In Philadelphia, the former Pattison transit stop is now named AT&T Station. Photo: Dave Cooksey/Flickr
The Brooklyn Bridge still isn’t for sale, but under a plan to bring new funds to financially strapped city parks, the Department of Parks and Recreation is reviving a shelved plan to cash in naming rights to some of New York City’s most cherished open spaces.
The city’s new financial plan, released Friday by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), projects $13 million a year in new Parks Department revenue from selling “naming rights for major sites.”
The Parks Department first offered to stick sponsors’ names on city parks property in 2009, floating the names of six properties for sale. They included Brooklyn’s McCarren Park – asking price $3 million – and Chelsea Recreation Center.
But the pitch failed to draw interest from prospective buyers and Parks suspended the project last year without selling a single name. Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe told the New York Post’s David Seifman, “It’s not a viable idea in this economic climate.” A year ago, when OMB released its plan for addressing budget gaps, Parks stated it “will not pursue the name recognition initiative at major sites throughout the City.”
The recently released financial plan projects $13 million in annual revenue for each of the next three fiscal years, as part of the city’s effort to close a budget gap projected at more than $2 billion for the next fiscal year and more than double that by 2015.
“We are exploring ways to increase revenues without impacting park-goers, through marketing, sponsorships, concessions and other possible new revenue sources,” said Parks spokesperson Phil Abramson.
Naming city infrastructure after sponsors isn’t unheard of. Last year, for instance, Philadelphia renamed Pattison Station on its SEPTA mass transit system AT&T Station, after the telecommunications company signed a 5-year contract transit officials valued at $5 millon.
Alyson Beha, director of research, planning and programs at the advocacy groups New Yorkers for Parks, said her initial reaction when she first found out about the naming rights initiative was concern mixed with curiosity. “People are generally very suspicious about things that can be construed as the privatization of parks, whether that’s naming rights or permits for special events,” she said. But if applied with care, she added, sponsorship of parks through purchase of their names may be a helpful asset. “It has a very minor impact visually on the park, or no impact at all, and as long as whatever entity gets named doesn’t have any benefits that the public doesn’t have, then it seems like something worth exploring.”
