NYC Considering Selling Naming Rights to Central Park Zoo - Will RIOC Do Same For Roosevelt Island Tram?

Tram Image from New Yorkology


PLUS

Pepsi Race Car Image from Pepsi Collector

EQUALS

?

1/25 NY Post is reporting that the NYC Parks Department is seriously contemplating selling naming rights to corporate sponsors for some of their major attractions. According to the Post:

That group includes the zoos that draw in thousands of visitors annually, the amphitheaters that pack in summer revelers, the gigantic swimming pools or scores of tennis-court clusters.

And:

Under this program - which would raise an estimated $3 million a year - entire parks wouldn't be renamed, so Central and Prospect parks would keep their monikers but attractions within them could be renamed for a price.

This reminded me of a series of earlier posts regarding corporate sponsorship and naming rights to the Roosevelt Island Tram using the example of the potential sponsorship being considered, though ultimately rejected, for the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. I speculated that given the costs associated with the operation, continued maintenance, and future $20- 25 million repair of the Roosevelt Island Tram, the temptation must be great to find alternative additional revenue sources such as corporate sponsorships or advertising even though there is a current ban on such practice by the NYC Council. There is a poll on the issue of corporate sponsorship of the Tram on right hand column. To date of the 150 votes cast, 89 think it is a good idea and 61 a bad idea. What do you think?

Golden Arches for the Roosevelt Island Tram Too?

An earlier post reported on a plan to alleviate a portion of the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge's projected $80 million operating deficit in the next 5 years with funds generated from corporate advertising sponsorships. I speculated that given the costs associated with the operation, continued maintenance, and future $20- 25 million repair of the Roosevelt Island Tram, the temptation must be great to find alternative additional revenue sources such as corporate sponsorships or advertising.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that:

After two months of public debate about a plan to bring corporate advertising to the Golden Gate Bridge, district officials voted Friday to scuttle the idea.
The plan, which would have allowed "discrete" corporate logos in visitor areas of the bridge, outraged critics, who called it "crass commercialism" and a "degrading" of the historic span.
Supporters said the proposal would have raised much-needed revenue for the district - more than $3 million a year - and might have staved off a future toll increase.

And:

"I thought it was a good idea at first, but it just doesn't seem like a workable project," said board member Joanne Sanders, a member of the Sonoma City Council. She said the plans would have encouraged "the commercialization of the bridge."
Bridge officials said they had received 108 public comments about the proposed corporate advertising. Ninety-four of the comments were against the plan, which critics said would have raised relatively little money while plastering the bridge with intrusive messages.

What does this mean for potential corporate sponsorship of the Roosevelt Island Tram? Is the lesson learned from the rejection of sponsorships for the Golden Gate Bridge that any hint of "commercializing" a public iconic symbol with "crass" advertising is wrong or is that the revenue to be gotten for such "crassness" must be sufficiently large to overcome the ick factor?

Image of McGolden Gate Brideg is from Blogs.Sun

Golden Gate Bridge Corporate Sponsor - Is the Roosevelt Island Aerial Tramway Next?

An article in yesterday's NY Times describes a plan to alleviate a portion of the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge's projected $80 million operating deficit in the next 5 years with funds generated from advertising sponsorships from corporate sponsors.
According to the article:

a committee of the board that runs the financially strapped Golden Gate Bridge did pass along a plan for a so-called corporate partnership for the structure, sending a proposal to a vote in front of the full board next month. Even as it did so, however, activists here were already preparing for the possibility that the Golden Gate — the engineering wonder, international tourist attraction and perpetual suicide magnet — might soon be brought to you by Coca-Cola, for example.

Some people think it is a bad idea:

a board member who opposes the plan, said the idea of corporate sponsorship was equivalent to slapping an advertisement on the side of the White House. “I don’t think you take your iconic properties and turn them into advertising opportunities,” ... “There are places in the world that should be kept clean.

Others like it:

But much of the board committee seemed to support the plan. The full board — 19 members from six Bay Area counties — will take up the issue on Sept. 28.
... viewed the sponsorship plan as a chance to upgrade the experience for visitors to the bridge, experience, now limited to a gift shop, a garden and a viewing platform.

“Right now, we don’t really get the story of the bridge,” ...“This is an opportunity to get other people to help us tell that story."

How does this apply to Roosevelt Island? Given the costs associated with the operation and continued maintenance of the Roosevelt Island Tram the temptation must be great to find alternative additional revenue sources. Are corporate sponsorships a possibility for the Tram and if so is that a good idea or not? If it is good enough for the Golden Gate Bridge, is it good enough for the Tram, or even the Brooklyn Bridge as well as other iconic, decaying, New York City infrastructure?