Brooklyn Bridge Park Meeting: The Morning After

After a frustrating year, the park finally seems to be in motion. Even the politicos involved should improve the current eyesore.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 9:09 AM

Sales at 360 Furman aka 1 BBP should get a boost once those warehouses are turned down. I believe they are close to 1/3rd sold or so?

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 9:23 AM

What a riot.
The park is due to be completed by 2010. Ha!
Maybe the asbestos abatement will be completed by 2010. This project is taking longer to build than the Suez canal. Maybe if they brought in some camels....

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 10:09 AM

You're only 38? Happy bday!

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 10:21 AM

"...Judi Francis, of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund (which has sued the ESDC over the issue)...." Shouldn't that be 'sued and was summarily dismissed?' I mean, shouldn't the fact that a party had no case be the defining factor, not the mere filing of papers?

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 10:22 AM

Happy Birthday to you! Great site.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 10:44 AM

who on earth wants to "get wet" in the east river? thanks Matt Urbanski -- great idea! I wouldn't let my dog in the east river.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 10:46 AM

Someone please explain to me how Walentas has a bigger stake than anyone else in a public park?

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 11:08 AM

He has the most property and thus, the most to lose.

You may not like him, but if he would have been in charge it would have been designed pretty well and done. More restored carosels and less chelsea piers crap!

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 11:13 AM

The body of water there is more the bay than the river, but regardless of whether one is aqua-phobic or not, the park will be nice. The pool lady was nice, it will be the same thing but more so. What I don't get is why some folks are opposed to this. My only explanation is that they are afraid that black folks are going to use the park and walk by their houses. Racism is the only possible explanation. Who is afraid of condos in Brooklyn? That is like being afraid of gondolas in Venice. This whole big manufacturing wasteland is being turned mostly into a park -what the hell is a problem with that? To make it even better for tax payers, the upkeep of the park will be paid by the folks who live on the other side of the BQE including the huge old manufacturing building previously known as 360 Furman and a couple of new buildings.
They will pay for the upkeep, we will not have to. What is the problem there?
Why do people who live in brownstones with no water views worry about losing water views? Again it has to be all about race and keeping people out. Being against a new park is really taking NYMBY-ism to a new extreme.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 11:15 AM

Stakeholders in a public park are not real estate developers. Walentas has investments at risk not his quality of life.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 11:17 AM

this is a prime opportunity tu biuld affordable housing and get them outof manhattan...we dont need more parks!!! we need more affordable housing!!!

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 11:33 AM

11:13 That is completely illogical. Are you suggesting stakeholders interests be measured by the amount of real estate they own? Are you aware that over 60% of the residents in Brooklyn rent their housing? Where do their interests rank?

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 11:39 AM

11:39

their interests are meaningless
if you dont own a condo, you're not living brooklyn

josephine
-jcondo resident

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 11:41 AM

Owning beats renting, renters are at the bottom of the heap in a society like ours.
Wallentas owns an awful lot, therefore he is a powerful guy. But actually he has really been instrumental in paying for the playgrounds and other amenities in the River Park in DUMBO, only problem is that everybody hates him. Its just one of those things. I think his offer of a restored carousel for the new park is terrific. And yet I am sure that the loyal opposition will howl that the ponies are inconsistent with something or other.
I say just get the stupid park built and be sure to build the new condos down there too so the tax payer will not get stuck with the upkeep of this very expensive new waterfront park.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 11:49 AM

I think the design is terrible and the condos are terrible and they are being forced to build so many condos bcs they have inflated costs for everything from the marina to lawn sprinklers.

BUT -- just build it already

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 11:57 AM

"this is a prime opportunity tu biuld affordable housing and get them outof manhattan...we dont need more parks!!! we need more affordable housing!!!"

#1 you're insane
#2 learn to spell

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 12:06 PM

Every time I look at the master plan for the park on the BBP Conservancy Web site, I get very excited about the project. Then when I think how long it has taken to get to this point, and how much further we have to go, I get depressed. But, at least we have the beatiful Empire Fulton Landing Park between the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges to go to in the meantime.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 1:50 PM

Seems like the former co-executive director of the Conservancy is raising his ugly head (guest #12). A Manhattanite who shared the thrown with Koval used to stir up the racist card all the time - trying to justify luxury housing. Now that is hutzpah! The simple fact is that private housing inside of parks is a terrible idea. People living inside of parks will dictate what does/doesn't go on in them. And that has happened with this park. Gone are all the recreational elements Brooklynites wanted - ice skating, swimming, an amphitheater - why? because it brings too many noisy people. Remember, you can't get into this park from the places most New Yorkers will come. Why you ask? And consider that there is a 180 berth yachting marina next to a bird watching sanctuary. Who is fooling who? Let's just get rid of the condos and build a real park incrementally - just like what is in DUMBO section today - and see who comes. Very little expense, no fuss, but an honest to goodness park. OK?

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 1:51 PM

It seems to me that it is the opponents of the park who are using the new condo buildings -which will take up a very small amount of former manufaturing land- to kill the project because they want to keep outsiders, who may want to visit the park, off Joralemon Street and Willow Place. Period. Of course they will deny that there is any hidden agenda or motive, but why are they so passionately, and illogically, opposed to turning decrepit old piers into park and using a tiny portion of the property to build new condos that will pay for the upkeep of the brand new park? what drives their hate?
I say they're nuts and the heck w/them!

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 2:08 PM

The condos are adjacent to the park, not inside the park. I know all about shaping an issue by torquing the rhetoric, but the fact remains that the condos are not in the park.

Similarly, I believe that the explanation given for why recreation opportunities have been reduced -- "it brings too many noisy people" -- is also bogus. But stay on message, you might convince a couple people. On the other hand, attrition has recaptured guest 11:57, who states, "just build it already."

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 2:16 PM

affordable housing
affordable housing
affordable housing
affordable housing
affordable housing
affordable housing
affordable housing

no yachts, no carousels

affordable housing now!

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 2:16 PM

The opponents of the park are the people who SUPPORT PRIVATE LUXURY CONDOS in the park (instead of actually having a park.) They have views to protect along the promenade, waterfront penthouses to buy, hands to grease, yachts to moor, and public entrances from Montague Street to oppose, . These same opponents of the park are involved in one of the largest corruption schemes in Brooklyn. Too bad too many good people were duped along the way in this unethical land grab. We could have had a park!

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 2:19 PM

That is a very flattering picture of Regina.
I hope she knew what she was doing when she left her new job with the Hudson Yards project for this.
Hopefully before she accepted the bridge park job she extracted promises from the governor's people that construction will commence soon so she doesn't end up holding the bag.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 2:19 PM

One of the reasons I find the judy Francis coalition so creepy is that they claim that they are for the park and that the people who have been working to see the project actually happen are agaisnt the park.
To me, this is Orwellian. Say the opposite of what you mean in order to confuse people.
Very sleazy, makes me think they are not only crazy but sinister.
You can't fool all the people all the time. You are not defending the park, you are trying to defeat it! You hate the idea of a park. You want it to stay empty unused piers.
I know you do. Defenders of the park indeed.
Double-talk artists!

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 2:42 PM

Seems like the former co-executive director of the Conservancy is raising his ugly head (guest #12). Claude Shostal, a Manhattanite who shared the thrown with Koval, used the racist card all the time - trying to justify luxury housing. Now that is hutzpah! The simple fact is that private housing inside of parks is a terrible idea. People living inside of parks will dictate what does/doesn't go on in them. And that has happened with this park. Gone are all the recreational elements Brooklynites wanted - ice skating, swimming, an amphitheater . Why? Because it brings too many noisy people to "their" front yard. And remember, you can't get into this park from the places most New Yorkers will come - the promenade. And consider that there is a 180 berth yachting marina next to a bird watching sanctuary. Who is fooling who? Let's just get rid of the condos and the fancy pants architect, and build a real park incrementally - just like what happened in DUMBO section - and see who comes. i'll bet lots of people will come. Very little expense, no fuss, but an honest to goodness park. OK?

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 3:45 PM

3:45,
I wrote the 11:15 post that I think you are referring to. I also wrote the 2:42 post. I have no connection to the BBP conservancy and I never have.
I live in Brooklyn Heights not in Manhattan.
You seem a bit delusional.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 4:06 PM

At these meetings, no one understands (or explains) how BB Park decisions are being made so alot of time is spent (wasted) on the issue of park governance.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 6:08 PM

The designer explained the Park theme as "engagement". With water. With nature. This is the "uniqueness of the park". Great - just build a town dock and save alot of money.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 6:09 PM

Eight years ago I was told that kayaking was to dangerous and could not happen in the park. Accommodations for visiting fleet / town dock were not part of the plan. It's refreshing to now see those uses included in the plan. Well, hopefully MWA will get us a town dock once the governor watches City of Water. see:
http://www.waterwire.net/outside/index.cfm?ContID=2015

In addition, I was told active recreation, such as softball was not feasable due to the site constraints and tennis (quiet and rich) was being forced in the park, despite repeated calls for basketball (noisy and poor) at these meetings. I didn't notice if tennis or basketball was in the plans last night so it could be both constituants lost out?

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 6:11 PM

The main "programming" gripes last night were:
1. Need winter uses (eating and drinking, ice skating, skateboarding)
2. Need for enclosed park spaces (theater, boathouse, event space)
3. Need for public park (affordabe uses / artist support / theater)
4. Need for pier destinations (carousel, boathouse, shade structure)
5. And ... everyone loves a pool in the summertime!

There was also some comments about improving the plan including:
A. Direct connection to the Bklyn Hts. promenade
B. Pier Six at Atlantic Ave should be a retail / destination anchor
C. Residential uses don't belong in parks
D. Cars don't belong in parks
E. The park is just a front lawn for affluent residents to view

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 6:11 PM

We are not convinced that the decision-makers are open to, or listening to our comments or willing to engage in yet another re-design or how "set in stone" these plans are but that's difficult to evaluate as we don't know who gets to be a decision-maker?

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 6:13 PM

If anyone ever gets a park built in this neighborhood filled with too many people who have too little to do except to be as sanctimonious as possible, it will be a miracle. My advise to the decision makers:
Do what needs to be done and ignore the complaints and whining of the terminally spacey.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 6:58 PM

The building of the park has very little to do with the sanctimonious (6:58pm) or racist (11:15am) residents of Brooklyn Heights... this has been dragged out by Albany and Bloomberg, in tandem with the developers. Don't be so ------- stupid. And if you really think the neighborhood is like that, move out or don't visit... you probably still won't feel better.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 7:47 PM

Hey Stoner, I don't appreciate Neanderthals like the 7:47 poster using the "f" word on your blog.
If people cannot write decently, even though they may feel frustrated and mentally challenged, their statements should not be posted.

Posted by: guest at November 27, 2007 7:58 PM

What is all this crap about if you don't want luxury housing in a park that makes you a racist? What complete nonsense.
And I don't even understand the logic of how allowing the building of luxury condos ( to justify a pork bloated budget that included - at one time - armed security) would mean more "blacks" would be in the park.
Whoever posted that stuff must be so rich and white and out of touch with reality...
Actually - PLEASE go ahead and support the current park plan if you want white elitism to reign. Who else would wander the dune fringed estuaries on their way to their yacht? More likely to be fat cat whitey friends of ESDC principals, gifted with condos for the zoning allowances they enabled, than inner city "blacks" who might want to ice skate or swim...
This is just so ridiculous. Get rid of the housing - One Bklyn Bridge Park - if charged properly - could pay for entire park maintenance. Then there would be room for dunes and bird sanctuaries and kayak areas and a swimming pool and soccer fields.... build all of it! Just don't build anymore housing as a revenue maker - what about restaurants? Or bike rentals? The budget is so crazy now - just pull it in and get real. It is do-able - look at the park in DUMBO.
Enough about racism and name calling - just get real.

Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 6:42 PM

Whoo-hoo! Bike rentals? That would raise how much annually, you think? A few thousand at least. Now we're talking. That would pay for the garbage bag liners but, unfortunately, not the staff to change them periodically. We'll think of something. Got it! Hot dog cart.

Posted by: guest at November 29, 2007 9:24 AM

I would like to see an night sky observatory.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 8:00 PM