Eagle: Developers Licking Their Chops Over Brooklyn Heights Library

What are you talking about? Please educate yourself yourself. Go to the library.

Here is the comment I posted on the more complete original Brooklyn Eagle story.

“A sizable number of responses” is totally vague! Mind that BPL spokesperson has previously
stated that they would do business with the notoriously public-promise-breaking Forest City Ratner apparently considering that firm a “respected developer” so that sets a very low bar when BPL spokesperson Emma Woods says the responses are “from respected developers.”

Ms. Woods refers to the intent that “the value of this property can be unlocked” without any tip of her PR hat to the fact that Forest City Ratner is the firm that has the key to the lock of which she speaks. See:

Friday, September 20, 2013
Forest City Ratner As The Development Gatekeeper (And Profit taker) Getting The Benefit As Brooklyn Heights Public Library Is Sold

http://noticingnewyork.blogspo…

Regarding her denial “that the site’s developer would have to buy air rights from a third party to build a profitable project, as alleged by the advocacy group Citizens Defending Libraries”: They absolutely don’t have to but those rights, the question is whether there can be an effective winning bid without doing so. As for her saying “we do not expect additional development rights to be acquired for this site”: 1.) We shall see, and 2.) if that is the case then it just confirms that the city (and BPL) have far less in the way of rights to sell that could justify demolishing this library to replace it with a shrunken one.

As for any dialogue with the so-called “Community Advisory Committee” (CAC) supposedly being “robust,” remember that the CAC is being run by the so-called Friends of the Brooklyn Heights Branch Library who take the position that they cannot disagree with, or oppose the BPL, in any way. The second most important group on the CAC is the Brooklyn Heights Association that says that they are there to support the “Friends” position, such as it is. Citizens Defending Libraries is excluded from the CAC because it opposes the sale of the library, opposes its shrinkage, and opposes the intentional underfunding of libraries as an excuse to do these things- All of which the Friends and BHA won’t oppose. At Monday’s hearing on selling off NYC libraries Councilman Steve Levin said that the library sell-off is presently one of the very most important issues to his constituents and the more than 95% of them oppose it.

A “robust” dialogue with the CAC? Really? Oh come now!

As for the prediction of a coming building “similar height to other buildings on Cadman Plaza”: Remember that those other buildings are tower-in-a-park design. I don’t recommend that style of urban design, but the reason that those Cadman Plaza buildings are so very tall is that they sit way back from the street and gave up a lot of density on surrounding land. Those urban renewal buildings (including the library) are actually less dense than the torn-down much more typical Brooklyn Heights buildings they replaced.

Any new building of that size on the library site would reverse that previous reduction of density for which the property of less advantaged people was sacrificed in the bulldozing Robert Moses urban renewal years.

Lastly, notice how details of what is going on are only being dribbled out selectively. This much information appearing in this article might not even be here were it not for Noticing New York’s reporting on the 1986 transfer of development rights about two weeks ago. As I noted then, it was a story hiding in plain site for a long time. And why wasn’t this information presented front and center when, in January, the BPL first disclosed its long secret plan to sell the library?

please dont let this happen. it is a travesty….they are selling a public building for short-change. it won’t solve all the problems BPL has and in short time they will sell other branches. the last thing we need is another luxury condo in the neighborhood, with tax benefits for the ones who build and buy the property, while our taxes have gone for years to support public facilities like this one.

“a brand new library branch” is a lie. only the real estate developers will benefit from this. please write to Ms James and Mr Levin to keep up with the efforts to block this shameful deal.

Dude, no one is going to read a 5 screen comment.

So the BPL is going to demolish this G-d forsaken miserably 1960’s libary….as dingy and depressing a space as I’ve ever seen and build a brand new, modern library in its place?
Whats wrong with that?
I’ve followed this and just don’t get the anger….all you people do is claim that “only real estate developers will benefit” without actually documenting why that is! And no I don’t take this DD White guys crazy, deranged ramblings as actual evidence. Mike might want to have a look into the literacy services they offer at the BPL…could help his writing immensly.

So the BPL is going to turn over the site to a developer, whose motive is to take as much and give as little in return as possible, in the hope that the developer will actually live up to its promise to provide a better library. We must then also hope that the market or the developer doesn’t go into the tank and leave us with a gaping hole in the ground, as happened with the Donnell Library in Manhattan.

Guys, seriously, grow up. You are going to get a nicer, prettier, more modern library that will actually, you know, work. These Mike White people are anti-developer, not pro library. Get a grip on reality here: the library is not your enemy, you will still have a library, and you are not defending the library, you are attacking it.

First, I have actually worked in a library. Second, I’m not anti-developer–Mike and I disagree over Barclays Center, which I think is a great boon for Brooklyn–except where developers seek to destroy things that I think ought not be destroyed or take over what should be dedicated public space. I have frequently used the present library, and think it works quite nicely, apart from the HVAC system. It’s a shame that there doesn’t seem to be the political will to provide BPL with the funding to fix that.

You’ll laugh at this,but I like the building. The friezes of “Art,” “Science,” etc. on the facade hearken back to WPA art–I was surprised to learn that the building is of ’60s not ’30s vintage–and to a time when Americans had a sense that we were all in the same boat, not competitors at each others’ throats infected with a “To hell with you, I’ve got mine!” mentality. To see it replaced with a soulless high rise apartment building would, I think, be a sad loss.

Name calling is not an effective means of argument.

Actually, no. They are two different worshipers at the temple of markets uber alles. (I haf my vays.)

FYI, anything east of Clinton St. is outside the 50 foot landmark height restriction, so sky’s the limit.

I agree totally with Claude.

This fine building, with its human scale proportions was built with the power of eminent domain under Federal Urban Renewal. They took over the then run down strip of Fulton Street and subsidized iits subsequent development for a “higher use”. Now that sound principle is abandoned in favor of selling out our (tax-payer paid for) heritage for the temporary “thrill” of a mess of pottage.

I agree, I rather wish they would pull a Hearst and, if they must develop, use the existing building as a pedestal for a taller tower

I think you’ve made an unsupportable generalization. There are developers who aren’t trustworthy, and those who, for the most part, are. Even the latter, however, are subject to market forces beyond their control. BPL could award the site to the most trustworthy developer, but if the market turns and the developer loses financing, we could end up with a hole in the ground or an empty shell.

What I mean is I have seen Tish James in a few meetings and she is very consistent in her stance against developers. I’m not a fan but let’s at least characterize her correctly. You can start your education by looking at the video attached to this article. If you find her questions consistent with supporting the development of this site then I just don’t know what else to say.