Mayor de Blasio Open to Alternative BQE Plan Levin Says “Worth Exploring”

The New York Post reports that City Council Member Stephen Levin (photo) has called a proposal to temporarily re-route the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway over the berms on the eastern edge of Brooklyn Bridge Park during reconstruction of the cantilevered portion under Brooklyn Heights, instead of putting it on an elevated six lane highway that would replace the Brooklyn Heights Promenade for at least six years, “definitely worth exploring” The same Post story quotes Mayor de Blasio as saying that plan “is worth considering.”

Share this Story:

, ,

  • Andrew Porter

    Maybe DeBlasio noticed how many Democrats who live here and contribute to Democratic causes absolutely hated his first response. Today’s word is “backtracking”…


    Time for BBP to start sharing the pain!
    Mayor has history of promises, promises. Then supporting developers over neighborhoods.
    While Save the Promenade is just getting started I hope they consider doing our own Environmental Impact Study.
    Expensive, yes!
    Who are you going to trust? You know the same DOT that favors turning the Promenade into a highway!

  • Henry St Resident

    What is needed is new leadership, one or more new voices or voices who have offered valuable perspectives who in the past the present “leadership” in the Heights has sought to discredit. Now, in this emergency, the Last thing we need is a establishment who’s first priority is to maintain their (entrenched) positions.
    This is a all-new fire and we need everyone who can help….

  • redlola

    this mayor s a worthless piece of trash

  • Nomcebo Manzini

    BUT MOSTLY, “we” need a viable alternative … and either a few key “respected” spokes-people or tens of thousands of residents somehow “on the same page.”

    The DOT is probably “the post office” of city government – what’s the opposite of “the best & the brightest?!”

    But its head is not stupid – and probably not corrupt either. Her plaint that “Really, we tried to put EVERYTHING on the table, and much as we recognize our proposal is no crowd-pleaser, we can’t see a better way” probably has some truth in it.

    On a different thread, somebody said about commercial rent control, “Almost no one wants to go there” (yes, maybe a couple of Council members), so it’s DOA.

    I think “eminent domain” is a similar “third rail.” Sometimes, you know that you’re talking a delay of years … with tremendous uncertainty as to how many courts will take how long handling appeals … and winding up with ??

    Which may be a “killer,” because – as with Brexit – that ticking clock CANNOT be ignored.

    The reason I mention it is that I don’t believe you can draw a route for 6 lanes anywhere in 11201 [other than the promenade] that doesn’t “impact” an existing structure (building!) or 2. Fortunately, the ones which look to me to be most in the way are … currently unoccupied.

    Those are one or more of the former “Witnesses” buildings, now painted gray.

    Because I’m convinced that part of this is super-simple – you can’t “spare the promenade” unless you take a bite out of BBP. The complicated part is “getting to MIddagh & Poplar” and “making the turn” under those 2 bridges.

    If you rule out going underground – on land or just offshore – as being prohibitively expensive et al, you all but have to “go through” one of those JW buildings.

    People who know law and politics better than I do can guess at whether or not that could fly. Just beware any glib politician’s trial balloon of “What about the berms?” It even has the nasty – maybe intentional – effect of de-pressurizing the opposition … who HAS TO think, “Well, now they’re coming to their senses!”

    Hard to believe that Levin doesn’t know that “the berms” would get those 6 lanes to Montague Street, maybe (imagine it continuing to the shore!) – the next mile would be some combo of decimating the park [really ?!] … or trying to get a building or 2 “condemned.”

    I suspect there may be enough financial muscle in Pierhouse and the new hotel – whom we’re, I think, looking to take a hit so that “the old Heights” is spared – to make Plan B EVEN LESS viable than the miserable Plan A. (I still like Furman St. better – it’d require some legislative action – but it WOULD “take out” the JW building closest to Pierhouse.)

  • Local_Montague_Man

    Does anyone have insight as to the latest developments on the Mayor’s planned destruction of Brooklyn Heights? Are we using the old thread to continue to track the latest developments/ thoughts?