Growing up in New York City, one of the key school trips that I would take is to the Museum of Natural History. This was often the case for many New York City residents. The Museum, which consists of exhibitions ranging from biodiversity and Environmental Halls to the Rose Center for Earth and Space, allows students to visit and explore the realm of science in an interactive way. My favorite highlight of the museum would be the famous blue whale located in the Milstein Hall of Ocean life. Its realistic features that allowed me to see the giant animal in person without having to face the dangers of the sea.
Coming soon to the Museum is an expansion for the new Richard Gilder Center for Science. According to Robin Pogrebin in his article Museum of Natural History Reveals Design for Expansion, the design for the new center exhibition hall, by Jeanne Gang, “aims to unite the museum’s various activities, solve its notorious circulation problems and provide a multistory showcase for the institution’s expanding role as a hub for scientific research and scholarship.” Ms. Gang proposes a contemporary design, that contrasts with the rest of the Museums dominant brick aesthetics. With this expansion, a part of the Teddy Roosevelt Park will be taken down to provide space for this exhibition. This has drawn a conflict to the development and as a solution “the museum has decided to take down three of its existing buildings to make room for the six-story addition, rather than to protrude deeper into the tree-lined space along Columbus Avenue, as had been anticipated.” However as Pogrebin mentions, “Nevertheless, the museum is bound to be in for some push back. “In New York, any square inch of loss of green space rightfully upsets people,”.” In an effort to solve the problem of removing trees from the park, the design concept includes replacing the removed trees with 17 new ones as well as an installation of 17 benches.
Although I agree that preservation of the limited green space that we have in New York is important, this expansion in the museum could provide a new step towards the increase of involvement in science. The Museum is a core aspect in engaging students in the realm of science and educating them in an interactive and fun way. Although I too, will be sad to see some of the old exhibitions gone, I see this proposal for an expansion as a good thing.
I have not been to the Museum of Natural History, but after the expansion and renovation, I would definitely like to go. It is always sad and even upsetting when certain institutions have to demolish or take away certain exhibitions or attractions to bring in new ones. However, this is progress and although some may feel reminiscence, there’s always new things to look forward to. I’m also glad that they will not destroy everything (trees) and actually replant trees too.
The Museum of Natural History is one of my all time favorite museums. This might be because I enjoy learning about science and biodiversity, both in the past and present. And so I’m exited by the idea that the museum will be upgrading itself in order to include more in the museum. I didn’t realize that the Museum would end up removing space from a near by park. As someone who grew up where there was plenty, sometimes I forget that in New York City, it’s not easy to grow horizontally. I would’ve been disappointed in the museum actually took up land from the park, because I adore the scenic greenery throughout this city, and it’s so rare and valuable that I don’t think there is much to justify taking it away. Therefore, I appreciate how a compromise was made, and I’m excited for the outcome of the new upgrade.
I agree that the expansion is a good thing. Although they are going to remove some of the trees, but they are going to replace them along with benches. So I don’t see anything too negative about building a new six story building. Instead of protruding into the treelined space, they are building it tall which saves more space and more trees. However this is going to be a big process taking down three other buildings in order to build this one. I hope it won’t disrupt the other exhibitions in the museum.
The Museum of Natural History was and still is an important place in my life. It was one of the first museums I ever went to, and is by far the one I remember most. The conflict going on between the museum and the people protecting the environment is truly a tough one. If only there was a set way to compromise between these two influential, and beneficial parties. In my opinion, I believe that what the museum is doing is to the best of their abilities- and though they are still removing some preexisting trees- sometimes compromises must be made to advance and grow in the future.
I personally really love the Museum of Natural History and am excited for the new Richard Gilder Center for Science. I am a bit conflicted due to the removing of some of the Teddy Roosevelt Park, however I think it is well worth it. It is however a bit more unsettling that they are not preserving the limited green space to the largest possible degree. Don’t get me wrong, it is fantastic that the new Richard Gilder Center for Science will provide access extraordinary exhibitions and programs. But, a center that is supposed to teach people the value of the natural sciences destroying a piece of nature to do it at the very least is ironic.
I have not been to the museum. Although I should, I have not had the opportunity to do so. Although I do love science and interactive science, I don’t believe in the destruction of nature. Nyc has very limited green space as is. We absolutely do not need to eliminate what’s left of it. This is an issue revolving architecture and nature, in which I hope nature will win in this battle.
This is a classic example of “you can’t make everybody happy.” While it’s nice that the museum is going to expand into the world of science, many are upset over its literal expansion that will cut out some exhibitions as well as the limited green space. I have not been to the Museum of Natural History in ages, and I believe the last time I saw any part of it was when it was featured in the movie “Night at the Museum.” As a result, my feelings are neutral on the situation, because I can see the positive and negative aspects of each argument. Ultimately, I hope the decision made is one for the greater good.
I have never been to the Museum of Natural History, but the Richard Gilder Center for Science sounds like something I would love to visit soon. I agree with you that the proposal for an expansion is a good idea and it is not necessarily that harmful because they are planting 17 trees and installing 17 benches to make up for it. New York City does have limited green space but that is one of its cons. In certain scenarios, such as this one, making room by removing trees could be one of the only options. The best solution to the problem is planting new trees in areas that lack them.
Usually, I side against environmentalists when it comes to matters like this but here I will actually agree with them. There is so few places where plant life is allowed to grow in Manhattan that we should preserve them. I believe that the museum should demolish whatever old exhibits they have to in order to make space for their new exhibits. It brightens my day when I walk past a park and I would hate to see one made smaller just for a museum.
Usually, I side against environmentalists when it comes to matters like this but here I will actually agree with them. There is so few places where plant life is allowed to grow in Manhattan that we should preserve them. I believe that the museum should demolish whatever old exhibits they have to in order to make space for their new exhibits. It brightens my day when I walk past a park and I would hate to see one made smaller just for a museum.
Sadly, often times in order to move forward, sacrifices have to be made. While I for one enjoy being surrounded by nature and take every opportunity I can to sit under a tree, I do believe that the museum should expand. A museum is never complete. It is a work in progress and as our knowledge and arts expand, so too should our museums. I think the compromise reached will be beneficial to both the protestors and the museum. Not only will the public get a new exhibit to enjoy, they will also receive new foliage and benches to relax on. Everybody wins.
The Museum of Natural History has so many things to visit that one day at the museum won’t be enough to cover the entire museum. I agree with you that the expansion of the museum is very important in influencing the future with more scientific possibilites. I think the loss of land to expand the museum will make all the difference in the future. Though plant life in NYC is very limited, there has to be sacrifices that benefit society as a whole. Why not just plant more trees in Central Park or in any other park?
While I appreciate the museum I feel currently its more important to preserve nature in New York City. Pollution and deforestation dominate our time period so I think we should be more conscious of the way we treat nature. I think the idea to replace the trees in case of cutting them down is great since at least some of the nature will be preserved for future generations.
I also agree with you that the school trip to the Museum of Natural History was one of the most enjoyable and educational trip in my elementary school. It honestly brings a smile to my face that the Museums administration is setting aside the funds to renovate and fix some of the museums problems and making it even more immersing. Although adding on to museums is always a good thing, in my opinion i don’t believe it is right to destroy New York’s already limited green space. There has to be a better alternative such as building underground.