Court OKs Housing at Brooklyn Bridge Park
Last week the State Supreme Court ruled against the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund, according to an article in the Brooklyn Paper, striking down a lawsuit that sought to halt the creation of the 85-acre park because of the condos and hotel planned for the site. Private development is slated to take up 10 percent…
Last week the State Supreme Court ruled against the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund, according to an article in the Brooklyn Paper, striking down a lawsuit that sought to halt the creation of the 85-acre park because of the condos and hotel planned for the site. Private development is slated to take up 10 percent of the park and include “approximately 1,210 units of housing, 225 hotel rooms, 151,200 square feet of retail uses, 86,400 square feet of restaurants, cafes and other eateries, 30,000 of meeting space, 36,000 square feet of offices, 128,400 square feet for research and development or education uses, and 1,283 parking spaces,” according to the Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy. In response to the main thrust of the lawsuit, which claimed that the private housing will violate the Public Trust Doctrine, which disallows private encroachment on public spaces, the justices who heard the case wrote that “the public trust doctrine does not prohibit residential uses that are merely adjacent to public parkland.” “They’re missing the truth,” said Judi Francis, the president of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund. The condos are up against places where people normally would have been sunbathing or playing ball or listening to the radios. They’re missing the forest, if you will, for the condos.”
Brooklyn Bridge Park Goes Forward [Brooklyn Paper]
Myer Has ‘Hope’ for Brooklyn Bridge Park [Brownstoner]
Brooklyn Bridge Park Demo Begins [Brownstoner]
Brooklyn Bridge Park: It’s a Go! [Brownstoner]
Rendering of a section of the future park from the BBP Conservancy.
There was a true park plan, that did take 20 years to create and had sufficient dollars to support it. It all happened in 2001 and it was the plan that all communities supported, including the Sierra Club. Now only one group supports this condo park – the Heights Association and their surrogate, the Conservancy. The only thing Stanton and Koval are preserving are their jobs, a with privatizing the park and throwing up towers at the entrances to block people from coming in. I applaud the brave efforts of the surrounding communities and the Park Defense Fund, and the local papers andthe NY Times, Daily News and Post for seeing the sham this is for the rest of Brooklyn.
Tidal pools and perched wetlands are not active recreation. There is no pool, no year round recreation, and no ice rink yet this is the most expensive park on earth. Bravo to those who would call it what it is – a waste, a terrible thing for public parks.
Folks, this is why you shouldn’t believe everything (or anything) you read on a blog. 11:56 on 4/29 is full of it. “All recreation is now gone.” What fantasy world are you living in? I am neither a supporter or opponent of the park conservancy, but all it takes is a 5-second vist to:
http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/
to see the various recreation activities that are planned. Sure, it’s a problem if they pull a bait & switch and condos appear without any park activities, BUT THERE’S NO EVIDENCE THAT IS HAPPENING. If that’s the presumption of the so-called “park defenders” then we really need to question what their real agenda is – sure doesn’t sound to me like a constructive effort to get a park built. Rather, sounds like some sort of axe to grind against the developers.
Folks, this isn’t a “park” it is Brooklyn Bridge PARK CITY. It was supposed to be an honest to goodness PARK. THe judges call it a
“project” which is true – not a park. The Defense Fund is at least trying to get a park, not a condo complex. AND the community’s plan for the park had enough revenue from PARK FRIENDLY restaurants, parking, recreation, an events venue, etc. to SUPPORT THE PARK> But all recreation is now gone, and in its place CONDO FRIENDLY sidewalks and something called a perched wetlands…what a total waste!
it will be 50% luxury condos
Some people just prefer to have trash, crack houses, wasteland, and all sort of crap in their neighborhoods, if the alternative is to have (1) projects with which they are not 100% in agreement, or (2) residential developments for “rich” people. The reality is (1) sometimes any project is better than no project at all and (2) New York is expensive – no one buying an $800K condo is really rich.
I think there must be rules, and discussion is healthy, but some people are just too hard to please.
3:52 – Who says the marina is not part of the plans now? That’s totally untrue. What is true is that the park is currently having some issues with DEC about it’s permits – as are many other waterfront City parks (including Hudson river park. THe outcome of these issues is still up in the air, and I guess you could say that they COULD result in the elimination of many of the in-water usese in the park (including the marina). But there has NEVER been an announcement that officially dropped the marina. Please don’t make stuff up. It doesn’t help anyone.
nothing there is “now park”. but you can pull up BBPC and see the map and where the new condos will be.
also. the marina is no longer part of any plans
I am so bored of the alleged brooklyn bridge park. Lets all stop talking about it until its almost finished. OK?
“They’re missing the forest, if you will, for the condos.”
What the Brooklyn Bridge Defense Fund and their ilk have been deliberately overlooking is that without the condos, there will be no “forest.”
So I’m with 9:54: let’s get on with it, now! In the long run, this will be good for everyone: maintained open space on the waterfront for the public, funded by private development (since public funding just ain’t happening, folks).