Brooklyn Heights

Some pointed opinions on a changing Brooklyn Heights

July 15, 2015 By Sam Howe & Friends Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Brooklyn Bridge Park has recommended RAL Development Services and Oliver’s Realty Group to develop the project. Rendering courtesy of ODA/RAL Development Services/Oliver’s Realty Group
Share this:

Many Brooklyn Heights residents, particularly old-timers, feel like their neighborhood is under siege: increased vehicular traffic and significant street blockage from construction and renovation. Even street repairs and garbage collection — things necessary and ordinarily welcomed — cause noise and discomfort because so much traffic backs up when they occur.

Added to those woes today are height and density issues related to new construction on the perimeters of Brooklyn Heights. While no scientific survey has been taken yet, Brooklyn Heights may be more divided on this issue than it has ever been on any issue before.

Leaving aside the new tower proposed on the Heights library site and the removal of a Temporary Restraining Order on the waterfront construction at the north end of the Promenade — both subject to heated community meetings for months —we consider here the views of someone who believes opponents of Pier 6 construction are short-sighted, possibly selfish and misinformed about how government projects work.

“If some of these people had lived half a mile north in the mid-19th century,” he said, “the Brooklyn Bridge might never have been built.”

Subscribe to our newsletters

He writes as follows, and understands that this column welcomes opposing viewpoints.

The Pier 6 opponents put out so-called projections to show that the Park does not need the Pier 6 revenues, using assumptions similar to those that almost sank the global economy a few years back.  It would be irresponsible to risk a $400 million government investment in a Park the world loves on that kind of stuff, and even under their projections the Park would operate at a deficit for over a decade (to the tune of over $100 million).  Their answer — just borrow the money.  So much for a self-sustaining Park!  They also criticized the Park for a supposed lack of transparency on the financial issues, but at the last Park Board meeting and a public meeting this past week, Park officials provided a thorough 50-year financial presentation.  The fact that Park critics did not like the answers does not mean that they were not provided.

On a higher level, what we may be observing in the neighborhood is several forces at work that explain much of the upset.  Many people of a certain age moved to this neighborhood decades ago and loved it because it was a quiet oasis, largely undiscovered and wonderful.  Now there are changes happening all around us and, even though many of them are very positive — such as the creation of Brooklyn Bridge Park — and the historic district itself remains sacrosanct, some neighbors feel both threatened by the change and frustrated by their seeming powerlessness to stop it.  Having been raised on tales of the legendary feats of creating the first Landmark District and facing down Robert Moses, they cannot comprehend being unable to dictate the outcome.  A former borough president, many years ago, was reported to have said that the people of Brooklyn Heights liked the idea of a pastoral waterfront park, but never wanted anything too popular actually to be built, because that would mean people from other communities would invade the neighborhood.  Today some people — especially those outside Brooklyn Heights — think he may have been right.

Focusing on Pier 6, the current issue is whether to amend the GPP to make explicit that the Park has the authority to include affordable housing, a new school and other public amenities in the mix.   Some contend that the Park Board always had the authority to consider factors other than profit maximization in reviewing and approving proposals.  But the Pier 6 litigation was dismissed with prejudice in return for the Park agreeing to ask for this modification and to conduct another public review process, so that process is now underway.  The limited nature of the proposed amendment brings the issue into sharp relief.  While some want to reargue all the disputes of the past decades, the question on the table is far more limited.  As a result, the opponents of the amendment — whether they admit it or not – are arguing against allowing people less affluent than their neighbors to live in the new buildings.  When they say, “you promised only to build as much as needed to support the Park and your inclusion of affordable units proves you don’t need to build so much,” what they are unmistakably saying is “eliminate the affordable housing and reduce the height.”  (The fact that the developer the Park staff would like to recommend to the Board has reduced both the heights of the buildings and the number of units is ignored by the critics.)  The newest argument is based on school crowding.  Of course, parents are worried about providing quality educations for their children — overcrowding is a city-wide problem.  It might be more constructive if those who care about this issue focused their efforts on finding solutions through the construction of new schools or the re-drawing of district lines, rather than misdirecting their anger at the Park.  But again, the Park attempted to be responsive to this concern, by requiring the recommended bidder to provide a new preschool as part of the plan.  The building footprint is not big enough for an elementary school, because back in 2006 the Park designers listened to the arguments of those who advocated minimizing the built footprints of the development sites.  Then, as now, it was all about making difficult choices and trade-offs among competing interests — in that case, choosing tall and skinny rather than short and squat buildings to maximize parkland.  Deciding to include affordable housing on Pier 6, or a school, or public restrooms and a community facility, or to require the developer to use union labor involves similar trade-offs.  Each of these decisions has an impact on the others and they all are ultimately governed by the decades-old promise that this Park would be self-sustaining.  By disclosing the bid they would recommend for selection by the Park Board — if and when it is appropriate to do so — the Park staff have provided the public with useful information to inform the public review process which is now underway.  


Leave a Comment


Leave a Comment