So What Do You Think About the New York Times Op-Ed on Brooklyn Bridge Pier 6 Housing?

By on August 13, 2014 3:10 pm in brooklyn bridge park

The New York Times weighs in today on the controversy about the housing planned for Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pier 6.
What do you think of their take?

Comment away!

RELATED:
Battle Royale at Borough Hall: BBPC Board Shoots Down Pier 6 Opponents

TRO Issued on Brooklyn Bridge Park Pier 6 Towers

Local Resident Uses Savvy & Social Media to Fight BBP Housing Plan

The NY Times Sheds Light on the Opposition to Affordable Housing in Brooklyn Bridge Park

NYT: Thankfully, many of their neighbors in Brooklyn see through those arguments. They recognize that raising a ruckus about “crowding,” property values, traffic and school capacity is just a less obvious way to try to keep poor, or poorer, people off your block, and out of your park. The following statements are true, and not incompatible: Private development is essential to Brooklyn Bridge Park’s success. But a lack of affordable housing is a citywide emergency. Brooklyn Bridge Park can sustain itself through its public-private model and still have some affordable units built on its edges. The Brooklyn waterfront can and should stay green without becoming a luxury enclave, because this city gem is nobody’s private backyard.

From the Brooklyn Bugle: The New York Times P***es Me Off Endlessly

Share this Story:

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Quinn Raymond

    Do any of the people opposed to this project fully understand the relationship between density and carbon emissions?

    I urge you to research the topic; especially check out David Owens’ Green Metropolis.

    I challenge you to consider what specifically you are doing at the community level to mitigate climate change. How does your approach to development reinforce or undermine your commitment to addressing this issue?

  • guest

    Except that the Park has made tons of presentations on these exact issues and has highlighted exactly how much money they have and how much money they need and those presentations are on their website and have been for months. But except for that there’s been no transparency.

  • gatornyc

    You have a point but only to a point. Presentations have been made and certain financials have been disclosed. As respects the financials, however, we have to take BBP’s word for it, because very few of the underlying numbers have been disclosed. More importantly, projections are only provided through 2018 (when allegedly the revenue and cost streams will be normalized), despite the fact that significant changes occur after 2018 such as the expiration of the J-51 abatement and exemption for OBBP (so the PILOT payments will be substantially larger). BBP has made financial disclosures but they have been wholly inadequate to assess how much housing is necessary for it to meet its “self-funding” mandate. Any additional housing on Pier 6 should be limited to that which is required to assure that BBP can meet its financial requirements over the long run.

  • Solovely

    I am so sorry — so now carbon emissions is a reason not to have a PARK? I think you make lots of interesting points, but this is utterly confusing.

    If you want to do something about climate, there is this upcoming,

    http://350.org/peoples-climate-mobilisation-a-global-invitation/

  • Fritz

    Children and parents coming to a park? Who would want that.

  • johnny cakes

    Are you Regina Myers?

  • gatornyc

    No, not even close. So someone who likes and supports the Park must be affiliated with the Park? Would you ever like to factually respond to any of my posts?

  • Joe A

    Yeah, that is patticakes usual response to anyone that supports the park – that you must be affiliated with the park or a “tool”. I think that tells you all you need to know about patticakes.

  • Joe A

    Ahhhhh…. The old stand-by “safety” argument. We heard this same canard by those opposing CitiBike. Pedestrians were going to be mowed down on a daily basis by the hoards of blue bikes flying down our sidewalks. And the children, the children! Just think of the children!

  • Joe A

    Climate change? Really?

  • Quinn Raymond

    Perhaps counter-intuitive to some, but absolutely true.

    Increasing density and limiting sprawl is the lynchpin to mitigating climate change, especially here in the US. But don’t just take my word for it:
    http://www.amazon.com/Green-Metropolis-Smaller-Driving-Sustainability/dp/1594484848/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408367268&sr=1-1&keywords=green+metropolis

    If you want another view of this, there is a UN report that goes into the benefits and downsides of density vis a vis climate change. The gist of it is that in the developed world (ie NYC) it is an unambiguous benefit (skip ahead to page 6 if you don’t have time to read the whole thing, although it is fascinating):
    https://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/users/schensul/public/CCPD/papers/Dodman%20Paper.pdf

    In the heart of the city there is no conceivable use for a plot of land that small that will have a better environmental impact than housing. The energy saved by keeping people out of the suburbs, limiting their commutes, limiting the size of their residences, all have a significant impact on our carbon footprint.

    If you have the courage for it that Green Metropolis book will challenge your assumptions and values about what is “green” like nothing else. I highly recommend it.

  • HicksOnHicks

    Sorry “Guest” but this is untrue. They schedule the “public” hearings at 3pm on a weekday when the “public” is unavailable and then when they do hold the hearing they refuse to share critical information. This is what Daniel Squadron, local councilman, had to say: tate
    Sen. Daniel Squadron (D-Brooklyn) sent a letter to park officials in
    June along with Assemblywoman Joan Millman and Councilmen Steve
    Levin and Brad Lander asking for a public meeting to discuss possible
    alternatives to the plan to fund park maintenance with new housing
    towers.

    They
    had hoped the de Blasio administration would reconsider the Bloomberg
    era plan – though the new team has shown no signs of changing course, going ahead with a request for proposals for the housing.

    A month later, Squadron said they’ve gotten no response.

    “This
    is a Bloomberg administration plan that has long had broad opposition
    and concerns in the community,” he said. “We believe the new
    administration, at a time it’s moving forward at breakneck speed, should
    engage the public in the hopes of finding a better, less controversial
    plan.”

    Critics
    say the housing towers will overshadow the popular new park and give
    too much influence over park operations to pricey condo owners. But
    supporters say the park has been wildly successful and existing housing
    has not interfered, and money from the condos is needed to keep the
    green space in good shape.

    “This
    is a bad plan,” Squadron said. “It’s frustrating that in addition to a
    plan that doesn’t make a lot of sense, they’re unwilling to even engage
    the public.”

  • gatornyc

    Indeed, it does. Johnny has been trolling me for a long time now.

  • Solovely

    If of interest to anyone, we have new information to share.

    BROOKLYN BRIDGE PARK DOES NOT NEED HIGHRISE
    CONSTRUCTION ON PIER 6 TO FULLY FUND ITS MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS

    EXPIRING TAX BREAKS TO GENERATE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IN HIDDEN INCOME TO FUND THE PARK, ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING THAT WILL LIMIT PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE PARK

    http://media.virbcdn.com/files/61/97aab546ca9b49af-PFGSFoundation-FiscalAnalysisPressReleaseFINALAug18.pdf

  • johnny cakes

    Don’t be ashamed of yourself. Stand-up for greed.

  • johnny cakes

    Lower-case letters, please.

  • ujh

    Damn right, Bill. And more schools and a hospital are not among the BBP’s mandate either. Rosie et al. are barking up the wrong tree; instead, they should push Council members Steve Levin and Brad Lander to get the necessary school(s) instead of engaging in political grandstanding.

  • ujh

    You must be dreaming! How long have you lived here?

  • ujh

    The water between the piers to the bulkheads has always been counted as park acreage. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that kayaking takes place on the north side of Pier 2; thus, the water is being used for recreational activity as is the case in the Cove near the Manhattan Bridge. That bay is also counted as park space.

  • ujh

    If you’re against housing “in the park,” what alternative VIABLE source of income can you identify to pay for the park’s M & O? The concept of public-private partnerships to build and pay for NEW parks was promulgated by Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg. I advise you to familiarize yourself with the genesis of and funding models for Hudson River Park and the park being built on Governors Island beyond your strictly parochial concerns.

  • Solovely
←  Older Comments
 →