A Look at the Future of Brooklyn Bridge Park
[nggallery id=”22502″ template=galleryview] In case you didn’t make it to Monday night’s meeting on the future of Brooklyn Bridge Park, fear not! We’ve got some of the renderings up here and Curbed has some more. The two big take-aways from the meeting? 17 acres of new park land will be created by the end of…
[nggallery id=”22502″ template=galleryview]
In case you didn’t make it to Monday night’s meeting on the future of Brooklyn Bridge Park, fear not! We’ve got some of the renderings up here and Curbed has some more. The two big take-aways from the meeting? 17 acres of new park land will be created by the end of 2009 and by 2012 two-thirds of the park should be complete. Wildest rendering? Number 5, the boating basin and nature island at Pier 4. (If this post is looking familiar, that’s because it mistakenly went up last night.)
Pop-Up Park Pops in Brooklyn Bridge Park [Brownstoner]
Brooklyn Bridge Park Updated & Fully Revealed [Curbed]
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.
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?
The plan to include housing was discussed for weeks before the public heard about it through a leak to a local newspaper. It was a secret held by a few for some time, presented to the general public as a fait accompli. I believe that a full public hearing process was not held for this plan either (scoping hearings. etc.) And the EIS said, among other things , that in 2005 PS 8 would have plenty of room for all the children in the 1,000 + apts in the condos… when a quick read of the Heights Press would suggest otherwise, even in 2005…
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.
“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.
Well, if they’re so vehemently against any ordinary people (as opposed to extraordinary people?) walking down Joralemon, why weren’t trip wires and land mines laid on Joralemons to topple people walking to the floating poll last summer? Because people walking down that street is fine with the people there.
Joralemon should be closed to non-emergencey traffic — not to pedestrians. Please don’t speak about what you don’t know about.
Maybe the “guest” is someone from the central Heights who doesn’t want any non-neighbors walking on Columbia Heights or Pierrepont Street…and thus must sling misguided insults at people at the ends of the neighborhood burdened with all the housing and traffic AND all the specious insults. If this “guest” works for a BBP-related organization, they should remember that their charge is to support the public interest; perhaps their salary is paid by that public.
Conflict of interest, anyone??
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.
The housing and commercial aspects are at the ends of the park becsue the viewplane from the Promenade is protected (Landmarks I think.)
The “park haters’ I believe you refer to are actually people who want a real park, not another Battery Park City — the East River version. The folks who made a secret plan in 2004 to foist housing on the public without any honest public process are the park eroders, at the very least.
It’s great that some park is starting. Regina Meyer seems to be a great improvemeent over Wendy Leventer. Only time will tell what really happens.
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.