« Brooklyn B-Scan: 13,962 Documents and Counting Love Lane Garage Conversion Getting Traction »
September 26, 2007
What's the ETA on Boymelgreen Park?
Workers have been tilling the soil behind the Novo Park Slope fast and furious these days, cultivating a $1.6 million renovation of Terrapin Playground. Terrapin’s the section of J.J. Byrne Park that Novo developer Shaya Boymelgreen pledged to revamp in exchange for using the park as a staging area during construction. (And which has been the subject of plenty of community acrimony.) Originally, the Parks Dept. said the work—which is supposed to include eight new handball courts, two new basketball courts, a skate area, and a dog run area—would be done by the end of this summer. At some point, that timeline got revised so it was supposed to be completed sometime this fall. Guess what? Now it’s fall, and though it appears that construction workers are kicking into high gear, you gotta be a little skeptical about them delivering on everything that’s promised within the next 90 days. Beyond that, it’s a little troubling to look at the back of the building and imagine that a public park is basically going to be the Novo’s backyard. Sort of like a half-assed, 4th Avenue version of One Brooklyn Bridge Park.
Old Park Slope Says Novo Park Slope is a Deadbeat [Curbed]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2245
Comments
Should the City hold Boylemgreen's feet to the fire to make sure this park is done correctly and expeditiously - YES
But all you do is WHINE AND COMPLAIN.
Do you know what the "Park" looked like before this deal was made? - $HIT!
it was basically a broken asphalt ball field - more or less useless - so when this is done it will be a big net gain for PS.
But I don't know why I even feel the need to comment since you reveal your forever miserable/cynical agenda when you complain that the park will be in the backyard of this new condo. SO WHAT - Virtually every park in this city is next to; across from or adjacent to residential housing. Are you complaining that Central Park is the front yard to 15 CPW?
Besides the condo was built on PRIVATE PROPERTY (you are aware of that concept) - so the condo's proximity to the park was out of anyone's hands in the 1st place.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 9:49 AM
I don't like you Jon Brownstoner and I want you to know it [insert stamping of feet and pouting here]
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 10:01 AM
Troubling that the park would be in back of the building?
Why?
The only reason I can think why it bothers you, is that somehow the building will sell faster, and maybe for a bit more, and the developer might make some more money, yup, that hurts.
Posted by: mench at September 26, 2007 10:07 AM
I have to agree with the first and 3rd posters here. I don't think Gabby's been much of a credit to this blog.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 10:09 AM
Yeah, but the front yard is 4th Avenue and the ugliness of Gowanus.
Though what is it with the Boymelputz? Two of his buildings on 4th Ave and the one on Atlantic near the Brooklyn "Hilton" are quite unfinished ... they look like they've been under construction for years ... while a true reinforced concrete highrise like downtown Brooklyn's Oro seems almost ready to move into. How come?
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 10:27 AM
cuz he sucks
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 10:35 AM
I also really dislike how every post is worded with some really cynical question at the end lately. Perhaps it's the whole devil's advocate, thing but it usually ends up sounding pretty foolish at times, and kinda puts a kick start into bitter conversations in the comments. Perhaps that's the point. I don't know.
Of course every park in NYC is near something else...usually residential.
And how is it a half-assed verson of One Brooklyn Bridge Park? This park...although delayed will be built YEARS before Brooklyn Bridge Park. And the prices at NOVO are probably a third of what they are at OBBP.
I don't really think Gaby is this absurd (although I have no idea not having met her, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt)...I think the questions are meant to start a discussion, but they sound way too cynical lately.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 10:44 AM
What do you expect? the guy has zero financial incentive to finish the park on time.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 11:07 AM
As decayed as the old asphalt yard was, it was heavily used on weekends by several softball leagues and the handball courts were always full. For several summers now, those public spaces have been off limits to teh public and put to use to further private profit as a staging area (and, hopefully, a safety buffer). I am down at what little of Terrapin is in use most Sunday mornings in the warm weather and the developer's pace has been truly glacial. Developers do not have an unmitigated right to use public property as staging areas. They get a license, which comes with conditions. It is incumbent upon them to meet those conditions. The public has every right to complain if a developer does not uphold his end of the bargain.
Posted by: slopefarm at September 26, 2007 11:48 AM
Slopefarm - complaining about the glacial pace of the park restoration is fine - as is protesting and demanding politicians hold him accountable.
What people object to is Brownstoner's never ending criticism (veiled as smarky commentary) of ALL things. In this case the underlying deal/benefit of an upgraded park, the proximity of a residential building to the park and a back handed shot at 1BBP.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 12:51 PM
Maybe the Brownstoner posse is realizing that these benefits somehow don't make it Clinton Hill....
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 1:09 PM
there is always a little favoritism towards the clinton hill and ft. greene areas over park slope but that's to be expected...the brownstoner crowd is clinton hill based and it's his blog...he can favor whatever he likes.
i just don't think people should be shocked when there are some park slope defenders on here.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 1:14 PM
Speaking of taking over a public space, what's up with Belltel Lofts' advertising a "2.5 acre private backyard"? Are they talking about Metrotech? What's private about that? Is it even legal to call it a "private backyard"? Or do they have some section of their own that is private?
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:13 PM
"there is always a little favoritism towards the clinton hill and ft. greene areas over park slope but that's to be expected...the brownstoner crowd is clinton hill based and it's his blog...he can favor whatever he likes."
He can do whatever he likes, but he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be "Brownstoner Media" and run a professional, for-profit business... but when it's convenient he wants to be the little guy running a blog as a labor of love and jeez everybody get off his back we should all just be grateful he's providing this service for us.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:33 PM
nice theory but Gabby's based in the Slope...
Posted by: brownstoner at September 26, 2007 2:35 PM
i love gabby now.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 2:53 PM
Boymelputz and others (Hello Issac Katan) just like him have built these shit boxes with only one consideration in mind – Maximum Profit.
For the better part of the last decade they have used slave labor and substandard construction practices and all with the Cities blessings. Why? Again the answer is money. The City has turned a blind eye to there illegal and immoral acts because the only thing the Administration was concerned with was the “Projected tax revenues”. Now that the artificially inflated real estate market is starting (just starting) to burst. These Scum have no incentive to finish anything. They will do whatever they can (Lie, cheat) to sell what they have and leave the city and its tax payers holding the bag for many years to come. As a result of this foolish trust (all based on Projected income – Sounds very much like ENRON) given to these scum our city and its tax base will be hemorrhaging money for years to come.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 3:59 PM
Making money is neither illegal nor immoral, 3:59.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:11 PM
It's funny you should mention Mr. Katan. Has anyone noticed that he is now hiding. His associates are trying, very hard, to distance them selves from any affiliation to him. Even though we all know he is still very much involved in what is going on (EX: Domino Sugar plant).
A friend of mine told me that Katan's tower on 16th street is on the market even though, to date, their are many questions about the legality of the existing plans on file not to mention the building it's self. The advertisement in the Times says it's a Karl Fisher building but anyone with any knowledge of this project knows it was/is a Radusky/Bricolage designed building. Again trying to hide the dirty laundry from the unsuspecting buyers.
Yea! What a great bunch of guys.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:14 PM
To 4:11,
Yes neither of those is illegal. As long as you pay the proper taxes, and insurance. Also as long as you abide by the law. These are just a few of the things that Mr's Boymelputz, Katan and the rest seem to have trouble doing. Even with the City and it's various agencies culpability and cultivation of there illegal acts.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 4:21 PM
I am no great fan of Boylemgreen but 3:59 yo so overstate the case (and facts) that you loose all credibility.
1st off while Boylemegreen and Katan (partners on many jobs) dont use Union labor and there have been quite a bit of safty complaints - I am unaware of any deaths on one of their job sites (and there have been many in this city).
Second - you cant have it both ways - you cant say the city wants tax revenue so it looks the other way and then say the developers dont pay taxes - which is it? And what evidence do you have that this (or some other developer) isnt paying taxes - let me say that if there is one thing this city is efficient at, its tax collection.
Lastly while you may not like the condos that have been built around the city, but the reality is the only thing that the city is going to be left with in the years ahead is ever increasing property taxes - especially as the 421(a) abatements begin to diminsh and expire.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 9:01 PM
9:01PM,
It is not I but the city (and you) that wants it both ways. The tax revenues that the city is hoping to reap and the ones that are foolishly ignored are different entities. The City's whole economy is based on the projected tax revenues from real state sales. While ignoring the tax money being stolen by Boymelputz et al. in the form of unaccounted for wages (which by the way I and many other have ample proof) and the SS and insurance that come with it. In fact 95% of the City budget surplus from last year came from the sale of 1 piece of real estate - Stuyvesant town. As for your last statement "the only thing the city will be left with" is all the headaches and problems from these many inferior buildings, that are only in their infant stages and are already showing signs of major problems.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 10:12 PM
9:01PM,
It is not I but the city (and you) that wants it both ways. The tax revenues that the city is hoping to reap and the ones that are foolishly ignored are different entities. The City's whole economy is based on the projected tax revenues from real state sales. While ignoring the tax money being stolen by Boymelputz et al. in the form of unaccounted for wages (which by the way I and many other have ample proof) and the SS and insurance that come with it. In fact 95% of the City budget surplus from last year came from the sale of 1 piece of real estate - Stuyvesant town. As for your last statement "the only thing the city will be left with" is all the headaches and problems from these many inferior buildings, that are only in their infant stages and are already showing signs of major problems.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 10:13 PM
If you are a contract holder of Novo, you are welcome to join my Yahoo Group!
Shoot me an email at jj_porch@yahoo.com
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 3:13 PM
Hi all. I am a recent buyer of a unit in the NOVO building. Perhaps I am biased, but I am of the opinion that NOVO, Argyle, etc... will only serve to improve the fourth avenue corridor in the long run. Yes it's true that some of these buildings are not exactly architectual marvels, but they are leaps and bounds better than the former tired old buildings that formerly defined this "less than desirable" area of Park Slope. As the demographics shift on 4th avenue.... retailers, restaurants, and bars will follow which is exactly what happened to the "hot" 5th avenue area only a few years ago.
As for the park progress (or lack there of), we must remember that half of the problem is actually the parks department itself. They are a slow, governmental agency full of red tape. I'm not defending greedy developers by any means. I just don't understand all the full on hatred
that I encounter on these blogs.
Posted by: guest at April 19, 2008 10:30 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.