Amidst Lingering Controversy, BBP Construction to Begin

I'm all for landmarks, but I this building just does not seem worthy. Onwards!

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 9:04 AM

I am a strong advocate of preservation, but I think that in this case, demolition will create such a magnificent vista of the brooklyn bridge that I think there will be a net gain to the community.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 9:05 AM

I've been hearing that construction is going to "happen next month or next year" for so long now that I'll believe it when I see it. I agree that the building should come down.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 9:14 AM

All Roy Sloane does is complain - both with his Cobble Hill Assoc, and apparently now with BBP. Yawn.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 9:15 AM

I actually like this building--a nice little post-deco/early mid-century gem. I wish they could move it somewhere nearby but out of the park.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 9:52 AM

Judi Francis is not the voice of the community as she does not live in Dumbo, Fulton Ferry or Vinegar Hill. She's just your typical modern day gadfly.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 10:27 AM

I think Judy Francis is disingenuous. All she wants to do is kill the park, and I'm thinking at this point it is all about a vendetta of some kind agaisnt the Brooklyn Heights Association. So odd.
The Purchase Building is less than heart-throbbing. It should have been torn down by now, but everything about this park moves at a glacial pace.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 11:10 AM

This city needs another Robert Moses (who built the entire Riverside Park and Henry Hudson Parkway in less then 3 years). I am so tired of these community "activists", would-be hack politicians (aka community boards), etc. Moses knew how to deal with these Luddites.

Tear this building down and let's get mocving with the park.

Benson

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 11:17 AM

Let's get moving with the park is right. It is so telling that the same folks who are up in arms about a new building on Dock Street because it will impede the view of the Bridge, although it is actually near the on-ramp, do not want to see these truly magnificent views of the Bridge opened up. And these views would be from a park.
Ridiculous anti-everything activists. No wonder they are more and more ignored.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 11:33 AM

why do you assume that these are the same people 11:33? I would think the same people opposed to that crappy new building are in favor of the removal of this building. Get it? It's about the bridge! Let's see it, we like it. It is the very symbol of NY. Dont f#$%@! it up for everyone with an ugly, inappropiately large building that will benefit only a few. Namely the developer.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 11:47 AM

It is the same people who are opposed to the demolition of this building that are also opposed to the new building on Dock Street. The exact same people and the same groups such as the Fulton Ferry Assoc, the Dumbo community assoc. the BHA, etc etc.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 12:00 PM

I haven't heard one person on this post or else where oppose the demolition of this building. Odd that you are so quick to assign blame and drive wedges. "Neighborhood association: bad" "Crappy new, oversized development: good" Why don't you prove your statement. Right here. On this post. I double dare you.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 12:18 PM

To some of us, there is still such a thing as private property, so having an opinion about some Walentas construction is not worth it. As for the public park, I'd rather see open space than that p.o.s.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 12:29 PM

Something I've been wondering about: What is Judi Francis's deal with the park. Everytime anything is ever announced about the park, there's a quote from her denouncing it. Has she ever explained what exactly the problem is with building a new park is?

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 12:30 PM

If you haven't heard anyone oppose the demolition of this building then you are out of it. The Landmarks Commission approved the demolition over the strong objections of all the surrounding community organizations. Some individuals in those organizations may ne in favor of the demo but if so they are keeping their thoughts to themselves. If you oppose Dock Street but are in favor of the demo of the Purchase Building, you are in a small minority of vocal activists.
The politically correct stand among the "gentry" is to oppose Dock Street and oppose the demo of Purchase. That's that.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 12:30 PM

Let's get rid of this building, and NOT build Dock Street. That would be a nice solution.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 12:37 PM

I don't see the inconsistency in the preservationists' position. This is a two story building. It doesn't really block pedestrians or views (widening the perspective on the photo above would reveal this). The proposed Dock Street building would be much, much taller. The absurdity of the comparison suggests deep antipathies toward the "activists" that undermine reasonable consideration.

This building is an impressive example of New Deal modernism, and, like the Williamsburg Houses, complicates architectural history. Up close, it really stands out from the other service buildings in the area. A little care would make it shine in the park.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 12:43 PM

I usually don't read blogs but thought I would at least try to shed light on the BBP Defense Fund's position on the "park". First, the communities that surround the park - all of them - developed and signed off on a great park plan in 2001, a plan that led the state and city to commit funds to build it. That plan also had enough revenue - almost $10 million - to sustain it without any need for housing. That plan, forged by thousands of hours of volunteers' time and significant community input and, again, community agreement across the board, was never even considered when, on Christmas eve 2004 a housing development was foisted on the public - totally without community input. Now we have a plan that is stripped of the top features the communities requested: swimming pools, ice rink, indoor field house, outdoor amphitheater and a place to have drinks out on the piers. But we do have 1250 luxury apartments inside the park. And whether or not you personally like the Purchase building, all the communities that surround the park also spoke out about trying to preserve this building - with many suggestions for reusing the building as a restaurant or ice rink (also serving the need for revenue generation). Once again, the requests by the communities -all the surrounding civic associations as well as city-wide Landmark preservation groups - were ignored by the ESDC. So now we have just the most expensive "park" without any year round recreation and limited access along its perimeter. Oh, and 1250 units of private luxury housing - a precedent. How do you feel about 6 high-rise towers inside of Prospect Park? I welcome a conversation and/or a meeting to outline the specifics of the Defense Fund, and how we we are working for a real park - and a real park, the sooner the better. My number is 718.797.9830. I have the courage not to hide behind an anonymous moniker- I hope you will speak to me, particularly if you would like to help us secure the great park Brooklyn deserves. Judi Francis, President of the BBP Defense Fund

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 12:51 PM

It is really a cool building architecturally and it is too bad that people couldn't figure out a way to save it. Seems like it wouldn't have been that hard to come up with a plan that preserves the building.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 1:19 PM

12:51,
your arguement is full of holes.
It is well-crafted propaganda, I grant you,
and it misleads beautifully.
The facts on the ground are that the powers that be do not have the money to build, much less maintain, a new park. I think many of us are hopeful that Gov. Spitzer will come up with the money to start building the park but he will never relent on the funds for maintaining the park. Those funds will be generated by 360 Furman St. formerly owned by the Jehovahs, now being converted to hundreds of luxury apartments, and three other much, much smaller residential buildings to be built in the formerly manufacturing-zoned area west of Furman Street. The difference between this and putting up towers in Prospect Park is that Prospect Park is a park and has been one for a long time. There is no park along Furman St, there never has been one. Perhaps some day, one will be built, regardless of your opposition. That new park will be maintained by the "payments in lieu of taxes" or PILOT funds generated by the residential buildings NEXT TO the park. By far the biggest of these buildings, previoulsy cited, was built in the 1920's. You do yourself and the community a diservice by twisting the truth and producing compelling mistatements that have the power to confuse and convince the impressionable and those who do not have the facts at their disposal.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 1:29 PM

Ms. Lewis;

I repeat my statement that this city needs a new Robert Moses, to deal with the likes of community activists such as your organization.

Your statement above is amazing to me. It is written as if there is no political process in this town. If the "community" is so outraged that part of a former industrial area is being converted to residential use, and most is being converted to a parkland, then why aren't they contacting their local representative? Why aren't the letters pouring in?? As the old expression goes, politicians count votes, and surely if there was such an overwhelming consensus of oppostion, as you state, they would have gotten the message.

I am also boggled by your laundry list of requested amentities. Do you want a park, or a country club? If it's the latter, who will pay for the amentities? Where was the revenue coming from that you state ($10 million)?

It seems to me that you are typical of many community activists who are willing to block all progress unless you get your way on everything. You are not satisfied with the compromises that are the normal part of any political process, so you take to the courts.

Benson

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 2:20 PM

Most of the apartments that will be paying into the park maintenance are in 1 Brooklyn Bridge Park, aka 360 Furman Street. Those apartments will be sold and inhabited whether or not a new park is created next door. Isn't it better that the real estate taxes paid by those condo owners go to maintain the park rather than into the City's general fund? It's a no-brainer.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 2:46 PM

12:43
what are you talking about? Have you ever walked down by the Purchase Building? It completely blocks the view of the waterfront to pedestrians on Front Street and of the north sweep of the shoreline from the Fulton Ferry Park.
It is one big view-blocker. Just because it is not a highrise does not mean it is a good building. It is a very long ugly warehouse that not only blocks the view but also blocks circulation north and south on the park. By contrast the Dock Street building will block the voews of the condo owners behind it in DUMBO, but very little from any pedestrian's point of view. Believe it or not, when people are walking over the Brooklyn Bride, their gazes are not fixated on the ugly factories of DUMBO.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 3:05 PM

Dear demolition crew,

Block the view of the bridge? The bridge is 100 feet above! The bridge blocks the waterview if that's what's so goddam pprecious to you. Plus the Parks Department is going to put something in its place. Plus things fall from the bridge ALL THE TIME.

Talk about something you know.

xoxo

Preservation Girl

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 3:59 PM

Anyone who is willing to contest what will be an amazing 85 acre PUBLIC park, with or without housing included, needs a good beat down.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 7:23 PM

...and anyone who thinks state-forced private housing in public parks is a good thing should move to a soviet-styled state where they can be told when to eat and when to do all other bodily things, too. no doubt comforting for them.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 7:39 PM

Can we give out a trophy for that one? That is quite possibly the most asinine, and completely unrelated, comment of the day. Kudos to you!!

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 8:24 PM

8:24 I agree with you.
The prior posting (7:39) is perhaps the most asinine run-on sentence I have ever read on this blog and that includes things written by "the What".
The most Soviet style thing I detect is the "big lie" crafted and repeated ad nauseum by Judy francis and her little gang of four or whatever. Lying to people and crafting propaganda is the old Soviet style, building new parks and funding their maintenance by PILOT funds is extremely un-Soviet, it is actually smart new thinking.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 8:37 PM

Judy Francis would have been a favorite of Stalin. Until of course one day he would have gotten suspicious of her and had her murdered in one of his purges.

Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 8:45 PM

I like what they did in that new Will Smith movie - really opens up the views from DUMBO across to south st. seaport, where that pesky middle of the span had been blocking the view before.

Posted by: guest at December 21, 2007 1:04 AM

I can't say I feel too much attachment to that building. The photo above paints it nicer than it actually appears up close and in person... it is sort of an early/mid century utilitarian number shoved under the bridge. It impedes a line of sight from the park to the water... although I guess if the ugly astroturf fences were removed and people could at least walk directly around it from the park to the landing it wouldn't be as obtrusive as it is now.

That said I am surprised about all the other crap residing under the area bridges that could be removed or relocated to improve the vibe of the neighborhood. The manhattan bridge has a bunch of city equipment shoved under it and fenced off, and a huge, ugly one-story city iron workshop of some sort. Why not also consider clearing all that mess out for better views of the historic bridge and better public spaces and foot traffic flow in the area??? Just opening up the arch that divides Water Street would make for a beautiful walk and continuation of the recent public plaza addition...

Posted by: guest at December 24, 2007 3:15 AM

Thank goodness for the Historic District Council that has long protected historic buildings throughout the city. They helped champion landmark districts, and create them, like DUMBO. And if they think, which they do, that the Purchase Building is good and should be kept and reused for the park, it should. Dumbo residents should be grateful and should work to protect the other structures designated to be demo-ed for this residential complex - the Cold Storage buildings are also endangered in this non-park. Let's reuse these buildings for an honest to goodness park. We sure do need indoor recreation. We don't need more luxury housing. It is a damn shame what has happened to our park.

Posted by: guest at January 13, 2008 11:24 AM