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]
Pig_Three and Bxgrl;
I take it that you have no substantive comments to add in this discussion, so you need to resort to name-calling. To each his own.
“That re-purposed wood travelled all of 50 yards. ”
Ditto,
Really? Oh, so you mean when the workers took the beams out, they looked exactly like they do in the photo above? They didn’t have to transport them to a mill? You mean there were no resources expended to re-purpose that wood, the most important being human resources?
Well of course it would be benson to complain about recycling. How so? I mean, really? Now we who think recycling good materials means we are either Druids or elitists (I’m sure you meant to add liberals and democrats at some point too. Oh wait- don’t forget how intellectually bankrupt we are.
Recycling, and salvaging reusable materials is not elitist- its responsible – ecologically and economically.
The wood is Long Leaf Pine. Very tight grain (slow growth). Most sought after wood today. Taken from on the park property. Being milled locally. Will require some yearly maintenance, but very good choice for use barring vandalism.
Benson. Court Jester.
Squaredrive;
Bkre provided my response in his or her response, to wit:
“A while back there was a press release that said that the state historic preservation folks had approved the demolition of the cold storage building on the condition that the re-usable materials were salvaged and used in the park.”
Exactly my point. The decision to re-use the material was not driven by any economic considerations. Rather, it was driven by an edict from a preservationist movement, in the name of environmentalism.
Folks who say that “well, the buileding would have had to be torn down anyway, so might as well have salvaged the materials” simply don’t understand the economics of modern-day construction. Labor is the single biggest expwense in any construction project today. There are different tear-down techniques. If you require that care be taken to salvage wood beams, you are increasing the labor content of a tear-down.
Finally, you state that my post was driven by ideology. My response is that my post was driven by my anger at the contraints special interests place on the taxpayers these days, to the point where it is difficult to build any great public works.
It took THIRTEEN months to build LaGauardia airport. It also took THIRTEEN months to build the Bronx-Whitetone bridge. We knew how to get things done back then. How long has this project taken, and how much has it cost???
THAT is what drives my comments.
These benches are really nice. Re-use of superior wood no longer available seems to be a win/win use to me. Someone please tell me why it would be better to have all of this just dumped in a landfill? Even if salvaging reusable products seems to cost more, it is worth it. We waste far too much in this society.
Benson, what a load of old tosh you are spouting today. That re-purposed wood travelled all of 50 yards.
I’m suprised you haven’t pointed out the profligate waste of importing trees and turf from outside of Brooklyn Heights when the natural flora would have in time provided much the same for free.
A lot of your opinions are well-based and reasonable, but this just sounds like a soapbox harangue.
A while back there was a press release that said that the state historic preservation folks had approved the demolition of the cold storage building on the condition that the re-usable materials were salvaged and used in the park.
The cold storage building needed to be demolished since it was not in great shape to begin with and also difficult to re-use.
So if they already had the requirement to demolish the buildings and if the they had to salvage the materials to demolish, then this seems like a great way to re-use the materials on site.
They would have had to salvage materials anyway, so I don’t really think you should be looking at this, the way benson has, as an additional expense.
This photo is of Pier 1. The benches are facing south with a view towards the statue of liberty.
Benson, You admit that you have no first hand knowledge of the economics involved in this particular project. Therefore your argument seems patently ridiculous – “i’m guessing that this cost more than a synthetic material would have so i strongly object to this wasteful use of taxpayer money”.
Why don’t you provide us with some facts about initial costs, life-cycle/maintenance costs, provide an analysis of aesthetic and comfort qualities of 2 material choices? Then maybe your argument would seem to have some merit. Otherwise you are simply using this as an opportunity to spin ideology.