Brooklyn Bridge Park Field House Fosters More Criticism & Doubt

By on July 31, 2012 12:20 pm in brooklyn bridge park, Brooklyn Heights

This time it’s The New York Times that’s weighing in on the increasingly controversial $40 million Field House proposed for Brooklyn Bridge Park.

In a lengthy story titled “A $40 Million Gift, a Proposed Bike Arena and Now Skepticism in Brooklyn,” writer Lisa Foderaro ventures that Joshua P. Rechnitz’s pledge to build a field house in BBP—the largest single gift in the history of New York City’s parks system—was originally “heralded as a much-needed boost for the 85-acre waterfront park.

“But attention quickly turned to the centerpiece of the plan: a velodrome with a 200-meter inclined indoor cycling track and stadium seating for almost 2,500 spectators. Now, some parkgoers, neighborhood activists and community leaders are looking that donation in the mouth and saying, Thanks, but no thanks.”

Leaders of community groups in Brooklyn Heights and DUMBO are loaded with questions specifically regarding the track, the Times says, worried about the building’s size (with a footprint of up to 70,000 square feet, it is larger than a football field) “and the traffic it might draw to the cobbled streets of Brooklyn Heights, while pointing out the relatively obscure nature of track cycling, in which riders on fixed-gear bicycles without brakes travel at terrific speeds around curves banked at 45-degree angles.”

The NYT adds that some also doubt Rechnitz’s motives: a 47-year-old resident of the Upper West Side, he is an avid amateur track cyclist who has tried and failed to bring a velodrome to the city. Now, they say he is buying the track he wants on public land.

Joan Zimmerman, president of the Fulton Ferry Landing Association, tells the NYT she is concerned that the park was already being nibbled away by structures, and “putting this large of a building at one of the narrower necks of the park raises the question of what’s more important: green space or buildings?”

But NYS assemblymember Joan Millman, who represents Brooklyn Heights and the area containing the park, supports it, in part because it would replace a rundown storage building near Pier 5 that she calls an “eyesore.” And Regina Myer, president of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp., which governs land use in the park, emphasizes that “it’s not taking away any green space; the plan always called for that location to be a maintenance building.”

In any case, the Field House has a long way to go before it becomes a reality in BBP. The Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation must still approve the plan, which will also require state approval. There’s much more to read in the Times piece here.


Share this Story:

, , , , , , , , ,

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →
  • Rick

    Again, this needn’t be a struggle between green grass and sports/activity. I also fall into the green grass camp for this park, but that doesn’t mean that those who favor active recreational opportunities need be denied. Just because a unique site like the Brooklyn Bridge Park is damaged greatly by the inclusion of large ball fields, tennis courts and possible velodromes doesn’t mean that those things shouldn’t be built somewhere else close by. This is a big city and there are many unused locations for any of these sports venues. And even if it is too late to change some of what is going to be built in the park doesn’t mean it is too late to change the location of the velodrome/fieldhouse.

  • Mr. Crusty

    Well for the record I am not pro or anti Velodrome at this point. I need to hear more information and look forward the public hearings on the subject. I share many of the concerns that opponents of project have regarding the appropriateness of this type of facility in BBP but I don’t think any of us have enough details on what exactly is being proposed just yet.

  • backtobasics

    There seems to be some basic misunderstanding about this project:

    1)The site was previously planned for a maintenance building. This may have meant using the existing building or demolishing it and building a new one. While obviously it would be wonderful if all of the site could be used for things that took advantage of the wonderful views, if you’re going to have the park look beautiful some portion of it is going to have to be dedicated to a maintenance bldg.

    2) There is no ruse going on here. The Park and the donor have very clear that the primary interest of the donor is to build a velodrome. A pure velodrome would certainly not be an appropriate use of limited parkland.

    3) There has been a longstanding call among many community members for indoor recreation facilities at the park. This would be wonderful as it would increase option at the park and also bring people down to the site year round. Right now the place is virtually deserted for about 3 months a year. The problem with an indoor recreation facility has always been that it is expensive to build and expensive to operate.

    4) Given all the points above, when the donor approached the Park folks – they said that they would accept the gift on the conditions that the donor would include the maintenance facility (by potentially tucking it under the track or making it a 2-story facility), maximize opportunities to include other types of indoor recreation, and use the velodrome activities to help offset the operating costs, allowing the other recreational activities to be offered at reasonable costs. This seemed like a unique opportunity to get a recreational facility without sacrificing additional planned greenspace and without have to find funding for the construction.

    At this point the proposal is not yet well enough developed to know whether they have succeeded in offering enough other indoor recreation activities to justify the velodrome. They’ve been very candid about the fact that they have not yet really seriously started the design process. Instead of all these silly accusations, it seems like at this time we should all reserve judgement and wait and see what comes of this and whether there is enough net positive in this proposal to justify dedicating some of the time and space of this facility to a velodrome. Also the donor has committed to a transportation study, let’s see what that says before those of us who are not traffic experts go of making predictions about traffic nightmares. Remember IKEA? people were predicting horrible traffic that never materialized there either.

    All i’m saying is that this mass hysteria is premature. At this point it seems to me that this project could either be a boondogle, or it could be a unique and clever way to leverage a millionaire’s fascination with an odd sport to help provide much needed indoor recreation opportunities which would otherwise not have been financially feasible. So far, given the quality of the administrator they hired (greg brooks) and the quality of the architecture team they are working with (Thomas Phifer) I am cautiously optimistic…

  • resident

    When this was first announced, I thought the plans sounded better than how they were later explained. I’d be opposed if the building was the only consideration. If the cost for demolition of the current building and the building of the maintenance facility (something that appears necessary), without this donation means something else is further delayed or not built, I say lets all go cycling. I’m not sure that’s the case though.

    Willowtown cop: Have you taken a broad look at the park plans recently. Pier 1, Pier 3, the back half of Pier 6, the entire “uplands” and everything north of the Brooklyn Bridge is green space. This far exceeds the amount of space dedicated to recreational facilities. In fact, it wasn’t all that long ago that the wannabe politician (anyone remember his name?) kept complaining that there wasn’t enough recreation opportunities in the park. And of course there’s Gerry and his aquatics center. While the park is never going to meet everyone’s expectations, I just don’t see how anyone can say “there’s no green space.”

  • BH rez

    When people say that they are all in favor of a velodrome, just build it somewhere else, that is the textbook definition of NIMBYism.

  • stuart

    can we ban the use of the term nimby for a couple of years? Ditto for “icon”.

  • Joe Harper

    Complete NIMBYs. Build the field house!

  • NattyB

    The rank NIMBYism expressed in that article is shocking. Just totally embarrassing.

    It makes BK Heights look like a bunch of shut-ins, who only care about our precious free street parking spots.

    Traffic and parking suck around here and it’s only going to get worse when people get off the BQE and take Atlantic to the Barclays Center.

    But c’mon. If we can handle Barclays center traffic, then we can handle a nice, state-of-the-art, multi-purpose sports facility.

    Why the F should I move to the suburbs to enjoy nice modern amenities. Why the F should I move to Central Queens? I like living in a neighborhood where I can walk or bike to the store, and if need be, hop a zip car to run errands out of town.

    This facility will be walking distance to the 2/3 and N/R and the Ferry and heaven forbid, some people will actually bike there.

    Stop preventing other people from having nice things because you insist on driving and making the rest of us bear the costs of your lifestyle.

  • Rick

    Apparently a lot of people don’t have any idea of what NIMBY means.

    This isn’t about community resistance to a velodrome being built in an established area.

    It is about a preference that a relatively small park yet to be finished keep enough areas for grass and trees. Even without the velodrome, current plans call for a rather small proportion of the total to be green when compared to other city parks.

    This same preference can be felt for this site whether one lives in Brooklyn Heights or Los Angeles.

    And if a sports park or an action park or a theme park is what your heart desires, there’s room close by in Brooklyn for that too, just not in this very small and unique site.

  • Heightser

    Exactly. I’ll take these people’s complaints seriously when they’re willing to pay for their currently free parking spaces. There is no god-given right to free on-street parking and it’s time we started charging for residential parking permits.

    If you’re so concerned about people taking your parking, then you ought to pay for the privilege. Otherwise, it’s up for grabs.

  • backtobasics

    Rick – the point that many have made that you are ignoring is:
    1) Actually there is a ton of grass and trees in this park already. All of Pier 1, the entire area between brooklyn and manhattan bridges and the portion of pier 6 that surrounds the volley ball courts

    2) There is even more “grass and trees” that is going to be built in the next couple of years, including almost the entire uplands area between pier 2 and pier 5, the rest of pier 6 and the entire pier 3.

    3) Even if you got rid the velodrom you would not get more “grass and trees” since that is where the maintenance building would go.

    So opposition to this project on the grounds that you think the park should have “grass and trees” does not make any sense.

  • Monty

    I personally don’t care about parking. I don’t own a car. My opposition is that if Rechnitz has $40M to blow on a vanity project, he shouldn’t get primo real estate for free. Less than 1% of New Yorkers are going to have any interest at all in track cycling and with a $300 entry price for a racing bike, this is never going to be a sport for the masses. A generic indoor gymnasium like we all had in high school would be far better. Basketball, indoor soccer, kid’s kickball league can all play through the winter. NIMBYism would imply that we somehow need a velodrome and if not here, it has to go somewhere else. Nobody needs this. If he really wants one, let him buy the land and build the building. I’m sure $40M would be plenty if he were to put it anyplace except this glorious waterfront patch.

  • Rick

    @backtobasics,

    The “point that I’m ignoring”, you say?
    Sigh.
    This is the problem with having multiple threads about the same subject. We keep going over the same points as new people post.

    Rather than subject people who have already read it to a repeat, my thoughts on what you claim “does not make any sense” can be found in this thread:
    Skeptic Deems Proposed $40M Fieldhouse A ‘Masquerade That Doesn’t Belong In BB Park’.
    I tried posting this with a link, but it wouldn’t post, perhaps this blog doesn’t accept posts with internal urls?

    As for #3, the rather obvious questions are WHY does the maintenance building have to go in the center of the park?
    And wouldn’t it be far smaller than the present building?

  • Mr. Crusty

    @Monty: “A generic indoor gymnasium like we all had in high school would be far better.”

    Great. I agree. When can we expect your $40 million dollar donation to build and maintain that indoor gymnasium?

    @Monty: “My opposition is that if Rechnitz has $40M to blow on a vanity project, he shouldn’t get primo real estate for free.”

    He is getting primo real estate for free? He is DONATING $40M to the city to build a Velodrome. It won’t be his Velodrome, it will the BBP’s Velodrome.

    @Monty: “NIMBYism would imply that we somehow need a velodrome and if not here, it has to go somewhere else. Nobody needs this.”

    ahhhhh.. well I’m glad you cleared that up and can speak for the entire city of 8 million as to what is needed, wanted and desired.

    Again, I am not for the project necessarily and have many of the same concerns voiced here but this knee jerk opposition to $40M gift to the city is a bit much to take.

  • Phillip

    Although I would probably never use it, I have nothing against a Chelsea Pier type building on Pier 5, as was originally planned. This building, however, not only appeals to a very small minority of New Yorkers, it takes up precious green space which should remain green space, as BBP is very unique and not big enough for such an endeavor which will benefit very few.

  • Monty

    @Mr Crusty, I think I can safely say that very, very few people are clamoring for a velodrome. There is only one in the entire tri-state area and I don’t think it’s overflowing. For most of us it would be a giant brick in the middle of the park. If a gymnasium can’t be funded now, then just leave it as greenspace and keep the option open for future development.

  • backtobasics

    RIck – Michael Van Valkenburgh, one of the leading park desingers in our generation, determined that this was the appropriate amount of space and the appropriate location to best serve the maintenance needs of this park. Probably because having a maintenance facility in the middle is more efficient with a long thin design. Why do you think you know better than him? Do you have any experience in park maintenance that I am not aware of? Also why are you acting like the middle of the park is such a primo spot? In fact, because the BQE cuts of access except for at the ends, the middle of the Park is the toughest spot to get to and will probably be the least used. Also, views from the park are exceptional from all locations in the park. So anywhere you put a maintenance bldg you will be occupying space with great views. I really don’t understand your point here.

  • Rick

    @backtobasics
    1) As you probably know, the best architects and designers in the world do many things they are not proud of when forced to make compromises, so I don’t understand your unduly reverent tone. Mr. Van Valkenburgh is surely as human as anyone else?

    2) It is a very short distance from Pier 1 to Pier 6, so I hardly think you believe a central position is necessary to shorten the commute time for workers from shed to work location. To further shorten that time, they have various work vehicles to speed them on their merry way.

    3) In such a small park, all of the locations are “primo spots”. I’m suggesting that since the middle is the farthest from the greatest noise-generating features of the park that installing a maintenance shed there would be counter-productive. You point out that the center is likely to be the least used, and this reinforces the point that it should be for quiet use.

    4) Anywhere along the water will indeed have great views, but other areas further from the water will not. Perhaps the space behind the berm could be utilized if there is enough space for a longer more narrow building. Or better yet, why not be really clever and build it right into the berm?

  • Jorale-man

    The NY Times article reports that the velodrome will be about 70,000 square feet, which is bigger than a football field. Just eyeballing the size of the current maintenance shed, it’s not nearly that size. A football field would in all likelihood extend from Furman all the way out to the waterfront. That’s hardly a modest shed with some John Deer equipment.

    Interesting, by the way, that the park’s spokespeople are now chiming in here, and in such a combative way.

  • yoohoo

    Backtobasics, I greatly appreciate your comments; you are one of few sensible people on this forum. The lack of common sense, of misinformation and paranoia voiced here cry to high heaven.

    Let’s not forget that the velodrome building must include the BBP Boathouse and public restrooms besides a maintenance facility. If every use category were to have a building of its own, would that increase or decrease the square footage of the “small” park? Furthermore, construction of any type is restricted to upland areas without subway tunnels running underneath (the map shows four of them). The required EIS will have to include solutions to access, transportation and parking issues. By law, the future building cannot be higher than 55 feet along Furman Street and must taper down away from Furman Street. It could mean doing away with the costly berm along that section of the BQE and Furman Street, which is to shield park users from traffic noise and also requires space to be built.

  • Bloomy

    Did the plan for the field decrease is size, or is the NYTimes just doing a poor job of researching their story? Last I read the building was going to be 115,000 sq. ft. (http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/uploads/files/e31fc168-8143-4b06-a3a9-ddc4637c949a.pdf) But without actual plans, it is a bit hard to interpret that number. If the building has more than one story then the footprint decreases in size rapidly.

    Personally I can’t wait for it to be built. It will be nice to have a proper track without a huge hump in the middle of it like Kissena.

  • Pineapple

    The hotels and apartments at the other end of the park are going to bring a lot more car traffic than a velodrome. NIMBYs!

  • michael

    Let them build somewhere else not in this park. This water front park is not amusement park.

  • carol

    A few facts:
    1) The existing one story brick building which was slated to be a maintenance facility is about 27,000 sf. It is an existing structure that was to be saved for maintenance. The velodrome/field house will have much larger footprint that will take up more land than the existing building. My impression is that there wasn’t money for a maintenance building so it seems reasonable to use an existing structure. Whether the maintenance building needed to be that large is a question that I can’t answer.
    2) I do recall a proposed maintenance building planned for just south of the Pier 1 Hotel/condo development which would have tennis courts on the roof. Did it disappear when Mr. Rechnitz showed up with his pockets overflowing?
    3) May we please stipulate that no one is going to ride their track bike to this or any other velodrome? Don’t take my word for it – do your own Google research but stop spouting nonsense about track bike racing and how competitors or enthusiasts get to bike tracks (except those who store their bikes at the velodrome).
    People will disagree but let’s stick to that facts. And stop assuming that all Brooklyn Height residents oppose the veodrome…

  • matthew

    Williamsburg is a better fit for this and it will be lower cost. IMBY

  • intitled white person

    what’s shocking is how many here commenting know so very little of what a velodrome is and the racing that goes on there, but write with such authority on topic. though i’m not an expert, i know enough about velodrome racing to know that most of what is being written about it here is completely untrue.

    as for the traffic- are you serious? this is not a sport when you barely get more than 50 people to show up to watch- not at least in queens where the other velodrome is. as for the participants, there are a handful who show up during the week, and then possibly 60 on a good weekend. it’s going to be far from a traffic “situation”. yes, it’s possible that the sport will grow, but as far as being a problem for traffic- not very likely. this is not the atlantic yards.

  • entitled white person

    let’s try this again… entitled!

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/13189502@N02/ Eddyenergizer

    115,000 Sq Ft is approximately the size of one city block in Manhattan, in the numbered streets and avenues grid.

  • backtobasics

    1) 115,000 SF is not at all the size of a city block in manhattan. It’s is less than half the size of a city block. There’s enough misinformation on this blog, please do’t add to it

    2) Rick – yes Michael Van Valkenburgh can make mistakes, as we all can. But he is making an educated assumption based on decades of involvement in parks building. You can’t just say he’s wrong without explaining why you think so. This isn’t second grade. Our arguments should be more evolved than “is so – is not”.

    3) yes the distance between pier1 and pier 6 is not that big (about 2/3 of a mile). But maintenance people have to do that trip dozens of times a day. It adds up, even if they use vehicles. And the maintenance people don’t only have to go to pier1 – the park extends up to the manhattan bridge – that’s a distance of more than a mile. Talk to the folks at hudson river park – another long thin park and they will tell you how much time they waste just travelling from site to site.

    4) The maintenance building itself has a smaller footprint than the velodrome, but if you look at the plan you will see that the building is surrounded by an outdoor maintenance yard which significantly increases the footprint dedicated to maintenance.

  • Rick

    @backtobasics
    Wow, are you Michael Van Valkenburgh’s personal press secretary? I only repeated your use of his name after your adoring description of him a few comments ago as one who has to be right because… well because you said so.

    Don’t take this personally. I never said he is wrong. I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt by making the assumption that he had to do things he didn’t want to do. As I said, it happens to the best. The nature of the NYC political process could be the explanation for some of the park’s less stellar aspects. Do you have personal knowledge that the maintenance facility is actually where he best believes it should be located? Anyway, this thread is about the park, not about the designer.

    I’ve already written a great deal on these threads about why I think a few of the features being built into this otherwise wonderful park are bad ideas. As well as some possible fixes. A cursory look at these threads would reveal far too many lines of my ramblings! If you have a disagreement with any of them It would be more honest of you to specify any points you disagree with than to just pretend I’d never provided any details.

    As for the workers, if we weigh the few extra minutes it might take them to reach any given spot against the greater good of a park without a maintenance facility taking up valuable green space, then moving that facility to a less central location seems like a good idea to me.

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →