Follies raises $100K for Aspinwall Riverfront Park
The annual Fox Chapel Follies was no joke for the Aspinwall Riverfront Park.
The park will receive $100,000 from money raised at the show last month. The musical-comedy revue raised $120,000 total.
Philip Beard, who wrote this year's program along with his wife, Traci, said the amount raised broke the fundraising record set in 2010, the year of the last show. That production brought in $75,000.
The show is put on by the Fox Chapel District Association, which helps fund beautification projects throughout the area. It donated the first $50,000 to the park when the project was first starting.
“It was really a natural,” Beard said.
He said the money isn't the only thing the Follies gave to the park.
“Not just the money but the additional exposure of bringing close to 1,500 potential donors in to see the show and hear about the marina,” Beard said.
The donation also puts the park close to a fundraising goal.
Susan Crookston, who has led the park project, said an anonymous donor has agreed to match fundraising when it reaches $350,000.
“That's a huge help in getting us to reach that goal,” Crookston said.
Crookston said she is optimistic that organizers can reach the goal. With the Follies donation and others, the park is about $12,000 away from the $350,000 mark.
Organizers hope to have part of the park open by next year. The site now is closed to the public while construction at the site continues.
Tom McGee is an associate editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 1513, or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.