Closing Bell: Brooklyn Bridge Park Board Meeting on Pier 6 Controversy Set for Monday
The Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation (BBPDC) is holding a board meeting Monday where the public can speak out on its plan to build a pair of residential towers – one 30 stories, the other 15 — at Pier 6. The meeting is the result of a lawsuit the People for Green Space Foundation brought to…
The Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation (BBPDC) is holding a board meeting Monday where the public can speak out on its plan to build a pair of residential towers – one 30 stories, the other 15 — at Pier 6.
The meeting is the result of a lawsuit the People for Green Space Foundation brought to quash the towers, which focused on their inclusion of affordable housing. While the group failed to derail the project in court, as we reported, they succeeded in making the BBPDC apply for a modification of the General Park Plan in order to move forward — allowing for public commentary on the plan.
“Now, community folks, interested parties and experts can testify and be heard in a fair process whereby all evidence will be considered,” the green-space group’s attorney, Frank Carone, told the Times after the ruling.
So, here’s your chance. The meeting Monday kicks off the public process.
Monday’s meeting takes place at 3 pm at the offices of Empire State Development, 633 3rd Avenue in Manhattan, in the 37th floor conference room. Individuals get two minutes to speak; if you represent an organization you get four. (Attendees must RSVP before noon Monday by calling (212) 803-3818.)
The meeting will be live streamed here.
The BBPDC board will vote at the end of the hearing. If the board approves the modification of the General Park Plan, which seems a foregone conclusion, there will be another public board meeting and vote by the Empire State Development board on Thursday morning.
If that board also approves the modification, the official public comment period starts. In addition to written testimony, it will include a lengthy public hearing with at least 30 days notice in a suitably large venue, according to an email from the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. forwarded to us by a reader.
Pier 6 Coverage [Brownstoner]
Rendering of proposed design by Asymptote Architecture
If I can play devil’s advocate, a few things…
1) If people want the development in their neighborhoods to appear a certain way then they have to work hard to convince city officials to change the zoning so that it reflects what they believe is the best for the neighborhood. To complain after the fact, after plans have been drawn up and renderings appear, is classic Monday morning quarterbacking. If people are so concerned about the changes taking place in their neighborhoods then don’t shirk your civic duty. Get involved in the process that dictates what can be built where. People are not powerless. They only choose to be powerless by not getting involved. Complaints carry no weight if all people do is complain but don’t get actively involved.
2) Most of the high rise buildings that have gone up or are planned are not adjacent to Brooklyn’s brownstone streets in and around the downtown Brooklyn area. While downtown Brooklyn is seeing a tremendous influx of residential units that will surely change the dynamic of the neighborhood and tax the local infrastructure with the increase in population, the area used to be a ghost town at night, and a dangerous one at that. One might say that there are positive results of creating a new, 24 hour residential community. For one, new businesses are cropping up to meet the needs of those new residents. So to say that no jobs are created as a result of these new towers is an incorrect assumption. To take one example, look at the businesses that occupy the ground floor of the rental building on DeKalb Avenue across from LIRR. They include a salon, a bagel store and Smash Burger. Also, look at the supermarket in the ground level of the Torren building and the CVS and supermarket at the residential rental building on Myrtle Avenue and Ashland Place. These developments do result in new jobs.
3) When the Bloomberg administration rezoned downtown Brooklyn and the surrounding communities they put years of thought and analysis into the process. For better or worse, they did create zoning changes that preserved the low-rise brownstone blocks by stepping down height restrictions as lots get closer to Boerum Hill for instance. Structures on the north side of Atlantic Avenue, for instances, cannot exceed six stories. Is downtown Brooklyn and the Flatbush Ave. corridor turning into a new Upper East Side visually and culturally? You can make a strong argument that it is. But they are going up on lots of land that were not being used their maximum benefit for both the local community and city as a whole. The buildings that will be erected by Pier 6 in Brooklyn Bridge Park are not encroaching on any brownstone or low rise neighborhoods. There is nothing there other than the park, the condos at One Brooklyn Bridge Park, and a pier being used as a beverage distribution facility and parking for delivery trucks. I’d rather the maintenance fees from overpriced condos go toward funding the operations at a beautiful park that is already exceeding anticipated usage figures. Isn’t that better than the city having to raise my taxes so the costs can be covered. or cutting services in other areas to redirect funds to the park? The incredible popularity of Brooklyn Bridge Park even at this early stage in its existence means that the upkeep is very expensive. Maintaining all of the structures in good working order on piers that sit over a turbulent river is extremely costly. Those piers will require constant maintenance to make sure they don’t deteriorate in the salt water and storms. Those lovely fields, barbecuing facilities, playgrounds, water park and other popular features will require lots of up keep because of the constant usage from tens of thousands of people every day. If fees generated by a handful of buildings means that millions of us get to enjoy this beautiful, ground breaking park without an increase in our tax burden, isn’t that a good thing?
One least thought, instead of fighting to keep a full scale hospital that now medical institution wanted to maintain as a full scale hospital because financially it wasn’t viable, would it have been a better use of everyone’s time and effort to get the zoning changed so that tall high rise buildings could not go up on lots of land that do border a low rise brownstone neighborhood? Have you seen the renderings for the development of the LICH property?
Discuss…