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?
Reality check: the city has cut the capital budget by 20%. Workers are being laid off. Parks and library budgets are being cut. The notion that City will assume additional capital or operating budget responsibility for a project with a built-in funding mechanism is a fantasy.
The City and State have signed a MOU which explicitly addresses the issues of capital and maintenance responsibility. This document recognizes reality and once again and confirms the self-sustaining mandate that has been in place for many years.
More reality: The public process approving the park plan has been completed and lawsuits seeking to overturn it have been dismissed. The current exercise is a political accomodation to local elected officials, extracted as a result of the transfer of the project to City control.
Sadly, it allows Squadron, Millman and Levin to assuage the Working Families Party, the “Defense Fund” et al, in a most hypocritical manner. The electeds know very well that there are no viable alternative revenue sources, and that the PERC idea is DOA. Kudos to BP Markowitz for not joining in the charade.
As someone who might someday like to live in one of these apartments, I say ‘Build em tall’!
These buildings are not out of context. In some cases, they’ll even shield the park from BQE views and noise. Not all apartments will be luxury — the 1BBP BQE side ones are substantially more affordable than the other side.
Finally, Brooklyn Heights has some of the best subway access on earth, but the idiotic height limit has reduced density over the past 50 years. Time to encourage development where it fits, not 45 minutes away from the city.
I’m happy that the Millman camp is pushing Bloomberg on this option. I keep hearing the BBP camp saying, “we can’t even consider that”. I’m glad someone is considering it.
The tax roll from the Witness buildings is estimated to be in excess of 15mm (per Squadron’s office). They don’t need to sell all of it in the next 3 years to get the park there. They don’t need to sell a third of it.
maybe he said that but: who knows when witnesses will sell and process of alternatives specifically precludes funds that would otherwise go to the city, which includes future properties outside park however, the mayor is the mayor
but Committee is not allowed to consider it by terms of MOU that set it up
“And where is the city going to get the money to maintain the piers?”
Bloomberg has indicated he may be willing to earmark the tax money that will come from the Witness buildings to the park when they are sold. It could come from there.
“cut the 31 story one down to 15 and have the city take responsibility for the pier maintenance as a capital expense.”
Unbelievable statement, which demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the city’s budget process. Memo: maintenance is an operating expense, and is hence put into the city’s operating budget. As someone mentioned above, its operating budget is overwhelmed right now.
Another article which demostrates the dysfunctional nature of getting big projects completed in NYC. Yes, let’s just review and review and review.
pete — I had the same thinking. A 31 story building! That’s fracking insane.
At pier 6, which site is A and B?
How exactly does the private development fund maintenance of a public park? Are the properties leased to a developer (like battery park city) and then those costs are folded into unit holders’ monthly fees? Or is it something else?
Why can’t we have tall buildings along the waterfront like Manhattan, Miami, Chicago and Vancouver? Or you know like Williamsburg and Queens.
This is a prime waterfront location, not Park Slope. Lets build’em tall.
‘cut the 31 story one down to 15 and have the city take responsibility for the pier maintenance as a capital expense’
mtn. of piers not legally eligible for capital funds, have to funded as expense money
impossible as deal to create park precludes city or state doing expenses NO MONEY from city or state expense budget is around they are cutting back more this winter and more next year