To Superfund or Not To Superfund, That Is The Question
The Architect’s Newspaper devoted a bunch of column inches yesterday to the issue of what to do about cleaning up the Gowanus Canal, and it’s not too hard to figure out where the publication stands. The article starts by pointing out that Mayor Bloomberg has been talking about cleaning up the canal since he first…
The Architect’s Newspaper devoted a bunch of column inches yesterday to the issue of what to do about cleaning up the Gowanus Canal, and it’s not too hard to figure out where the publication stands. The article starts by pointing out that Mayor Bloomberg has been talking about cleaning up the canal since he first came to office but it was only when the threat of the waterway getting Superfund status reared its head earlier this year that he started acting with any sense of urgency. The paper also calls into question the mayor’s claim that a clean-up by the city would have more financial resources and take less time than a Superfund effort, and leads up to the accusation that the mayor’s plan is nothing more than an effort to help real estate developers in the short-term at the expense of the neighborhood in the long-term. Let’s see where readers stand on this one.
Twice as Smelly [The Architect’s Newspaper]
gowanus canal is already synonymous with superfund. why not make it official
Stargazer, you mean Barry Lewis, architectural historian and Brooklynite. I took a great class with him years ago at Cooper Union. He said, “you’ll never walk around NYC the same way,” and he was right.
I agree, Mr. GoGoMrPoPo, that developers generally far outpace the government. This is clear. But when it comes to issues of cleaning up toxic waste, I feel we should not put our trust in developers. Their interests do not lie with long-term public health.
If you want to see this area cleaned up in your lifetime, leave it to developers motivated by profit rather than a cash strapped government agency with no real motivation. Superfund sites take decades upon decades to clean up. It was a great idea, but in practice, motivating the private sector to deal with the abatement and decontamination is much more efficient. I think people underestimate the ability of an engaged and active community to affect any developer’s plans. They WILL respond to NIMBYism if it’s coordinated and reasonable.
Well if the ground was just filled in with dirt and the grass and trees wouldn’t that seal off the contaminates from reaching the air? That is what I meant.
Sorry Pete, I must have mis-understood.
Actually if the canal were to be really cleaned with good water flow and cafes and stuff like they have in Europe it would make for a nice place to go. I believe Barry (forget the last name) did a walk through Brooklyn with David Hartman a few years ago and said, hmmm, maybe the Venice of Brooklyn…..ah, that really would be good…..
let me dream…………
P.S. I think Bloomberg is great. But I don’t like his position on this issue.
The canal is beautiful.
I hope it never gets filled.
It should, of course, be cleaned.
If it is super-funded, then at least it’s ostensibly on track to be cleaned.
It it’s not super-funded, who knows?
NYC politics are unstable.
Stargazer, I don’t know about the wisdom of building playgrounds on top of heavy metal and solvent-contaminated ground. Why not make it a cancer and birth defect park, for those New Yotkers in need of extra slow means of suicide? A simple solution.
exactly my point STARGAZER you are missing…It is land next to canal that is object of Superfund…..cleaning the waterway is other issue.