A Look at the Future of Brooklyn Bridge Park

Another post about the park proceeding to construction and once again, ten hours after Stoney posted, where are the "it'll never get built" comments now?

Posted by: guest at July 1, 2008 8:13 PM

It will be nice to actually see something green going in down there. I cannot blame people for being skeptical, we have been shown renderings for over a decade and all that seems to take place is political infighting and name-calling.
I look forward to the day when I look over the highway and see a park rather than a half-demolished warehouse and homely waterfall contraption.

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 10:18 AM

Is that a BMX track on the bottom left of the rendering? ;-)

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 10:46 AM

Regina Meyer did a good job. The problem is
she like the city and state are captives of the devlopers. Why are the piers that show off the housing sites(future and present) being devleoped first? Is it to make the housing sales and RFP process go ahead or is it to provide us with a park?

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 11:30 AM

A community advisory board is being developed by the Park Planners. Who is on the Board. Are all neighborhoods represented?

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 11:31 AM

It will never be built.

-see postings above.

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 11:39 AM

11:30 - I think you're a bit paranoid. The first opening of the park are at pier 1 and at pier 6 because those are the two ends of the park. It doesn't make sense to have an early opening of a portion in the middle of the park because then you'd have to get people through a construction site in order to get there. It makes the most sense to open the edges first and then allow people deeper and deeper into the park as construction progresses until both ends are connected by the promenade/greenway. It also happens that the development is located at the edges. This was in response to criticism by park haters that the development would overwhelm the park - so it was pushed to the edges where it also makes the most sense since that is where the City and all of it's commercial uses intersect the park, so that's where you should put the private development as you transition from City to Park.

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 11:51 AM

The "Park Haters" do not want a real park, they don't want any park because they don't want ordinary Brooklynites walking down Joralemon Street.
End of story.
Everything else is BS and misinformation worthy of Pyongyang's ministry of truth.

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 2:45 PM

"Secret Plan" is a bit overly dramatic - dontcha think? How secret could it be when it was the topic of countless public meetings, an EIS process and General Project Plan process. Also "foisted" is a little bit extreme. The previous plans were not realistic. They never generated nearly enough money to support the park and were pipe dreams laid out by people who don't have to get their hands dirty figuring out how to actually care for the park. Also - no matter where the development occured - at the ends or in the middle, the people who live at then ends would have to deal with the traffic - since the friggin' BQE cuts off all direct access from the central area. All traffic would have to approach the park and developments from the ends and then travel up Furman Street to the middle. So it's a bit disingenuous to say that the location of the development "burden" folks who live at the northern and southern ends. The BQE has been around for 50 years and it's a fact of life that must be dealt with.

And nothing in any of these comments indicates that anyone who's posted to here has any official relationship to BBP - so your last comment is just flat out makin' stuff up.

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 3:41 PM

bklyn20: You've posted about this Joralemon Street issue several times. The one thing I've never understood is - why do you think that there's going to be a flood of auto traffic coming down Joralemon? Anyone coming to the Park from the North would come via Old Fulton. Anyone coming from the south would turn onto Atlantic. Anyone coming from Central Brooklyn would use Atlantic, since, as you've mentioned is a wider street that runs pretty much the length of the borough. The only people for whom Joralemon Street would be the preferable entrance to the park would be those coming from Brooklyn Heights - and they are likely going to walk, not drive. Even is Joralemon isn't closed to traffic - it doesn't seem to make sense to me that it will become some sort of Superhighway to the park. Your concern seems unfounded.

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 3:52 PM

Yes - that's so unlike any thing else. Of course it was talked for a while before it was made public. DO you think that public officials just think of an idea and immediately tell the public they are contemplating it? THat would be idiotic. If an idea were being discussed, I would hope that those in power would discuss it for a while, think it all the way through and be prepared with a thorough well-thought out plan that would deal with all the repercussions of the idea before they go ahead and reveal the idea to the community and begin the public discussion.
And if you really want to have some credibility, I wouldn't go around quoting the Heights Press as your main source of info. What about the Dept of Education, or the School Construction Authority? Do they say that there's room in the school, or not?

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 4:09 PM

Joralemon is an important traffic street. It is the only direct connection with Furman and it will be one of only three connections to the park. That's the way it is. If they make Furman 2-way, then it will be even more important. I drive every day and there are streets in the Heights I rarely if ever drive on because they are basically dead ends or just one block long, but Joralemon is a link to the BQE and to all parts south.
No way the city will close Joralemon, they may as well close Henry or Clinton. Impossible.

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 4:43 PM

The truth is that our elected officals Connor, Yassky and Millman sold our waterfront and public spaces to developers and they should be held responsible. With all the new residents of Brooklyn (most affording expensive apartments to buy or rent) the increase in the state and local tax rolls should pay for the park. Pubic officals think they are empowered to do this kind of stuff. Pretty
amazing!!

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 4:43 PM

Since city tax dollars are not remotely sufficient to maintain Central Park or Prospect Park (hence the need for non-profits to raise private money)I very much doubt that there would be tax money available for the maintenance of the BB Park. Where do people get such notions? Are they even living on the same planet? Or are they in some Brooklyn Heights old geezer alternate reality?

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 4:54 PM

I've been hearing about this park since 1987, when I was still almost a kid. My father is still laughing about its endless delays. At least this is a start. My kid points out the progress every day - if it happens by 2012, that'd be great.

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 8:41 PM

To the person who asked about representation on the board? It is completely not representative of the eventual park users. The five locals who sit on the board all live in the central Heights, on the Promenade or within a couple of blocks. They are John Watts, Hank Guttman, Joanne Witty, Peter Ashkenasy and David Offensend. All have their interests satisfied- nothing much to do in this park but bird watch (read: no people or lights or noise to contend with), no access from the promenade, and a bunch of rich folks like themselves to guard each of the entrances in high rise condos.

To the Conservancy flak who wrote that putting luxury housing at the entrances serves "to transition from the city to the park" - what a bunch of hooey is that?! The city surrounds us so there is no need for transitioning - we need an honest to goodness park with pools, ice rinks and indoor sport facilities. Don't you see the statistics on childhood obesity, diabetes and asthma? This is a sorry excuse for a "park" and the $340 million that will be spent to landscape private homes.

Posted by: guest at July 3, 2008 5:28 AM

It was a mistake to plan any sort of public park there at all. we should take care of the parks we already have. The land should have been sold to a developer for top dollar. I'm tired of paying taxes for vanity projects like this. How many millions so far? For what? Rich folks fighting with each other as to what would make a better public park? The city needs the revenue, they should have just sold it and let honest-to-goodness private, tax-paying buildings be built there. So much crap from the entitled neighbors. As if they are the only ones who should live in the area and all new building should stop.

Posted by: guest at July 3, 2008 9:52 AM

Sorry you don't believe in parks, 9:52 AM. They help improve neighborhoods in so many ways, beyond the obvious uses for active and passive recreation. Too bad you want to give up on this one. But it is understandable - the Brooklyn Heights Assn and the Conservancy have ruined this "park" for everyone, be they rich, middle class or poor. They have trumpeted taking tax dollars out of the general tax roll to be given over to their one pet "project" (it isn't even a park according to Regina Meyer's own bosses and the courts). But it is sad that you aren't willing to put that anger toward advocating for a true park. Brooklyn has the least amount of park land per person in NYC. This shoreline is fabulous - it should be accessible to all and not to a few people rich enough to live on it.

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 8:22 AM

Noone "ruined" this park for everyone. It will still be a beautiful PUBLIC park for all of Brooklyn to enjoy, with great views of the harbor and lower manhattan. It's true that the design of the park will be different from the one that was out there for a couple of years. And the design you want may even be better than the current design - but all this rhetoric about how the park is just the exclusive backyard for rich people is just not helpfull or accurate.

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 11:12 AM