BHB: BBPC has suggested that it’s a mistake to reopen/modify the General Project Plan (GPP). Yet when a velodrome was proposed for BBP near Pier 5 the project was greenlighted until being shelved due to a lack of funding. Do you agree that some might see an inconsistency in this position when discussing altering or eliminating the proposed housing at Pier 6?
NW: It’s my understanding that—and I actually want to differ with how you’ve characterized this—the folks at BBP Corp certainly have opened the General Project Plan. For instance, when the park went from state to city control, that certainly was a modification of the [GPP].
So my understanding was it was not said that we would never open the GPP. What was said is that we don’t believe it makes sense to open the GPP over the Pier 6 funding issue because we have studied this in the past and we have already address this question.
BHB: In keeping with Mayor de Blasio’s commitment to affordable housing, approximately one-third of the buildings’ square footage will be devoted to middle income housing. Please walk me through the rationale on how it makes sense for BBP to incorporate affordable housing at Pier 6 given the project’s stated need for Payments in Lieu of Taxes [PILOTS].
With that in terms of approximately a third of the buildings being workforce housing, I’m going to be completely frank with you here. The conservancy is supportive of this plan, but it was not without some soul-searching.
NW: What we’re looking at is in the park’s revenue projections and final financial model. There’s the anticipation that if you fully build the two Pier 6 buildings, there will be enough money to sustain the park, with also some left over building space that could be used for workforce housing. Basically, you will have the income you need to support the park from approximately two-thirds of the buildings square footage.
The conservancy’s first line of concern is making sure that there are enough dollars to sustain the park, and given that, we believe that the Pier 6 dollars are necessary to sustain the park. BBP Corp. within its model has shown us all that they anticipate they can create those dollars with about two-thirds of the square footage. We’re supportive of the development.
With that in terms of approximately a third of the buildings being workforce housing, I’m going to be completely frank with you here. The conservancy is supportive of this plan, but it was not without some soul-searching.
Ever since 2005, we have advocated that there should be no more building in the park than was absolutely necessary to sustain the park. However, and I articulated this in the letter that was sent, there has also been a crucial part of our mission to work for and be supportive of a park that was [as] welcoming and inclusive as possible to citizens from all tracks of our city.
That’s a fundamental core [aspect] of our mission. We recognized that the inclusion of workforce housing does create that sense of welcoming for greater New York City.
Given that, we are supportive of the current proposal.
BHB: I assume you have read the August 18 People for Green Space press release, which, in essence, accuses BBPC of deliberately providing misleading financial information. I’d appreciate your response to PFGS accusations.
NW: I will say I was surprised when I first saw the flyers going up around the neighborhood about a lack of transparency, saying that it was specifically around the fact most notably that One Brooklyn Bridge Park has a J51 tax abatement that is going to be totally burnt off by 2024 and, therefore, will be throwing off more income into the park.
The surprising thing to me about saying that the park is not being transparent is that the park has always stated that it is incorporating the burning of J51 [revenue] into its financial model. The park corporation has always talked about J51 as [being] incorporated into its financial model. So this is not an undiscovered pot of money. It’s always been a part of the plan and acknowledged [as such].
BHB: “NIMBYism” appears to be the worst thing you might say to anyone living in Brooklyn Heights. What’s your take about this accusation being applied to Save Pier 6 supporters/your neighbors by the New York Times in an August 13 editorial?
NW: Is the opposition [to Pier 6] NIMBYism? That’s a question that only people who are opposed to Pier 6 development parcels can answer. I will say that when I think about the opposition, I [fear] that a movement to “Save Pier 6”—if it were successful, eliminating those development parcels—could very well put the rest of the park in jeopardy. That’s the irony of it. It’s not really a matter of saving Pier 6, it’s a matter of making thoughtful, fiscally responsible choices, to ensure the health and longevity of Brooklyn Bridge Park.
PHOTO CREDIT: Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy
