City Calls for Proposals, Wants 30 Percent Affordable on Last Two Towers in BBP
Monday, the city put out a request for proposals for the last two towers in Brooklyn Bridge Park. Now the city wants to make 30 percent of the possible 430 units there affordable, according to a story in The New York Times. Apparently Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. President Regina Myer is now on board with…
Monday, the city put out a request for proposals for the last two towers in Brooklyn Bridge Park. Now the city wants to make 30 percent of the possible 430 units there affordable, according to a story in The New York Times.
Apparently Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. President Regina Myer is now on board with the plan. She said even with the affordable component, the two towers on Pier 6 will “generate more than $70 million in acquisition fees and $3.5 million a year in revenue for the park.”
The two additional towers would go in where parking lots are now. They would be located between One Brooklyn Bridge, pictured above, and Atlantic Avenue.
As has been well covered here, park and housing activists are all over the map on the proposal, with some opposing any additional housing of any sort in the park. Further thoughts?
Update: While the Times said the city put out the RFP Monday, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. put out the request for proposals along with a press release today. You can see them here.
Brooklyn Development Plan Stirs Debates on Affordable Housing and Park Funding [NY Times]
The building may get built but generations will regret not having a park that is green and open. They will wonder why a mayor put queens-like towers in Brooklyn and put private housing a public park while his own park was open and clear. Hopefully the mayor will start to feel more secure in his position and take a more enlightened stance. Until then, hit the pols hard — let them know they will NEVER have your vote if they support this. And don’t let Levin or Squadron off the hook with their mealy-mouthed dithering either. Action people — it is all about action. Rebel. Expose their hypocrisy. Keep your eye on their back-room deals and broadcast your disapproval. Use Twitter BilldeBlasio #SavePier6 (and hit levin and Squadron with your tweets). Call their offices directly.
http://www.change.org/petitions/bill-de-blasio-stop-brooklyn-bridge-park-pier-6-development-gone-awry
If the purpose of the housing is to support the park, it is absurd and illogical to include affordable housing here. If the city is requesting 30% affordable, that means the building can be 30% smaller and provide the same support for the park with that much less mass.
Those commenting insinuating that somehow the poor/middle class don’t deserve to live in this “prime location” have just an asinine and sophomoric mindset. Please tell me why those who need affordable housing can’t get a chance to live by the park? Besides not having the income of the oligarchy who run this country.
First off, my position is no more housing in the park, its got enough going on already, and then, second, housing only as a “necessary evil”
But, as a taxpayer, while its nice that Ms Myer can get money from the affording housing component, I’d like to know what the “opportunity cost” is — if these same apt were to be sold at market rates instead? One can discount the future tax abatement expirations too…
They that total “opportunity cost” then divide by the number of people who will be living in this affordable housing, and get the cost to the taxpayers of putting affordable housing here .. and then add on top of THAT COST the further degradation of a park… enjoyed by 100k people in ONE weekend.
On a purely practical level, there is no place for lower income people to shop in this neighborhood. So while the housing may be affordable, nothing else in the neighborhood is.
Hipsters don’t live in Dumbo; they work in Dumbo.
Ok – these buildings are not serving a “public purpose” by subsidizing a park. By that logic, any building that pays taxes in the City serves a public purpose. The buildings are making PILOT payments (Payments in Lieu of Taxes), so rather than pay property taxes that goes to the City’s general fund, that money is going directly to the entity formed to maintain the park. It’s a diversion of money. Further, tax money is being used to build the park, not payments from these buildings. Regardless what your opinion is on building in BBP, these buildings are not serving a “public purpose”.
Technically, the City could build the park, assess the value of the properties at a higher value because the property is more valuable (b/c of the park) and get to the same place as they are right now in dollars.
“i will pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today”
I suspect this may be de Blasio blowing hot air.
Remember it was de Blasio who was able to push through the rezoning for Toll Brothers’ luxury condos (now the Lightstone) project on the banks of the Gowanus Canal. I don’t think he give much thought to environmental concerns and certainly not if there is the potential for an affordable component.