Alternatives Considered to Housing in BBP
Last night the Parks Committee met to consider the twelve proposed alternatives to housing at Brooklyn Bridge Park, picking nine to deliver to the Park’s board of directors. Brooklyn Heights Blog lists the nine alternatives, which include advertising or sponsorship, increased parking revenues, fee-based recreation, capturing tax revenue from the old Jehovah’s Witness buildings, and…
Last night the Parks Committee met to consider the twelve proposed alternatives to housing at Brooklyn Bridge Park, picking nine to deliver to the Park’s board of directors. Brooklyn Heights Blog lists the nine alternatives, which include advertising or sponsorship, increased parking revenues, fee-based recreation, capturing tax revenue from the old Jehovah’s Witness buildings, and philanthropy. The Brooklyn Paper also follows up on the meeting and talks about the turned-down proposal of collecting tax revenue from property near the park. As the paper says, “The idea was rejected because some of the tax money, like all tax money, would also go to the city’s general fund, and the committee isn’t allowed to consider options that involve city funds.” The final report in supporting the park’s $16-million annual maintenance budget will be drafted mid-February.
Park Okays Nine Alternatives a BBP [Brooklyn Heights Blog]
Sqaudron’s BBP Finance Plan Rejected [Brooklyn Paper]
Photo by oceaneyze
I wish, like grownups, they’d release renderings (not footprints) and detailed financials (salaries, and if developers will have to pay 100% on day one or only as units are sold, a question an BBP executive admitted she didn’t know)
“I do not agree, it is a park, we have housing all in Brookyn Hts, why does there have to be housing right along side the park, thus making the park smaller.”
Because it isnt/wasnt a park – it was piers -> to convert piers to park = $, to maintain park= $. To get $ deal was made to build housing. Not really complicated.
Why is this so hard for people to understand, the city doesnt have an endless supply of $, so a tradeoff was made (a pretty good one too especially when you see how beautiful the park is turning out). Now you can all act like petulant children and whine about how you want something for nothing, but I for one am glad the grownups seem to be ignoring you and are finally moving ahead with spectacular results.
I do not agree, it is a park, we have housing all in Brookyn Hts, why does there have to be housing right along side the park, thus making the park smaller.
cafes and pedestrian friendly stuff, yes I agree…..but high rises, no I don’t and don’t want them there.
BoerumHillScott, a LOT of people fought along the way. I’m pro-park, but I think there can be a middle ground. And after 20 years of fighting, I’m not going to say, well you should have fought if you didn’t like it!
Honestly, I think people would feel better if the planners even pretended to listen to the other ideas.
It annoys me a little that people can’t see that, for example, we don’t have enough zoned classrooms for 1000 units. So the city can’t pay for the park, but they will have to pay to build a new school? Or that 1BBP is only 25% sold. Do we want to have zombie buildings down there? I just think things dont get thought all the way thru
Heres a good idea….build housing – it will fund the park, add foot traffic that will add to safety and liveliness. Win/Win
I hear you on the enormous cost of marine infrastructure ($4mm, nearly 25% of the budget). But I think they could have done work on Landscape Maintenance ($4.8mm), and Security and Recreation Staff ($3mm), and Admin ($1.5mm)
Cut out SOME of that and you could get rid of the John Street building which will only contribute 855K (when fully sold out?). And I wish they’d reduce the hotel to preserve the view of the Brooklyn Bridge from the promenade.
I don’t think the public has any idea what that John Street building is going to look like. 16 stories! No wonder they won’t release even a gray box rendering of it.
If people did not want tall housing there, they should have fought to keep the rotting warehouses.
Without the promise of income from the housing units, the park never would have been built.
It’s not like they are plopping down condos in the middle of Prospect Park.
This was a post-industrial wasteland and now now it is turning into a great destination park for the entire city.
I think 4 buildings on the interior edge with a few thousand residents is a small price to pay.
Oh please, do we have to have freaking high rise housing here too???
Can’t it just be a plain old park for all the people to enjoy without having freaking housing all over. Enough already !!!!
Budget can’t be reduced substantially enough. Red herring. 12,000 pilings to maintain under park. Park is on wood supports in water !!!!
JW dead on arrival. They cannot by mandate consider options that would otherwise give the city revenue. Plus Witnesses not now selling the building and price will be huge. Anyone who says they know what Witnesses are doing is blowing smoke anyway. Not a solution.
Commercial uses: if housing had been in the plan years ago, and they tried to switch to commercial, public would flip bigger than has so far; fee-based recreation can’t generate big bucks – chelsea piers took years to get going; you want something that big?; to get 10mm a year from commercial you’d need to recreate Smith Street’s forty bars/restos. You want that?