« DDDB Rallies Against Premature Demolition Media Love for Bklyn's Fair Trade Brews »

April 23, 2007

Housing Over the BQE? Could Be

Part of Mayor Bloomberg's plan for squeezing more housing units out of an already-crowded city includes building decks over rail lines and highways. Of particular relevance to Brownstone Brooklyn is a nine-block stretch of the BQE that currently cuts a deep channel through Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens. "A platform could be constructed over the below-grade section of the BQE to create nine new blocks of housing reconnecting two neighborhoods," said a mayoral panel. We haven't had time to fully digest what such a move would mean for the character and connectedness of the two sides of the highway. What do you think? What would it mean for the properties that currently overlook the expressway?
'Rail' Big Housing Plan [NY Post]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1015

Comments

Next up: Enclosing the upper deck of the Verrazano Bridge and building low-income housing.

Posted by: iceberg at April 23, 2007 9:39 AM

I think the idea is kinda whack -- and expensive -- but ANYTHING would be better than overlooking the BQE for those properties.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 9:41 AM

Is it me, or is that image geographically suspect? I always thought that Cobble Hill was north of Carroll Gardens, with both on the same side of the BQE.

BTW - there is a similar proposal put forward by CM Reyna for the BQE cut in southside Williamsburg. Only under her proposal, the platform (about three or four blocks long, I think) would make room for a park.

Posted by: Halden at April 23, 2007 9:44 AM

It sounds like a great plan. There used to be houses there before they were leveled to build the BQE. This is simply a plan to return the area to the way it was for well over 150 years prior to Moses' orgy of destruction.

Posted by: Eryximachus at April 23, 2007 9:47 AM

Yes, Halden. Think the writer got their neighborhoods confused. Should have said it separated Cobble and Carrol from the Columbia Waterfront and Red Hook, or something to that effect.

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 23, 2007 9:49 AM

Doesn't bother me. Would increase property values, take away an eye soar, and potentially create affordable housing options.

On with the plan!

Posted by: action at April 23, 2007 9:50 AM

A 2035 study on the cancer death rate from those living directly above the BQE should be quite interesting

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 9:52 AM

9:44 is correct. Cobble Hill is north of Carroll Gardens. The area west is "Carroll Gardens West" to the old timers it is Red Hook as is Carroll Gardens or South Brooklyn. But then again the real estate agents keep changing the boundaries.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 9:55 AM

Word. We looked at a lovely place in Carroll Gardens but it was just a few doors down from the expressway, and even though you couldn't really see it from the street (not like in Ft. Greene where it looms up on a big ugly overpass), I just couldn't get comfortable with the air quality issue.

Posted by: anonymous at April 23, 2007 9:56 AM

Potential to undo the damage that was the scourge of Robert Moses? I'm all for it...conditionally...

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 23, 2007 9:57 AM

This makes perfect sense when you consider how the BQE and other submereged roadways like this split up neighborhoods. Upstate, in Rochester, an entire downtown area was severed by a submereged expressway loop that gets less traffic than a dead end street. "The Inner Loop" cut off the city from the city. Literally by cutting a trench between it and the residential areas surrounding the downtown area, and then gradually by forcing you to get into the city most easily by car. Robert Moses helped this out.
Regardeless of how much use a roadway like this gets, they still sever areas, and ideas to cover them and bridge the difference wherever possible make total sense.

Cobble Hill is north of Carroll Gardens though. I think the statement was confused.

Posted by: NY at April 23, 2007 10:01 AM

this plan had been discussed for years. I have heard discussions about a park going there, housing, and more. maybe this time it will happen. makes sense. who wants to hear or see nothing but traffic. would have to be very very very structurally sound.

Posted by: em at April 23, 2007 10:12 AM

the layout of them map is a little off. the division between CH and CG is not east and west. it is north and south and the division is between Kane and Degraw

Posted by: me at April 23, 2007 10:13 AM

What be huge improvement for the neighborhood, but projects like these are great proposals that will take a lifetime to realize. And when they finally are realized they're built completely out of character because some developer had the forsight to align themselves with low-income housing proponents and just become blight.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 10:14 AM

just don't make it "affordable housing" on such prime real estate, and it will work.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 10:19 AM

To set the mapping record straight: the section of Brooklyn to the west of the BQE and south of Atlantic Ave. is considered Red Hook. To the east of the BQE is Cobble Hill (east to west between Smith and Hicks; north to south between Atlantic and Sackett). Carroll Gardens is from Sackett to Hamilton Ave. And from Bond to Hicks...

Case closed!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 10:21 AM

Seems like a good idea but I am not certain that I'd want to live in something you can drive a truck below these days.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 10:23 AM

Don't they have sections of the GW Bridge entrance with buildings over it? I never thought it would appeal to me to live over a huge roadway like that, but to each his own.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 10:29 AM

put a park there instead. the nabe needs it, badly. it will be just like the "high line," only not elevated, and bowie won't be involved. :)

Posted by: david at April 23, 2007 10:38 AM

10:21 AM

Wrong! The area south of Atlantic Ave, west of the BQE and north of Hamilton Avenue is the Columbia Street Waterfront District. CB 6, NYC DCP and the Encyclopedia of the City of New York all identify it as such When parents on Tiffany Place start sending their kids to PS 27 or PS 15, you can start call it Red Hook again.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 10:56 AM

Before there was a Cobble Hill or Carrol Gardens, there was Red Hook.
After the BQE was built,nobody renamed the area west of the highway so it remains Red Hook.
The whole area used to be known as South Brooklyn in the 19th century. Which is confusing to modern Brooklynites as the area is not in the southern part of the boro.

Posted by: history buff at April 23, 2007 11:00 AM

Hey, let's put the Nets stadium there! And Ratnerville!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 11:08 AM

When was the BQE built? Does anyone know?

Posted by: Alexuma at April 23, 2007 11:12 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn-Queens_Expressway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_moses

Robert Moses was a force of nature and a gift to our city and state by providence. New York (and other areas, as they followed NY's lead) would be in the dark ages without a visionary like him.

Posted by: greenwood slope at April 23, 2007 11:18 AM

Development here sounds great. Hopefully am mix of housing and parks/public space. We know it will be green.

Posted by: greenwood slope at April 23, 2007 11:19 AM

Sounds good BUT didn't the Atlantic Yards start as a way to bridge two neighborhoods....I fear the infrastructure price of building on top of the BQE would be so high, only very tall and dense housing would justify the cost....the same rationale as for the Atlantic Yards. Before Marty wets his pants in excitement the issues of scale, density, per centage and no eminent domain use should be established. I live in and love Carroll Gardens, and would love to see the BQE covered, dynamited or flooded, but not a the price of having AY in my backyard.

Posted by: coco at April 23, 2007 11:21 AM

I believe there was an article a year or 2 ago about the terrible air around the apartment buildings built over I-95 just after the GWB. That type of issue can probably be dealt with by good design. Thus the big question is what will be built and how? It might be great. It might be a mess.

Posted by: anon at April 23, 2007 11:22 AM

The BQE was built in 1953-54. 1953 was when several blocks of Brooklyn Heights, including the Columbia Heights house where the Roeblings oversaw the construction of the Bridge, were demolished to make way for the highway. The rest of the Heights was spared, but just barely.

I think this map inadverdently shows how seriously the Manhattan-based bureaucracy takes the project: they mis-label the neighborhood names. They do not even know where Carrol Gardesn is!
I think we should take it as a clue.

Posted by: history buff at April 23, 2007 11:28 AM

I used to live in Cobble Hill Towers, which is the red building in the forefront of the picture, on the --erroneously named, as so many have pointed out--"Cobble Hill" side. Certainly putting buildings there would cut down on the noise. But what would it do about the air quality? Would the dirty air vent out to somewhere else?

Yes, the apts in Cobble Hill Towers are noisy and the air quality is terrible, but they did have great views. Even on the third floor, we could see the water and Manhattan. It would be a shame to be looking into someone else's living room, instead.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 11:33 AM

Beware, beware, beware!
It sounds great until they hand pick a developer to do whatever he wants to your neighborhood --- and if you don't like it you can cry to Shelly Silver or sue.

Posted by: tripster at April 23, 2007 11:34 AM

Air quality is worse almost anywhere in Manhattan. The BQE is close to the water, so there is usually fresh air blowing in. This is among the windiest parts of the city.

If R Moses didn't create this infrastructure, how the hell would people get from one place to another? Public transportation can not be designed to suit the needs of every individual the way personal autos can. Given a choice, people don't want to rely on the MTA, etc. Support congestion pricing, if anything.

Posted by: Hugh Jass at April 23, 2007 11:39 AM

say, is that space big enough for a sports arena?

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at April 23, 2007 11:40 AM

I'm no engineer, but it would seem to me that building a block of housing over the BQE would be quite a feat. But i've always thought it would be brilliant to cover that stretch of the BQE with a park. hopefully whatever plan they come up with, if this goes forward, will include some additional green space.

Posted by: Pascal at April 23, 2007 12:04 PM

I just love Carroll Gardens i think it might not be such a bad Idea, But they must include a park.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 12:10 PM

Brooklyn Heights seemed to be the most successful in negotiating the placement of the BQE, but it chopped up Red Hook from Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill (old time residents still think of Cobble Hill as Red Hook) and Sunset Park didn't fare much better. I think it is a very interesting idea and an engineering and architectural challenge. It would be wonderful if something could be made to reconnect this part of Brooklyn broken by the BQE.

Posted by: donatella at April 23, 2007 12:11 PM

It's hard to imagine what south brooklyn was like before the BQE.
It was much quieter I'm sure.
Hicks street was a major shopping street before its west side was vaporized for the highway.
But putting residential buildings on top of expressways is a 1960'd idea that should be thouroughly discretied by now. It is just a bad idea. Expensive and stupid, which sums up many things from the 1960's to me.

Posted by: history buff at April 23, 2007 12:28 PM

Let's have Ratner develop over the 36th st rail yards in Sunset Park.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 12:30 PM

The writer screwed up the neighborhoods. The BQE splits Red Hook and Cobble Hill/Carroll Gardens. Anyway, this plan is okay if the scale and design of the project is in line with the neighborhood. It certainly has the potential to be horrible.

Posted by: Josh Guttman at April 23, 2007 1:19 PM

The area west of the BQE and between Atlantic and Hamilton Ave. is NOT considered Red Hook anymore. We all know it was part of Red Hook before the BQE and Batery Tunnel were built, but no one (except for fact-checking compulsives with too much time on their hands) thinks of it as Red Hook anymore. It has it's own neighborhood character now and should be treated as such.

Posted by: anon at April 23, 2007 1:32 PM

Anon 1:32 and to the rest of the misinformed, the area west of the BQE is considered Redhook by the people who grew up in Brooklyn, including myself, and others who lived here before it was fasionable. I understand that it is now called the Columbia Waterfront District, likely because 5-10 years ago when that "renaming" occurred, it was unimaginable that people with money would want to live in red hook. Perhaps we should rename Bed-Stuy to "Clinton Hill North" or better yet in the Brooklyn Heights vicinity.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 1:45 PM

ugh. More development? THe BQE is a drag but at least you have the feeling of open sky down here in this corner of Brooklyn.If they build, we'll just get more god awful sky scrapers occluding the grand open vista of the new york harbour. and where will the children got to school in a district where you have a lottery for pre-school even when you're zoned?? hmm. bitter much?

Posted by: beckersny at April 23, 2007 1:56 PM

i'd bet good money that western bed stuy WILL probably get renamed at some point in the near future, because it is turning into "clinton hill north" as people push further and further out from the city. why wouldn't it happen there, when it's happened everywhere else in nyc? and as for that BQE project..enough already...move the nets!

Posted by: anon at April 23, 2007 2:21 PM

I think the plan is brilliant -- either way, putting in housing or a long park would be a great way to cover up that mess that is the BQE and reconnect the neighborhoods. As far as putting housing up there... aren't there a bunch of buildings that hang over the FDR drive? I've seen this type of reclamation done really well in a number of other cities, and as long as you've got a good developer doing it (good construction -- not some of the shoddy work that's being done around town recently -- and lots of community involvement), there are really no negatives to speak of. Bravo to all the people who have put this together! I'm so excited at the prospect of reversing all of the neighborhood severance.. and all the proposed new greenspace.. oh how I could go on.

Posted by: paintingladyjane at April 23, 2007 3:02 PM

As someone who lives on the West side of the BQE, I wonder how we'll get cut off from the rest of Brooklyn during construction - I cross the BQE every day to either catch the B61 to the subway or get anywhere for that matter. Walking down Columbia Street and under the BQE overpass at Atlantic isn't exactly my idea of convenient.

On the other hand, it would be nice to have some new development here...maybe they would increase the frequency of B61's? It comes just about every other day or so right now.

Posted by: cobblestoner at April 23, 2007 3:11 PM

I would worry about the long term. What happens when the housing wears out and has to be replaced? Shut down the rail yards for a year for demolition?

Another way to look at pop in 2030 is that it will not reach the forecast heights because there isn't enough room, and adding housing is too expensive in an already congested city. Easier to re-grow Philadelphia.

Posted by: WT Economist at April 23, 2007 3:17 PM

I think a park would be abetter idea than housing. This city is too congested as it is!

Posted by: Reality Czech at April 23, 2007 3:17 PM

I think it would make a good park, housing there would be almost impossible. The sewer and utilities connection would be difficult as would the elevator mechanics given that you cannot push down too far or the higher trucks would be in trouble. clean air standards would be very difficult to meet. vibration control would be hard. It would be the most expensive housing per square foot anywhere.
The buildings over the FDR project out only partially, and the highway is open on the river side. The BQE is a ditch here, they would have to put in air and smoke evacuation systems. Oy! it's hard enough to design a complying building on terra firma. this would present a full-employment opportunity for the city's engineers.
A park would be easier, not easy, but within reason.

Posted by: Serge at April 23, 2007 3:28 PM

It would be a reversal of Robert Moses disaster, excellent idea! as opposed to the bad idea of taxing the cars going to midtown Manhattan. If you want to reduce traffic, build a better subway and ban cars altogehter from midtown. Tax won't cut it, since same people won't stop using their cars and the city will steal some more money from it's citizens.

Posted by: R at April 23, 2007 3:46 PM

I drove through this section of the BQE on my way home today, and I have to second serge. I can't imagine that they will be able to go very deep into the highway cut because of overhead clearance... and that means any buildings will likely sit a little above grade compared to the surrounding buildings. I would be worried that it wouldn't add to the flow of the neighborhood at all. And who would feel comfortable purchasing a property here? But an earlier poster is right... there are some properties that go over the FDR, I think it's just hospital and commercial buildings though I'm not sure.

Posted by: rj at April 23, 2007 4:16 PM

Wouldn't "western Bed-Stuy" be called "Clinton East"?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 4:21 PM

"If you want to reduce traffic, build a better subway and ban cars altogehter from midtown. Tax won't cut it, since same people won't stop using their cars and the city will steal some more money from it's citizens."

R-
The point isn't to turn Midtown into a pedestrian mall- it's to make the traffic move faster. If you take out 15% of the cars the rest will move much faster.

The added benefits of cleaner air and extra revenue available for more mass transit are icing on the cake.

Posted by: Less Traffic at April 23, 2007 4:24 PM

In London the congestion pricing plan is working OK, but the English are used to a very rigid class system where the upper classes have intstitutionalized advantages that the lower classes do not. The whole idea of the sytem is to get the common folks off the street so the ladies and gentlemen can drive around easier. Very British, dunno if it will work here, it is basically a very regressiove tax, as it is basically oine size fits all.
Just me thoughts, that's all.

Posted by: Serge at April 23, 2007 5:07 PM

Robert Moses was a sonofabitch AND a visionary, as the recent (possibly still ongoing) exhibition on his work showed--exhibit is a must-see, divided between three museums (one of them is the Museum of the City of NY on the UES). He destroyed thriving city neighborhoods in every borough with his horrible expressways, necessary though they may be. He also built beautiful parks, pools, and playgrounds. An interesting man, to say the least.

This idea to cover the BQE ditch is bold-stroke urban planning at its best--like Boston's Big Dig, but with the digging already done. LIke Chicago's fabulous new Millenium Park, built on a deck covering rail-switching yards next to the Art Institue. I say make it mostly green space. Expensive as heck--Millinium Park was HUGELY over budget, I think running more than 600 MM, but totally do-able from an engineering standpoint.

Posted by: Bob999 at April 23, 2007 5:15 PM

housing above a tunnel?! really people, does not the subway run beneath much of brownstone brooklyn? If downtown Boston can bury an interchange, surely nyc can figure out how to build a deck over an already recessed roadway. Also, the federal dollars on this would be huge as it is part of the Interastate.

Posted by: em at April 23, 2007 6:22 PM

I dunno, I quite like the idea of housing but am clueless about the engineering that would have to be done to achieve it. A park would be nice - but are people going to be willing to pay for it?

Serge, your class analysis is off-base, specifically "The whole idea of the sytem is to get the common folks off the street so the ladies and gentlemen can drive around easier".

No, it's not. (London) Congestion Charging's objectives was to make city busses run quicker by reducing the extent to which they were slowed down by private cars.

It's the poor that always suffer most from congestion.

Posted by: bill_stickers at April 23, 2007 6:52 PM

if it resembles "the apartments" over the cross bronx it will be horrible.

I cannot imagine the vibration and dust that those places would experience.

Posted by: jvf at April 23, 2007 9:50 PM

Just a promenade/park would be great there... like the brooklyn height promenade.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 10:41 PM

do like in Paris with the Perephique - cover the damn thing and build parks.... think ballparks, playgrounds, grass! Cost = cheap (relatively) & value for community is immeasurable... it's such a nonsense that valuable urban real estate like this is wasted on nothing ... bring on the parks...

Posted by: ian at April 24, 2007 12:25 AM

isn't the area landmark? so they couldn't put a high rise?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 11:15 AM

All this ill-informed debate is making me giddy! This reminds me of an undergraduate discussion section! Keep going, kids! This is all quite fascinating!

(no, seriously)

Posted by: ANP at April 24, 2007 1:20 PM

I just don't understand all the people who complain about the polution of housing over the BQE. Some of the most expensive realestate in Brooklyn, Brooklyn Height by the promenade, hangs over the BQE, and the some of the most expensive realestate in Manhattan is adjacent to the West Side Highway and the FDR. Cleary clean air is not a priority for people who live in New York City. I also don't understand the idea of having to build more housing because of a projected gazilion more people in X number of years. If you build more housing then more people will come. If you build more roads then more cars will come. It is a very basic correlation. I understand the need for more affordable housing but then but then stop selling all the current affordable housing to big developers?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 1:31 PM

ummm, the city really needs housing not parks. parks will simply increase property values for mostly affluent "south brooklynites" in the area. covering the BQE will be a rudimentary engineering task and the least of potential barriers to this kind of project. for all of you dreamers who want a park: move.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 2:29 PM

not landmarked - the land mark area ends on the eastern border of hicks street, right where this would begin.

goodbye views from brownstone rooftops in cobble hill.

Posted by: busta at April 24, 2007 3:28 PM

Wha? You mean the BQE isn't landmarked?

Outrage...

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 4:23 PM

Looking forward to hearing reports of the first hot bolt dropping through someone's windshied during construction.

Posted by: Billy Reno at April 25, 2007 10:01 AM

The BQE trench is an open wound to Cobble Hill, Carrol Gardens, and Columbia street. The trench needs to be covered up with either buildings or a park.

The trench is deep enough to make covering up the highway a bit less taxing.

Posted by: George at April 25, 2007 8:29 PM

I live on the western side of the BQE and I agree with Serge. A park is much more economically feasible and would do great things for our neighborhood. All you really need are two exhaust vents, don't build any housing there because the structural framework will be so costly and bulky without a proper foundation to sit on.

Posted by: David at May 7, 2007 4:01 PM

« DDDB Rallies Against Premature Demolition Media Love for Bklyn's Fair Trade Brews »

April 23, 2007

Housing Over the BQE? Could Be

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions