BHB Exclusive: Q & A Nancy Webster, Executive Director BBP Conservancy

BHB: How is the conservancy managing the overwhelming popularity of BBP?

NW: There are a couple of different pieces to that question. First, and it’s something that I wanted to clarify in regards to park numbers, park visitation over a typical summer weekend is around 120,000 folks on Saturday and Sunday. There had been attribution to me that there was around 120,000 or 110,000 each day of the weekend. I did just want to set that straight if that was a figure that you had seen.

In terms of managing for the popularity of the park, the first thing I would say is it’s absolutely fantastic. The park is living up to its mission to be a park that everyone in Brooklyn and New York City feels is their park. Brooklyn Bridge Park is of such significance that it is a citywide resource and is much greater than a neighborhood park. The fact that we’re seeing robust visitations in the park is actually wonderful news.

In terms of how that’s managed you really have two organizations. Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp, which manages day-to-day park operations, is continually and thoughtfully looking at park visitor [numbers], looking at park usage, evaluating what sorts of resources and infrastructure are either strained or underutilized and taking corrective measures to manage that. Managing visitation is an ongoing process here at the park.

We try to extend events and activities across the entire footprint of the park, not concentrate them in any one particular area.

I think you have to look at things in context when you have a park that’s being built in stages sometimes that can create challenges with management because [for example] the sequence of the bathrooms that you have planned to have open to serve visitors, they’re potentially in a phase of the park that is still under construction. You really have to judge the smoothness of operations after you have a complete park. That being said, I am continually impressed with the level of thoughtfulness that our colleagues at BBPC put into park operations.

How the conservancy thinks about managing visitation is we try to be very careful and intentional about public programs. We try to extend events and activities across the entire footprint of the park, not concentrate them in any one particular area. We think very much about the days of the week that we program events on. We try to go program lighter during the weekend when the park has more of a natural visitation.

In other words, it’s an ongoing process of trying to optimize the park’s infrastructure and it’s events and activities to accommodate the many, many people who are coming here, which we think is a mark of the success of the park.

BHB: BBP is free, so there is no way to control attendance at park events. Has the conservancy been surprised by the number of people who attend free events at the park?

NW: [C]learly the movie series is proving very popular. Thankfully, it’s not as popular as Bryant Park movie series [in Manhattan] because we have a very large, generous lawn to work with. Other events that we do are clearly very popular. I would say they are hitting their targets. If we do an event that does not get a lot of visitation, then perhaps this is an event that people don’t particularly want to see in here in the park. And we might take it out of our rotation.

We experiment with the different sorts of events that we do. Which is not to say that we don’t like small events. We absolutely love doing park tours where we actually do take RSVPs and limit the number of people who can come so that everyone who comes can have a good experience.

Again it’s a constant balance and tinkering.

, , ,

  • marshasrimler

    Nancy Webster is paid and bought by the real estate interests. She is really a hidden paid lobbyist–nothing more,nothing less

  • Lady in the Heights

    That is false! Nancy is the exec director of a non profit organization and is wonderful, dedicated principled person who holds this job because she cares deeply about the neighborhood and having a wonderful resources for the city. I have known her for 15 years. Shame on you!

  • marshasrimler

    Nancy has multiple conflicts of interest..like she heads the CAC but is handmaiden to the BBPDC. Ask members of the CAC who believe she is
    bought and paid for.. Wake up and smell the roses..Non profit and carrying water for the big profit making developers.
    Either you are naive or whatever

  • HenryStreeter

    Medication… use it.

  • marshasrimler

    is that a legitimate answer to conflict of interest questions?
    ask members of the cac. It would be good if this was looked into by the press

  • Lady in the Heights

    If you are going to sling accusations, you better have the facts to back them up. Please explain what exactly Nancy has done that is corrupt?

  • marshasrimler

    ask members of the cac about ongoing conflict of interest issues they have.. why not put it on the agenda and in the public sunlight?

  • johnny cakes

    HenryStreeter. That is a spiteful thing to say to someone. Maybe you should follow your own advice and get a prescription.

    Non-profits are the preferred method of hiding money. Ask Lito Lopez, or even Eric Adams about the use of non-profit covers to hide money.

  • Lady in the Heights

    I am asking you because you put it in the “public sunlight”. Stand behind your accusations. What has Nancy Webster done that is corrupt and what specifically are her conflicts and what has she done that is questionable? Be specific, please.

  • marshasrimler

    As I said she has ongoing conflict of interest issues
    that need to be spelled out in the cac. She raises money for the organization she runs from the developers. They in essence pay her salary and then build and overbuild in the community. She supports their efforts . This needs daylight at the cac. Have a pleasant day. Bye

  • Lady in the Heights

    Sounds like general mudslinging to me. Doesn’t sound like you have much.

    Maybe you should focus on some positive things in this world instead of only looking for the negative? Maybe take a walk in our gorgeous park on this beautiful fall day.

  • marshasrimler

    We shall see

  • Doug Biviano

    Much of what Nancy Webster says is thoughtful and her point of view is obvious, so I can appreciate that, but to say that the rest of the park will be put in jeopardy without development at Pier 6 is pure hyperbole and fear mongering.

    What puts parks, libraries, hospitals and schools in jeopardy is the overbuilding with the one-two punch of public subsidies to developers in the form of tax abatements (421A and J51 that last up to 25 years), specially legislated tax breaks (Extell, Atlantic Yards, etc), and public asset and infrastructure giveaways below market value (Atlantic Yards, IRS building, etc).

    In essence, tax payers are being forced by politicians (with tools to combat the 1970’s decline of NYC but now fund their campaigns) to support developers and newcomers instead of the parks, libraries, hospitals, and schools we need to live happy, healthy and productive lives.

    Given Nancy Webster’s Role, one cannot expect her to speak to this broader issue that is harming our communities. All the talk of Affordable Housing is actually a smoke screen because people here and now are being driven out in droves despite the AH hullabuloo.

  • cindy s

    Well, its really two factors which is
    Causing/enabling the tulip bulb
    Craze in housing prices. First the
    Behavior or government but of far
    More significance the behavior of
    The banking sector. Only ONE
    Element WRITES the PAPER…

  • cindy s

    Without the behavior of the financing
    Sector you cannot (duh) have housing
    prices ever escalating in a tulip craze.
    Period.

    As far as the park is concerned,
    Everyone really needs not to focus
    on personalities or smaller aspects
    And focus on what FUNDAMEN-
    TALLY is going wrong.

    This park is the classic PRIVATE
    Corporation being allowed to take
    over the function of a govermental
    Body responsible to the electorate.
    Starting with the Federal Reserve…
    Which is the model for this severe
    Distortion, private trusts, funds and
    “quasi-public” corporations with all
    their lack responsibilty to the public
    will, murky visabity have proliferated.
    And with the rise of each one of these
    artificially created power centers,
    there is alwaysthe rise of circles
    of supporters or individual lead-
    ers of satellite organizations who
    are here to assure the public that
    everything is being well monitored.
    But let anyone seriously ask for
    a real time review or audit by any
    Kind of an outside independent
    Agency all the lapdogs go into
    deflectiowhennd when that doesn’t
    work, they go into attack mode.

    This is what is going wrong here;
    Government has got to govern.
    It has do so efficient ly and effect-
    ively. The PEOPLE HAVE to insist
    on this. And, private bodies are
    NOT a substitute for honest,
    effective govrrnment. This is well,
    what you were always taught in
    School: government always
    Responsible to the direct will of
    The people.

    The people must be vigilant
    But the people in this republic
    are the absolute sovereigns.

    Now let’s see all the lapdogs and
    Extra government policy creating
    NGO Types attack the above…too
    bad its the truth….

  • gatornyc

    Your point has little to no applicability to BBP in view of its funding structure. The fact is that the Park has not yet provided sufficient information regarding its finances to determine whether additional development on Pier 6 is necessary for BBP to meet its financial obligations. It remains an open question that must be vetted, which can only occur once BBP provides additional budget information.

  • marshasrimler

    well said the BBP Board.. must come clean and open its books. government must govern not these private groups that the politicians hide behind

  • Solovely

    Seems worth pondering that Ms. Webster chose to take a position on the save pier 6 issue; is such a stance within the mission of the Conservancy’s mission statement? And/or should it be? Is worth some discussion? These organizations were conceived as separate entities with different missions. How do supporters of the park, support the park, but be against pier 6? now that Ms. Webster has taken this position? Is this “mission creep” on the park of the conservancy? Was her position on pier 6 even necessary within her role?

  • Doug Biviano

    My point is that you and everyone else are focusing on the PILOTS (whether covering the cost of BBP which we suspect they are without Pier 6 buildings) when this scheme is an under-performing distraction created by politicians to justify development where it doesn’t belong that is ironically subsidized by other tax payers (many who don’t want it). An unabated tax base is all we ever needed to fund this park, our libraries, our hospitals and our schools (way over crowded from overbuilding). If we had elected officials who respected the voters they would end these tax abatements, public giveaways and our park would be a park, not a development project.

  • Doug Biviano

    That is what I was getting out with my point of ending tax abatements and public giveaways. These public-private partnership schemes are harming transparency, accountability, our ability to govern, and robbing the tax payer in so many ways. When people hear Public Private Partnerships they need to scream to elected officials HELL NO! Note, our “Authorities” like Port and MTA fall into this category as well shielding politicians from accountability as well.

  • gatornyc

    True or not (and I’ll go with not; the funding of government is far more complicated than you suggest), the ship sailed long ago on the debate of whether the Park should be self-funding through PILOTS, land leases (you don’t mention those), etc.

    Attempting to bring the debate back to whether the Park should or should not be self-funding is the distraction.

  • gatornyc

    With all due respect (and I do respect your cause), such questions distract from the core point. Indeed, why should anyone — particularly the head of the Conservancy — not be able to voice their position regarding the issue? Your core issues are very strong, so why distract from them by raising these types of questions which candidly only provide fodder for your opponents.

  • johnny cakes

    gatornyc. You sound like a lawyer. Are you a lawyer? That could make you an ordained liar for your client.