (so to speak) of his tree-planting initiative for the greening of the city.

  • my2cents

    Someone could have easily predicted this. There was an engineering firm hired to execute this project (You think Olafur figured any of this out himself??), and I have no doubt they did an analysis of how the falls might affect the river and the surrounding property, for legal reasons. They should have been able to predict these problems, yet didn’t. So someone is liable for the damage, but it probably isn’t the artist.

  • nabeguy

    Given that he’s done projects like this twice before, I think Olafur should have had SOME idea of the negatives involved.

  • my2cents

    Can Homer post some actual photos of the blighted trees? I haven’t walked over there lately.

  • nabeguy

    In all fairness, the previous projects involved fresh not salt water, and were in fairly enclosed environments, so I’ll cut him some slack. I guess Croce was right after all…you don’t spit into the wind!

  • AEB

    If I may repeat myself from another blog in re the installations:

    A for impulse, C for execution and effect.

    The falls done done their thing, and it’s time to remove them, especially if they’re causing arboreal distress, which they seem to be doing.

  • my2cents

    Arboreal Distress. Awesome term! Hahaha. You should be writing the BHA’s complaint for them :-)

  • Traz

    Park employees are now watering the Promenade trees, etc. every morning. At whose expense I wonder? Rather than trying to undo the damage, why not remove the cause?

  • Brooklyn Dodger

    At first I thought this was the typical New York negativity – everyone’s a critic. But, there is scientific literature on this question.

    Only certain species will grow in areas with salt spray from the Ocean. But, the Ocean is always there, the Waterfalls only temporary.

    Question is whether the River Cafe trees will recover spontaneously when the temporary spraying with salt water stops, whether spraying the leaves with water will protect, whether the salt effect is direct deposit or in the soil. Remember, the leaves fall off every fall, and grow back every spring.

    Also, question is whether the Waterfalls brought in extra business.