While a bit more civilised than the meeting held on September 4th by SaveAudubonPark.org, nonetheless many outspoken critics of the Institute's plans had their say.

The following is a summary of what was said by whom. Our apologies for any mis-attribution, minor mis-quotation and name-mispellings, the following is based on the notes of one attendee who makes no claims to secretarial proficiency. However, if anyone who spoke feels that their words are substantially misrepresented here, please let us know. We would very happy to make any corrections brought to our notice.

Present
Executives of the Audubon Institute; Ron Forman, Dale Stastny.
Members of the board of the Audubon Institute.
Dr Willard Dumas, chairman of the Audubon Commission, and a few other members of the Commission.
300 to 400 members of the public, deeply worried by the Institute's clubhouse plan.

Not Present
Most of the members of the Audubon Commission, the purported hosts
Scott Shea, Councilman District A.
Mitch Landrieu

Presentation of the Design
The clubhouse part of the meeting began with a presentation by Dale Stastny, Chief Operating Officer of the Audubon Nature Institute. This was prefaced by an introductory remark, that the presentation would describe the plan as it stood at the start of the year and "where we are now". Indeed, in many ways the presentation sought to highlight the things that the Institute is not planning to do, the issues on which it has already reigned in its ambitions, and less on the specifics of the facility that they now propose. For instance, current plans no longer require a huge maintenance shed within the oak grove, the proposed road from the parking lot to the clubhouse has been reduced from a 20' wide asphalt road to a 12' wide gravel road, and the new parking lot has been reduced in size and impact by eliminating the circulation area and adding trees for screening. Apparently, such changes were made in response to comments from the public as well as the deliberations of 'our professionals' and members of the Institute staff.

Sadly lacking from the presentation was a thorough statement of the intentions of the Institute for their new facility, particularly as regards restaurant service. The amount of space devoted to kitchen and dining facilities and the potential for a vast new restaurant facility that the clubhouse threatens was not discussed. Indeed, Mr Stastny's only mention of this potentially explosive issue was to refer to the clubhouse's "dining area, if you will". Well, we will.

Also missing from the presentation was any discussion of alternative sitings for the clubhouse that the Institute may have considered, and any reasoning for deciding upon the current location.

For a discussion of some of the aspects of the clubhouse design, written before October 15 but not largely contradicted by what we heard then, click here.

A copy of the clubhouse site plan, as presented at the October 15 meeting is available here.

Details of the floorplan of the new clubhouse, as at October 15, are available here [Sorry, broken link]

The Olmsted View
The first speaker from the audience was Michael Deas, Olmsted enthusiast.
His presentation consisted of a plan of the park represented as a jigsaw puzzle from which the fee-paying, developed areas were removed one by one, revealing ultimately the paucity of genuine, free, public green space that remains in the park. At the end of the presentation, Mr Forman (Chief Executive Officer of the Audubon Institute) took issue with some of the facts of the presentation, pointing out that a golf course and zoo have always been part of the park. Nonetheless, the primary point of the presentation, that publicly accessible and undeveloped green space available to everyone in the spirit of the founders of the park, is already in extremely short supply was clearly communicated.

Passing the torch to a New Generation
A number of speakers from Tulane addressed the meeting to describe their emotional attachment to the serenity of the park, to look askance at the trading of green space for money, and to point out that they as the younger members of a decidedly ageing audience, would have to 'clean up the mess' when we have finished. A sobering and relevant thought, expressed by other speakers of (ahem) more mature age who pointed out that destruction on this scale is irreversible.

Perhaps you could make alternative plans?
Debra Howell, founder of SaveAudubonPark.org spoke briefly and noted that the location of the new clubhouse was its most troubling feature, bringing road construction and vehicular traffic into the Oak Grove, when other locations could and should be discussed.

A Restaurant by any name
Keith Hardie, attorney and SaveAudubonPark organizer spoke on issues relating specifically to the use of the new clubhouse as a restaurant. He pointed out that current zoning does not allow for any restaurant facility in the park, outside of the zoo. Discussing the large food storage and preparation areas and the proposed 100-seat capacity of the "dining areas" (if you will), he remarked that while the Institute insists on describing its facilities as "food service" rather than as a "restaurant", city zoning regulations for Audubon Park "do not mention 'food service', they discuss 'restaurants', and they forbid them"

This point was taken up by Vernon Palmer, professor at Tulane Law School, speaking only on his own behalf. He pointed out that the new clubhouse is dominated by its 'food service' areas, that a far smaller clubhouse could be designed if not for the restaurant component, that such a restaurant is forbidden by zoning, and that the Audubon Institute is attempting to "smuggle" a restaurant into the park, with the attendant commercialization and vehicular exploitation that this implies.

Spiritual, Intangible Beauty
Caroline Sonnheimer, a local resident, spoke of her regret at the current decay and disuse of the Heymann Conservatory and appealed to the Commission and the Institute 'individually and collectively' to come up with a better solution than demolishing the building. She pointed out that we, as stewards of the park and of our environment generally, have a duty to honor the memory not just of the Heymann family but of all families who have given to Audubon Park and contributed to its "spiritual and intangible beauty".

A Unique History
Kevin Risk, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture at LSU, spoke on behalf of his department and of the Louisiana chapter of the American Association of Landscape Architects. He drew attention to the uniquely preserved history of New Orleans and expressed concern that appropriate environmental impact studies have not been conducted. He also notes that other cities, such as Atlanta, are removing golf courses from their public parks and restoring Olmsted parks. He noted that golf courses generally are commonplace, but that Olmsted parks are not.

Procedural Matters
Many speakers focused on, or mentioned in passing, dissatisfaction with the procedures followed by the Audubon Institute and Commission in arriving at this intensely controversial design, specifically the lack of timely public input.

Daniel Samuels described the new plan as a sharp departure from previous Institute improvements, and ascribed the deficiencies of the plan to "the natural culimination of a design process conducted with no attempt to coordinate with a Master Plan", and called on the Audubon Commission to halt the clubhouse construction until credible alternatives are developed and presented for review by the public.

On a similiar note, Kate Coyle, a local historian, suggested that compliance with existing regulations arising from dramatic changes to drainage, may not have been followed and in any case suggested that the October 24th Audubon Commission meeting was too early a date for a final decision to be made. She concluded that the Audubon Institute has not done a good job of gathering public input, and that more discussion is required before the Commission makes its decision.

Barry Kohl, Conservation Chair of the Louisiana Audubon Association spoke in opposition to the clubhouse and its impact on birders and picknickers, but chiefly addressed concerns about the 'secrecy' surrounding Audubon deliberations, the tendency of the New Orlean's authorities to hold public meetings after the contracts have been signed and likened the Institute's inaction in allowing the Heymann Conservatory to decay to the activities of slum landlords. He echoed other speakers in requesting that the Audubon Commission demand public input during the design phases of Audubon Institute developments.

Michael Duplantier, boardmember of the Louisiana Landmarks Society, spoke of that organization's support for SaveAudubonPark and of the long-term implications of the Institute's current plans. He urged the Commission to "toss-out" the 9-day time-limit that it has imposed on itself for making a decision on these controversial issues. He also remarked that the Audubon Institute works for the Audubon Commission and that the Audubon Commission "works for us".

Tommy Milliner also urged the Audubon Commission to hold a full meeting of its board to discuss in public these concerns, and advised that such an open meeting should take place "not downtown, and not during day time". He described the fight in 1982 to prevent the State from taking control of the park, and remarked that those who successfully fought for local control of the park did not envisage a development like this, which does not support the needs of the local people. He concluded by requesting that the Audubon Commission "put the brakes on this plan".

Entertainment Value
Manny Alessandro, writer at the Times-Picayune and local resident, remarked that when the fences come down and the new course is opened, the people may well take back the golf course, especially with regard to public pedestrian access to Hurst Walk. He also suggested that the Institute is guilty of 'hubris' and suggested that they 'look it up'. (In order to save the Institute executive's valuable time, SaveAudubonPark has taken this task upon itself. The dictionary definition is "overweening pride or self-confidence", and we note that the word is located very close to "Howler" - a ridiculous blunder, "Hubbub" - uproar and turmoil, as well as "Huge", "Hellhole" and "Heck, what were they thinking?")