squibb-park-brooklyn-0509.jpgAs part of Mayor Bloomberg’s new city budget, Brooklyn Bridge Park is losing $8 million from its budget, reported the Brooklyn Paper yesterday. In addition to reducing some landscaping in the project, the most direct impact will be felt in the loss of the foot bridge that was to connect the long-closed Squibb Park on Columbia Heights to Pier 1 in Brooklyn Bridge Park (which is scheduled to be open by the end of this year). While Judi Francis of the Brooklyn Heights Association lamented the lost connection to the Heights, Councilman Yassky looked on the bright side when he said, “While the situation is not ideal, given the severe economic downturn, we are fortunate that further cuts for Brooklyn Bridge Park were not recommended.”
It’s a ‘Squibb’ Kick in Brooklyn Heights [Brooklyn Paper]
Photo by emma t.


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Bkre — By “fuzzy math,” might you also be speaking of the park plan that includes the acres of water to increase the number of acres in the plan, and consequently to drive down the maintenance cost per acre and make the absurd plan for Battery Park City East seem more reasonable? Quite fuzzy!

    This is how the BBP planners made the costs into a rationale for housing and PILOT payments. But have you ever mowed an acre of river water? How might one irrigate an acre of river ?? Maybe we should pay for seaweed (riverweed?) on the river bottom to complete the landscaping….

    If the 20+ acres of water are excluded from the funding formula, a park without additional housing seems far more reasonable and possible. Why would condos/housing be a good finance scheme, when 360 Furman is less than half sold?

    It’s imperative to have a bridge or ramp from Squibb, or ideally from the Promenade. Of course the Squibb bridge may come later — Bloomberg is probably just flexing his muscles. And far better the Squadron financial plan than the O’Connor model, where he literally sold the park down the river without informing any of his constituents!

    A (smallish) hotel is fine by me. A safe water zone — maybe. I’d rather see the grandiosely overpaid Van Valkenburg and Co earn their bloated fee by revising the park plan, removing the berm, and making an accessible world-class park in Brooklyn, not Teardrop Park II (his work in Battery Park City.) The only part of Teardrop that’s ever used is the kiddie slide. The rest is just a backyard for the fishbowl of buildings around it.

  2. Bkre — By “fuzzy math,” might you also be speaking of the park plan that includes the acres of water to increase the number of acres in the plan, and consequently to drive down the maintenance cost per acre and make the absurd plan for Battery Park City East seem more reasonable? Quite fuzzy!

    This is how the BBP planners made the costs into a rationale for housing and PILOT payments. But have you ever mowed an acre of river water? How might one irrigate an acre of river ?? Maybe we should pay for seaweed (riverweed?) on the river bottom to complete the landscaping….

    If the 20+ acres of water are excluded from the funding formula, a park without additional housing seems far more reasonable and possible. Why would condos/housing be a good finance scheme, when 360 Furman is less than half sold?

    It’s imperative to have a bridge or ramp from Squibb, or ideally from the Promenade. Of course the Squibb bridge may come later — Bloomberg is probably just flexing his muscles. And far better the Squadron financial plan than the O’Connor model, where he literally sold the park down the river without informing any of his constituents!

    A (smallish) hotel is fine by me. A safe water zone — maybe. I’d rather see the grandiosely overpaid Van Valkenburg and Co earn their bloated fee by revising the park plan, removing the berm, and making an accessible world-class park in Brooklyn, not Teardrop Park II (his work in Battery Park City.) The only part of Teardrop that’s ever used is the kiddie slide. The rest is just a backyard for the fishbowl of buildings around it.

  3. bklyn20 – I think what you mean to say is that francis is the spokeswoman for the park plan that would never get built b/c it would be twice as expensive, not generate enough revenue to ensure it’s upkeep, and would not block the noise from the BQE. Squadron’s plan is also a fantasy with a lot of fuzzy math that has pretty much been greeted as dead-on-arrival by city hall.

    The loss of funding for the bridge does not mean it is gone forever, just that it will have to wait longer till it is funded. Just like the hotel and the safe harbor – they will all be built eventually. Once the first section opens up at the edn of this year the judi francis’s of the world will quiet down…

  4. Judi Francis is most certainly NOT a spokeswoman for the BHA. Judi Francis IS, however, President of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund, and a spokeswoman for a real Brooklyn Bridge Park, rather than a housing development with some green trim around the edges and big berms on the sides.

    The BHA is right on many issues, but not on this one. (There are some signs of a change in their position on BBP – but only time will tell.)

    We can have hope now, thanks to the Squadron victory and his new financing plan, that we won’t be seeing Battery Park City East rise up on this side of the East River. How people will get to this park now, with yet another connection severed, still remains a concern.

  5. Mr. B, think you’re confusing one Judy(i) with another. Judy Stanton is the director of the BHA. Judi Francis is connected to the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund, and most definitely NOT a BHA spokesperson.