Open Thread Wednesday

By on October 17, 2018 7:50 am in open thread

What’s on your mind? Comment away!

Share this Story:

← 
Newer Comments  →
  • Remsen Street Dweller
  • Cranberry Beret

    Can anyone recommend a shop/woodworker to repair a chair (dining room table)? TIA

  • Andrew Porter

    I noticed that the “for sale” signs on the former “Friend of A Farmer” are off. Apparently the building was sold. The liquor store next door said they can hear power tools being used inside.

    Also, 293 Henry Street (between State and Joralemon Streets), was bought for $3.625 million by (according to today’s NY Times), “A local real estate investor… this 6,200-square-foot building … which does not have a stoop, has five floor-through apartments, of which three are free-market and two are rent-controlled. [it] sold for 21 times the rent roll, and has a cap rate of 2.74 percent.”

  • Jorale-man

    I see there are already articles on “check out the promenade before it becomes a highway” being published:
    https://www.thrillist.com/lifestyle/new-york/best-bars-restaurants-in-brooklyn-heights

    It occurs to me, the Heights Association should host a big block party there, inviting all of NYC to come and enjoy what it’s about. It would remind people that this isn’t just our “backyard” but rather a treasured gathering place for people from all over. Might help rally more people to the cause of saving it.

  • Dw718

    the Friend of a Farmer bldg was sold to a school- not sure which one but I know the owner and he told me that. Perhaps it’s the one on top of the Heights Cafe.

  • Cranberry Beret

    Brooklyn Bridge Park: the tragic-comedic gift that keeps on giving.

    Squibb Park Bridge: maybe fixed by 2020…slow down, where’s the fire?!
    Squibb Park Bridge: what’s another $1 million fix between friends?
    Squibb Park Pool: six-year BQE reconstruction mere inches away – no big deal!

    https://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/41/42/dtg-squibb-bridge-and-pool-update-bqe-2018-10-19-bk.html

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7nPOzGeyaw Arch Stanton

    “But Kavanagh said Department of Transportation bigwigs told him that fixing the expressway will neither impact work on the pool, nor repairs to the Squibb Bridge, no matter what option is chosen”
    Now you know to know their order of priorities. Y’all can forget the ‘park route’…

  • PierrepontSkin

    Am I the only one who thinks that the neighborhood needs to just deal with the BQE problem? The promenade is connected to the highway, and the highway needs to be fixed. “Saving” the promenade isn’t the issue. So it’s gone for a while, the highway gets fixed, and everything else is just a big pain in the rear for a while. The promenade will be back. It’s work that needs to be done. Quite frankly, I’d rather not take the risk of going for a walk down there and having it collapse underneath me because everyone tried to save it, instead of just dealing with the problem.
    But hey, that’s just me.

  • Dw718

    The work needs to be done- I think the concern is more that the noise and interference arising from building over the Promenade will severely threaten the physical stability of the almost 200 year old homes on and close to the Promenade as well as the lives of the people in those homes and others nearby.

  • meschwar

    But do you think that’s going to be worse on the “innovative” plan than it would be under the “traditional” plan? Either way we’re talking about some heavy duty construction on the earth near and beneath those old buildings.

    I just think everyone in those buildings should buy fancy insurance plans and hope that if the buildings collapse, you become billionaires. (I’m kidding, really. Loss of life, etc.)

  • Dw718

    if i had to chose one of the two I would say the innovative is going to be immediately more disruptive but the traditional one could unearth more problems and take longer. I am hoping a better solution is found. I mean how can they possibly mitigate the noise that will be generated??

  • A Neighbor

    Of course, the BQE needs to be repaired. However, building an elevated 6-lane highway to bypass the work would waste many millions of taxpayer dollars and likely take, I’m told, 2-3x the (self-proclaimed) ‘innovative plan’s’ 6 years to complete. Plus, my guess? We will never see the Promenade, as we know it, again.

    Kudos to the BHA and STP for working on a FOIL request to DOT. Methinks there may be more than meets the eye here.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7nPOzGeyaw Arch Stanton

    You seem grossly misinformed.
    The innovative plan is projected to be the least expensive and shortest overall.
    Having an engineering and construction background, I believe it is the better plan.
    It won’t “waste” money as most of the temporary highway will become the new Promenade. Yes the Promenade as we know it will be gone forever either way, better to get it back sooner than later.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7nPOzGeyaw Arch Stanton

    I totally agree.
    Yes, The city screwed us by not doing the work before building the park, the state screwed us by dropping the tunnel project, but here we are and the work still must get done. Time for people to stop whining and work with the DOT on getting the project completed as quickly as possible.

  • Jorale-man
  • A Neighbor

    Let’s see, building a 6-lane elevated highway is cheaper and faster than using Furman. Really?

  • NeighboorHood

    “The innovative plan is projected to be the least expensive and shortest overall.” Not really by that much if I remember the #’s correctly. Innovative vs Traditional is 6 vs 8 yrs (“projected” which is key) and not that much cheaper in the scheme of things when you factor in how it affects the hood. And I’m not the only one who remembers all the city’s BBPark Board “projections”?! The Bouncy Bridge is now an obscene $7 MILLION crime scene that’s been closed the majority of its “life”. I’d like to know what role the BBP is/has had in this debacle, and why any temporary encroachment is out of the question.The city knew the BQE project was already overdue when they started their waterfront real estate development, I mean park. The BQE could have been done first, with the temp route construction dovetailing with the cleatring and laying the park foundation possibly saving the park a bunch of $ in the long run. They just put the berms in the past few yrs! Nobody said “hey we’ll need that area for the reconstruction”? If the city is cooking the projections in favor of their prefered Innovative plan like they did with park projects we’re looking at 10 yrs and double their budget, not 6yrs. If the neighborhood went to Alicia Glen and said hey we’d love it if you put more of your friend’s condos on berm land, the trucks would be clearing them ad we speak :(

  • CH’er

    Why isn’t DOT even considering the possibility of running the temporary roadway over the hill part of the dog run, through Columbia Heights, and over Squib, before continuing over the park uplands, instead of ramming a six-lane interstate highway on top of the Promenade as “a temporary” measure? What kind of failure of government doesn’t even consider other options. Stop the pool and Pier 2 uplands construction until all options are explores.

  • CH’er

    Finally some talk about considering reasonable alternatives! Yes, the BQE section and Promenade needs to be rebuilt, but why should DOT not be at least considering a temporary encroachment on the BBP uplands instead of running a six-lane interstate highway immediately next to our homes, spewing additional noise and pollution into our neighborhood? We need a government that is open to reasonable alternatives.

  • Jorale-man

    Agreed. I’m very skeptical of the notion that the “innovative” plan will only be temporary. Once a massive overpass structure is built, the money or political will may run out and we’ll be stuck with a 6-lane expressway indefinitely. (Trump’s mishandling of the economy, after all, is eventually going to drag us into a recession.)

  • Teresa

    You are not the only one.

  • gc

    Sounds like the Mayor has now said he will consider a plan similar to what you described as “thoroughly ridiculous” in the previous thread. Hopefully he is beginning to calculate the political costs of sticking with the “innovative approach”.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7nPOzGeyaw Arch Stanton

    The “Mayor” is playing you, et al., like a deck of cards, LOL
    Wait till the cost analysis is done of any viable “park route”. See how much he “considers it then…

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7nPOzGeyaw Arch Stanton

    Educate yourself to the entire scope of what needs to be done and how the DOT proposes to accomplish it. Also consider the enormous additional cost of building a completely temporary structure through the park. Maybe then you will be able to understand why.
    FYI. The DOT did say they looked at other possibilities, the two they presented are the ones they felt most viable.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7nPOzGeyaw Arch Stanton

    If I cannot give you the cognitive ability to understand such a simple thing, explaining it won’t help much.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7nPOzGeyaw Arch Stanton

    The city didn’t build the park, it’s managed by a private entity. And yes, its a real estate sham.
    However, the more I study aerial photos of the area, approximate curve radiuses and grades required for a temporary highway, the more I realize the park route was never really a practical alternative.

  • Kit

    What I don’t understand is, how can be be assured that the elevated six lanes that would temporarily replace the promenade be stable? Seems to me that adding extra weight to the top cantilever is only going to bring all three crashing to the ground.

  • NeighboorHood

    As I understand the initial park, clearing and infrastructure was built with over $150 Million taxpayer dollars. That’s the part I was wondering if it could have been dovetailed with the BQE rebuild if they acted together. The “private entity” “pay for itself” scam is supposed to be for it’s daily funding, up keep and finishes. Again, that’s as I understand it.

  • Cranberry Beret

    The cost shouldn’t be significantly different. The roadways are similar. The difference is bureaucratic convenience to run the temporary roadway along the edge of the park, for which DOT would need state approval, versus running it along the Promenade location, which DOT already controls. We as a neighborhood shouldn’t just roll over and accept the solution that makes the least hassle for DOT if there are alternatives that require only a modest about of politicking to achieve and possibly no other financial or engineering costs.

    That’s whole point of having community input.

  • Cranberry Beret

    You are misinformed. The park is managed by the BBPDC which is a state entity.

←  
Newer Comments  →