Comments on: The Suburbanization of NYC’s Waterfront http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Wed, 09 Jul 2008 04:04:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Walt http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-4723 Walt Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:19:32 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-4723 I'm not from the NY Metro region, so I honestly wasn't keen on another Republican getting the keys to the Big Apple. After seeing all the projects that were going up in New York and environmental initiatives I became less concerned about it. Now, that I think about though Bloomberg as a Republican would totally try to usurp the wider city for inaccessible luxury housing near waterfront parks. Devil is in the details. I really you concerned folks would try to make sure these luxury places don't take over the Brooklyn waterfront. At the very least make the waterfront spacious and accessible for the average person to enjoy. I'm not from the NY Metro region, so I honestly wasn't keen on another Republican getting the keys to the Big Apple. After seeing all the projects that were going up in New York and environmental initiatives I became less concerned about it. Now, that I think about though Bloomberg as a Republican would totally try to usurp the wider city for inaccessible luxury housing near waterfront parks. Devil is in the details. I really you concerned folks would try to make sure these luxury places don't take over the Brooklyn waterfront. At the very least make the waterfront spacious and accessible for the average person to enjoy.

]]> By: Ethan http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-3557 Ethan Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:24:49 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-3557 The Central Park argument is one that keeps getting used to justify the compatibility of housing and parks in Brooklyn Bridge Park and elsewhere. A better analogy to the current plan in BBP would be if Donald Trump was allowed to build luxury residential towers inside from Grand Army Plaza at the most important entrance of Central Park (or inside from GAP in Prospect Park). Clearly, if development inside CP had been allowed as the only way to pay for maintaining Central Park, this would have been a travesty and a very negative precedent for the rest of the world. Central Park is successful because of its great destinations and connections (something BBP could learn a great deal from). Its edges and entrances, in part because of the residential dominance, are actually quite weak. The vast majority of other successful parks and public spaces - especially waterfronts - in the world have active entrances and edge uses and are less compatible with significant residential. As for your other point about programming not being considered, unfortunately, most of the space for the new areas of Brooklyn Bridge Park (as well as many of these new privately controlled spaces mentioned above) are not designed flexibly for programming and actually seem to be designed to discourage any significant spontaneous or planned use. Also, the imminent luxury residential community is unlikely to be inviting towards a broader section of New York from participating in or defining the programming for these spaces. The Central Park argument is one that keeps getting used to justify the compatibility of housing and parks in Brooklyn Bridge Park and elsewhere. A better analogy to the current plan in BBP would be if Donald Trump was allowed to build luxury residential towers inside from Grand Army Plaza at the most important entrance of Central Park (or inside from GAP in Prospect Park). Clearly, if development inside CP had been allowed as the only way to pay for maintaining Central Park, this would have been a travesty and a very negative precedent for the rest of the world.

Central Park is successful because of its great destinations and connections (something BBP could learn a great deal from). Its edges and entrances, in part because of the residential dominance, are actually quite weak. The vast majority of other successful parks and public spaces - especially waterfronts - in the world have active entrances and edge uses and are less compatible with significant residential.

As for your other point about programming not being considered, unfortunately, most of the space for the new areas of Brooklyn Bridge Park (as well as many of these new privately controlled spaces mentioned above) are not designed flexibly for programming and actually seem to be designed to discourage any significant spontaneous or planned use. Also, the imminent luxury residential community is unlikely to be inviting towards a broader section of New York from participating in or defining the programming for these spaces.

]]> By: Wilma http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-3223 Wilma Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:11:12 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-3223 It's all well and good to encourage people to become involved and active in the development of their surroundings, but please encourage people to become EDUCATED about it before firing off some ill-conceived e-mail, letter or post about an issue. I agree that over-development, or the wrong kind of development, is a danger that we need to look out for. But particularly in the case of the Brooklyn Bridge Park... I just find opposition to usually be so naive and uninformed, it's almost painful to read. In that particular case, I find it so frustrating when people chalk it up to a playground for the luxury housing. If you look at the grand scheme and the scale of the entire project, I can't imagine that thought running through my head. To some extent, park's ARE the neighborhood playgrounds! Is that so terrible? What's being proposed is a very long stretch of land that is by NO MEANS lined with luxury housing, and I find that to be just as welcoming as any other park I know of. Isn't Central Park lined with amazing, luxury housing that I could never possibly begin to afford? Does that stop me from utilizing the beautiful space there? Even the existing park in DUMBO: don't you think rich people already live there in their prime real estate, being all rich and such in their primo condos? Does that stop other people from utilizing the park and coming down for public programming? Go to some of the events there, and you tell me if free movie nights or concerts or performances that bring thousands are really being exclusionary. Also, you're completely overlooking the whole idea of public programming being planned for the park! All of this space that you have already declared flat and pointless is still in the beginning stages of being used in plans for programming. It's just all very ignorant sounding when you don't take it all into account. It's all well and good to encourage people to become involved and active in the development of their surroundings, but please encourage people to become EDUCATED about it before firing off some ill-conceived e-mail, letter or post about an issue.

I agree that over-development, or the wrong kind of development, is a danger that we need to look out for. But particularly in the case of the Brooklyn Bridge Park... I just find opposition to usually be so naive and uninformed, it's almost painful to read.

In that particular case, I find it so frustrating when people chalk it up to a playground for the luxury housing. If you look at the grand scheme and the scale of the entire project, I can't imagine that thought running through my head. To some extent, park's ARE the neighborhood playgrounds! Is that so terrible? What's being proposed is a very long stretch of land that is by NO MEANS lined with luxury housing, and I find that to be just as welcoming as any other park I know of.

Isn't Central Park lined with amazing, luxury housing that I could never possibly begin to afford? Does that stop me from utilizing the beautiful space there? Even the existing park in DUMBO: don't you think rich people already live there in their prime real estate, being all rich and such in their primo condos? Does that stop other people from utilizing the park and coming down for public programming? Go to some of the events there, and you tell me if free movie nights or concerts or performances that bring thousands are really being exclusionary.

Also, you're completely overlooking the whole idea of public programming being planned for the park! All of this space that you have already declared flat and pointless is still in the beginning stages of being used in plans for programming. It's just all very ignorant sounding when you don't take it all into account.

]]> By: Vince http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2605 Vince Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:48:59 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2605 The collision between pedestrians and vehicles leave the pedestrians the looser. Water front park development must have as an absolute standard the emphasis on public use not ground transportation needs. The transportation focus must shift to water born access so that the waterway becomes the "road" by which water front access is achieved. Wakes from vessels plying our waterways need to be controlled so that the waterfront infrastructure is protected. We had it right up until the advent of a automobile dominant decision making process. Having come full circle lets keep going and get back to what works. The collision between pedestrians and vehicles leave the pedestrians the looser. Water front park development must have as an absolute standard the emphasis on public use not ground transportation needs. The transportation focus must shift to water born access so that the waterway becomes the "road" by which water front access is achieved. Wakes from vessels plying our waterways need to be controlled so that the waterfront infrastructure is protected. We had it right up until the advent of a automobile dominant decision making process. Having come full circle lets keep going and get back to what works.

]]> By: Ethan http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2430 Ethan Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:37:31 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2430 It also should be mentioned that the Ikea and Fairway in Red Hook and the big box stores in Sunset Park are extreme examples of suburbanization of valuable waterfront. It also should be mentioned that the Ikea and Fairway in Red Hook and the big box stores in Sunset Park are extreme examples of suburbanization of valuable waterfront.

]]> By: Matt http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2423 Matt Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:21:19 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2423 Great post. Not that it matters much, but the Water Taxi Beach was open last summer as well. It's too bad you didn't make it up to Socrates Sculpture Park, perhaps the best use of waterfront in the city. Great post. Not that it matters much, but the Water Taxi Beach was open last summer as well. It's too bad you didn't make it up to Socrates Sculpture Park, perhaps the best use of waterfront in the city.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2384 Kevin Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:07:50 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2384 Aside from all the sniping between commentators, the point of the article is that land development can be a blessing... or a threat. Its important to be involved when possible, and speak your mind about this at hearings, via petitions, and to write your local representative. Make your voice heard! Living in Williamsburg in the heart of hipster-doofus, I'd hate to see a wall of tall buildings -- which seems to be the plan. They're building a nice park on the water by North 7th, or.. are they. Unfortunately developers AND representatives do all they can to lock out the neighborhood from the planning stages, so do a little research and don't be afraid to sign a petition or send an email at the very least. Local representatives can only be in touch with people as much as the public is in touch with THEM. Make some noise -- not just below my window, but where it counts!! Patti Smith sang The People Have the Power. Can we prove it to be so? Aside from all the sniping between commentators, the point of the article is that land development can be a blessing... or a threat. Its important to be involved when possible, and speak your mind about this at hearings, via petitions, and to write your local representative. Make your voice heard! Living in Williamsburg in the heart of hipster-doofus, I'd hate to see a wall of tall buildings -- which seems to be the plan. They're building a nice park on the water by North 7th, or.. are they. Unfortunately developers AND representatives do all they can to lock out the neighborhood from the planning stages, so do a little research and don't be afraid to sign a petition or send an email at the very least. Local representatives can only be in touch with people as much as the public is in touch with THEM. Make some noise -- not just below my window, but where it counts!! Patti Smith sang The People Have the Power. Can we prove it to be so?

]]> By: Maddy http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2278 Maddy Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:14:36 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2278 It happened in the 70s and 80s to East End Ave. Manhattan. Mayor Koch encouraged circular driveways on towers that offered great views and blocked access to the river. Yonkers used to have a concrete waterfront plaza, run down but now there is a luxury hi rise with its own car ramp and public space disappeared. What political corruption that these developers redefine the waterfront. No one can stop them as we see in the tear drop park. I never found it when I looked. No wonder from the aerial view it is an allyway of these private buildings and not open to the public at all. Empire development and the mayors office have usurped the people's wishes. It happened in the 70s and 80s to East End Ave. Manhattan. Mayor Koch encouraged circular driveways on towers that offered great views and blocked access to the river. Yonkers used to have a concrete waterfront plaza, run down but now there is a luxury hi rise with its own car ramp and public space disappeared. What political corruption that these developers redefine the waterfront. No one can stop them as we see in the tear drop park. I never found it when I looked. No wonder from the aerial view it is an allyway of these private buildings and not open to the public at all. Empire development and the mayors office have usurped the people's wishes.

]]> By: Greenpoint http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2271 Greenpoint Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:47:21 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2271 The neighborhoods are in fact separate, but the community board is the Greenpoint-Williamsburg CB 1. The McCarren park is in fact entirely in Greenpoint. The park was originally named Greenpoint Park when opened. The postal zip code for Greenpoint goes south to N12th street. Again, this is not really important except for the fact that each community has landmarks, highlights and points of interest which help promote the community to the outside world. B'burgers have developed a lot of places to promote. Or should we just rename the Williamsburg Art and Historical Society something like the Greenpoint Williamsburg Art and Historical Society just to avoid being divisive? The neighborhoods are in fact separate, but the community board is the Greenpoint-Williamsburg CB 1. The McCarren park is in fact entirely in Greenpoint. The park was originally named Greenpoint Park when opened. The postal zip code for Greenpoint goes south to N12th street. Again, this is not really important except for the fact that each community has landmarks, highlights and points of interest which help promote the community to the outside world. B'burgers have developed a lot of places to promote. Or should we just rename the Williamsburg Art and Historical Society something like the Greenpoint Williamsburg Art and Historical Society just to avoid being divisive?

]]> By: Williamsburg http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2263 Williamsburg Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:46:43 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2263 WTF? Williamsburg-Greenpoint or Greenpoint-Williamsburg - it makes no difference, either is correct. There is no "official" city designation - they are two separate neighborhoods. FWIW, both neighborhoods were originally (18th century) part of Bushwick. Williamsburg was laid out in the early 19th century, and includes all of the numbered streets and up to the Bushwick inlet. Greenpoint was laid out about two decades later, and originally included only the "letter" streets (Ash to Quay). So - McCarren is in BOTH Williamsburg and Greenpoint. In fact, most of the park sits on the swampland that used to be part of Bushwick Creek and used to divide the two neighborhoods. WTF? Williamsburg-Greenpoint or Greenpoint-Williamsburg - it makes no difference, either is correct. There is no "official" city designation - they are two separate neighborhoods.

FWIW, both neighborhoods were originally (18th century) part of Bushwick. Williamsburg was laid out in the early 19th century, and includes all of the numbered streets and up to the Bushwick inlet. Greenpoint was laid out about two decades later, and originally included only the "letter" streets (Ash to Quay).

So - McCarren is in BOTH Williamsburg and Greenpoint. In fact, most of the park sits on the swampland that used to be part of Bushwick Creek and used to divide the two neighborhoods.

]]> By: newyorkwatertaxiphotos http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2253 newyorkwatertaxiphotos Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:35:47 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2253 Check out the Water Taxi Photo Contest before you take this ride: http://newyorkwatertaxiphotocontest.blogspot.com/ Check out the Water Taxi Photo Contest before you take this ride: http://newyorkwatertaxiphotocontest.blogspot.com/

]]> By: Greenpoint http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2249 Greenpoint Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:20:00 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/28/the-suburbanization-of-nycs-waterfront/#comment-2249 Just a small correction. The neighborhood designation noted in the article should actually be Greenpoint-Williamsburg. It's is unfortunate that some try to manipulate the order for some kind of a burg-centric insecurity. Greenpoint-Williamsburg has always been the official designation for the City of New York. This has only been noted because recently more Burg-centric bloggers have tried to claim Greenpoint's McCarren Park as their own. For those who think this is a ridiculous argument, then why don't we just call the whole of northern Brooklyn, Greenpoint. Just a small correction. The neighborhood designation noted in the article should actually be Greenpoint-Williamsburg. It's is unfortunate that some try to manipulate the order for some kind of a burg-centric insecurity. Greenpoint-Williamsburg has always been the official designation for the City of New York. This has only been noted because recently more Burg-centric bloggers have tried to claim Greenpoint's McCarren Park as their own. For those who think this is a ridiculous argument, then why don't we just call the whole of northern Brooklyn, Greenpoint.

]]>