BROOKLYN SKATING RINK PUT ON ICE
DOT PLAN MEANS MAJOR DELAYS FOR PROJECT
By RICH CALDER

August 14, 2008

A much-anticipated ice-skating rink planned for under the Brooklyn Bridge is on hold indefinitely because the city Department of Transportation plans to use the prime real estate for storage, officials confirmed yesterday.

The 85-acre Brooklyn Bridge Park project now under construction calls for using this one acre of land under the bridge seasonally for an ice-skating rink in the winter and a public market or plaza during warmer weather.

But a DOT spokesman said the property can’t be turned over as parkland until at least five years of bridge rehabilitation work is done first. Besides needing the site for storage during the bridge job, he said there will be sandblasting and painting done under the span and that the public should be nowhere near the area during this time.

The former Purchase Building tract is DOT-owned, and was last used as a temporary home to the Office of Emergency Management, but DOT is supposed to give it up for the new waterfront park in DUMBO and Brooklyn Heights.

The old building, a 1930s-era Art Deco structure that local preservationists tried to save, was demolished last month to make way for the long-awaited park.

Sources said DOT and the city-state Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corp. fought internally over the land, with DOT ultimately winning out.

This was described to us by a senior Parks Official as being the “money shot” of the Park.  We don’t think this was what was meant.  A more serious question is: why was there no coordination between the different city agencies about the disposition of this land? A fast search discovers this article from 2005 which talks about the need for maintenance of NYC’s bridges and even roughs out their proposed maintence schedules. It looks like a good and sensible plan - and one that should not have been a surprise to anyone paying attention (like, say,  people planning a park underneath the bridge).  As the saying goes, you reap what you sow….and the products of destruction shall be ashes (or sand-blasting, as the case may be).

From the Brooklyn Papers

Bridge “Park” Can Find No Purchase by Mike McLaughlin

Demolition teams have made short work of the iconic Purchase Building beneath the Brooklyn Bridge to clear space for a piazza that will be part of the controversial Brooklyn Bridge Park project.

The $300-plus-million parkland and condo project along the DUMBO and Brooklyn Heights waterfront has long included destruction of the two-story Modernist relic built as part of FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s - and that’s a good thing, say project boosters, who are excited by the current plan for a piazza-like open space under the Brooklyn Bridge where the Purchase Building stood.

The brick-and-concrete building could not even be torn down had it not, in 2006, lost the protection it enjoyed as part of the Fulton Ferry Historic District. At that time, city officials lobbied the Landmarks Preservation Commission to cut the building out of the district because the historic building would obstruct views from the new park.

The building had many lives during its years in city service, earning its name after being christened as a warehouse for the city’s “Department of Purchase.” It remained a warehouse for other city agencies for decades, and, for a time after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, became the home of the Office of Emergency Management.

©2008 The Brooklyn Paper

Brownstoner has photos of the Purchase Building being demolished http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/07/checking_in_on_11.php and frankly, it’s sickening.

HDC fought for this building for years, but in the end the building was doomed by the LPC, making a blatantly political decision which was frankly embarassing. See here for details: http://www.hdc.org/%20e-bulletin03_3.htm

We fight and try to put losses behind us, but recently we took a look at a copy of the LPC Binding Report which permitted the demolition and it re-opened all those wounds. Here’s the permit http://search.citylaw.org/isysquery/586bae4c-f9cb-4207-9afa-9c9746b72e03/4/doc/020803.pdf#xml=http://citylaw02/isysquery/586bae4c-f9cb-4207-9afa-9c9746b72e03/4/hilite/ and here are some quotes:

“In reviewing this proposal, the Commission noted that the Fulton Ferry Historic District designation report describes 11-85 Water Street as an Art-Deco style storehouse built in 1936. The Commission also noted that the special architectural character of the Fulton Ferry Historic District is defined by the collection of mid-and late-19th century buildings which reflect the commercial development of the neighborhood when its center of activity was the Fulton Ferry. The designation report states that the “golden age” of the district’s architectural development “ended with the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge” in 1883.” - suddenly there are eras of significance in designation reports? Was 980 Madison Avenue from the “golden age” of the Upper East Side? or the O’Toole Building from the “golden age” of Greenwich Village? This is incredibly bad reasoning. And what about all the approved changes to buildings that LPC allows every week? Do they weaken the protections of designation?

“Finally, the report states that the historic district contains “the last bit of actual waterfront near Brooklyn Heights readily accessible to its residents…(t)he revival and restoration of this waterfront area would provide an important amenity for the people of Brooklyn Heights and Manhattan …” Staff also notes that the Purchase Building complex is located directly beneath the individually designated Brooklyn Bridge, and adjacent to the Brooklyn tower of the bridge” - well, there you go. The designation of the district always intended to protect the openness of the waterfront, regardless of all those pesky buildings in the way. Why not get rid of the River Cafe as well? I guess a fancy restaurant counts towards public access.

“With regard to this proposal, the Commission finds that this complex of buildings, which includes the Purchase Building, its boiler house, garage and brick wall, is not of the period of primary significance of the historic district, and does not relate in its design or detail to the buildings which establish the special architectural and historic character for which the Fulton Ferry Historic District was designated;” - here we go with “period of primary significance” again. This is really, really bad language.

“…that the location of the complex obscures the base of the Brooklyn Bridge tower, and detracts from its special architectural and historic character;” - the same could be said of the Lehman Wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art - wait, the LPC allowed that to be built….

“that the presence of the Purchase Building complex between the anchorage and the tower diminishes the openness and visual clarity of the bridge’s eastern span; that removing these buildings will help establish a visual connection between the Tobacco Warehouse and Empire Stores to the north, and the Old Fulton Street corridor to the south, which are the two groupings of significant buildings within the historic district;” - how does this jibe with the okay to build 122 Greenwich Street? Doesn’t that affect the “visual connection” of the buildings in Greenwich Village?

“that removing the buildings will reestablish the historic open character of the space beneath the bridge” - removing buildings always reestablishes open character - that’s why it’s called “removing”

“that the design of the entrance to the park will emphasize the importance of Old Fulton Street by creating a strong element at the intersection with Water Street; and will help to unite this new section of the park with the Fulton Ferry pier and Fireboat House; that the creation of the park area will make the base of the Brooklyn Bridge tower both physically and visually accessible; that the design of the park beneath the bridge places emphasis on the bridge tower; that the park design establishes a strong relationship between the small park near the River Café and the Empire State Park to the north, which are identified as significant features of the historic district; that the presence of this new park will enhance the visual relationship between the significant buildings in the historic district and the waterfront, which was the catalyst for their construction; and that the ultimate effect of this proposal will be to enhance the special architectural and historic character of the Fulton Ferry Historic District.” - I’d lay odds that if you suggested to the people (and the government) who developed the area that their purpose of the waterfront was for recreational usage rather than commerce, you’d be laughed out of the room and possibly flogged. But OK, changing times, who doesn’t love a park? at least the design will be good….

“The Commission requests that the applicants return to the Commission with final designs for the fixtures and finishes in the park, such as the fences, the fountain, benches, paving, lighting and signage, for the connection near the River Café; and for the paving at the River Café connection” - WHAT? There isn’t even a final design?

So, to sum up - in order to clear the way to build a park which isn’t even fully deisgned, the LPC rolled over for the Parks Department and the Brooklyn Bridge Park folks and not only countenanced the destruction of noted building in a designated historic district, but opened up some very scary doorways in doing so.

In a New York Times article about the LPC that came out around the time, Andrew S. Dolkart, Columbia University professor (and now Chairman) of historic preservation and author of the DUMBO Historic District designation report said, “This vote was the low point in the history of the landmarks commission. It’s disgraceful. I think the commissioners fell down on their duty, which is to preserve landmarks.”