Options Weighed at Public Hearing for BBP
A public meeting was held last night to discuss the nine proposals that the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation released a month ago for ways to fund the park that without building private housing. The proposal that many present at the meeting expressed concern about involved creating a Park Improvement District that would charge fees…
A public meeting was held last night to discuss the nine proposals that the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation released a month ago for ways to fund the park that without building private housing. The proposal that many present at the meeting expressed concern about involved creating a Park Improvement District that would charge fees to surrounding businesses and property owners. One speaker called it “frankly unfair.” The proposal of fee-based recreation was also criticized as being too exclusive. Many speakers echoed the sentiment of Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Conservancy’s Nancy Webster, who said, “The revenue from the alternatives will not be sufficient [to cover the annual maintenance budget of $16 million], but new funds could help reduce the scale of the development coming in.” Other speakers called for the park simply to be built as quickly as possible, saying possible alternative funding couldn’t be counted on, whereas funding from residential properties would eventually be a more stable source of income. Another big talking point was what Council Member Steve Levin called “the elephant in the room”: The Watchtower properties. Council Member Levin, who is opposed to housing funding the park, said nevertheless that the conversion of Watertower properties could potentially fund the park. Some in the crowd dismissed this idea as “speculative revenue.” (Watchtower revenue has not been factored into any of the forecasts.) This was the last public meeting on the topic but the public comment period ends April 25th, with a final recommendation from a consulting company to come 30 days later. BBPDC then can either accept or reject the final proposal.
BBP Housing Alternatives Still Being Considered [Brownstoner]
Alternatives to Housing Considered for BBP [Brownstoner]
ARKIT you can make that whole ‘I dont want no development, I just want contextual development’ all you want; we’ve heard it before…BUT like the last time that nonsense was spouted (AY) – the plan doesnt make ECONOMIC sense with low density housing (and other types of development at that location cant support the park either – unless you want to put in a Walmart or something) – so your “moderate” stance, is in reality a NIMBY recipe for NO CHANGE.
Now maybe you are naive or uninformed and actually beleive the ‘contextual’ argument – but I assure you, most of the “opposition” understands the truth that the “in context” argument is just a soundbite -because either high density housing gets built (on the FRINGES) which through residual payments can support the complete park OR the rest of the park goes unfunded and whats there now will struggle to be maintained.
I agree about the prices at 1BBP. I have looked at apartments there several times. And there are units I really like. But, the prices are still too high — at least, I’m not willing to pay them to live there. Add to that exorbitant maintenance, and, to me, that explains why it’s only 1/2 sold after all these years.
fsrq – You might have a reading comprehension problem to address. I never said ‘no housing, not in my backyard’. Did I? I said the final plan will likely result in both residential and commercial development. The change is fine, if it’s in scale with the park and surrounding area…that’s all.
ARKIT – that is a very long post to simply say ‘I moved in and now I like it the way it is, so I am opposing future change’ …
I am actually giving you kudos for your honest NIMBY stance.
That being said, many of us have been waiting two decades for this park to be completed and while your opposition is certainly understandable when looked at solely from your own selfish view; the ‘deal’ to build this park, funded by housing on the margins was a LONG time in coming. I am sure you can understand that from the viewpoint of everyone else in Brooklyn who was looking forward to this amenity being complete and beautiful; the renewed attempt to quash this in-progress plan is very disturbing no matter how much people try to dress it up .
and as said above 1BBP problem is simply pricing.
ARKIT, any new building is five years away….don’t worry about it… issue at One BB is price, lower the prices to sell them, everything sells, question of price
TO: fsrq: There are people that live in the building both for and against more housing. I said the park will probably have both…additional housing and commercial developments in the end.
The one thing I think no one wants, which I’ll say again, is a 30 story building that belongs in a downtown setting.
360 Furman also has provenace in that it was there, part of the industrial era, and it just grazes above the BQE/Promenade horizon line.
I didnt buy at 360 (over a year ago) for the park, but the building. I signed before the city forked over the 55$M to give the park a push along, so the park was in question of going forward at all…I moved there for the building, as nothing else in the area offered the interior finishes and quality design…the amenities, the large uncrowded halls (I like), same floor storage, and, of course, living in the Heights.
I think 360 Furman is in keeping with the spirit of the park, which is designed to be sustainable (regarding natural resources and materials). A repurposed old building is a wonderful thing when done right.
That’s one the reasons I lived in Dumbo before relocating… there was some sense of preservation. I wasnt too keen when they built that tall finger on Adams street next to the Manhattan Bridge. All the other new buildings that are scaled to the older buildings fit in just fine.
I know it’s a highly controversial topic, but I wouldn’t mind paying a $1 more a day in taxes for Park Improvement District…so you were wrong about suggesting I favor shifting the financial burden to others, as you said… lot of people think a PID could work, as well…it’s kind of like a conservancy effort, but collected instead of being charitably donated.
Of course, everyone’s property values in the surrounding areas to be determined would benefit from their proximity to the park…ait’s kind of like big retail…pay to play.
My bigger concern is if the plan that is adopted is one that developers won’t or can’t commit to…then what? There’s just a vaccuum? No money? No park?
And to be honest (not shameful), I am concerned that new developments could stagnate the remainder of selling out 360 Furman, and possibly force RAL the developer of 360 to consider marketing more units as rentals which obviously doesnt benefit our condo.
Furthermore, regarding my blatent shame, some people would call it transparency or honesty…something the dialogue in this large debate could use more of.
HAHA GREAT POST…Now that is the truth.
“ARKIT – if I understand this, you bought a place a 1BBP (obviously recently) and now YOU are going to meetings seeking to limit or eliminate the future housing that is required to support the park. (that you get to enjoy right out front) and presumably shift that financial burden to someone else; While at the same time insuring that your apartment appreciates (or better retains) its value.”
I think a high end hotel would be great with a restaurant/bar as well.
ARKIT – if I understand this, you bought a place a 1BBP (obviously recently) and now YOU are going to meetings seeking to limit or eliminate the future housing that is required to support the park. (that you get to enjoy right out front) and presumably shift that financial burden to someone else; While at the same time insuring that your apartment appreciates (or better retains) its value.
You have my respect….it is rare to see someone so blatantly and unashamedly demonstrate their own self-interest in a brownstoner post before. Love it!!!