Brooklyn Bridge Park: It's a Go!
After many years and countless delays, construction on Brooklyn Bridge Park began this week, according to a statement released by BBP Corporation President Regina Myer. Site prep for the first phase of the project—which includes the demolition of five pier shed buildings, the Purchase Building, and a few other buildings—started on Monday. The first phase…
After many years and countless delays, construction on Brooklyn Bridge Park began this week, according to a statement released by BBP Corporation President Regina Myer. Site prep for the first phase of the project—which includes the demolition of five pier shed buildings, the Purchase Building, and a few other buildings—started on Monday. The first phase is expected to last nine months. Update: As of 9:40 this morning, there was no action at the Purchase Building. Anyone have a view of the piers? We’d love a photo…
Brooklyn Bridge Park Construction Begins [NY Sun]
Amidst Lingering Controversy, BBP Construction to Begin [Brownstoner]
Brooklyn Bridge Park Meeting: The Morning After [Brownstoner]
Impact of BQE Reno on Brooklyn Bridge Park Unclear [Brownstoner]
BBP rendering from BrooklynBridgePark.org.
This park will be stunning. Had the park construction actually begun when it was supposed to (April 2007) the 1 BBP sales would have gone much quicker. Next 9 months will see the warehouses on pier 1-6 torn down (as of BBPDC release dated Jan 28- construction began this week), and the doubters will begin witnessing the transformation from wasteland to jewel. Even our politicians cannot screw up for much longer the most obvious beautification project in NY state.
Ditto on 9:19. Fuggatabout housing inside parks. Let’s get back to combating the alarming rates of obesity and asthma in NYC with a REAL PARK that has active year round recreation. Fuggatabout luxury condo owners who don’t want people using “their lawns”. Who wants condos in parks anyway? Lazy politicians who are on the dole from real estate developers? Wherz dah park?
Think about it, why would anyone want to buy an apt. in a park? Unless, of course, it really isn’t gonna be a park with active recreation and such…oh, yeah, they took out all the active year-recreation once they decided to put housing down there. Get the picture? Private uses of the park drive out public uses. Want to have 30 story towers inside the berm in Prospect park? Sounds like a good plan.
Oh my God. I thought “Asshat” was the What’s invention. I am devastated. I feel like a total “fuctard” (“pathologically incapable of recognizing the obvious” such as the fact that the What was not as original as I thought.)
Google says: 1,480,000 search results for “asshat”
These buildings are IN the park. There is no separation of park lands from the buildings, particularly the three buildings in the north end. They sit right on the lawns that were to have been park lawns. Take a look. The john Street building is RIGHT IN the park, no separation from a street or roadway. The Hotel/Condo buildings at Fulton Landing, too. The two new towers in the south end have a 15 foot road surface around them – private road by the by for people who live in the park – hardly Central Park South, east, west or the same for Prospect Park. And those great parks have the addition of a wall and berms to separate the park areas from residences.
There is no dedicated,legally permanent parkland in the plan. The GPP notwithstanding, the park spaces are not protected. At a CB2 hearing last winter on 360 Furman’s lease, a Doctoroff employee who attended all these meetings acknowledged this fact. It is also a major concern of the BHA. The BHA and I may have disagreements on the park plan, but this is something we can all agree on, or almost all of us. The 13 Guiding Principles of the pre-2004 real park plan discouraged housing. That was no guarantee either. Until it is signed into law, there are no assurances.
stop with the ridiculous comparisons to highrises on the great lawn. This is not some undeveloped wasteland of granite and trees to be set upon by FL Olmstead we’re talking about – there are already industrial buildings in the footprint of where those developments are going to be. Why not just say the buildings are alongside the park just like CPW buildings are alongside CP? You can say the buildings are in the park if you want (because they’re being developed in tandem with the park and therefore part of the same plan) but it’s clear they’re on the edges of the park, not “in the middle of the great lawn” or whatever this park’s equivalent is. I’m not a believer in everything coming out of the BBPDC, which has little credibility in my eyes for their maintenance budget, constant revision of park uses, etc., but the rhetoric of the anti-BBPDC camp about the buildings is just plain misleading.
New York Magazine used the term “asshat” in today’s “Daily Intelligencer.”