roller-rink-bbp-042814

The roller rink on Pier 2 in Brooklyn Bridge Park is getting ready to open in May. Above is a photo of the rink Brooklyn Bridge Park uploaded to its Facebook page Sunday. Looking good!

Brooklyn Bridge Park Releases Details on Pier 2 [Brownstoner]
Photo by Brooklyn Bridge Park


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. I believe what Cleo is referring is the deal struck between the city and various community leaders that if Watchtower sold some amount of their property to commercial businesses and thus bring them back into the tax base (Watchtower is a non-profit) then the additional development at Pier 6 would be avoided. I have not heard what the status of this deal is. I do have to say the overall premise that the park must pay for itself is bizarre to me. How did we come to this conclusion? I don’t believe that other parks pay for themselves. Why does this one need too? Considering the money this city wastes I am not sure why this needs to be covered by commercial interests. The city pays $144 mm annually for the teacher “reserve” pool – i.e. teacher that don’t work, but get paid anyway. That would cover multiples of the cost of the park.

    • Well, Cleo is conflating 2 things. The Watchtower plan you’re referring too required that the Watchtower properties be sold to a private entity AND rezoned for residential by the end of 2013. While some properties were sold, none of them were rezoned and the new owner has not yet even said that he ever plans on rezoning any of this property. SO effectively, that deal has expired. Recently State Senator Squadron proposed placing some sort of tax on new development within a 0.4 mile radius of the park. This would siphon off money that would otherwise go to the City to pay for the Park. The problem with that, of course is that that with the Pier 6 developments, you could maintain the park and have the city get all that other money to do other things.

      Look, we live in a world where 2 things will always be true: 1) There’s always some we wish gov’t was doing that they can’t afford; and 2) We will all always be able to point to something that gov’t is spending money on that we believe is wasteful.

      This park was always one which the City was going to pay to build but not maintain. It’s long and on the waterfront so it’s expensive to maintain. The bargain that the City struck was that the park could use 20% of its land to support itself.In reality the park is using less than 10% – a bargain. If we as a community demand a park and no development now then we are backtrading on the deal that was made 20 years ago.

  2. Why do you say that this development is IN the park? The land with the development on it was NEVER park. The development sites are all located between the park and the Street. These pier 6 sites even have a road between them and the park, just like PPW, CPW or 5th Ave.

1 2 3