bbp52011.JPG
Crain’s has an article breaking down the various challenges that presently exist in terms of bringing Brooklyn Bridge Park plans to fruition anytime soon. As has been covered, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp.’s recent draft report from consultants identifying possible funding sources for the park not involving housing has been met with suggestions from community groups and electeds that the park should pursue Watchtower properties as possible future sources of revenue. Crain’s notes the final report that’s supposed to identify income for the roughly $16 million a year for maintaining the park is due next month, and that the city “will contribute about $50 million more toward completing the park only if it can reach an agreement with BBPC on a program for self-sustained funding.” Meanwhile, the idea of constructing several new in-park developments to help fund the park remains controversial with a bunch of politicians and neighborhood groups. The bottom line, according to the article: “After more than two decades of planning and $233 million, the park is not even half-finished. The next major step is spring of 2012, with the opening of three recreational fields covering five acres at Pier 5. The BBPC says two-thirds of the park will be completed by 2013.”
Work on Brooklyn Bridge Park Could Stall [Crain’s]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. “City parks can’t legally charge admission”. So change the law, or figure out a work-around. And annual naming rights are just part of the solution, not the entire solution. As for 800 miles of coastline, I’m hardly satisfied with my access to the water, are you?

  2. Brooklyn Brodge Park is stuck right now. I predict there will be no progress made on the park until the development aspects of the scheme get underway. Right now both the proposed housing and the redevelopment of the Tobacco Waehouse and the Empire Stores are stalled. The latter due to a court case that is not going well for the city and state agencies. There is no word about the status of the proposed hotel on the uplands part of pier 6. Without the income-producing development there will be no more new park. That’s how I see it.

  3. We pay for parks out of our taxes.

    The reason the attempts to fund Brooklyn Bridge Park keep falling short is that, surprise, parks don’t bring in a lot of revenues. The premise that the park must somehow be self-funding has and always will be a ruse to sell more public property to enrich developers.

    Giving the community an “opportunity” to find “alternate” funding in lieu of development has and always will be a scam. Private/public partnerships like Central and Prospect Parks are one thing, but the amount of revenue they expect BBP to bring in is impossible.

    Unless they find oil on the land, the attempts to fund the park will fail and then the Bloomberg administration will say that they have no alternative but to give away land for luxury condos, yadda yadda yadda.

    The real alternative is that you already pay taxes for services such as parks, libraries, the fire department, et cetera…

  4. “The bottom line, according to the article: ‘After more than two decades of planning and $233 million, the park is not even half-finished.'”

    This is somewhat misleading as most of the time during those decades was spent dithering over the park’s direction and the money was similarly frittered. The past couple of years have seen a lot of progress with the money well-spent, once the state exited the picture.

  5. phoney baloney red-herring… properties cannot be used as would constitute city money going for expenses of park… not for sale or sold…. core campus of Watchtower last thing that will be sold, if sold at all
    these politicians know this, just covering themselves

    Crains:

    In a letter last week, Mr. Squad-ron, Ms. Millman, Rep. Nydia Veláz-quez, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and Brook-lyn City Councilmen Ste-phen Levin and Brad Lander urged the BBPC committee to include in the final report an analysis of payments from the 3 million-square-foot Watchtower properties.

  6. City Parks can’t legally charge admission. Annual naming rights aren’t worth 16mm a year…. park legally has to be self-sustaining, that was deal for capital money we have 800 miles of waterways and front in NYC, no worries….

  7. housing? really? Last time I checked, the idea was to make our waterways more accessible both visually and physically. Last thing we need is another Battery Park City fauxtown. why not just charge admission? Works at our national parks and monuments. Let the users pay for it. And let corporate america put its name on everything from the Piers to the boat launches to the poo pots; a Goldman Sachs poo pot, sounds catchy.

1 2 3