Report on BBP Funding OK'd by Committee
As Patch reports, yesterday the Committee on Alternatives to Housing of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation voted to send the final report generated by a team of consultants to the Brooklyn Bridge Park Board for approval. The report (download it here; PDF) said the construction of condos would be necessary to sustain the park’s projected…
As Patch reports, yesterday the Committee on Alternatives to Housing of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation voted to send the final report generated by a team of consultants to the Brooklyn Bridge Park Board for approval. The report (download it here; PDF) said the construction of condos would be necessary to sustain the park’s projected $16 million annual operating budget: “The primary driver of revenues for the Park is planned development at five key sites…The ground lease revenues from that development are the primary revenue source to fund Park operations and maintenance.” (The sites identified in the report are shown above.) An article in the Post says that the city will soon seek proposals for the construction of 180 condos and a 225-room hotel at Pier 1. Meanwhile, it was also revealed that One Brooklyn Bridge Park’s tax bill was lowered by $1 million this year, leaving “a big hole in the park’s maintenance budget, which officials voted yesterday to fill by dipping into reserves,” according to the Daily News, and fueling skepticism about the extent to which the construction of housing can be relied upon as a source of revenue for the park.
Park Housing Plan Clears Hurdle, But Ground Still Shaky [Patch]
More Condos, Hotel Coming to Brooklyn Bridge Park [NY Post]
Brooklyn Bridge Park Future in Limbo [Daily News]
City Cuts Big Developer’s Taxes in Brooklyn Bridge Park [BK Paper]
Committee Forwards Consultants’ Housing Alternatives Report to Full Park Board [BHB]
I like the tobacco warehouse the way it is. It is very dramatic and beautiful in its simplicity. The Empire Stores will eventually be adapted to some new use, I do not think the State will be overly restrictive. They want to see new uses in there as much as anyone. Of course the State’s input is advisory only unless the owners wish to apply for a preservation tax credit, in which case the review is much more strenuous, but nonetheless realistic.
Developers often use the LPC and the State office for Preservation as convenient excuses for not doing things they don’t want to do anyway.
The Tobacco warehouse will probably stay as it is, the Empire Stores are to be redeveloped perhaps with a big Fairway type user on the ground floor and residential above like the similar buildings in Red Hook.
They are certainly vacant and have been since the park was first established. It was Senator Patrick Moynihan who first championed the buildings. They survive because of him.
In any case they were always part of the park in the same way that the Litchfield Villa is part of Prospect Park and the Arsenal is part of Central Park.
If they are cut out of the park and turned over to a private owner, the public must be compensated with an equal amount of parkland somewhere nearby. That’s the law, its not just a made-up story.
trust me, there were longshoremen, I knew them
Longshoreman??? No, it was being used as storage for operations like Strober building supply – but it is immaterial. The issue here isnt the city, it is the endless community opposition. lawsuits and delay tactics.
the port authority piers and warehouses were in active use up to only a few years ago when all activity ceased, and the warehouse piers were stripped to their steel skeletons. The area was underused but not a wasteland. It was industrial waterfront. I am a booster of the park. I want the City to live up to tis promises and get on with it. Now that they have kicked out the industry and jobs that had been there, they should just finish the park and stop whining about needing more and more money. They should have thought of that prior to kicking out the longshoremen.
ALL of what will be Brooklyn Bridge Park was an industrial wasteland for 2 decades after the park was 1st conceived resulting in “most to wonder if the much hyped new park would ever really be completed” I for one am thrilled that the 1/3 that has been done is so beautiful and welcome the housing and the completion of the rest. The motives of the people fighting this is simple – [perceived] self-interest…as has been the case for the last 20 years – many people do not want the park because they dont want the traffic or the potential loss of view from their particular location. They should be ignored already.
The park is the side dish. It would not be there if it were not for the hotel/condo/commercial developments planned for the edges including the Empire Stores, which were included in the original park, as we all know, by “mistake”. A mere typo.
I am not diminishing it by calling a side dish. Side dishes are nice and it is far preferable to no park.
Having said that, most of what will be Brooklyn Bridge Park is still a weed-strewn, Industrial wasteland. If it stays like that for many more years, people will start to wonder whether or not the much hyped new park will ever really be completed.
before it was absorbed in to the Brooklyn Bridge Park the name of this park was “Fulton Empire State Park” -as in Empire Stores. The buildings were not only in the park but they were the focal point of the park, the reason the park was created in the first place. The “mistake” defense is ludicrous and almost childish.