Brooklyn Bridge Park Meeting: The Morning After
What had been billed as an opportunity to solicit public input about the future of Brooklyn Bridge Park last night became a chance for area residents and other stakeholders to vent their frustration at the lack of progress and communication over the past couple of years. The Empire State Development Corp’s newly appointed head of…
What had been billed as an opportunity to solicit public input about the future of Brooklyn Bridge Park last night became a chance for area residents and other stakeholders to vent their frustration at the lack of progress and communication over the past couple of years. The Empire State Development Corp’s newly appointed head of the park project, longtime Brooklyn City Planning head Regina Myer (right), got an earful on her the public appearance in her new role. We have not been included. We certainly have a stake, David Walentas, the biggest property owner in the area, said. A bigger stake than anyone. And, of course, the contentious issue of allowing the construction of more than 1,200 condo units within the park to help fund its development reared its head: Judi Francis, of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund (which has sued the ESDC over the issue), charged that the skating rink and swimming pools that the public wanted had been axed from the plan to make the park more of a “lawn” for the condos. The landscape designer for the project also weighed in, emphasizing that the park would have a more water-focused orientation than most. We’re not just walking, strolling, promenading. We’re actively in the water, getting wet, said Matt Urbanski of Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates. We got the message from the community: This is a waterfront park. Did any readers attend? We were busy celebrating our—ouch!—38th birthday.
Angry Residents Blast BBP Planning [Metro]
Park Stalled, New Leader May Spur Building [NY Daily News]
Brooklyn Bridge Park Gets New President [Brooklyn Eagle]
Brooklyn Bridge Park: Your Input, Please [Brownstoner]
I would like to see an night sky observatory.
Whoo-hoo! Bike rentals? That would raise how much annually, you think? A few thousand at least. Now we’re talking. That would pay for the garbage bag liners but, unfortunately, not the staff to change them periodically. We’ll think of something. Got it! Hot dog cart.
What is all this crap about if you don’t want luxury housing in a park that makes you a racist? What complete nonsense.
And I don’t even understand the logic of how allowing the building of luxury condos ( to justify a pork bloated budget that included – at one time – armed security) would mean more “blacks” would be in the park.
Whoever posted that stuff must be so rich and white and out of touch with reality…
Actually – PLEASE go ahead and support the current park plan if you want white elitism to reign. Who else would wander the dune fringed estuaries on their way to their yacht? More likely to be fat cat whitey friends of ESDC principals, gifted with condos for the zoning allowances they enabled, than inner city “blacks” who might want to ice skate or swim…
This is just so ridiculous. Get rid of the housing – One Bklyn Bridge Park – if charged properly – could pay for entire park maintenance. Then there would be room for dunes and bird sanctuaries and kayak areas and a swimming pool and soccer fields…. build all of it! Just don’t build anymore housing as a revenue maker – what about restaurants? Or bike rentals? The budget is so crazy now – just pull it in and get real. It is do-able – look at the park in DUMBO.
Enough about racism and name calling – just get real.
Hey Stoner, I don’t appreciate Neanderthals like the 7:47 poster using the “f” word on your blog.
If people cannot write decently, even though they may feel frustrated and mentally challenged, their statements should not be posted.
The building of the park has very little to do with the sanctimonious (6:58pm) or racist (11:15am) residents of Brooklyn Heights… this has been dragged out by Albany and Bloomberg, in tandem with the developers. Don’t be so ——- stupid. And if you really think the neighborhood is like that, move out or don’t visit… you probably still won’t feel better.
If anyone ever gets a park built in this neighborhood filled with too many people who have too little to do except to be as sanctimonious as possible, it will be a miracle. My advise to the decision makers:
Do what needs to be done and ignore the complaints and whining of the terminally spacey.
We are not convinced that the decision-makers are open to, or listening to our comments or willing to engage in yet another re-design or how “set in stone” these plans are but that’s difficult to evaluate as we don’t know who gets to be a decision-maker?
The main “programming” gripes last night were:
1. Need winter uses (eating and drinking, ice skating, skateboarding)
2. Need for enclosed park spaces (theater, boathouse, event space)
3. Need for public park (affordabe uses / artist support / theater)
4. Need for pier destinations (carousel, boathouse, shade structure)
5. And … everyone loves a pool in the summertime!
There was also some comments about improving the plan including:
A. Direct connection to the Bklyn Hts. promenade
B. Pier Six at Atlantic Ave should be a retail / destination anchor
C. Residential uses don’t belong in parks
D. Cars don’t belong in parks
E. The park is just a front lawn for affluent residents to view
Eight years ago I was told that kayaking was to dangerous and could not happen in the park. Accommodations for visiting fleet / town dock were not part of the plan. It’s refreshing to now see those uses included in the plan. Well, hopefully MWA will get us a town dock once the governor watches City of Water. see:
http://www.waterwire.net/outside/index.cfm?ContID=2015
In addition, I was told active recreation, such as softball was not feasable due to the site constraints and tennis (quiet and rich) was being forced in the park, despite repeated calls for basketball (noisy and poor) at these meetings. I didn’t notice if tennis or basketball was in the plans last night so it could be both constituants lost out?