Squibb Bridge Repairs May Top $3 Million

By on October 9, 2016 9:31 am in brooklyn bridge park

According to Brooklyn Paper, the Squibb Bridge saga continues…this time to the tune of a few more million.

The paper reported on Friday that the board of Brooklyn Bridge Park voted to authorize $3.12 million to repair the bridge, which has been out of commission for exactly two years and two months.

The article details the tangled history of the Bridge, including this update that would verge on the absurd if it weren’t so maddening:

And to add injury to insult, developer Toll Brothers — which is building the luxury Pierhouse condominium complex on either side of the springy pathway — hit the bridge with a truck in May and damaged some of its cables, although it is coughing up an additional $790,000 to cover those costs, according to Patricia Kirshner, the park’s vice president of capital planning and construction.

Details at Brooklyn Paper…

Share this Story:

,

← 
Newer Comments  →
  • Andrew Porter

    As I commented over there, the bridge drew thousands of people who made this area, formerly quiet, a thoroughfare to the bridge. It also brought vandalism to the area—smashed flower pots, overturned trash cans, etc.—that had never happened before.

    The people on Joralemon Street can relate to this all too well.

  • Concerned

    Amen!!! Kill the bridge! It may cost a lot to tear it down, but it will be a one time payment. Expect more and more closures and 7-figure repairs over the years if you don’t close it now. LEAVE THE NORTH HEIGHTS A PEACEFUL PLACE.

  • Jorale-man

    The closing of the bridge is probably the best thing that’s happened to the North Heights in connection to the park. This summer was particularly rough on Joralemon Street. There’s so much litter now on the sidewalks and curbs – it’s a real embarrassment.

  • Teresa

    Color me an outlier. I live in the North Heights & can’t wait for it to re-open.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    Touche, The Park is here to stay and the Bridge is one of its better features. Park traffic through the Heights is inevitable, might as well disperse it as best as possible. Why should Joralemon St take the brunt of it.

  • redlola

    outlier.

  • MaryT

    Landmarking a neighborhood shouldn’t just protect the architecture. It should also serve to protect the unique quality of life, for residents and visitors. We’re losing that very quickly. What I don’t understand is why this structure was allowed to be built off a historic area in the first place. The BBP board is not going to stop pressuring the Heights. Ask the question, “What do you want?” and the BBP will reply, “More”.

  • Michael

    You are an outlier.

  • Quinn Raymond

    I don’t think Teresa is an outlier– I just think that most of the people who speak up about these issues are the unhappy ones.

    The park isn’t going anywhere– it’s an incredible resource for our community and Brooklyn as a whole. The notion that we should limit people’s access to the waterfront is extremely retrograde and troubling.

    If people want to speak to specific issues related to the park, fine. But this overall anti-park philosophy is silly.

  • bklyn84

    The Squibb Park bridge has long been a part of the park’s plan—it was explicitly discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) more than 10 years ago.

    “Although pedestrian trips generated by the proposed project are expected to be well distributed, the greatest concentrations are likely to occur in the vicinity of park entrance locations along Old
    Fulton Street, Atlantic Avenue, Joralemon Street and Columbia Street. As part of the proposed project, a pedestrian bridge will be built between Squibb Park, located on the corner of Middagh
    Street and Columbia Heights, and the proposed park.” FEIS, December 2005, P. 43

    I think pedestrian safety along Old Fulton Street should also be considered. NYPD data through August 2016 is available and I would argue it shows that Old Fulton Street is more dangerous now than it was when the bridge was open. During the 17 months the Squibb Park bridge was open (April 2013–Aug. 2014) there was one incident and two pedestrians were injured. In the 24 months the bridge has been closed (Sept. 2014 to Aug. 2016) there have been five incidents and six pedestrians were injured.

    See: NYPD TAMS data on NYC’s Vision Zero map at http://www.nycvzv.info/

  • Andrew Porter

    The link as built is outside the BH landmarked area, and the Fulton Ferry Landmarked District just to the north. The playground it connects to was extensively remodeled a few years ago.

  • MaryT

    Hi Andrew – I do know where Squibb Bridge starts. I wrote ‘off’ not ‘on’ the historic area. But just because it’s across the street doesn’t keep it from impacting our neighborhood. Late night revels, reckless bouncing, petty thefts were regular events prior to closure. And why spend millions of dollars on rebuilding and maintaining an unreliable vanity project? It’s more a burden than an asset.

  • redlola

    no one has an anti-park philosophy some of us are not fans of the poor planning around access to the park and the vandalism, grime and harassment it has brought to the neighborhood.

  • Quinn Raymond

    What precisely would you do differently?

  • Michael

    Who built it?

  • Michael

    I would eliminate access to the park via the bridge.

  • redlola

    i am not an urban planner but i think any reasonable person can see that the urban planners on this project failed miserably when they created a huge park whose main access points are a tiny residential street in a bedroom community or a bouncy bridge that is not necessarily safe.

  • Quinn Raymond

    The ENTIRE point of the bridge is to increase the number of ingress/egress points and spread out the foot traffic.

    Watching the North Heights and South Heights undermine each other so transparently on these issues is always quite stunning to me.

    Everyone’s agenda here comes off as very selfish and myopic.

  • redlola

    all of that should have been dealt with intelligently before the park was built. as far as selfish and myopic, if not wanting vandalism and bullshit in proximity of my home and child makes me selfish and myopic, i’ll be that. we will just need to agree to disagree on this cause i am not interested in spending anymore time discussing this with you.

  • Quinn Raymond

    I don’t accept the premise that the park has significantly increased “vandalism and bullshit” compared to the pre-existing baseline.

    And even if that WERE the case, it seems like your way of “dealing with it intelligently” is just making other people deal with it instead.

    Also, the park has more than two access points.

  • redlola

    the park only has two access points close to public transportation hence the problems. you can accept or not accept whatever you want but the police blotter and experiences shared by members of this community tell the story. but like i said. debating this is pointless. unfortunately, it seems we will be saddled with this bridge.

  • Cranberry Beret

    I’d like to see actual stats on access. My non-scientific observations have been that foot traffic on Old Fulton St and Atlantic Avenue has been as high (or higher) than Joralemon, and Squibb when it was open. I own property near Squibb entrance so vested interest in no litter or vandalism but happy to see the bridge reopen.

  • Jorale-man

    I don’t have any stats to offer but anecdotally I’d bet that Old Fulton has the highest amount of foot traffic followed by Joralemon and then Atlantic. Joralemon has the direct access to the Borough Hall station. Even if the bridge re-opens in the future, I’d guess that the kids arriving on the 4/5/6/R trains won’t be heading up there to enter.

    It’s too bad there isn’t a neighborhood association representing Joralemon Street residents. There needs to be some sort of collective discussion about how to better deal with the effects of the park. It’s only going to get worse with the Pier 5 uplands opening next year.

  • Teresa

    I think the park enhances the neighborhood. It’s beautiful; it offers a variety of free programs; it provides recreational/cultural/athletic/environmental opportunities; it has food/drink options. To my mind, quality of life is increased by its presence. I’d hate to see landmarking get even more restrictive & prevent the evolution of communities & neighborhoods.

  • bklyn84

    I’ve got my fingers crossed the development of the Brooklyn Strand will be welcomed as a big plus for all of the surrounding neighborhoods.

  • StudioBrooklyn

    I ❤️ reckless bouncing. Far superior to careful & controlled bouncing.

  • StudioBrooklyn

    Were urban planners involved in this project? I was under the impression it was basically private developers who were able to work in a vacuum…I love the bridge and the “park” but I do recognize that the holistic concerns it brings to our neighborhood in particular are mostly legitimate.

    That said, I agree with your earlier assertion that many of us are probably growing tired of having the same predictable argument. Those here who are familiar with an assortment of other commenters are basically just engaging in validating our own views. Without introducing practical, actionable solutions in everyone’s best interests I see little point in this repetitive cycle.

  • Concerned

    Are you saying there isn’t a difference between the two? I’m pretty sure that someone who can split hairs as carefully as you can, would easily be able to differentiate.
    PS: emojis have zero place on this blog.

  • redlola

    i would hope they were involved as this project is a public space and is part of the city regardless of how it was funded

  • StudioBrooklyn

    That heart emoji, Concerned, is also for you. ❤️❤️❤️

←  
Newer Comments  →