Details On Brooklyn Bridge Park Housing
For the past five years, ever since the concept of using private development to help fund the ongoing operations of Brooklyn Bridge Park was floated, controversy has swirled. As Dennis Holt reports in The Brooklyn Eagle, the city agreed to revisit the idea, hiring a consultant to oversee the review. The process kicked off on…
For the past five years, ever since the concept of using private development to help fund the ongoing operations of Brooklyn Bridge Park was floated, controversy has swirled. As Dennis Holt reports in The Brooklyn Eagle, the city agreed to revisit the idea, hiring a consultant to oversee the review. The process kicked off on Tuesday night with a public meeting at LICH. At that meeting the Memorandum of Understanding that governs the review process was made available, and it included some interesting details about the potential developments that we were not aware of. The biggest is that if housing is approved, the first site to get developed would be the John Street site (not Pier 1, which has gotten most of the attention); nothing could start there until July of next year. And here’s how big all four projects would be:
What do you make of that?
Why does everything have to be a freaking mega structure on it???
Isn’t our city crowded enough already.
I don’t think we need any more housing along our waterfront here in Brooklyn…
the proposal to build a ten-story hotel near Old Fulton Street and two slender high-rises near Atlantic Avenue is extremely sensible. Let’s just do it and ignore the folks who are frightened by buildings taller than four stories.
It’s all good, let’s get on with it.
I would not call 31 stories high “contextual” at Pier 6, but the area has been a no-mans-land of warehouses, empty lots, industrial facilities, freeways, and other infrastructure for generations, so I don’t see any issues with putting one up.
If being contextual was a requirement for building, New York would be a bunch of isolated farm houses.
Boreum-
There is no context because there were docks and empty lots here before it was turned into a park. This is not Park Slope or Pineapple Street in Brooklyn Heights.
Frankly, wasn’t the park “out of context” from what was there before?
Ringo – When did Bloomberg say he would consider the Watchtower option. I’ve never seen that. Please post a link to that story.
Is the John St. site in Vinegar Hill? That seems like a good location to go tall. The Furman St. site seems ill-conceived. Maybe it’s just a red herring to get people to accept those other sites.
Also, 31 stories at pier 6 is way out of context. There’s not another 31 story building for at least a half-mile. If you want to argue we should re-zone the entire waterfront to allow skyscrapers, go ahead and make that argument but a building 3 times as tall as the one next to it with no other buildings around is simply not contextual.
Skyscrapers were built on the edge of Brooklyn Heights in the 1930’s around Borough Hall, but tall buildings are not permitted in the 21st Century. Block the BQE with tall buildings. They will be an improvement.
mole — How has the height limit in Brooklyn Heights reduced density? I could see how it froze density, but I doubt there has been a substantialy reduction in density.
(Unless you mean that there has been a signficant reduction of occupants per habitable apt or house — but that is less to do with density and more to do with affluence, I would think.)