Another Tudor City Greens Post
Something as special as Tudor City Greens (the little park at 41st to 42nd Streets and Tudor City Place in Manhattan) deserves more than one look. I recently posted on it and just wanted to add some more pictures and commentary.
These are still pictures of the South park part of the Greens. There was a small band playing in the park recently. These aren’t street musicians, but a group contracted by Tudor City to come and play for the residents (and whoever else happened to be there).
Right smack in the middle of the park (which is a pretty small park) is a fountain. I don’t think I’ve ever noticed water flowing in it, but it is a fountain. And a planter, it appears.
There are essentially three east-west walkways and two north-south ones. Below is a view from the fountain looking at the band which was playing near the middle of the northern east-west walkway.
And today’s last photo is from the middle of the westernmost north-south walkway looking in the same direction as the previous picture. If you picture this in your mind, you’ll see that the park is pretty small.
But it is a great little park.
-H
Explore posts in the same categories: Manhattan, Mid-town, Tudor City, Wanderings
Famous Ankles 
February 8, 2009 at 12:08 am
What happened to the money that was supposed to keep the parks open? The President of 45 Tudor City Place said that the fund is broke and shareholders will probably have to start paying. With the Tudor City Greens making questionable moves like putting Brian Thompson on their board, no wonder the Tudor City parks are in the mess they’re in!
October 19, 2011 at 8:50 pm
The two Parks inTudor City which are owned by Tudor City Greens, Inc. remain alive, green and well (financially and physically), and are open 365 days per year from dawn to dusk. Tudor City Greens did not put Brian Thompson on its Board – he was appointed the representative of 45 Tudor City Place by the Board of Directors of that building. Irrespective of the remarks above, Tudor City Greens,Inc. remains a very well run, fiscally sound and highly respected organization staffed entirely by volunteers.
January 8, 2013 at 11:26 pm
to someone over at Quiggins, it’s idle to ask what would the ALP be like if there were no Greens. It’s inltviabee that a party very much like them would arise, regardless of the ALP because they have a cultural view which is coherent and attracts a definite demographic, which overlaps with disaffected ALP lefties.In the old days f course, what disaffected ALP lefties would do is haggle over front bench positions. Then, to justify their existence, they’d play to their own supporters in public, writing cheques that, as the saying goes, their butts couldn’t keep. This would allow the conservatives to wedge the ALp and play the disunity/reckless radicals running the ALP card. That in turn denied the ALP office, which was the sine qua non of their existence and which even lefties understood was the starting point for actually getting stuff done. So self-censorship and spin takes over, the left loses its sense of purpose and the ALP moves sharper to the right with the tacit consent of a share of the left. Gillard was one of the tacit (and later explicit) consenters. Hawke was the triumph of this policy and its no accident that this period was the beginning of The Greens as a serious movement.The Greens allow people who basically want to elect the ALP to government to be extremely critical of the ALP in public while still voting for them. They get political cover, saying that they really want all these things that the ALP will not speak of, and because they are separate, the conservatives and the ALP can both dump on them without the ALP suffering politically. Anyone who really hates how rightwing the ALP is can leave, feel good about him or herself and still help elect an ALP government as the lesser evil.This does allow the ALP tactical flexibility that having disaffected leftwingers denies them, allowing them to consistently court people likely to vote coalition without sacrificing the votes of scandalised left-liberals and socialists. In a way, this is the job done for the coalition by the Nationals. Unfortunately, as the ALP moves right, the moderate Liberals get squeezed and the Liberals are also forced rightward, with the result that they are reduced to shoring up their hardcore and hoping to wein back votes in the centre based on non-political grounds a scandal, incompetence, overreach etc. or, as we see on asylum seekers, through culture wars issues.So in a way you are right Liam. The presence of The Greens does help produce a more consistently right-wing ALP, but this doesn’t actually change the overall polity very much in practice. All that is different is that the ALP gets to look more politically coherent and to stay on (conservative) message. The policies it delivers will be much the same, though in some areas, it’s conceivable that they will be forced to compromise with The Greens (e.g climate change, forests, water policy, clean feed) which they would not have done had there been no Greens.Everyone from the centre to the left gets something out of this. Left-liberals and scoialists get to feel less done over by the arrangements. The ALP gets elected more often and the two parties’ boothworkers get to play happily families at elections. Even disaffected moderate Liberals can vote 1 green 2 coalition and snub their own party’s conservatives. The only people who lose are the Coalition, who are forced to sound increasingly potty.
January 8, 2013 at 11:27 pm
I joined the Labor Party at 15 and have been an acitve branch member, as well as an enthusiastic volunteer in countless local, state and federal elections ever since that time. I was an unwavering supporter and apologist for the Labor Party even when I had grave reservations about the style and policies promoted by some of the past Labor leaders. I faithfully campaigned and voted for Labor in 2001 despite my profound disillusionment with Labor’s reprehensible support of Howard’s asylum seekers. I did the same in 2004 despite the fact that I was concerned about Mark Latham’s potential to be a good Prime Minister. And I did the same in 2007 in NSW despite my knowledge that Morris Iemma was a woeful State Premier. I did so because, despite my reservations about a particular issue or leader, I believed that the Labor Party was the party most capable of delivering good and principled government and was the party most interested in governing for all instead of a select few. I also deeply believed in most of the values and principles that Labor purported to stand for -social justice, equity, compassion -and believed that a Labor government would promote these values while in officeBut when they knifed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd -a Prime Minister who adhered to traditional Labor principles and values reflected in some of his achievements such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, apologizing to the Stolen Generation, softening the policy on asylum seekers, withdrawing from Iraq and standing up to big business with the mining tax -and replaced him with a cravenly opportunistic leader who has since pandered to the right on almost every issue and resorted to Hanson-like language to demonize the most vulnerable in society, something became painfully obvious to me.The modern Labor Party is no longer commited to the princples of social justice, compassion or even good government. It is now dominated a combination of factional warlords who think that being in government is the perfect time to engage in brazen factional games over the national interests, panic merchants who live their life by what opinion polls and the Murdoch press say and career opportunists solely interested in their self-promotion over the interests of party unity or showing loyalty to the party leadership. The vile disloyalty and treachery displayed toward Kevin Rudd from his Deputy Prime Minister down showed this all too well and the hideous spectre of the Gillard government reflects all that is wrong with modern Labor.Who then do I vote for? Tony Abbott is a right wing extremist zealot who will lead the country down to the path to disaster so he’s not a credible alternative and, after Howard and seeing the increasingly racist, reactionary right wing conservative tilt of the Liberal Party, I’d have severe reservations about voting for them anyway. The Greens are the party closest to the values and principles I believe in and, even though I disagree with them on issues like the ETS, I think they are the only party that is a viable choice for me at this election