Grass area

Brooklyn Bridge Park Expansion At Piers 3 And 4 Opens

By on November 16, 2013 11:25 am in brooklyn bridge park, Brooklyn Heights

The Uplands (land) section of Brooklyn Bridge Park in front of Piers 3 and 4 has opened for public use.  It features a series of bike and pedestrian paths from the Pier 5 BBQ area to the existing pathway at Pier 2, grassy lawns (sadly closed until Spring to allow for further growth) a granite plaza overlooking the future Pier 3 lawn and a sound attenuating berm which muffles the sound of the BQE enough to hear the waves from the East River lapping at the shore.  A future addition will be a “pebble beach” and boat launch adjacent to the water.  Music, entertainment and children’s activities are being provided through 1 PM, and a tour will be held at 12 noon.

Share this Story:
  • Philip Galindo

    I remember kicking the soccer ball around with Dad and friends in the 60’s. It was crushed gravel then.

  • -j

    Another reason to save LICH – the only hospital & ER in the waterfront & park area

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    Checked it out this morning. The layout is nice however, the berm doesn’t seem to cut the sound of the BQE all that much… Also the pathways are paved with the same improperly applied “chip seal”, it already looks like crap. Nice views but the workmanship is kind of shoddy.

  • Jorale-man

    I went down there too. I found the berm was pretty effective in the center, by Pier 3, but towards the edges you do still hear the BQE a lot. I took the tour and the guide said the plan is to eventually extend the berm all the way across, from the hotel complex to Pier 5… I did like the variety in trees and shrubs. The pines are a nice touch especially.

  • ernest

    The BBPC spends all this money on landscaping, just to give them the excuse to claim they have to build condos and hotels to pay for their expenses. How much money has been wasted? Into whose pockets did that money disappear? Can we have an “independent audit” please. A lot of the grounds constructed a year or two ago, have been torn-up and replaced with other stuff. Why? It seems wrong.

    Much of the BBP money was tax-payer funded. And the citizens deserve clarity to know why and how it has been wasted. Where is the oversight?

  • ernest

    In the 60’s the waterfront was closed to the public. It was owned by the Port Authority and only used for shipping. (?)

  • Joe A

    Oh stop.

  • C.

    That’s really unfortunate to hear about the berm being extended. It’s the only thing that I really didn’t care for about this design. It just looks so unnatural among all the great landscaping and takes up so much of what could be more park space. I don’t see why they couldn’t just encase the BQE with a wall to keep the noise in.

  • David on Middagh

    The berm had better not be extended, I think. It would hinder the view from the Promenade, which is bad for the Promenaders and good for criminals.

  • gatornyc

    What grounds that had been completed have been torn-up and replaced?! Easy answer . . . none. Your objections to real estate to finance the maintenance of the park is blinding you.

  • gatornyc

    Encase the BQE?! Do you realize the expense and other challenges in doing that? The berm is functional and adds to the aesthetic of the park and any sacrificed space is minimal in an 85 acre park. It also provides a divider from Furman Street which is necessary.

  • gatornyc

    The view of what from the Promenade? Manhattan or the skyline? It does not impair the view of either. And why is the Promenade sacrosanct? I lover the Promenade, but I think the preference should go to the multi-use park.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    As it stands now, I think extending the berm is a bad idea, considering the existing one takes up so much space while only marginally reducing noise from the BQE. Perhaps the berm would be more effective if it was heavily planted with trees and bushes, especially at the top, but so far, the plantings are much too sparse for that purpose.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    Are you implying the berm will facilitate muggings, by occluding views of the park paths fro the Promenade?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    Yes, in the center, right near the base it does mitigate the sound to some degree but it seems a high price to pay in land usage for such little gain. Its encumbrance would be much more justified if it were an active part of the park i.e. a path running along the top or one of the granite “staircases” that are elsewhere in the park.

  • C.

    Encasing the BQE wouldn’t be too hard. It would just call for a wall at the end. Plexi-glass might have done it who knows. If you think the berm adds to the aesthetic of the park well I have to question your taste in aesthetics. It’s a giant unnatural looking dirt hill. The space is minimal? When done it will take up over half of all the uplands. That’s not minimal. That’s monstrous.

  • gatornyc

    I find the noise reduction far more than marginal. And give the plantings time to grow. The grasses have been planted on one side but they’ve hardly grown in yet. And the other eastern side of the berm has not been finished yet.

  • gatornyc

    The cantilever of the BQE was more natural? The berm removes the BQE from the view within the park, which makes the park look much more natural and contiguous. Once the grasses that have been planted on the berm grow in, it will look much more natural and in context. It only looks like a dirt hill now, give it some time. And the berm reduces sound on the upland and on pier so to calculate the space taken just based on the upland is inaccurate.

    Finally, several proposals for enclosing the cantilever section of the BQE have been put out by engineering/design companies. It is much more involved than simply throwing up some plexi-glass.

  • earnst

    The bulkhead areas between piers 3 and 4 built the year before Sandy, were dismantled in the spring of this year. The bulkheads were rebuilt, bike paths removed and then replaced.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    My comment on the lack of vegetation referred to “trees an bushes” not “grasses”. Indeed heavy plantings of trees and bushes along the top of the berm would help cut the sound from the highway, grass will not.

  • Jorale-man

    I agree – the berm lacks a certain subtlety and it’s not something you can actually walk on. I’m not a landscape architect but it seems like they could have set it farther back and then made the slope on the west side more gradual. But maybe the acoustic benefits would be negated. Hopefully the next installments will be a little more subtle/functional.

  • ernest

    But GatorAid, just think how much more money could be spent in your attempts to justify building more Condos if you took over rebuilding the BQE?

  • gatornyc

    Way to stay on topic and what is this even about. How am I trying to justify building more condos? Fact is that the ship sailed long ago on opposing condos in the park. They are and will be there. Let’s talk about the park the way it is and not the way you plainly pine for it to be (though I will add that BBP simply would not exist without the condos).

  • gatornyc

    The bike paths were always intended to be temporary until the uplands were constructed. As for the bulkheads you are simply wrong.

  • ernest

    You are simply wrong. And false.

  • ernest

    You are a BBP condo shill. That is obvious.