Here Are The Proposals for the Planned Redevelopment of the Brooklyn Heights Library

By on December 13, 2013 11:38 am in Architecture, Brooklyn Heights, Development, News, Real Estate

The Brooklyn Public Library has received seven responses to its Request For Proposals to construct a new Brooklyn Heights Branch Library, to be incorporated in a larger commercial or residential structure.

Most of the proposals would provide 20,000 square feet of library space; Proposal A’s library would have 31,192 square feet, and Proposal E’s 30,000. The proposed buildings range in height from as much as 551 feet (Proposal F, which has a possible alternative height of 455 feet, still taller than any other proposal) to a minimum of 285 feet (Proposal A).

The proposals vary in how they will make space available for an interim library during demolition and construction. Proposal A offers to make funds available for relocation; Proposal C says it will lease space at a local church (not specified); Proposal F says it will lease nearby retail space; the others all say they will identify an option before the required Uniform Land Use review, although Proposal D also includes “on site” as a possible option. Proposals B, C, D, E, and G include retail space. Proposals A and E include rooftop parks accessible to the public, while Proposals C and F provide public plazas. All make some allowance for affordable housing, either on site (Proposals B, C, D, E, and F) or at another location (Proposals A and G). Proposals C, D, and E would preserve the bas reliefs from the existing library building’s facade.

Addendum: The identities of the developers submitting the proposals have not been made public, but the Wall Street Journal reports that Forest City Ratner is not one of them.

CAC RFP Briefing -Brooklyn Heights Library

Share this Story:

, , ,

←  Older Comments
 →
  • marshasrimler

    Also there is no assurance the money goes to the library system as you say for repairs etc. It goes to the city

  • gatornyc

    I don’t believe that is true. The sale of the property would be conditioned on the proceeds being put into the library system.

  • gatornyc

    It’s not being “given” away. It’s being sold and the proceeds put to beneficial use while also getting a new and improved library. So what public asset is being lost?!

    And what good is it to maintain this immensely valuable piece of property? Indeed the value of the property can only be unlocked by its sale.

  • marshasrimler

    I think you are incorrect in that is not enforceable .

  • marshasrimler

    some things are meant to be improved not unlocked

  • marshasrimler

    One way to save money is to merge the Brooklyn and Queens libraries.. Why do we need 2 CEo”s etc. etc–especially as things get more digital.
    I know both Boroughs pretty well and although they are different.. they are not all that different.
    The Board could be 50% Queens, 50%Brooklyn.
    The Queens system hashad better support from its Borough President and seems to be better run.
    Hospitals and non-profits merge all the time.
    Think about it

  • gatornyc

    I’m not sure I even understand what that means. So the BPL should find money from other sources (taxes, donations, etc.) while it sits on a treasure trove, i.e., a piece of real estate? The sale of the lot both improves the BH library and unlocks the value of the property. Not unlocking the value of the property is unfathomable given the financial state of the library system.

  • marshasrimler

    How did we get here
    Lets take one step back and look at alternatives before we procced with your/edc plan giving away assests for forever for an unenforceable fix What is your BPL CONNECTION?

  • gatornyc

    I have no BPL connection whatsoever. I would certainly consider alternative funding sources, but none have been offered on this thread at least. Fact is that the landscape has changed and the debts incurred over generations have come home to roost. Taxpayers and governments alike are strapped and there is no longer sufficient revenue to pay for all desired services. So alternative funding schemes are necessary. Using the library system’s assets to support and improve the system is the best alternative I’ve heard.

  • marshasrimler

    I have made several alternative funding suggestions .The BPL has not thought of it made one and they get paid

  • Still Here

    I believe you are correct, here. It sounds like a PILOT program. Most of these programs the ‘tax’ flow is not formally tied to the project without legislation; otherwise it goes to general fund. The PILOTs for BBP have such legislation – which was hard to get (mayors don’t like the loss of control).

  • marshasrimler

    Thank you

  • marshasrimler

    ok ..lets ask our community electeds to host a meeting in Januaray or February. Everyone from Congresswoman to Assembley woman to Councilmember should be there.. I have many many ideas.. The library people are not interested in hearing other proposals because they are shills for the Developers

  • marty

    I don’t like any of the designs. The question is: what does the community want. What do users want. We know from past experience that combining the library with one of these buildings doesn’t really work out well. The library is part of the community and has a wide range of users. Ask them not about what should replace the library….because they are users. But find out why they use it; what would they do if it wasn’t there. Libraries are such an important community facility….So I say no to any of these designs. Find another place!

←  Older Comments
 →