Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation Suing Designers of Squibb Park Pedestrian Bridge

“Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and our grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty.” Daniel H. Burnham

Okay I believe anecdotal evidence at face value, that is I believe you were told that story by said engineer & architect, and you believe it.

I still think it has no weight as proof of anything, it is still is pure conjecture.

“If the bridge had been structurally unsound as to warrant closure, the defect would have been addressed at a very different point in the project’s life cycle”

That assumes, if the problem was real they would have definitely caught it sooner. How is that a given? There many examples of structures being built then finding flaws in the design, it’s nothing unusual.

Actually the story makes sense the way its presented, The bridge is built and open for a little over a year, then a problem was noticed, the bridge was shut down and repairs were attempted but apparently they were unsuccessful at finding a permanent solution, then the BBPC sues the designer. Seems perfectly plausible to me.

To me, the only other possibilities would be, the bridge was improperly built or damaged during construction of the Pierhouse. However, I think either of those scenarios would be fairly easy to determine. If there is any validity to that, the designers will likely use it as their defense in court.

Also the problem was indeed noticed by me et. al. (see recent comment by “Simon” in this thread and here):

http://brooklynheightsblog.com/archives/71148

The BBP management has been taking lessons—or giving them—to the government agencies responsible for the Flint, Michigan water debacle.

Again, my conjecture: if the bridge is a draw to visitors, I’m guessing that many more of them are patrons of local businesses (maybe not on Middagh but elsewhere such as Montague) than any kind of criminal threat to the tranquility or vitality of the area. And therefore the bridge would contribute to the net good…

Well I guess we’ll see what the new engineers come up with and how the lawsuit unfolds.

Yes. As I just said to Concerned, I welcome this debate and I think it’s a lot healthier for our community to have diverse opinions (as opposed to, say, participating in an echo chamber). At least that we all seem similar in the way we regard information (facts vs conjecture, opinions based on reasoning vs opinions based on emotion, etc.), and I hope you’ll agree that I’ve made plenty of concessions here in terms of what I initially put forward in perhaps too assertive language, and have since clarified that it’s more speculative. Again, I think this is indicative of how strongly I (and you, and others) feel about this issue.

I don’t think it matters if the bridge is open or not, there is still the increased flow of touri through the hood. I have been working on Cranberry St for the past year and there is an almost steady stream of them. As Andrew porter said the #1 question is “Where is the Brooklyn Bridge”.
The #2 question is “Where is the Promenade” and of course #3 is “How do I get to the Brooklyn Bridge Park” I don’t find it bothersome though.
Face it, the increased foot traffic is here to stay, the bridge doesn’t make much of a difference.

I work on Cranberry and Hicks, I am frequently out on the sidewalk and have seen tourist traffic increase over the past year. People head through the north heights to go to the Promenade and BB Park regardless of the foot bridge.

Yes, because as critics of the bridge pointed out after it opened, it doesn’t really save that much time getting to the park vs simply walking down the hill. So people are going that route anyway. Besides what does it matter? foot traffic through the nabe will only increase with all the sky high development going on, regardless of the bridge and there’s nothing you or I can do about it.

Well then, lets all hear your big plan for saving the Heights from the masses outsiders?
Remember when LICH was being shut down, there was a huge well organized campaign to save it. It failed and that was a cause exponentially more important than “too many people walking down my block” How many people are really going to join your cause, on what legal or rational grounds are you going to base it on?
The streets are public, everyone has a right to walk down them at anytime they choose. You have no right to exclude or deter anyone from their passage.
What it sounds like is a classic case of self entitled NIMBYism.

You sound absurd. Your labels are sophomoric. All I’m saying is that I want the BBP ingress/egress to stay on the main thoroughfares and outside of our beautiful neighborhood. No one said anything about the streets being private. Figure yourself out and then maybe we can have a rationale debate.

Sorry Eddyde, I’ve already explained myself. Multiple times. Explicitly. Go back to my prior posts (addressed to you) and read them again. And then again. Until you get my points. Maybe think about our posts as a conversation, versus you attempting to try and prove me wrong and yourself, correct. Sometimes that helps.
And as far as how I hope to “accomplish my goal”, I simply hope that the bridge doesn’t reopen…Which is one of the first posts on this 50+ post thread. Good day.

Yes you explained your self very well, as having a xenophobic elitist view of the issue.
And offer no rational solution.

Everything I said was directly related to statements you made.
If I was going to make an assumption about you, I’d say you sound like someone who smoked way too much pot in your life.

I’m kinda thrown off by “xenophobes who smoke too much pot” (is that a thing? I thought pot turned everyone into anarcho-globalist liberals, as it clearly did to me when I was a teenager) and the whole Phil Hoffman non-sequitur. You and Eddyde have taken this into weird territory. I am amused, but want to gently suggest that we all amicably agree to disagree. Either that or we limit our casting call to living actors, because let’s be realistic here.