Compromise, Not Idealism, Urged for BB Park
At a public hearing to debate the future of the proposed Brooklyn Bridge Park was held last night, the big issue was the appropriateness of including a hotel and condominium project to help finance the overall project. On the one side are those offended at the idea of developers getting another hand-out from the Bloomberg…
At a public hearing to debate the future of the proposed Brooklyn Bridge Park was held last night, the big issue was the appropriateness of including a hotel and condominium project to help finance the overall project. On the one side are those offended at the idea of developers getting another hand-out from the Bloomberg administration–on the other are those who shrug at the development as a small concession for getting to turn a barren stretch of loading docks and parking lots into a waterfront greenway. Councilman David Yassky led a contingent of Brooklyn officials in trying to propose a compromise yesterday–scaling back the number of condos by a third while boosting the taxes the developers would have to pay. Those who are against the faustian bargain in principle are unlikely to be won over by such an offer, we suspect. In the end, though, NY Times architecture critic, Nicolai Ouroussoff opines that even a compromise solution will be a positive for surrounding nabes and the city:
But if the project falls short of the lofty standards set more than a century ago by Frederick Law Olmsted – whose nearby Prospect Park remains one of the great expressions of democratic ideals – it would nonetheless be a major civic asset. Designed by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, it advances the greening of New York’s waterfront while embracing the piers, freeways and bridges that remain its most potent industrial symbols.
Proposed Park Draws Class Lines [NY Times]
Fewer Park Condos Urged [NY Daily News]
Sure, but since when is an indoor sports facility and marina (marina!) “something wonderful”? I’ll take a “bit of grass” like they have in Central Park, Prospect Park, etc.
The park is financed by the state as well as the city I think. The bulk of the expenses involved are infrastructure (removing piers, upgrading peirs, new pilings, etc) and so to hope that a simple bit of grass would help is not realistic. More importantly, it would be a major lost opportunity for a great city to do less than something wonderful there.
Maybe if we put a stop to this stupid war in Iraq we can use a tiny fraction of the money saved to build this park without a condo, hotel, and conference center…. (oops! Wrong Blog – Sorry!)
I agree with Mike 2:17pm. Most likely nothing will happen. The bursting of the housing bubble may make yet another “luxury” condo less attractive to build. Something tells me that foundations and individual donors wouldn’t contribute to an endowment fund to pay for annual operating costs. In the end, we’ll get stuck with today’s parking lots for decades more instead of a lovely park.
NYC (i.e., all taxpayers) will pay for the capital costs of creating the park, but the park plan has a mandate to be financially self-sufficient from a year-to-year operating standpoint. One alternative to commercial development would be to set up an endowment fund to defray the estimated $15 million operating costs. Maybe people from the neighborhood against any commerical development in the park can donate money to the fund and keep the developers out of the park entirely. If the endowment could earn about 5%-6% per year in investment income, then a $300 million fund will be enough.
I agree, how much money are we talking about to put in a simple park with grass and trees? Anyone know the minimum figure to build out these piers “simply”? Couldn’t it be raised by other means? Why do we have to sell our souls and sell out Brooklyn at every turn. Downtown Brooklyn. Coney Island. Now the Brooklyn Piers. It seems that Brooklyn’s been so hungry for development all these years, that now that the tap has been turned on, anything goes. Shame on the politicians for not creating a vision and putting their citizens use and enjoyment of the city above increased tax revenue and campaign contributions. Shame on the developers for building ever increasingly hideously ugly projects.
Who knows if this will ever be resolved? I’ve lived in the area for 50 years, and I remember the battle for development of Brooklyn Bridge Park beginning in the mid-70s. I, too, would rather see parkland and not buildings. Can we ever please everybody? With developers involved now, I don’t see anything happening for years to come, if at all…
Don’t understand the Waa Waa Waa poster. Just because some people don’t love the idea of taking this unique space and putting up condos, conference center, and a chelsea piers-like space, does not mean we want nothing.
Give me a lawn and trees. Give me the Empire State Park (or whatever it’s called) in Dumbo. I’d prefer that, it can be done in a year or two and it wouldn’t take condos, a Marriott, and indoor soccer fields to pay for it.
To Anon 12:14pm, thank you for the interesting facts. Brownstoner.com is great for sharing information like that.