Project for Public Spaces Levels Criticisms of Brooklyn Bridge Park Design
Brooklyn Bridge Park must surely carry the mantle as the most controversial park in history. After decades of wrangling among neighborhood groups, urban planners and politicians, the first portions of the waterfront greenspace opened in 2010 to great fanfare and almost universal praise, even as financing question marks and controversy around real estate development in…
Brooklyn Bridge Park must surely carry the mantle as the most controversial park in history. After decades of wrangling among neighborhood groups, urban planners and politicians, the first portions of the waterfront greenspace opened in 2010 to great fanfare and almost universal praise, even as financing question marks and controversy around real estate development in the park continued to swirl. As work continues on the remaining portions of the park, including the footbridge from Brooklyn Heights, park officials have to contend with yet another round of negative nabobism. According to an article in today’s Wall Street Journal, the park’s design–and by extension its designer, Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc.–is being attacked by a group of planners as being too disconnected from the needs of most park-goers. In a scathing quotation, Project for Public Spaces head Fred Kent says, the park is “one of the deadest waterfronts ever designed,” displaying a “massive disconnect between what people want to look at and do in a place and what designers impose on them.” Matthew Urbanski, the architect of the park, counters: “We’ve created a calm foreground that allows you to appreciate the sublime beauty of the industrial urban setting.” As the Journal points out, Kent’s criticism seems to ignore the acres of programmed space–soccer fields, volleyball courts, basketball courts and marina–that are slated for the remaining piers. Based upon the throngs of people who visit the existing portions of the park on a daily basis, it doesn’t seem like the public shares Kent’s misgivings. “Brooklyn Bridge Park succeeds magnificently at being a space people want to make their own,” says The Journal. “Pier 1, the portion closest to the foot of the bridge that was one of the first completed sections, is an assemblage of placid meadows and grassy, sloping grades that make the perfect setting for picnicking and taking in the view.”
Conflict in Park Plans [Wall Street Journal]
Article behind subscriber paywall–Google the title to get around it
I love the park but getting there with small children is terrifying. The traffic whizzes off the bqe onto Columbia street with no thought of small children. Just this weekend a 5 year old was hit nearby. He is in critical condition. Why isn’t there at least a light on congress and Columbia?
Ben, I find your post contradictory. I agree that the Parks in London have a certain “romance” but the “wandering and looking at native grass” that you cite and the trillion dollar view of BBP seems to invoke the same type of ‘romance’ (i.e. how could something so beautiful be ‘here’)
You criticism is more related to the more ordinary functions of the playground space at Atlantic Ave – which I understand your criticism to an extent (but they are mostly easily remedied and dont warrant calling the entire park a failure) .
Maybe you could enhance you point with more objective citations as to why gorgeous vistas, walking paths and open spaces (with adjoining direct ‘play’ facilities like courts and fields) does not make a good (and romantic) urban park.
This criticism is just the same old – no condo complaint gussied up with some fancy architectural/design lingo to make it sound more legitimate. Here is a link to the actual critic (which is essentially, no condos)
http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=933
I frankly dont even understand the condo complaints (other than envy). It even contradicts the ‘objective’ criticism of the writer here. His only ‘objective’ criticism (as I read it) is that the hills and paths create dead areas which are unsafe. Frankly I dont see it, but even if true; the best thing you can do to combat that is to make sure the park has a constituency of users in off hours. Nearby residents is an excellent way to insure that the park is almost always well populated (as are dog runs).
But regardless, what strikes me as almost bizarre is the idea that somehow the condos/development at the fringes of the park somehow impact the park AT ALL.
If the City had sold off the development parcels decades ago and then proposed a park in and on the exact same site as it is currently, no one would find a single problem with it because the development is at the edge of the park and has no impact on the public utilizing the park land.
As for the self-funding mechanism, again this is hardly unprecedented. The Westside park (which is gorgeous, loved and well utilized) has tons of development along it (Battery Park City, Chelsea Piers and tons of condos right across the street for example). So what. Even Central Park (and more and more Prospect Park) regular upkeep is privately funded, often by the residents of the uber-luxury housing that surrounds it. Does Central Park become less beautiful because the residents of CPW, CPS and 5th Ave contribute millions to help maintain it, or because they are across the street?
Increase your meds dosage, simpleton
Increase your meds dosage, simpleton
Ben you are all over the place.
1st you say:”I like to wander to the park with the kids, or the dog, or lunch”
then in the NEXT paragraph you say:
“But I don’t really wander thru a park. I go to a park”
So again I dont know what your criticism is?. Its a park (more or less a ribbon park); I dont know what you expect it to be.
I find a walk through (whats there now) magical – to have that vista of Manhattan, the Bridge and the River along a well manicured [fake]-natural setting is ‘romantic’,’magical’ etc ,etc (to me anyway). I dont know what you want from a park but I would say walking through (and sitting) in beautiful inspiring surroundings is one of the most important goals of a park (no?).
Then as to the other aspects of a park (fields, playgrounds, recreation) this park will have that as well. I think your critique of the playground at Atlantic might have some merits but they are hardly mission critical and could be rectified. As to the fact that they will have leagues playing on those fields – virtually every field in NYC has leagues using them…If you want empty fields that you can just wander on and play 24/7 you better start looking in Sullivan or Suffolk counties.
Minard, that is the reality that many people have not been in Brooklyn long enough to know….Alot of the criticism of the Park (and IMHO alot of what is still fueling the opposition) is that many nearby residents just didnt want ANY park. Back in the early 90’s I recall the residents of Joralemon St protesting that if the park had an entrance on their street it would ruin their neighborhood by bringing unwanted ‘traffic’ that there wasnt capacity for. This was before condos and other development objections and was pure NIMBY.
Given the almost irrational critiques of the park today, I believe the ‘condos’ complaint is just a red herring for that old NIMBYism rearing its head.