B-stoner - that's the Roosevelt ISLAND Bridge not Roosevelt Avenue.

Yes - the dog run is on Pier 6 (Atlantic Ave). These are pics of Pier 1 (Old Fulton St).

Don't believe anything you read in the Brooklyn Paper about this park. They are full of misinformation. The Brooklyn Eagle (also free) is much better.

Posted by: bkre at March 16, 2010 2:27 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park's Pier 1 Coming Together

newelyork - you are missing something. I've been on a tour recently and can tell you that the photos don't do it justice. But soon enough it'll be open and then you can see for yourself.

The lawns will be open for people to sit on. The fencing you see around them has openings in it for access to the lawns.

The little house is for both utilities and a small concession stand.

I think I remember hearing that the dog run will open later this summer.

The lights actually cast a very cool glow over the area - not intensely bright like a prison yard. They are already working you can check that out yourself tonight after sundown.

Posted by: bkre at March 16, 2010 1:32 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park's Pier 1 Coming Together

Not at all pete. I'm just saying that if you look at the comments on her blog on this issue, some of them seem especially hate-filled. Nothing katia herself has said on the issue has been any different than her normal whining. But I would just expect that as a german, she'd be a little more sensitive to people using her blog as a forum to make those kind of comments with no rebuke from her. I kept on reading her posts waiting for her to say something similar to what to what lesloaf said at 1:23 "disagree, but don't be disagreeable". But nothing.

Posted by: bkre at March 15, 2010 11:06 PM in response to Hannah Sennesh Shalt Not Build on Courtyard

SO what you're saying is that the Navy Yard was right - this building is structurally unsound? Interesting. Isn't it funny how one by one these buildings are all proving that the Navy Yard folks were right when they said that these buildings were not structurally sound? Time reveals all...

Posted by: bkre at March 15, 2010 9:17 PM in response to Timber Shed To Be Stabilized While Admiral's Row Drags On

I see Epiphany that you are one of those Brownstoner commenters who can't believe that anyone could disagree with them without having a hidden agenda. So let me elaborate:
1) I have a kid, but not of school age, so I don't have connection to the school whatsoever
2) If you think that private school elementary teachers get paid more than public school teachers, you obviously don't know any teachers. I have friends who are both private school and public school teachers, they all get paid appallingly little, with no marked difference between their salaries.
3) In general i actually hate when people throw around accusations of racism and I almost never do it. But I've been following this issue on PMFA and the tenor of the comments clearly goes beyond the usual whiny-ness and seems to extend into the "who do these jews think they are, coming into OUR neighborhood and flaunting our zoning regulations". I find that extremely offensive. Zoning overrides or variances happen all the time. It doesn't imply that people who apply for them think they are better than you and that regular rules don't apply to them.
4)It IS possible to have nice neighborhoods without the Carroll Gardens attitude. Fort Green is lovely and I find the residents there to be much more reasonable for some reason. Prospect Heights too.
5) Yes, it is racist to imply that katia is an anti-semite just because she's german. I was more commenting on the creepiness of a german blogger leading the charge against a jewish school. Most germans I know still feel enough residual guilt that they would shy away from this issue.
6) In general I am very pro the setbacks in Carroll Gardens. But I find it hard to believe that granting this variance would be a slippery slope. This is clearly a special case and one which would not necessarily set a precedent for anyone who wanted to to get rid of their front yard. I'm sorry, it's just true.

Posted by: bkre at March 15, 2010 9:07 PM in response to Hannah Sennesh Shalt Not Build on Courtyard

Epiphany - you strike me as an extremely distasteful and angry person. Besides that, you should recognize that there is a difference between a "business" and non-profit educational facility. Please, I mean really. Comlaining about how entities "profit". You know who "profits" the kids who get a little more space.

Also, As I understand it, this piece of land is currently owned by the City, not the school, so don't blame the school for it being trash strewn.

There is difference between a private homeowner adding space to their living room and school expanding its facilities. We should all do what we can to make sure that schools have all the resources they need, whether they are public or private. If this were a catholic school I'd feel the same way on this issue. I get the sense that PMFA and Epiphany can't say the same.

And yes, the satmar hassidim in williamsburg are very xenophobic and I condemn that as well. This is not a satmar institution. Or do all those jews look the same to you?

Posted by: bkre at March 15, 2010 3:15 PM in response to Hannah Sennesh Shalt Not Build on Courtyard

Is it just me, or was anyone else made pretty uncomfortable by many of the xenophobic comments made on the Pardon Me for Asking postings of this story? There were an unusual high number of comments about how the kids who go to this school don't live in carroll gardens. It seemed to be code for "they're not like us". Especially since this is a jewish school and the blogger is german.

Rob is right - Carroll Gardens seems to think that they are their own special enclave and not a part of a larger city. It wouldn't surprise me if there started to be call for Caroll Gardens to secede from the City. It's a shame too, because other than the whiny people, Carroll Gardens is a beautiful neighborhood.

Posted by: bkre at March 15, 2010 10:28 AM in response to Hannah Sennesh Shalt Not Build on Courtyard

Heather - don't mention dollar stores! You'll get Rob all riled up and he'll send out one of his rants about how great dollar stores are. Rob just said that he approved of a relatively high-end, high-culture retail use. That's a huge step for him. Don't let him backslide into rants about dollar stores, 40's of malt liquor and poo mist in en-suite bathrooms.

Posted by: bkre at March 12, 2010 10:43 AM in response to Details on BAM's Purchase of Forte Retail Space

True - but the ideology here does not come from the park builders either. It comes from the general regulatory environment. The park builders were responding the rules laid out in front of them.

And if in fact these things can be salvaged with minimal extra cost, then why shouldn't builders be forced to respect historical structures and keep a little extra material out of landfills? Why is that not an admirable goal?

Posted by: bkre at February 26, 2010 1:33 PM in response to Those Recycled Pine Benches at Brooklyn Bridge Park

Also benson - please keep in mind that blasting is not allowed in demolition in NYC. So that's not an apt comparison when comparing costs to salvage. While I tend to agree with you that in all likelihood it costs more to salvage than to do a straight demo, i think the cost differential is not as great as you think. Therefore, it would not surprise me at all to learn that the additional salvage costs or less than or equal to the cost to acquire new wood or manufacture some sort of synthetic material for the benches.

And before you go off telling me that I don't know what i'm talking about, you should know that i have worked on several projects in my career that have analyzed the costs of new materials versus salvaged materials and found that to be true - although we both need to admit that the details of each project will make alot of difference in cost and we don't really know them in this project.

Posted by: bkre at February 26, 2010 1:17 PM in response to Those Recycled Pine Benches at Brooklyn Bridge Park

Benson - the wood was milled in Greenpoint. Not exactly 50 yards, but the point still stands.

Also - pig three and square drive are correct. You have no idea how much extra it cost to salvage the wood and how that compares to the cost of buying brand new wood, or some type of synthetic material. It's a perfectly reasonable question to raise, and I would also be interested in the answer. But you start criticizing the park builders based on your assumption of what that answer is - which is based on absolutely zero knowledge by you. That's where your argument goes off the rails.

And even if it did wind up costing a bit more, since this is a park, aesthetics matter. Would central park be so important if it were just one big lawn? You're starting to get into Ringo's territory where he always makes the ridiculous claim that they should just lay some sod down on the piers and be done with the whole thing.

Clearly aesthetics are not the only thing that matter, and the park builders have the responsibility to balance the parks beauty with the cost to build and with the final functionality. So far it looks to me like they're doing a good job.

Posted by: bkre at February 26, 2010 12:42 PM in response to Those Recycled Pine Benches at Brooklyn Bridge Park

A while back there was a press release that said that the state historic preservation folks had approved the demolition of the cold storage building on the condition that the re-usable materials were salvaged and used in the park.

The cold storage building needed to be demolished since it was not in great shape to begin with and also difficult to re-use.

So if they already had the requirement to demolish the buildings and if the they had to salvage the materials to demolish, then this seems like a great way to re-use the materials on site.

They would have had to salvage materials anyway, so I don't really think you should be looking at this, the way benson has, as an additional expense.

This photo is of Pier 1. The benches are facing south with a view towards the statue of liberty.

Posted by: bkre at February 26, 2010 11:52 AM in response to Those Recycled Pine Benches at Brooklyn Bridge Park

Maybe I missed something: What does this house have to do with Fresh Direct?

Posted by: bkre at February 22, 2010 1:40 PM in response to House of the Day: 186 Dean Street

Out in the country,
Far from all the soot and noise of the city,
There’s a village green.
It’s been a long time
Since I last set eyes on the church with the steeple
Down by the village green.
’twas there I met a girl called Daisy
And kissed her by the old oak tree.
Although I loved my Daisy, I sought fame,
And so I left the village green.
I miss the village green,And all the simple people.
I miss the village green,The church, the clock, the steeple.
I miss the morning dew, fresh air and sunday school.
And now all the houses are rare antiquities,
American tourists flock to see the village green.
They snap their photographs and say
"Gawd darn it,Isn’t it a pretty scene?"
And Daisy’s married Tom the grocer boy,
And now he owns a grocery.
I miss the village green,And all the simple people.
I miss the village green,The church, the clock, the steeple.
I miss the morning dew, fresh air and sunday school.
And I will return there,And I’ll see daisy,
And we’ll sip tea, laugh,And talk about the village green.
We will laugh and talk about the village green.

-Village Green by Ray Davies

Posted by: bkre at February 22, 2010 10:38 AM in response to The New Gentrification

Rob - that's one of the better questions you've ever asked. I'm curious to hear what people would say. I would think that "low price/high interest rate" is better because eventually, when mortgage rates go down you can refinance and wind up with the best of both worlds - "low price/low interest rate".

Posted by: bkre at February 16, 2010 10:48 AM in response to Removal of Band-Aids to Reveal Deeper Housing Wounds?

I don't really think she was throwing hate at hedge funders. SHe wasn't implying that a hedge funder deserves this to happen. She was just saying that a losing a $500K investment would be bad for a hedge funder, but in all likelihood would not represent the loss of his/her entire life savings. However for the people buying here, $500K is their entire nest egg.

Also reading the article - what a terrible story! A young developer reaches out to a much richer man whom he considers his "mentor" to invest in his project, then that mentor decides that the young guy doesn't know what he's doing and tries to force him out! And all these innocent buyers are caught in the middle!

Posted by: bkre at February 16, 2010 10:10 AM in response to Hello, Lawsuits

1) Maybe you don't realize it, but accusing people of only holding their well-though out positions only because it furthers their hidden private agendas is just as insulting as anything Minard, G-man or I have said about you in this thread. So think about that before you try to claim the high ground.

2) The list of parks in poor neighborhoods in need is very large, and the parks department is always underfunded. My point is that the situation would be WORSE, not better if not for private fund raising being done by the central part conservancy. Whatever money currently goes to upper manhattan parks would be even less if the parks department also had to shoulder the burden of paying for all the maintenance of Central Park. I think you know that one too, even if you won't admit it here.

Posted by: bkre at February 9, 2010 1:23 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park: Private-Public Pros and Cons

bklyn20 - as I've already told you, I'm not a broker. Assuming that I'm a broker because my login is bkre is about as intelligent as me assuming that you have molested 20 underage brooklyn boys, and that's why your login is bklyn20. If you insist on perpetuating your lies about me based on my login, then I will do the same.

The person who write for brownstoner is Montrose Morris, not Minard. Why does everyone who think you that you're full of shit have to have some deep dark conspiracy-theory inspired conflict of interest? Maybe they are just intelligent people who see through your idiotic arguments?

Personally, I'm not sure that Minard is correct in assuming that the reason that people like you are against this park is because of racism. I try to avoid throwing around those kind of accusations unless i have more proof. I think that people like you just think that you know more than anyone else on the planet and despite the fact that we are dealing in an area where you have ZERO expertise, and despite the fact that all available empirical evidence points against you, you insist on maligning the good folks who are trying to make our communities better by building a world class park.

Now on to your argument - saying that parks will never get built in poor neighborhoods is another clear lie. You've actually completely turned the truth on its head on this one. The fact is that the parks department has limited funds to pay for new parks. Therefore, if you set up a model where parks in wealthy neighborhoods, where real estate is valuable, follow the BBP model, then that would FREE up resources to allow the city parks department to pay for parks in neighborhoods that couldn't avail themselves of the BBP model. As we speak the parks department is building or planning dozens of parks in the poorer neighborhoods of the City. They would NOT be able to afford to maintain these parks if they had to take on the $16 million to maintain BBP. DO you even think before you type?

Posted by: bkre at February 9, 2010 9:46 AM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park: Private-Public Pros and Cons

Minard - thanks for calling out bklyn20 on his continuing attempts to spread those "condo with some landscaping" lies. I'm having a similar debate with him over on the broolyn heights blog. Boerum hill is right that there's definitely a different feel between Battery Park and Riverside, but I think that has more to do with the huge elevation change between riverside drive and the park that makes the park feel more separate. Also Battery Park City was SUPPOSED to be a condo (and office) development with some park around the edges, and I think it succeeded admirably. if you look at the BBP plan, the ratio of park to buildings is nothing like that at BPC. Also - anyone who has seen what Pier 1 looks like (it's pretty much finished) will attest to the fact that it's far more than just some landscaping around a condo. it's a bonafide park with plenty of greenscape and lush lawns.

Posted by: bkre at February 8, 2010 5:06 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park: Private-Public Pros and Cons

I think *rob* should change his login from "butterfly" to "The Pink Elephant".

Posted by: bkre at February 5, 2010 10:11 AM in response to Closing Bell: Got Gentrification?

I was there. He DEFINITELY said that he wanted to do retail on the ground floor with some sort of "quasi-residential" use above. When asked what he meant, he said that he thought it would be a great location for student housing. Scumbag.

Posted by: bkre at February 4, 2010 2:28 PM in response to Sitt Reverses on Student Housing for Red Hook

Not surprising at all. In fact they probably could have gotten $550/SF if they wanted to move them just a tad slower. For years this building was overpriced. I believe it opened at a little over $750/SF. If they had actually come out the gate at something between $600 and $650/Sf in 2007, they would have had a successful project on their hands and we would have had way fewer Frownstoner posts about this building. Instead, because of developer and bank greed, this building is now entrenched in everyone's mind as a failure. Remember a couple of months ago when someone kept on insisting that prices were going to have to drop to $300/SF in order to unload these? Whoever that was should come on this thread and own up to it. If you're gonna make a ridiculous claim like that, you should have the balls to own up to it and offer a mea culpa when you get proven so drastically wrong.

Posted by: bkre at February 3, 2010 10:09 AM in response to Forte 100% Spoken For!

I'm not a huge fan of Goldman Sachs either, but I'm not sure what you think they have to do with this. The reason the money is just sitting there is because the CIty is holding on to it to pour into Gov Island and BBP. These negotiations have been going on for a while.

Posted by: bkre at February 1, 2010 1:02 PM in response to Jostling for Control of Brooklyn Bridge Park

The reason there is no longer a working port at these docks has to do with containerization. This technological innovation made ports much more efficient, so that is how all ports work nowadays. The problem is that you need to have significantly more upland space in order to have a container port. Because of the cliff of Brooklyn Heights there was not nearly enough uplands space. There was sufficient space in Port Newark and Port Elizabeth, that's why container ports were built there and activity at the Brooklyn Piers declined.

There are actually REAL reasons why these types of things happen. Why don't you invest some time to learn them rather than making up conspiracy theories?

Posted by: bkre at February 1, 2010 1:01 PM in response to Jostling for Control of Brooklyn Bridge Park

giovannina - I'm not going to argue about the merits of closing down fire houses, or in general how richer neighborhoods get better services than poor ones - but I would like to point out that there's a big difference between taking on a one-time CAPITAL expense to build something and taking on a ongoing OPERATIONAL expense to run something. To the layman, money is money, but you really have to understand the difference between operations and capital before you make silly comments like that. Getting rid of this park would do absolutely nothing to help keep firestations open. You're setting up a false choice.

Posted by: bkre at February 1, 2010 11:20 AM in response to Jostling for Control of Brooklyn Bridge Park

DIBS - you haven't heard Polemicist's rant about how high housing costs in new york are caused by rent-stabilization laws which artificially constrict the housing supply? I feel like I've seen him post it at least once a month or so. That's the public policy he's referring to. Of course it very conveniently ignores the fact that high housing costs in NYC are caused not just by a somewhat constrained supply - but by the fact the New York City is the single most attractive place for young people who are looking to make something of themselves to move. There may be something to the fact that the supply side is low, but I'm betting that it has much more to do with an extremely strong demand curve. Rent Stabilization laws in Dubuque, Iowa would not lead to NYC-style housing costs.

Posted by: bkre at January 25, 2010 12:34 PM in response to Luxury Rentals Abound

believe it or not, artists do not cause gentrification. low self-esteem does.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at January 13, 2010 9:16 AM

Rob - But isn't low self-esteem what causes art? so it all comes full circle...

Posted by: bkre at January 13, 2010 12:55 PM in response to Wednesday Links

Pony - I don't know what your agenda is, but all your doing is spreading lies. Walentas does not plan on tearing down Empire Stores. He has NEVER proposed that. You're making up a controversy. Also, any changes to the building would require approval from the the State Preservation Office which would obviously never approve tearing it down. Go spread your lies somewhere else.

Also, the lights in the park are still being fine tuned and have not yet been calibrated, so let's wait until the park actually opens before spreading even more lies about the lighting in the park.

Posted by: bkre at January 5, 2010 2:17 PM in response to Empire-Fulton Ferry Park Temporarily Closing

No. You misunderstand me. The funds for the renovation of Empire Fulton Ferry Park is being paid for from a $3.5 million donation from Walentas. No public money is being used to renovate the park. Walentas will donates the carousel, install it, build a building around it and donate $3.5 million to the park so that they can do the renovation work on the park (extend the lawn, put in lights, fix the drainage). This has all been reported on a couple of times already.

Posted by: bkre at January 4, 2010 12:31 PM in response to Empire-Fulton Ferry Park Temporarily Closing

According to some articles I remember reading some weeks ago, the construction budget for the renovation of this park is coming from David and Jane Walentas as part of their donation of the carousel. $3.5 million, I believe. While I agree that Albany is a mess, I don't think that will have a direct impact on this construction.

Posted by: bkre at January 4, 2010 10:54 AM in response to Empire-Fulton Ferry Park Temporarily Closing

The park is being closed to install the carousel and also to extend the lawn significantly and to fix the horrible drainage problems that always turn that lawn into a mud pit when it rains. Also they're installing lighting so the park will be able to be open at night (up until now it closed at dusk). When it re-opens it'll be operated by the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corp, not state parks, which means that they will likely allow dogs. Also it means that their operations budget is coming from the development sites, not from the state parks operations budget.

Posted by: bkre at January 4, 2010 10:41 AM in response to Empire-Fulton Ferry Park Temporarily Closing

As I understand it from some friends of mine who work for the parks department, the real problem with skiing or boarding in City parks is that it destroys the lawns underneath and means that the parks dept will have to spend $$$$ that spring to have the lawns re-sodded.

Posted by: bkre at December 30, 2009 12:40 PM in response to Closing Bell: Snowboarding on the Urban Slopes

Nice, IJ. Glad to see I wasn't the only one who got the Phish reference...

Posted by: bkre at December 19, 2009 11:41 PM in response to Closing Bell: Bag It, Tag It at The Flea

"Hasidim like Benetton because they are only allowed to wear natural fibers. Since benetton clothing is mostly made of wool, silk and cotton they have alot to choose from."

Not true. Not sure where you're getting that from. Hasidim won't wear clothes made out of fabric that mixes wool and linen, since that's shatnez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnes) but there's no restriction on articial fibers.

Posted by: bkre at November 20, 2009 11:54 AM in response to Huh? Benetton for Bed Stuy Stretch of Bedford Avenue

I'm sorry, I thought the line was "this will be worthless once AY is built". When did that change to "this will be worth MORE once AY is built"?

Posted by: bkre at November 18, 2009 3:18 PM in response to Streetlevel: Vinnie's Styles Opening New Store on Flatbush

FOr what it's worth I believe this one is Ratner, not Boymelgreen. Don't mix up your evil Brooklyn Developers...

Posted by: bkre at November 18, 2009 11:53 AM in response to Atlantic Terminal Station: So Close!

1) I didn't call you an opponent of the park - I called you an opponent of the park plan. I admit that you are pro-park, but anti-this plan. I didn't think that was being critical at all - wouldn't you agree that that's an acurate statement, that you're an opponent of this park plan?

2)I know that you didn't intially bring up indoor recreation, I did. But once the subject came up you offered that it could easily happen in 1BBP, which I was debunking.

3)Different type of landscapes have different types of maintenace costs. If you're going to start to parse them then you should discount any comparisons to Hudson RIver Park too since that is mostly hardscape. Surely it's cheaper to sweep hardscape than to mow, prune, plantt, etc? ALso, Hudson RIver park also includes water in their acrage number. It's actually very commonplace among waterfront parks. If you had perspective amongst many parks of this type you wouldn't fall for Judi Francis' lies.

4)The ESDC is a big organiztion. Somethings they have doen well, others they have done poorly. THe people working on Brooklyn Bridge park are not the same people working on Atlantic Yards. ANd my information comes froma variety of sources, including the City Parks Department and the regional plan association. All of your info seems to be coming from Judi Francis.

5)I admited in my statement that Battery Park CIty was different becuase of the different ratio of Park to Development. My point was that the notion of using Development revenue to fund maintenance of a park is not a new idea. However different the ratios are, Battery Park City Proves that point. And your point about teardrop point is misleading. Teardrop is in fact a neighbrohood park, but the other parks there are decidedly regional. I don't live anywhere near there yet I go there all the time. I've seen many 4th of July concerts there.

6)You're statement about the street is totally false. THe streets will look and feel like public streets and the they will connect Atlantic Ave to Joralemon Street. Everyone will be able to see exactly how flase this is when the portion of the park near Atlantic Ave opens in a couple of months. In fact if you go to the corner of furman and atlantic you can already see it for yourself. THe curbs and paved roads have already been installed and you can see them yourself. Looks alot like a public road and nothing like a driveway.

7)Again you are missing my point on the PIRC. My point is that the PIRC will not generate enough money to fund the park. Squadron's formulas are full of holes. ALso the revenue that will be generated will not be generated in a timeframe that matches up with when the park needs the money.

8)THe purpose of the maps are to help people understand what they're looking at when they see the construction that is currently happening. Since there's no development happening now, that wasn't labeleld, Make sense to me, but what do I know, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Hope I did my share to slow the Judi Francis propoganda machine.

Posted by: bkre at November 16, 2009 8:09 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park Progress Report

To respond to some of your points:
1) Indoor recreational facilities require large column free spaces with at lest 20 feet of ceiling height. Those are 2 qualities that are unavailable in 1BBP. It's actually pretty typical of opponents of the park plan to suggest alternatives that sound like they would work but really don't upon further inspection.

2)My point was there are large lawns being built RIGHT NOW. And the soccer fields to be built on pier 5 actually are indeed funded. The piers that are not yet funded are pier 2 (which includes basketball courts), Pier 3 (which in another large lawn) and half of Pier 6. ALso, I am very confident these piers will get built. Look at Hudson River Park - that has been built in phases over years and in the beginning only the first phases were funded. Every year another section was funded. I have full confidence that that's what will happen here.

3)The 85 acres includes 12 acres of water and 8 cares of development, so the remaining land left for park is 65 acres. The General Project Plan which is the document that allowed up to 20% of the project to be used for development, was including the water area, so it's only appropriate to include the water area when comparing the fact that this plan uses less than 10% to that 20% number in the GPP. Also, it is appropriate to use the water area when calculating the maintenance/acre costs for 2 reasons. First, the water area will provide a substantial amount of recreation space. Wave attenuators will create a safe harbor zone that will be conducive to kayaking and conoeing. The water will also house a marina. Secondly, the water areas of the park add significantly to the maintenance costs. They will have to pick up trash from and otherwise clean up the waterfront area and any debris that flows into the water near the park. Also, repairing and maintaining the waterfront, both the piers and the bulkheads, will be a significant maintenance cost for this park going forward. Maintenance parks per acre are actually completely in line with what the City's Park Department has said it expects to pay for first class waterfront parks.

4)If you keep on going forward with "perhaps this" and "maybe that" then this park will never get built. This park has already been waiting for 20 years. Do you really want to make the park dependent on re-doing the BQE. The BQE project is only beginning now and even DOT says construction will not start for 10 years. In the real world that means 20 years. Do you really want to wait another 20 years for this park while the DOT maybe figures something out? I don't.
5&6) My point was that you believe so strongly in the PIRC plan, but can't explain how the math actually works. You just take it on faith that it works because you don't really understand the math. I spoke to an ESDC representative and he could explain to me in detail how their plan yields enough revenue. You can't say anything that has more detal than the fact that the PIRC plan will redirect a portion of the additional revenue from rezonings to the park. Will those rezoning create enough revenue? When will that revenue come in compared to when it is needed? There are a million questions like that which are extremely important that you and M Squadron can't answer.

7) No state parks are deeded park land. Empire Fulton Ferry Park, Riverside State Park on the west side of Manhattan, and East River State Park in Williamsburg are all State parks that are not deeded parkland. Yet you don't hear anyone yelling and screaming that those parks are going to be turned into jai alai fields. WHy is that? It's because this issue is a red herring made up by Mrs Francis in order to fool people who don't have perspective of how the whole system works.

8)"If it worked someone would have tried already" is a ridiculous statement that assumes tht there will be no new ideas again ever. Also this model does exist and is used in Battery Park City - just they use alot more buildings for alot less parkland. Also the lie that this park will just be a front lawn for the condo will become exposed once Pier 1 opens and people see how much bigger the parkland is than the development sites. It will not feel like a front lawn at all. It'll feel like a huge park with a tiny portion at the end used as development. Finally - look at the park plan - almost all of these development sites are separate from the park area by a road. So if a road is all you need to be satisfied - then you've already got your road. Housing is not antithetical to parkland - it's complementary. It provides residents who will activate the parkland and make it a vibrant, urban, safe place.

Posted by: bkre at November 15, 2009 11:44 AM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park Progress Report

bklyn20 in general is giving good information, unfotunately he/she also is repeating a bunch of lies that have been put forth by Judi Francis and her "Brooklyn Brdige Park Defense Fund". So to debunk them:
1)THere are plenty of large lawns and playing fields in this design. Just look at the photos in this post and you can see the large lawns. And the next phase of construction is Pier 3 which will include 3 soccer fields.
2)According to a presentation given back in January, building the marsh land is actuallly cheaper than the alternative. What would be REALLY expensive would be to build all of these large indoor facilities bklyn20 wants
3)THe berms actually don't take up that much space, and there are several entrances between the berms along Furman Street. Having taken a tour this summer I can attest to the fact that without the berms it's way too loud there to be a park.
4) THe PIRC plan is all smoke and mirrors. I've seen Squadron Present it and he totally glosses over the math of how his plan will actually produce the money he claims it will. I've tried to understand and the math simply doesn't work. My bet is that bklyn20 can't really explain it either and doesn't really understand it - but he/she is willing to belive in it anyway because she wants it to be true. I don't really understand the point about building glass towers in Fort green since you'd have to own the land to make money of these towers - ESDC owns this land and doesn't own any land in Fort Green or Prosepect. Also those would involve destroying existing parkland, which would clearly be worse. The GPP for this park allowed up to 20% of the leand to be used for development. This plan uses less than 10%. WHat exactly are you complaining about?
5) Finally, I've heard ESDC people say that once the park is built they'd be open to protecting it with an easement or something like that. It's seems like silly criticism to say it's not parkland. If it looks and feels like parkland, and will protected once it's complete, then who cares if it's officially deemed parkland?

Posted by: bkre at November 14, 2009 7:09 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park Progress Report

There is a plan to connect Squibb to the park in the manner described by Minard. It is currently unfunded (as are a coupl eof other portion of the park) but it is definitely still in the design. The hope is that once the portions of the park that are currently under constrcuction open up, then there will be a groundswell of support for the city to provide the funding to finsih the park, inlcuding this pedestrian bridge.

Posted by: bkre at November 13, 2009 1:27 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park Progress Report

Stripes will do nothing. To fix the problem you need to make the off ramp 2-lanes. Right it's that one lane pinch point that causes the backup.

And North Hieghts is dead on about the cadman plaza exit on the other side too. Connect diectly to the BQE and get rid off one of the most annoying constant traffic backups in south brooklyn.

Posted by: bkre at November 3, 2009 12:02 PM in response to Squadron Helps Drivers Get Off (The FDR)

Is it just me, or is that block of South Portland simply the most beautiful brownstone block in the entire City?

Posted by: bkre at November 3, 2009 11:49 AM in response to Walkabout : The Italianate Style, part 1

According to the Condo Plan for One Brooklyn Bridge Park, unit #t8 is one of the rooftop cabana units that face the east river located above the lower portion of the building on the west. Unit #t8 was originally priced at $145,000. Not sure what they'd be asking for the cabana units today.

Posted by: bkre at November 3, 2009 11:45 AM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

FSRQ - I agree with your criticism about how this zoning doesn't take into acount proximity to mass transit, but your other comment (about smith and court)has already been accounted for in this zoning. Take a look at the zoning map. Most of the neighborhood is being zoned r6b. Court St is being zoned r6a (more FAR and higher bldg heights allowed) and both Smith and Court Streets will have a c2-4 overlay.

Posted by: bkre at October 29, 2009 4:04 PM in response to Carroll Gardens Downzoning Sails Through Council

I'm not sure, but i think the windows were already bricked up. But either way, not so strange. They are going to be using it as an art storage facility. The #1 enemy of most artwork is exposure to natural sunlight.

Posted by: bkre at October 23, 2009 11:02 AM in response to Work in Progress at Christie's Red Hook Warehouse

When I was in there, the clocks were active, it was pretty quiet, and you could not hear any ticking or any other noise coming from the machinery. The clocks are on the floor with the kitcen, living and dining room, so I'm not sure that putting shades on the clock is a big deal. All the bedrooms are on the upper floors. Plus, there's a bathub in what i assume is the master bath that has it's own window framing the statue of liberty. Pretty sweet.

Posted by: bkre at October 21, 2009 3:23 PM in response to All About the Clocktower

I've been in the space and can tell you that the pictures definitely don't do it justice. The windows do not feel small at all. I think the issue here is perspective - the ceiling heights are very tall, which makes it look like it has small windows. In real life they feel very generous, let in alot of light and frame some pretty amazing views. Obviously $25 million is alot of money, and I don't know that I could honestly say that any house or apartment was "worth" $25 million. But all of you who are claiming some desgin fault with this place are just not understanding. It's an extremely special place.

Posted by: bkre at October 21, 2009 12:49 PM in response to All About the Clocktower

I'm actually impressed with that paragraph from NY Mag. That's probably the best summary of this project I've ever seen. Of course NY magazine will be worthless once AY is built...

Posted by: bkre at October 16, 2009 1:00 PM in response to Atlantic Yards, the Nets, and the Times

"But then I figured in another twenty years no one will remember him and things will get renamed for a minor celebrity or something. "

I for one can't wait till they rename it "Paris Hilton State Park" and wipe Robert Moses off the map.

Posted by: bkre at October 7, 2009 5:22 PM in response to Prices Drop at the Oro Tower

bxgirl - I hear variations on that question all the time? The Empire State Building went up so fast - why does modern construction take so long? There are alot of very good reasons for that, but I'd like to focus on one - safety. Building a skyscraper today means you have to follow a ton of regulations to keep all the workers safe. One thing people don't like to talk about is that 6 people died during the construction of the empire state building - none died during the construction of oro. I'm sure you agree that you'd rather construction lasted a couple of months longer if it makes the work site safer for everyone.

Posted by: bkre at October 7, 2009 2:19 PM in response to Prices Drop at the Oro Tower