Brooklyn Bridge Park: Your Input, Please

Monday's meeting is welcome; activity is what makes a park more than just so many square feet of unbuilt land. But it bears remembering that the conservancy is not the development corporation. Yes, let's discuss what activities should be in the park. But let's also get some shovels in the ground and build the infrastructure that will host those activities.

Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 11:00 AM

These "feel-good" meetings are a complete waste of time. The EDC could not care less what the public has to say and their relationship with the BBP Conservancy is luke warm at best, hostile at worst.
This park has been designed and redesigned up the wazoo. Twenty million dollars have gone to consultants so far without a single shovel in the ground.
This meeting is the latest in a string of sham meetings to make people think that something is actually going on. But there is nothing going on except deception and cover-up. What's happened to all the public money spent on the park plan so far? All the salaries and consultants' fees?
Boss Tweed could not have done better himself.

Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 12:48 PM

The developer can't even get their own act together, so I can't understand how public input to the BBP will streamline this project. As has been pointed out in previous reports and posts, it's been a pissing contest between Albany and the City, and a massive waste of consultant money.
My 2 year old kid will be in high school before this is completed.

Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 2:45 PM

The governor is beleaguered right now with his own scandals. His desk is stacked high with competing projects, waiting to be funded, in the city and upstate.
Right now I would say that One Brooklyn Bridge Park better have its own plan to dress up the waterfront by joralemon street because the rest of the area will either stay a semi-wasteland for the foreseeable future or will serve to accommodate a temporary bypass for the BQE while the cantilever is repaired or rebuilt. We're talking a ten year project. I think the park plan is not just comatose, it is dead.

Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 6:07 PM

They should have ball fields there so that the park will become a destination for all Brooklyn kids, not just a place for the rich kids at St. Ann's to go down and get high at. And not just a place for the rich people to gaze at when they are feeling so smug that they bought an expensive condo. But of course Brooklyn kids don't actually deserve anything so common as a public place to exercise or to learn something like team building or whatever it is that children on sports teams do. It's all about the development, past and present. Brooklyn Heights might as well be a gated community. Or a museum or something.

Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 8:05 PM

It's not a park. It's a site for real estate developers who make deals with the city and the state through the ill-named Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy. And Atlantic Yards is the same gang at a different location. It's not progress, it's the rape of Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 8:12 PM

Oh, good god, get over yourself. Its not like they are tearing down a row of townhouses to build this. They are trying to turn a virtually unused industrial play ground into a beautiful park. If 2 or 3 developments need to be included to help finance the project and keep this PUBLIC park going, then so be it. The rape of Brooklyn? That is perhaps the most retarded statement I have heard in a long time.

Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 12:23 AM

oh 12:23, why are you trying to make sense?

of course, people complain when someone takes a total shit hole and makes something nice out of it.

Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 5:28 PM

The proof that this is a real estate deal is 1. In 360 Furman St's marketing (I refuse to call it by that made-up name), in which they will say anything and everything about that space in order to entice buyers -- hotels with casinos, etc. (as if the BHA would EVER allow such a thing) -- I know people who've bought there after drinking that Kool-Aid, and

2. the fact that it's all to be paid for using a PILOT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) program, similar to Battery Park City, only it's the 360 Furman owners who are to make the payments here.

My prediction? 360 Furman will fail (already it's not selling nearly as well as they'd hoped) and plans for a park will be abandoned. That's all fine with me.

Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 6:18 PM

What is your point? They are converting an EXISTING building to condos which will in turn help finance a PUBLIC park that is taking the place of a rundown industrial area. How could you possibly complain about that? Would you rather pay additional taxes for it? I hate people who complain just to complain. This is a great thing they are trying to do. If a few developers get rich in the process then good for them, all you should be concerned with is a new waterfront park that will be accessible to anyone.

I have no idea how the One Brooklyn development will end up fairing, but the last I read they had around 125 units taken. Is that correct? That doesnt sound too bad to me at the prices they are getting. Why are you so bitter about this development and future parkland?

Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 7:29 PM

Let's get off the subject of 360 Furman. I think that discussion is intended to avoid the real subject of what to do with the PUBLIC land on the waterfront. And that is something that was discussed publicly and the only concerns taken in to account were those of the Brooklyn Heights Association at the time. I know this is true. I spoke out at other public forums when they were planning this parkland and looked at models at the Cobble HIll house tour and shockingly agreed with good ole Rev. Al for once in my life when he said that kids need outdoor ball fields in this park somewhere (not necessarily on Pier 5) at the time he was aiming for the parkland around DUMBO or Vinegar Hill I believe. So what the heck is going on now? Why are these people who didn't listen the first time asking the public again what they want? What has changed? I just cant imagine that they actually need or want public input this far along in the process?

Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 8:17 PM

For the record, they are planning over 1250 residential units in this "park". 360 Furman is just one of 6 new residential buildings and the only one that existed on this land (but grew bigger to accomodate even more condos). the other buildings are all new, will be between 8 and 30 stories high - blocking the shoreline forever. It is irrational, this planning. Of course we want and need parks - duh - no one is against that goal. Parks should be built by park people and should not have private housing in them. Period. All else - culture and recreation that goes on inside of them - is gravy. Let's not sell out public lands to the lowest/most venal bidders (private developers). Please, let's just get a park and not another luxe condo city.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 12:57 PM

For the record, they are planning over 1250 residential units in this "park". 360 Furman is just one of 6 new residential buildings and the only one that existed on this land (but grew bigger to accomodate even more condos). the other buildings are all new, will be between 8 and 30 stories high - blocking the shoreline forever. It is irrational, this planning. Of course we want and need parks - duh - no one is against that goal. Parks should be built by park people and should not have private housing in them. Period. All else - culture and recreation that goes on inside of them - is gravy. Let's not sell out public lands to the lowest/most venal bidders (private developers). Please, let's just get a park and not another luxe condo city.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 12:58 PM

This is a great building and will bring a lot to this desolate area. Why would anyone not want to have more residents in this area that can only bring more restaurants, grocery stores, and other things that make an area safe and a nice place to live?

Posted by: guest at March 23, 2008 6:54 PM