Details About a BBP Bridge
Popular Mechanics had an article, as well as the renderings above (click to enlarge), about the 396-foot-long Squibb Park Bridge, which will connect the Promenade to Brooklyn Bridge Park. Plans for the pedestrian walkway sound extremely cool: “From Squibb Park, the bridge will zigzag gracefully through a clutch of tall oaks, between buildings and over…
Popular Mechanics had an article, as well as the renderings above (click to enlarge), about the 396-foot-long Squibb Park Bridge, which will connect the Promenade to Brooklyn Bridge Park. Plans for the pedestrian walkway sound extremely cool: “From Squibb Park, the bridge will zigzag gracefully through a clutch of tall oaks, between buildings and over a street, descending 30 feet in elevation from its starting point to its endpoint in Brooklyn Bridge Park. Supported by poured-concrete pillars and suspended by steel cables, the primary construction material will be 6- and 10-inch-diameter pieces of Robinia pseudoacacia, or black locust, a tree found widely in the Southeast but also prevalent in forests of the mid-Atlantic and Northeast.” The project is supposed to be done by next summer, according to the article.
A New Brooklyn Bridge—This Time Made of Trees [Popular Mechanics]
Squibb Park Pedestrian Bridge to be Made of Wood [BHB]
Bridge Will Connect Heights to Park [Eagle]
Do we know how much the bridge is estimated to cost? As nice as it may be, it does not appear to get you from the promenade area to BBP any faster than continuing to walk down the hill (Columbia Heights) and entering at Fulton Ferry Landing. Perhaps the money could be better spent on finishing the park? I’m just sayin’…..
when the Brooklyn Bridge park was created in what now seems eons ago, the agreement between the State and the City was that the cost of construction would be shared and that the cost of maintenance would be gotten exclusively from within the park. The cost of building the park escalated because of both inflation and frankly an incompetent management appointed mostly by the state and the ESDC that was responsible for the park(including slick brochures and endless delays). Finally competent management was brought in(recruited from NY City Government). Building finally got under way. The City and the State was asked to contribute to the additional costs. The State refused. The City said it would increase its share on the condition that it took control and that the originally funding of the maintenance be maintained(from within the confines of the park). The State actors beholding to a group of people who are against housing in the park, obtained a concession of a study group to see if alternatives to housing as a funding source from WITHIN the park could be found. There has been a continuing effort to expand that mandate to include funding sources from outside the boundaries of the park. The CB 6 resolution calls for funding of any short fall from general City revenues, among other things. The City has more than kept its bargain. It allowed 360 Furman to be included in the park(post the original plan). It has ponied up more money for construction. No one I know is thrilled with more housing within the park but most of the alternatives either require the city to allow more land from outside the park to be the funding source(the watchtower buildings) or are a pipe dream(concessions to pay more- look across the River South Street seaport is mostly empty- the PA could not find a restaurant-or to open a restaurant in the Freedom tower-as examples) or for people to pay to use the parks fields or other amenities…a park for rich people. So the State people should either get State money or stand aside in my opinion..originally posted by Frank from Furter….
I like the bridge, and would love to have access to the Heights direct from the park. It would make a great running route to get to the Brooklyn Bridge.
Now that I see the outline of the planned buildings, I don’t mind them so much. nice if they had some park amenities in the ground floor.
Really excellent well-integrated, best-in-class design for the bridge. I shudder to think of the nasty pre-engineered rubbish that was originally proposed for the spot.
Thanks, Chris, I know that the City took over the park from the State, but State funds were used toward initial construction costs, were they not?
CGar – strictly city money now, State is out of it.
m4l, the City and State committed upwards of $200 million for the park’s construction, but I’m not sure if that will cover all of the construction costs. There is also a BBP Conservancy, of which I’m a member, which is a private organization that raises money for the park.
The bigger issue, which has been covered a great deal on a Brooklyn-based blog called Brownstoner (perhaps you’ve read it?), is how to fund the ongoing operations of the park. No decision has yet been made, but the options include building luxury condos in the park, selling naming rights, and creating a BID and assessing neighboring businesses.
Caliente! great plan… very cool material, will be a big benefit to park tie brooklyn together not in knots!
CGar, re. that on-ramp, I know!–I can’t figure out the right-of-way situation with cars and pedestrians. It seems like even when you (as a pedestrian) have the walk light, cars can still (apparently legally?) be turning to zoom up the ramp…