Those Recycled Pine Benches at Brooklyn Bridge Park
Yesterday we told you about the wood that the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation is salvaging from the demolition of the Cold Storage Warehouse and turning into benches for the park. Well, today we’ve got a photo of the benches themselves that have been installed already along the promenade and pathways of Pier 1; more…
Yesterday we told you about the wood that the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation is salvaging from the demolition of the Cold Storage Warehouse and turning into benches for the park. Well, today we’ve got a photo of the benches themselves that have been installed already along the promenade and pathways of Pier 1; more will be fabricated and installed at Pier 6 as well. In addition, we have learned, salvaged timbers are being used to clad the gatehouses at entrances to Pier 1 and 6. Cool beans.
Demolition, Recycling Underway at Brooklyn Bridge Park [Brownstoner]
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.
Benson the idiot,
You were an expert in structural issues and now an expert in economics and milling?
“Recycling wood beams? Silly. Ah, to treat mother earth as a god. The time and energy it took to salvage a readily-renewable resource? Most certainly more than milling new beams.”
This country does not mill for purpose any longer. They mill for bottom line. The wood was cheaper to demo, truck to a local mill in Williamsburg and be returned than any other method of deconstruction, removal and disposal of materials available.
I would almost consider you are paid to post such foolishness to keep this site interesting. But then I remember you live in Melrose Place. Par for the course.
“your argument allots zero value to the preservation of resources and zero value to aesthetics.”
Squaredrive;
First off, let me say that I appreciate that you try to keep these discussions above-board, despite our disagreement.
Secondly, I do not allot zero value to the preservation of resources, and zero value to aesthetics. All I am asking is that the economics be considered. For instance, steel and copper are salvaged all the time in manufacturing, and I think that is great. I believe that we need to be good stewards of this earth, and use resources wisely. Part of those resources should be considered human capital.
I certainly want the park to be beautiful, and durable. I think there are multiple ways to do that. Again, design needs to consider economics.
Well, that’s it for me today!
Bensonlives in a condo on 2nd or 3rd st. btwn 4th and 5th ave. What would make anyone think he would ever consider aesthetics or quality of construction into the equation?
“In NYC, modern construction and code are driven by satisfying Union labor. That is the biggest factor in driving up costs and time.”
Pig_Three;
I am the senior vice-president of a major Japanese manufacturing firm, so don’t give me that $hit that I don’t understand economics.
“In NYC, modern construction and code are driven by satisfying Union labor. That is the biggest factor in driving up costs and time. Period.”
Did you read what I just wrote? I said the same thing. Moreover, I made NO comment about the economics of milling the wood. My comments are directed towards the cost of SALVAGING the wood in the first place.
Since you’ve acknowledged that labor is the biggest cost driver, which would you say is a cheaper:
-tearing down this building in a large-scale fashion (blasting, knock-down, etc);
-tearing it down piece by piece, so that the beams could be salvaged.
I know some people who have actual knowledge of this project who have expressed benson’s sentiments. Part of the issue of reusing this stuff, here, is that it required those two buildings to be dismantled in a really labor and money intensive way. Took 3 months instead of 6 days kinda thing. Some people see this kind of thing and hear, “You know, we don’t have any more to complete this park and it’s only taken 20 years so far, so why not edge the lawn in gold while we here.”
There were other issues too. I’m afraid I only half-listened so I’m not informed at all, but I don’t think Benson is completely off base here.
Of course, the powers that be I’m sure are very happy to have us debate this instead of screaming, WHY IS THIS PLACE NOT OPEN?
Benson.
I provided more facts to this post in my first entry than in all of your entries. What is substantive besides your overuse of that word?
Benson,
Again, in order to convince me, you’d have to give me some facts – did demolition cost 5% more because of salvaging the wood, or 500% more? How did it impact the overall cost relative to the lifecycle of the benches?
And yes, you are using this as a launching pad w/o facts to spin anti-preservation, anti-regulation ideology. However, we obviously disagree fundamentally, because your argument allots zero value to the preservation of resources and zero value to aesthetics. I can accept that logic but wouldn’t want to live under your rule.
And I think it’s bit of a rhetorical stretch to connect the reuse of some wood beams in the park to the sorry state of getting large scale projects done. I’m sympathetic and share your outrage in some instances, but this isn’t one.
Benson,
You do not understand the difference between milling wood for proper use and milling for bottom line. Do not pretend to know what the what economic differences are in the production of the usable material. Your background does not make you an expert in economics either. In NYC, modern construction and code are driven by satisfying Union labor. That is the biggest factor in driving up costs and time. Period.