Study Finds $250 Million Needed For Maintenance in Brooklyn Bridge Park

By on November 11, 2015 7:24 am in brooklyn bridge park

Crain’s New York reports today on a new study, commissioned by Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp., that recommends spending $250 million to maintain the wooden pilings on which the Park sits…money that would come from the two residential towers planned for Pier Six.

In this case, maintenance would require a $90 million upfront investment—a sum that the park contends could be covered by two controversial apartment buildings planned for the southern tip of the green space. The remaining $60 million would be paid out over the next 50 years.

“We are in an enviable position where we would have the funds available to make this large upfront payment,” said David Lowin, vice president of real estate for the corporation. “As anyone who follows city government knows—that is rare.”

The study says that this upfront maintenance will, long-term, be less expensive and more effective than maintaining the pilings on an as-needed basis, as is the current practice.

Details at Crain’s, which also includes a link to the study.

Share this Story:

, , ,

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Park Guy

    The Park has supplied detailed analysis that proves that it isn’t true that current income from housing already built will be enough. I know that you’ve been fighting against pier 6 for a long time, and it would be great for you if it turned out that they weren’t needed, but just because you want it to be true does not mean that it is. Sorry.

    Also the new(ish) plan to fix the piers is has been something the park has been talking about for over a year. And it would actually be cheaper than the other plan, not cost more. Again, sorry that the facts don’t fit neatly into your pre-ordained narrative. That must be annoying for you.

  • judifrancis

    As soon as Mr. Richmond presented his initial numbers showing windfall profits of $400 million, the park released their “immediate need for cash” and their stepped up plan for piling repair. Within days. Coincidence? If you are right and the piers will crumble if not fixed immediately then post a bond – the collateral is unassailable. And if you call yourself a park advocate I wonder why you would not want to recapture 3.1 acres for park lands instead of housing?

  • judifrancis

    Yes, not to mention the re-do of park paths, the squibb bridge, the play equipment debacle, the dog run re-do…
    This is yet another “cost” of privatizing our public lands and having non-park professionals design and operate it. And of not designating this a park in the first place.

  • Park Guy

    Sorry, but you’ve got your order wrong. The park had been talking about the preventative maintenance for a long time before Mr Richmond released his bogus financial model. The first model he released was in September 2014. You can go on the park’s website and find documents that date from well before that talking about preventative maintenance. That must be really annoying when the provable facts don’t line up with the convenient narrative for you. I’m sorry about that.

    Also the only way your husband gets to 3.1 acres is by counting several acres of land that is already parkland or is already being talked about by the Park as being converted to parkland. I know it’s inconvenient that the pier 6 sites only take up less than half an acre because it makes you seem so petty. I’m sorry about that too.

    You must be having a rough time. Why not take a long relaxing walk in the walk. It’s really quite beautiful.

  • judifrancis

    I don’t think anyone thinks 3.1 acres is petty when faced with the draconian-sized buildings and density that will surround this park in the coming years, even before these unneeded buildings on Pier 6 get built. You are wrong on your facts but that’s ok – it is apparent you are a troll for the BBP and don’t really care about the park or creating a great entrance to it for South Brooklyn. If you want to discuss it civilly, and with facts, call me. I blog under my own name which I note you do not. Thanks!

  • judifrancis

    Yes, Nat, and this is also an important entrance to this great site. Why ruin it with towers, especially if there are many other means to pay for whatever comes down the pike for “financial need”? When the park took “financial need” out of their GPP modification request it became even more obvious, the duplicity afoot here. Let’s not make this something it is not – this is about a park, and the need for more park lands and open space – why not work together to make this happen?

  • Park Guy

    Yes. 3.1 acres would not be petty. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. It’s less than half an acres. You are referring it as 3.1 acres because you’re taking liberties with the truth. You are counting a bunch of land that is either already park or that is planning to be turned into park anyway.

    Whether i am posting anonymously or under my real name is less important than whether i am telling the truth or not. Nothing I have said is untrue, and I have given you proof of everything i’ve said. Though your are posting under you own name, you have also said alot of untrue things.
    Again, i’m really sorry that the actual facts in this case do not support the argument you’ve been making for 15 years. It must be very frustrating to dedicate more than a decade of your life to fighting against a park and sit by while the park gets built and all of your arguments are proven wrong. I feel very sorry for you. You must feel like you’ve wasted a good chunk of your life.

  • Remsen Street Dweller

    Nasty.

←  Older Comments
 →