Brooklyn Bridge Park Controversies Continue

March 24th, 2008


(Photo courtesy of epc)

The controversial Brooklyn Bridge Park is entering the first phase of development. According to an article in today’s NY Times, the “85-acre stretch of waterfront will be converted into Brooklyn Bridge Park, with meadows, playing fields, marinas and basketball courts. On one side of the park will be magnificent views of skyscrapers. On the other side will be apartment buildings and a hotel whose residents and guests will pay taxes for the maintenance of the park.”

While creating a park is a great idea, there are various opposition groups on the design of the park as well as how the maintenance will be paid for. An urban planner quoted in the article thinks the park designs are a missed opportunity for the waterfront to be a backdrop to markets, museums, and a range of commerce and culture. “If Brooklyn wanted to distinguish itself as a great city, apart from Manhattan, it is the waterfront that could do it…Judi Francis, president of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund, who filed the lawsuit, said the plans to build housing at either end of the park sent a not so subtle message about who is expected to enjoy those lawns and water views.” To be fair, park planners have tried to juggle various obligations to find a balance between neighborhood associations, politics, commercial and residential space, and park activities. It will be nice to see parts of the park complete in the next few years, but how will this park ever be enjoyed by the public without its controversies?

Meanwhile, the Sierra Club is preparing to sue the state to stop development that will hurt marine life along the waterfront project.

{New Brooklyn Vistas, and a Fight Over Plans for Them, 24Mar2008, NY Times}
{Sierra Club Makes Waves, 24Mar2008, NY Post}
{Phase I of Brooklyn Bridge Park Demolition Starts, 13Mar2008, DumboNYC}

Filed in Brooklyn Bridge Park, Dumbo Residents, Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park at 11:19 am
View Comments
  • Publius
    For some innane reason, it was decided by the Powers that Be that BBP should be “self-sustaining”.

    Then why the hell do we bother to pay state and local taxes? Let’s privatize everything!!!!

    Is Central Park, Prospect, Cadman, Flushing Meadows, or any other park in NYC “self-sustaining”? No. So why BBP?

    Sorry if this takes us back years to the beginning. But for me, the entire cause of this issue is the idiotic decision someone (the aforementioned Powers that Be) made In The Beginning to essentially privatize a public park.

    IT MAKES NO SENSE. Let’s go back to this fundamental decision and undo it before it’s too late. The era of privatization of the public domain need to end. Enough gimmes to developers.
  • DOT
    Rockefeller park is one of the best retreats in NYC.
  • V.H.
    The city tax payers will end up paying for this park the 'indirect' way.
    Sure, the co-op/condo owner taxes collected will go to park upkeep. BUT, these co-op/condo owners are not paying any additional taxes to the city. Which means that every new city service needed over there, whether its additional police, fire, sewer lines, traffic cops, schools, etc. All will come out of the city tax payer pocket because the owners of those units will not be paying for it. All of their taxes will go strictly to the park. And what happens when the park upkeep goes over budget? Who pays for that?

    I say, just plan some trees, grass, a bike path and be done with it. Its getting way too over the top.
  • markznyc
    Check out the privately run Rockefeller Park as part of the HRPT that connects to Battery Park. Probably the most beautiful and well kept prk in all five boroughs. Whereas Battery Park (where most of the world comes to visit Lady Liberty) is a disgrace.

    I will take a privately run "public" park any day.
  • I no longer support the park. It will not be a New York City park, owned by the people of New York City, but a private park owned and operated by a public benefit corporation of the state. It may seem like a minor distinction, but given how restrictive the state park system is with the existing Fulton Ferry park, The possibility of having an allegedly contiguous park operated by three different agencies, with differing regulations and restrictions isn't very palatable.

    You may not want to pay tax dollars to support the park, but in turn we'll lose any public claim to public use or control over the park.

    "Open to the public" is not the same as "public park".
  • rascal
    Better some rich residents pay for park maintenance than my tax dollars, thankyouverymuch. As long as it's open to the public, who cares if they have priority seating? You could argue to infinity about what's "possible" in the world, but unless we move toward what's practical, the damn thing will never get done.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Other Posts of Interest