Skeptic Deems Proposed $40M Fieldhouse A ‘Masquerade That Doesn’t Belong In BB Park’

By on July 26, 2012 10:13 am in brooklyn bridge park, Brooklyn Heights, Development, Sports, Traffic

The $40 million, 2,499-seat Fieldhouse/Velodrome proposed for Brooklyn Bridge Park has been personified as a community recreation center, with an indoor bike riding track as its centerpiece. But Peter Flemming, Co-Chair of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Community Council and a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee of the Park Corp., says the plan that’s been shared with the public is a ruse.

He tells the Brooklyn Eagle that the proposed Fieldhouse is actually “a specialized velodrome masquerading as a community recreation center—and it doesn’t belong in Brooklyn Bridge Park… Painting stripes on a horse doesn’t make it a zebra.”

Flemming says that the Velodrome will primarily serve specialized competitive track cyclists who come from around the world, accompanied by hundreds of vehicles and thousands of spectators, to the detriment of BBP: “It’s a pipe dream. The number of people who really want it you can count on the fingers of your left hand. What is it doing in our park? Why help the city build a huge stadium in a tiny waterfront park for this quaint, obscure, bizarre sport?”

The Eagle explains: “A velodrome is a racing track, banked 45 degrees or more at the curves, for competitive bicycle racing. Competitors ride special fixed-gear bikes without brakes, and must travel at least 16 miles an hour to avoid tipping over. There is only one other indoor velodrome in the United States, the Home Depot Center Velodrome in Carson, California, though there are dozens of outdoor velodromes.”

Brooklyn Bridge Park proponents say the Fieldhouse, backed by founder and chairman Joshua P. Rechnitz, is envisioned as a “flexible public indoor athletic and recreation center” that includes a public boathouse, restrooms and space for the park’s maintenance and operations.

Greg Brooks, executive director of New York City Fieldhouse, argues in the Eagle that the entire community will make use of the facility, and says it will “save the park millions in capital costs. That’s money for maintenance, restrooms, storage for kayaks, all capital costs the park will not have to spend or maintain.”

Regina Myer, President of Brooklyn Bridge Park, adds, “The proposed Fieldhouse will bring park users and the community the all-weather sports and recreation venue that has always been included in the General Project Plan for the park but was unattainable due to financial constraints. We will continue to work with the New York City Field House to address the community’s concerns and ensure that this project adds positively to the park experience.”

There’s much more to the story in the Brooklyn Eagle. See the article here.

(Photo: Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy via McBrooklyn)

Share this Story:

, , , , , , ,

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →
  • http://www.BrooklynHeightsFolkDancers.org Ballerina

    I think it is about time people are voicing an opposition to this ridiculous plan which will not serve the needs of the local people. It is a complete waste of money and there are many needed services in the part, like an indoor theater, programs and seating for seniors, perhaps a swimming pool, etc. This is just another example of hype to get more people to buy rich condos and make the park look appealing to real estate people and to no regard to usage for residents.

  • sajh

    I dont understand why anyone thinks their opinion truly matters or will make a difference, esp on a comments section. There is no control here. And someone is putting up money to build an amenity regardless of how useful it will be for ‘everyone’. It’s wrong to baulk at a gift. That’s like someone giving out free vanilla ice cream cones and then complaining how not everyone likes vanilla and what about the diabetics and lactose people…

  • Elmer Fudd

    sajh, if someone offers me a vanilla cone, I can refuse it.

    If someone builds a velodrome on “public” land, I can’t refuse it. It is there, taking away space that would better be used for something everyone wants.

    Think about it.

  • Mr. Crusty

    @Ballerina: it may be a waste of money but it is the money of a private citizen. If the project is not built that money won’t go to all the other things you mentioned in your posting. I really don’t know how a Velodrome is hype for people to buy rich condos. Is that an amenity that is often desired?

    @Park lover said, “BBP seems to be selling itself to the highest bidders– essentially privatizing public space.”

    I hear this argument all the time but there was NO public space at this location. It was all PRIVATE space with dilapidated warehouses and the rusting Port Authority piers. The ONLY reason that there will be any PUBLIC space is because of the efforts of the very people you are criticizing. What is going on is not privatizing public space buy reclaiming private space for the public. I thank them for their efforts.

  • yoohoo

    Here’s a link to a DNAinfo review of the City Council’s $5 million appropriation for the High Line’s construction budget and comparable figures for other parks, existing and under construction, including BBP:

    http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120719/chelsea/critics-question-5m-city-donation-high-line-expansion

    What do you think will happen on Governors Island when the southern section is being developed to pay for the maintenance and operation of what will become the park proper.

    You can do somersaults, but there won’t be any new parks without private money. Instead of criticizing anything and everything like many of the posters do, you should be grateful for what is being created in BBP. There’s no point in opposing the BBP Field House because it’s a done deal, just like the siting of Jane’s Carousel (which was opposed vigorously by park advocates), because the donation of the carousel came with a sizeable gift to restore the Empire Fulton Ferry State Park. I may not like the glass shed that houses the carousel (a point that is irrelevant in the scheme of things), the carousel is a huge success with children as it is with adults, and no maintenance costs accrue to BBP.

  • Mr. Crusty

    @Erick said: “I don’t want BBP to become a menagerie of ill-suited ornaments of rich persons’ whims, such as the carousel. The park should serve the entire community.”

    Where do you get this idea that the carousel does not serve the community? If you go to Yelp you will see that every single one of the 18 reviews of the carousel gave it 5 stars. It seems that it is being enjoyed by the community. Who the heck are you to say otherwise?

    And can anything serve the “entire” community? Of course not. I have no small children so the carousel is not something that interests me but I can understand how others would get value out of it. Why can’t everyone see that the park is never going to be 100% what they personally would want? The myopic self centered vision is truly breathtaking.

    http://www.yelp.com/biz/janes-carousel-brooklyn

  • allinall

    @ ballerina – please explain to me how a velodrome helps sell condos. I spent a bunch of time working in real estate. And I NEVER attended a meeting where someone said ” The sale pace here is too slow. If only there were a velodrome nearby – nothing speeds up condo sales like proximity to a velodrome”.

  • San

    Who cries for the lone tree?

  • Strauss

    Wiley E- I bought a condo at 360 Furman. I asked the question about what, if anything, was going to be built in those plots of land, and was given a reasonably straightforward answer by the agent.

  • Wiley E.

    Crusty, are you driving around in one of Regina’s park funded Toyota Priuses?

    Strauss, I once dated a girl with your attitude, but only once.

  • carol

    @whowhawhen
    No Olympic events at this velodrome. It’s only 200m. Olympic or World Cup events must be on a 250m or larger track.

  • Neighbor Hood

    @Crusty
    Then why didn’t they build their hotels and condos on the “rusty piers” years ago then?
    Because
    A. there was/is large opposition to them within our community
    B. nobody wants to use hotels/condos surrounded by “rusty piers”
    So what do developers and a mayor & governor who want to see that happen do? Push a plan to “give” us a “public park” as an excuse to siphon millions of tax dollars into priming the land around the future real estate dreams. Millions that the real estate speculators now do not have to cough up.
    But what of the expected continued opposition to the development? Make it a “self financing park” so they can now turn around and say “well there’s no other way to finance the park”. It’s a perfect catch 22 they have created and the ridiculous Vendome and the lame, self serving arguments for it are just another example of how the tax paying public is being screwed. Many of us have said it before; we could have a much simpler, greener park land along the waterfront IF that was ever a priority for these administrations which it was not. And at the very least, this end run around the public and appropriation of our tax dollars to make their cronies real estate deals attractive & profitable should be criminal.
    (And pls don’t cry me a river about what a magnanimous “gift” this Vendome is. It’s self serving, and will end up costing MORE tax dollars in the end. If the guy wants to give a gift to the public & park then why not make it PRIMARILY a space we all can use, not just him and the relatively few racers? And don’t say it’s his money he can do what he wants because THAT’S the point, he shouldn’t be able to do it on “public park land”)
    Ps. does the Prius ride well

  • Rick

    There is no question that it is wonderful that a park is being built on the waterfront. The access to formerly unavailable space with such incredible views of our beautiful city and harbor is a gift. I am grateful, as I’m sure we all are.

    However…

    This is an unique location, and one that shouldn’t be squandered by placing things there that disrupt its special qualities. Especially when there are other places nearby far less disruptive in which to place them. This is a location where less is better than more. Not to mention that in a city full of “more”, there need to be a few places with “less”.

    When all the sports and active use amenities are finished, there will actually be very little quiet space in the park – something essential in a city that has very little quiet space. The planners of previous NYC parks held quiet enjoyment as an imperative. And that was back in the days when decibel levels were much gentler than today. I know some people will say “look at all the acres” that will just be landscaped grounds. But the sheer number of people engaged in active pursuits in such close proximity are going to infringe on peaceful enjoyment. It is a shame that so much activity has already been built into plans for the this location. To add more would just compound the damage

    Obviously this is not to say that sport venues and active fun aren’t important. But we’re talking about an amazing location, one that people come from all over the world to see. Even without the skyline and harbor views, the Brooklyn Bridge all by itself is a unique piece of art and history, and should not be surrounded by buildings, lights, etc. that detract from such a treasure. That has been my gripe about Jane’s Carousel … that although it is wonderful, it was plopped in a location that should have remained neutral, so as not to interfere with the beauty of the bridge and waterfront. Even a few hundred feet from where it is now would have prevented the damage done to a very special space.

    There is already too much going on in the park. Which makes a velodrome all the more undesirable in this location. This is not a case of nimby. This is a case of something that by its very nature needs to be built somewhere else. If the donor really wants it, he should still want it in a different location.

  • Neighbor Hood

    @Crusty
    Then why didn’t they build their hotels and condos on the “rusty piers” years ago then?
    Because
    A. there was/is large opposition to them within our community
    B. nobody wants to use hotels/condos surrounded by “rusty piers”
    So what do developers and a mayor & governor who want to see that happen do? Push a plan to “give” us a “public park” as an excuse to siphon millions of tax dollars into priming the land around the future real estate dreams. Millions that the real estate speculators now do not have to cough up.
    But what of the expected continued opposition to the development? Make it a “self financing park” so they can now turn around and say “well there’s no other way to finance the park”. It’s a perfect catch 22 they have created and the ridiculous Vendome and the lame, self serving arguments for it are just another example of how the tax paying public is being screwed. Many of us have said it before; we could have a much simpler, greener park land along the waterfront IF that was ever a priority for these administrations which it was not. And at the very least, this end run around the public and appropriation of our tax dollars to make their cronies real estate deals attractive & profitable should be criminal.
    (And pls don’t cry me a river about what a magnanimous “gift” this Vendome is. It’s self serving, and will end up costing MORE tax dollars in the end. If the guy wants to give a gift to the public & park then why not make it PRIMARILY a space we all can use, not just him and the relatively few racers? And don’t say it’s his money he can do what he wants because THAT’S the point, he shouldn’t be able to do it on “public park land”)
    PS. does that BBP Prius ride well? Do they pay your parking too?

  • soulman

    Rick – you said it. Thanks. This park is a wonder, right now. Where it’ll be in 10 years is another story.

  • gatornyc

    Rick, I simply don’t understand your contention that “sports and active use amenities are finished, there will actually be very little quiet space in the park.” Pier 1 is entirely passive use. Pier 3 will be entirely passive use. almost all of Pier 6 will be passive use except for the sand volleyball courts. Much of the uplands are passive use. The sport and active use space is actually quiet limited. Yes there is most of Pier 2 with hardcourt sports, Pier 5 with its sports fields, and Jane’s Carousel (if that counts as active use), but that’s it. And the active use space is indeed quite segregated from the passive use space. An indoor velodrome/active sports fieldhouse will not affect the balance of passive space or disrupt it. I guess reasonable minds can differ but respectfully I just don’t see it.

  • gatornyc

    This thread explains why I think the BPP is actually being very well managed and constructed. Some people want more passive space, some more active space, some want a large pool, others want a community center, still others an indoor field and on and on. Everyone has there own opinion of what would best serve the community. It is BPP’s responsibilty to best accomodate all interests and I think they are striking the balance quite well. This still means, of course, that many will be unhappy about some aspect of the park but the communty as a whole will be well served.

  • Reggie

    People who do not examine the mouths of a gift horses are people who have never had to pay the veterinarian.

  • Wiley E.

    Sure, “an indoor velodrome/active sports fieldhouse will not affect the balance of passive space or disrupt it”. (?) Did you write music for this line also?

    I respectfully disagree. It takes away footprint space. It increases all forms of traffic. It is on a flood plane, the building could be damaged by storms. And, it is the wrong size and scale for it’s intended sport.

    Therefore, the offer should be reasonably rejected. The project is best suited for somewhere else.

    But, will Bloomberg’s people unwisely give this land away, anyway?

  • WillowtownCop

    Aside from a few small food carts, I don’t think private interests should be allowed to make money in public parks. This includes condos, merry-go-rounds, velodromes, etc.

  • Rick

    @gatornyc:

    My point is that even though some areas of the park are slated to be quiet, those areas are actually quite small and quite close to areas with the probability of a great deal of spillover noise (and all the attendant visual distractions of a high-activity area).

    To people who don’t care about having quiet places in our city, this may seem like a trivial complaint. But a lot of people feel otherwise. I wish the park could have been designed with more care, clustering high activity and low activity areas, so that both groups could have been happy. Or moved high activity activities to another nearby location. There are many, since the Brooklyn waterfront is much-underutilized. Frankly, I don’t think this park is the right place for sporting fields and facilities in light of its unique position by the Brooklyn Bridge, the skyline and the harbor, which hardly benefits active sports, but is of huge benefit to quiet contemplation and enjoyment of a magnificent vista. But with current economic realities that was perhaps more than could have been hoped for – even though the present dismal situation is temporary, but the park will be here for a long time.

    So what we are left with is 2 relatively quiet areas out of 6 in a park which is not very large:

    Pier 1 will be in the shadow of the new hotel complex, coexisting with all the newly increased traffic of arriving/departing guests, hotel workers, food deliveries, laundry, garbage, etc. The park area itself functions as a major entryway to the park, and it will continue to attract more and more people, including those traveling through it to get to interior sections of the park. I don’t think that counts as passive use.

    Pier 2 is, as you said, devoted to sports.

    Pier 3 will be more passive, but will probably have a lot of sound spillover and increased active use due to being next to Pier 2. In addition, it will have to accommodate all the demand that could have been spread out over a larger area.

    Pier 4 will also be more passive, but will also be close to Pier 5’s recreation/sports fields, with a similar noise and visual situation as Pier 3.

    Pier 5 with picnic tables for “large and small groups, barbecues, a concession, and children’s play equipment” is likely to get pretty loud. The uplands will be closely surrounded by activities and the resulting spillover.

    Pier 6 is already a high use/activity area which will increase as the park is completed. Its shops, playgrounds, volleyball courts, hot dog concessions, etc. are fun, but combined with traffic and a large residential building, it hardly qualifies as quiet space.

    And a Velodrome just eliminates more.

    It is obviously too late to change what I consider a lack of planning as to keep both groups of park users happy, but I hope the situation doesn’t get worse for those of us who wanted to keep this small and precious piece of New York waterfront from being overdeveloped.

  • rob

    Is this really any different than the carousel

  • WillowSt.Neighbor

    Rick,
    I am in total agreement with you. When I moved to the Heights seven years ago I used to see my neighbors on the Promenade at night. Not so much now. Pier 1 was lovely when it first opened up. It was peaceful and quiet. Not so much now.
    I am afraid that Brooklyn Heights will lose it’s “neighborhoodiness”. Is there such a word? Well, you get the picture. Loved your post though. It’s pretty much how I feel.

  • Jorale-man

    Rick, I think you’re spot on about the need for quiet, contemplative space in the park. Look at Prospect Park with its Long Meadow, or Central Park with the Great Lawn. Sure, both of those parks also have ball fields and zoos and concert venues. But the bulk of them is still given over to lawns, forests, lakes, etc.

    As you say, it’s too late to change anything on the current plan but the BBP planners would be well advised to put the breaks on development schemes that will make the park only more congested, noisy and hyperactive.

  • Wiley E.

    No velodrome, no condos, no Regina.

  • Mr. Crusty

    Lots of complaints. Lots of bellyaching. Lots of armchair experts telling us exactly what should and should not be in the park (based of course on their personal preferences). An aquatic center some claim to be of paramount importance. No, we just need empty space to “contemplate”. A carousel in a park? What an abomination. How dare you have a beautiful historic carousel that the public seems to love in “our” park?

    It’s really all quite humorous. There is absolutely no plan that would not have come under whithering criticism from those that had another vision for the park. I guess that is the nature of any public project. One is never going to get universal agreement on anything. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    I for one am quite grateful that the Brooklyn waterfront is being reclaimed for the public’s use. This is a great project that will be appreciated for generations and generations of future NY’s – long long after anyone remembers these petty criticisms.

    I thank the city for making this happen.

  • Rick

    Some of us who have honest concerns about the park (and more specifically the velodrome) have also offered gratitude that the park has been built. Perhaps it would be better not to paint all the posters here with such a wide brush.

    And sometimes the bad is the enemy of the good.

  • Wiley E.

    Take a swim, Crusty.

  • Neighbor Hood

    “The perfect is the enemy of good” has become the last refuge of the lost argument.
    When that’s tossed at you, you know you have the high ground..

  • Wiley E.

    Has an environmental impact study been done on the velodrome project? I am told that there is no traffic study.

    Maybe the community should consider going to court for an injunction to stop the velodrome project until all the necessary studies have been completed.

    Maybe a community lawyer can convince a judge to order an audit to see where all the BBP money has gone? Who is driving around in Regina’s (reported) fleet of Toyotas, and why?

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →