Brooklyn Bridge Park Meeting: The Morning After
What had been billed as an opportunity to solicit public input about the future of Brooklyn Bridge Park last night became a chance for area residents and other stakeholders to vent their frustration at the lack of progress and communication over the past couple of years. The Empire State Development Corp’s newly appointed head of…
What had been billed as an opportunity to solicit public input about the future of Brooklyn Bridge Park last night became a chance for area residents and other stakeholders to vent their frustration at the lack of progress and communication over the past couple of years. The Empire State Development Corp’s newly appointed head of the park project, longtime Brooklyn City Planning head Regina Myer (right), got an earful on her the public appearance in her new role. We have not been included. We certainly have a stake, David Walentas, the biggest property owner in the area, said. A bigger stake than anyone. And, of course, the contentious issue of allowing the construction of more than 1,200 condo units within the park to help fund its development reared its head: Judi Francis, of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund (which has sued the ESDC over the issue), charged that the skating rink and swimming pools that the public wanted had been axed from the plan to make the park more of a “lawn” for the condos. The landscape designer for the project also weighed in, emphasizing that the park would have a more water-focused orientation than most. We’re not just walking, strolling, promenading. We’re actively in the water, getting wet, said Matt Urbanski of Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates. We got the message from the community: This is a waterfront park. Did any readers attend? We were busy celebrating our—ouch!—38th birthday.
Angry Residents Blast BBP Planning [Metro]
Park Stalled, New Leader May Spur Building [NY Daily News]
Brooklyn Bridge Park Gets New President [Brooklyn Eagle]
Brooklyn Bridge Park: Your Input, Please [Brownstoner]
The designer explained the Park theme as “engagement”. With water. With nature. This is the “uniqueness of the park”. Great – just build a town dock and save alot of money.
At these meetings, no one understands (or explains) how BB Park decisions are being made so alot of time is spent (wasted) on the issue of park governance.
3:45,
I wrote the 11:15 post that I think you are referring to. I also wrote the 2:42 post. I have no connection to the BBP conservancy and I never have.
I live in Brooklyn Heights not in Manhattan.
You seem a bit delusional.
Seems like the former co-executive director of the Conservancy is raising his ugly head (guest #12). Claude Shostal, a Manhattanite who shared the thrown with Koval, used the racist card all the time – trying to justify luxury housing. Now that is hutzpah! The simple fact is that private housing inside of parks is a terrible idea. People living inside of parks will dictate what does/doesn’t go on in them. And that has happened with this park. Gone are all the recreational elements Brooklynites wanted – ice skating, swimming, an amphitheater . Why? Because it brings too many noisy people to “their” front yard. And remember, you can’t get into this park from the places most New Yorkers will come – the promenade. And consider that there is a 180 berth yachting marina next to a bird watching sanctuary. Who is fooling who? Let’s just get rid of the condos and the fancy pants architect, and build a real park incrementally – just like what happened in DUMBO section – and see who comes. i’ll bet lots of people will come. Very little expense, no fuss, but an honest to goodness park. OK?
One of the reasons I find the judy Francis coalition so creepy is that they claim that they are for the park and that the people who have been working to see the project actually happen are agaisnt the park.
To me, this is Orwellian. Say the opposite of what you mean in order to confuse people.
Very sleazy, makes me think they are not only crazy but sinister.
You can’t fool all the people all the time. You are not defending the park, you are trying to defeat it! You hate the idea of a park. You want it to stay empty unused piers.
I know you do. Defenders of the park indeed.
Double-talk artists!
That is a very flattering picture of Regina.
I hope she knew what she was doing when she left her new job with the Hudson Yards project for this.
Hopefully before she accepted the bridge park job she extracted promises from the governor’s people that construction will commence soon so she doesn’t end up holding the bag.
The opponents of the park are the people who SUPPORT PRIVATE LUXURY CONDOS in the park (instead of actually having a park.) They have views to protect along the promenade, waterfront penthouses to buy, hands to grease, yachts to moor, and public entrances from Montague Street to oppose, . These same opponents of the park are involved in one of the largest corruption schemes in Brooklyn. Too bad too many good people were duped along the way in this unethical land grab. We could have had a park!
affordable housing
affordable housing
affordable housing
affordable housing
affordable housing
affordable housing
affordable housing
no yachts, no carousels
affordable housing now!
The condos are adjacent to the park, not inside the park. I know all about shaping an issue by torquing the rhetoric, but the fact remains that the condos are not in the park.
Similarly, I believe that the explanation given for why recreation opportunities have been reduced — “it brings too many noisy people” — is also bogus. But stay on message, you might convince a couple people. On the other hand, attrition has recaptured guest 11:57, who states, “just build it already.”