New Park Group Says It's Picking Up the Slack
Start-up group Friends of Brooklyn Bridge Park created this postcard to mock the developer-friendly proposal currently on the table transform the waterfront from the Manhattan Bridge to Atlantic Avenue. We’re filling the gap that organizations like the Heights association and the Conservancy — the organizations we thought we could depend on — are just not…
Start-up group Friends of Brooklyn Bridge Park created this postcard to mock the developer-friendly proposal currently on the table transform the waterfront from the Manhattan Bridge to Atlantic Avenue. We’re filling the gap that organizations like the Heights association and the Conservancy — the organizations we thought we could depend on — are just not doing. They’re not advocating for the park we thought they would, founding member Ken Lowy said. We’ve gone through a lot of the plan, he added, and we’re finding more questions than answers.
Groups Clash Over ‘Park’ [Brooklyn Papers]
JoshK, I completely agree with your view on new architecture in NYC. Even a typical 19th century tenement is at least OK-looking to most people’s eyes. There’s no reason why so many of the new apartment buildings in Brooklyn have to be so ugly.
as was mentioned a few months ago, building a park on these dilapitated piers is an engineering nightmare, and building housing under the BQE with no good subway access is almost as bad too….
“The city’s current funding of parks is appalling low. The solutions – allowing private groups to take over maintenance (like Prospect Park and Central Park Alliances) or to allow private development to fund the maintenance – are inherently inequitable.”
True enough, but precisely because of the the city’s low funding, and given that city funds are perhaps better spent elsewhere (someone else mentioned security and education), I see nothing wrong with encouraging private development of neglected areas such as the Brooklyn waterfront and requiring developers to build and maintain parkland as part of the deal. I think we all win.
The tower in the postcard actually looks pretty good compared with other new construction in the northern Brooklyn neighborhoods or in the South Slope.
What I was trying to point out is that this park is unique in that the city and state are requiring it to be self-sustaining. No other new or existing parks in New York are funded in this way – why should this one be different? Because its in a rich neighborhood?
Parks of this size are not just used by the nearby local residents – they are used by the entire city and visitors as well, and should be funded as the city-wide assets that they are.
The city’s current funding of parks is appalling low. The solutions – allowing private groups to take over maintenance (like Prospect Park and Central Park Alliances) or to allow private development to fund the maintenance – are inherently inequitable.
Unless the city funds all parks so that they can be well run and maintained we will perpetuate the two-tier system which now exists – well funded parks in well off neighbohoods – and all the rest.
What I am opposed to here is housing in the “park” not the idea that development and an increase in the tax base can fund parks. The result of the current plan for Brooklyn Bridge Park is essentially a private park for those who can afford to live there.
bored at work, that’s one of the most appalling posts I’ve seen in a while. The idea of a public project that pays for itself is as fantastic as it is rare. The MO of usual governments is to spend indefinitely and worry about paying for it later, usually through massive debt. NYers are already taxed higher than nearly all other Americans, and yet you’re calling for the whole city to pay more for a park in a rich neighborhood? Wow.
The reason there is housing on the park site is the State and the City required that the operation of the Park be self-sustaining. This decision makes this “public” park unique as far as I know. The ongoing operation and maintenance of public facilities is a basic function of government. If the City and State had not made a decision to treat this park differently, we would not need the development.
They should build the park and find the few millions it will take to run it out of the city’s existing $50 billion+ budget without blighting it with high rises.
JoshK – I am not sure I know what your point is. Without development we can’t afford new parks – unless we cut spending on police, fire, sanitation, or someone else’s park. We can’t afford higher taxes in this city, so the development provides funds to build the park. The park will provide much needed open space and recreation, not to mention provide some jobs and tax revenue. Its win – win. We get our park, new housing, increased tax revenue, and a place to put the parents when they visit from Toledo.
I have never understood the “it’s better than nothing” argument. I feel it’s better to do it right, even if it takes years longer. A park that requires 700 – 1000 condo units, a conference facility and a hotel to pay for it is ridiculous. I wish they would cut out the development AND all the basketballs courts, boat basins, etc. A nice great waterfront meadow would be nicer, cheaper, and easier to build out.
Marinas and condos are not close to my heart.