Winter Wonderland Coming to Brooklyn Bridge Park?
It’s still a year off, but here’s a look at the vision for a “winter wonderland” underneath the Brooklyn Bridge that Curbed posted a few moments ago. Seems like a good temporary use of the space to us.
It’s still a year off, but here’s a look at the vision for a “winter wonderland” underneath the Brooklyn Bridge that Curbed posted a few moments ago. Seems like a good temporary use of the space to us.
Hi all,
Thanks for your thoughts on the rink, we’re really excited about it. The Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy, in partnership with the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation, is working to open a seasonal ice skating rink under the Brooklyn Bridge beginning the winter of 2009-2010. The Conservancy is currently working on a proposal and fundraising for the rink. You can see more info at http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org. We’d love your help, ideas, etc.
Nancy Webster
Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy
Yeah, right, loverly…..all the rich asshats from DUMBO and Brooklyn Heights will be skating, in their adorable new outfits, under the bridge, while mattresses, bottles, hubcaps, cats, and dogs fall to earth from above. I would wear a hardhat under there unless you think only responsible, middle-class, law-abiding,tax-filing citizens use the bridge. But its the Brooklyn Bridge. HELLO? It is one of the main arteries between law-abiding, Middle-Class North America, and the nether-world of New York City.
Ringo – I’m not what kind of math you were taught, but where I come from 12 acres is not the “majority” of 85. Please stick to the facts and not hyperbole if you want to have a real discussion. Also, the two examples you cited (central Park and Prospect Park) are NOT just huge landscaped lawns. Central park contains baseball fields, ampitheaters, tennis courts, basketball courts, there’s aplace where people roller skate, etc. Same thing with Prospect park. Neither of those is an example of a huge lawn.
First, the majority of that oft-quoted “85 acres” is water so I wouldn’t call it a lawn
And second, no, I don’t think landscaped parks are boring (cf., prospect park, central park). I’m all giving people recreational facilities, I just think this is the wrong site for street hockey .
Empire stores works because it’s only 6 acres, which is a nice size for a grand lawn. But the whole park is like 85 acres. Having a huge 85 acre lawn would be pretty boring, don’t you think? Also it would be a missed opportunity to provide for all sorts or recreational activities that are currently underserved in Brooklyn. Even if you don’t play tennis or street hockey, you have to acknowledge that other people do and the city is better off for providing people with space to do those things. Havng said that, being familiar with the planned design of the park it strikes me as much more Empire State Park than Chelsea Piers anyway, so I’m not sure hwat you’re complaining about.
That part of the park is not flat ground, it is a slow downward grade toward the water.
Unless they get out earth moving equipment or sink pylons into the dirt, I don’t see how you can keep the skaters from sliding into the East River.
What I want to know is why you can’t get near the bridge anchorage now for security reasons but you will then.
I meant more the simplicity of design.
Me? Personally? I don’t very much want a cricket pitch. Or model car racing. Or a marina. Ditto kayaks/canoes/fishing (!)/floating walkways/lacrosse/sand volleyball/field hockey/rugby/historic boat moorings/bocce ball/street hockey/nature island/tennis courts /climbing walls/or tetherball. Okay, maybe I kind of want the model car racing.
But I say more Empire State Park (dumbo) and less Chelsea Piers.
Expensive for all the reasons you give. Super expensive. But doable.
Ringo – the answer to your question is actually pretty simple. Here’s the thing about temporary pop ups – they’re temporary and designed to be so. That means that the materials used to build them are of a low quality because they are not designed to last. Also, it means that utilities are kind of rigged up in “whatever-works” kind of manner because hey, it’s only 3 months, right? For example, the Pier 1 park this summer was great, but if you let that sucker go through a winter or two, it would look disgusting and would need to be completely rebuilt every year. Also, you couldn’t get away with the row of porto-potties they had there or the electricity wires that were above ground and covered over by some tarps. The majority of the money being spent on the permanent park is on stuff that you very much want to have built in a high-quality way: Underground storm water management, electricity, irrigation, sewage. Also, maintaining the sea-wall and bulkhead is always crazy expensive and super-important, becuase if that goes, the whole park falls into the river. The bottom line is that it’s not really a fair to compare the costs of a pop up that’s designed to last for 3 months to a park designed to last for 50 years.