Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object to planned Washington Square Park signage as Conservancy unveils rebrand
Summary
The Washington Square Park Conservancy presented a first‑time visual rebrand and two types of park signage; residents and committee members raised objections about sign quantity, visibility and the appearance of private branding in the landmarked park. The committee deferred a formal endorsement pending LPC/landmarks committee review and more details.
The parks and waterfront committee of Community Board 2 heard a presentation from Will Morrison of the Washington Square Park Conservancy on a planned rebrand and two small in‑park sign types: entrance‑adjacent logo signs and location banners for named plazas and reading nooks.
Morrison said the Conservancy’s identity is evolving after 13 years and that “most of that really is going to appear digitally, not physically in the park,” but that two sign executions would appear on light poles and near entrances and would require approval through the Landmarks Preservation Commission because Washington Square Park sits in a historic district. He asked the committee for a letter of support ahead of the LPC filing.
The presentation focused on wayfinding and partnership recognition: Morrison said the smaller entrance signs are intended to acknowledge the Conservancy–NYC Parks license partnership and the location banners would help visitors find plazas such as Scrabble Plaza or smaller “reading nooks.” He described the design work and noted Pentagram as the design firm engaged on the rebrand.
Several members of the public urged restraint. “This is way too much signage for Washington Square Park,” said Katherine Swan, who called the proposed number and scale of signs unnecessary and said the park’s historic character would be weakened by extensive branding. Pete Davies urged the committee to “reject this” and other commenters said similar concerns aloud during the public comment period. Coral (a resident speaker) said logo‑only signs would not explain the Conservancy’s role to most park visitors and suggested more explanatory, temporary panels or volunteer outreach instead of permanent branding.
Committee members said the signs must go before LPC and CB2’s landmarks committee, where the full application — including exact counts, sizes and placement — will be public. The parks committee did not vote to endorse the signage plan at this meeting, asking the Conservancy to return with fuller materials and alternatives. Several members asked that any future resolution make clear which elements are for wayfinding, which are partnership acknowledgements, and which (if any) are fundraising or donor recognition.
The next procedural step is for the Conservancy to file for LPC review; the committee noted that LPC could approve a signage master plan with follow‑up staff approvals for specific executions. The Conservancy stated it intends to seek a community board letter prior to the LPC hearing.
