Petition to stop the 30 story condo tower in Brooklyn Bridge Park

Ren

Trying to stop the mayor from putting a 30+ story condo in the middle of Brooklyn Bridge Park. Parks are for children and plants, not skyscrapers and their shadows.

Please sign the online petition below and spread the link on Facebook.

http://www.change.org/petitions/bill-de-blasio-stop-brooklyn-bridge-park-pier-6-development-gone-awry

whynot_31

Meh.

I think this article and the comments adequately sum up the issues involved:

http://m.ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/05/09/affordable_housing_may_be_coming_to_brooklyn_bridge_park.php

Ren

Whynot_31,

That article misses the point.  The point is that site b, however noble, generates little or no revenue for the park.  The park is basically admitting that they do not need the money for this building.  If so, then why are they building it with park resources.  Or, if this is about the park, then why are they not building the year round rec center that the community has been seeking for decades.

There is no reason to build in the park if the park does not need the money, and arguably, it is wrong to take away needed public parkland for development even if the park does need the money. Putting condo towers on public park land benefits the "lucky" few hundred people that get to live in the condo towers to the detriment of the millions of people that visit the park.  

Plus, a 30 story condo tower is out of scale with the neighborhood.  Putting the great brooklyn entrance to the park (at atlantic avenue) behind busy roads and condos suggests that the intent is to keep the public out of the park.  Not right.

Here is a link to a story about the petition:

http://brooklynheightsblog.com/archives/67165

whynot_31

In my mind, the presence of a large residential tower will ensure that the park is always well maintained; It will be one of the nearby amenities that allows them to charge a premium to live there.

Have you visited the Elevated Acre in the Financial District? As an amenity to the building, it is maintained really well.
https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=HudwU96DIOPmsATr_IA4&q=elevated+acre+nyc&oq=elevated+acre+&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.0l5.12626.21666.0.24179.15.15.0.5.5.0.1042.8471.3-1j4j8j1j1.15.0....0...1c.1.42.mobile-gws-hp..3.12.4079.3.LebzuDIkJNk

By allowing the wealthy to be in proximity to parks, peasants like us benefit more than if we left this to NYC gov to maintain.

Enter the lottery. You might get lucky.

You can enter the lottery AND dislike the building.

Ren

But the park and its maintenance have already been funded by putting a number of expensive condos within its borders.  It seems bad public policy to be taking away additional public land without any benefit to the park (especially as the park has already been carved up by development).  If this is a good idea, then why are we not adding condos to other parks like Central Park?

whynot_31

Central Park is an "old park" and, as such, has an existing constituent base that likes it as it is.   

Brooklyn Bridge Park is fair game for DeBlasio to show he is serious about meeting his affordable housing goals.   It isn't "public land" yet, and might not ever be.

(DeBlasio, if you are reading this, the trick to achieving your goals will be to make the definition of what is affordable really expansive, AND to upzone much of NYC) 

booklaw

The problem may simply be that our mayor has committed his reputation to the building of "affordable housing" on a massive scale. Parkland is less politically important to him.

It would probably require an enormous public relations effort (not just a petition) to cause him to back off.

whynot_31

Yup. This article in today's NYT does a good job with the issues:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/nyregion/development-plan-stokes-debates-on-affordable-housing-and-park-funding.html?referrer=

whynot_31

And now, a short speech on the topic from our Mayor:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10202561325008930&id=301627899944849