Suit Tries to Block Brooklyn Bridge Park
May 16, 2006 — A community group filed a lawsuit yesterday in State Supreme Court to block plans for a new park along the waterfront. The group, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund, opposes a plan approved by state officials earlier this year to rehabilitate the 1.3-mile-long stretch because the plan calls for luxury housing…
May 16, 2006 — A community group filed a lawsuit yesterday in State Supreme Court to block plans for a new park along the waterfront. The group, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund, opposes a plan approved by state officials earlier this year to rehabilitate the 1.3-mile-long stretch because the plan calls for luxury housing in the park to help subsidize its cost. The lawsuit seeks to reinstate an earlier park plan that does not include the housing, as well as require state officials to analyze the impacts, like traffic congestion and parking shortages, that other development in the area might have on the park.
Group Sues to Block New Park [NY Times]
also: Brooklyn Bridge Park Building Boo’d [NY Daily News]
EVER
NEVER
What I’m trying to say is this: It’s fine (IMHO) to have buildings within the bounds of a park. Yes, I guess the printing plant in not ‘technically’ within the bounds of the promised park land; it is, however, “in” the park, don’t you think? Whatever is put in is better than what’s there now. When do the critics put a rest to it and let the park get built? Hasn’t this park been delayed enough already? It will NEVER EVER please everybody.
Actually it can donate land to the city if it desires.In reality since the PA is not subject to scrutiny. There is a post above that lays it out very well.
Public authority have particularly charters. The PA does ports, bridges tunnels, airports, etc for New York and New Jersey. It cannot take its land and give to the city or build a park for free. It has to get something out of its land so it can pay interest on its massive debt. At least it must break even.
The Port Authority can trade land. A couple of years ago there was talk of the city trading the land on which the airports are built (which is city land) for the WTC site (which is PA land).
What should the city give up to get this waterfront?
The Met? …..
People here are c-c-crazy.
The Metropolitan Museum is not luxury housing but a public museum. Battery Park does not have housing within the park, nor does Central Park. The Jehovah’s printing plant and DUMBO are not part of the promised PA land either. What exactly are you trying to say?
how do you even fit 5k retail/commercial space on that land?
Battery PARK City is a great example of how housing can work in a park. The building around Stuyvesant High (and the school itself) blend nicely with the public aspect of the development. And, by the way, Central Park has plenty of buildings in it — like, for instance, The Metroplitan Museum of Art. I’d much rather have a park with some residents. One Brooklyn Bridge Park (360 Furman St. — the Jehovahs Witnesses printing plant) already exists on the land. Condo sales for the over 400 units begin in the summer. This is like arguing that gay couples shouldn’t have kids. Well, guess what? They already do…