Committee to Consider Alternatives to Housing in Park Wednesday

By on September 20, 2010 5:06 pm in brooklyn bridge park, Development, Government

The Cobble Hill Association alerts us to a meeting to be held at City Hall (Manhattan) in the Blue Room, starting at approximately 11:00 a.m. this Wednesday, September 22, at which the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation’s Committee on Alternatives to Housing will consider possible sources of funding for the Park other than the construction of private housing on the Park’s land. According to CHA’s Dave “Paco” Abraham:

This meeting is yet another opportunity for the public to come out and speak out on their desire for a park, a true park… one that does not include private housing within it. The CHA prefers year round recreational facilities such as a pool, ice rink and indoor field house which could offset costs the City cannot [sic] burden.

If you cannot attend the meeting, you may submit comments by e-mail to brooklynbridgepark@bbpnyc.org or by phone to 718-222-9939.

Share this Story:

, , , ,

  • zburch

    wondering why a marina has not been proposed?

  • zburch

    Or a real artists market featuring brooklyn artists….

  • resident

    If the whole thing gets built, there will be a marina off pier 5.

  • Eddy de Lectron

    I doubt an artists market would be able to help fund the park on a significant level, although it would be nice to have an area for one. I think something like Chelsea Piers sports complex would work and be more appropriate than housing.

  • bkre

    I agree that however nice it would be, an artist market would not provide sufficient money to replace housing. The problems with a Chelsea Piers style sports complex (which has already been analyzed by the park developers) are:
    1) It would take up a huge amount of parkland (big footprint required) and still not make as much money as housing
    2) Many of the recreational facilities that Chelsea Piers charges for will already be available for free in park (basketball, in-line roller skating, soccer, handball, etc).
    3) The point of a public park is to provide recreational activities for free. I would argue that making people pay for recreation in the park is more counter to the spirit of a public park than allowing a small amount of housing to build along the edges.

  • http://montaguestreetjournal.com Ace

    Taxes?

  • WhatThe

    If I were a Hilton [not Paris] I would buy the Watchtower building the borders Furman and convert it into a hotel and make darn sure there were no buildings between it and the park – maybe even pay an annual air rights no-build fee. It would be worth it to maintain the views and the hotel could be 4 star…

  • bklyn20

    I put on tis post. or so I thougt aty1:00 pm. I don’t know where it went, so I’m trying again: I

    I and others have repeated, endlessly, that the maintenance costs per acre are in line with Hudson River Park and Battery Park City because THEY COUNT THE WATER ACRES BETWEEN THE PIERS AS LAND ACRES! This is basic 4th grade division stuff. If you count the water acres as park LAND, then the footprint of the buildings goes down to 10% from over 20%.

    How much does it cost to maintain an acre of water? And why was there trash in the water last time looked closely at the BBP shoreline?

    Here is the kind of formula the current park planners are using:
    I am 6 feet tall in heels — if I count my height as 6 feet and then use that to compute my BMI, well — I am super-skinny, and no dieting is required! I coulda been a supermodel!!

    This is the kind of fuzzy-logic ramparts on which the 2004 park plan was built, and which is used to justify housing in the park.
    Resdential condos in a park are not a problem merely because of their “footprint.” Don’t they have a “viewprint” and a skyprint” too?

    People living in a park space, in luxury buildings no less, change the very character of the park. Louder or more boisterous activities become problematic, as they disrupt the lives or sleep of the residents. Condo owners may be uncomfortable with the appearance or habits of people who go to the park, creating overall tension, to say the least. This is supposed to be a citywide park if not even a World Class Park — capitalization not mine.

    Why did the BHA, for all its good works, decry the new tall, ugly (went up 4 or 5 years ago?) building on Montague between Clinton and Court Streets, above Garden of Eden? The BHA couldn’t legally stop it because that block is not in the Brooklyn Heights historic district. The decried its unsuitablility to the area — and I agree, it is ugly and unsuitable — and I mean no offense to those who live there, I’m just writing about the building.
    Why are tall ugly buildings bad for Montague Street and good for Brooklyn Bridge Park? Why was the BBP funding formula changed to encompass capital maintenance rather than simple operational maintenance of the park (lawn mowing et al)? This is all built on a lie, with many smaller lies to hold up the big funding fallacy. With housing, especially if the new buildings go up, the lie is perpetuated, along with a model of park financing that is only good for some, rather than for all.

    If you believe that the current BBP funding model is right for this and other parks, than perhaps you believe the world is flat. Which might be a good idea — then we could get rid of the berm.