|
|||||||||
|
|
Recent Blog Posts |
Fred Kent on making Brooklyn Bridge Park a real part of the cityby Sandy Ikeda
With several New York mega-projects in jeopardy – most spectacularly Atlantic Yards and Penn/Moynihan Station – one that seems to be on track (albeit after over 20 years of delays) at least for now is the proposed Brooklyn Bridge Park, stretching over a mile from the Manhattan Bridge south to Pier 6, where the 499-unit One Brooklyn Bridge Park condominium is nearing completion. Demolition work on the row of warehouses that line the waterfront began a couple of weeks ago. Of course there is organized opposition to the park plan (this is New York after all) even though the builders, the Brooklyn Bridge Development Corporation, conducted the obligatory series of public meetings and presentations. (Here is one example.) As David Gonzales described it in the Times last week, In the coming years, this 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.Profiled in this story is Fred Kent, described as "an urban planner who examines parks and plazas the way a doctor scrutinizes X-rays" and the founder of something called Project for Public Spaces. Mr. Kent has his own critique of the proposal. I find myself agreeing with it, as well as with his overall planning philosophy, which appears to derive from Jane Jacobs, William Whyte, and Christopher Alexander — urbanists whom I greatly admire. For Mr. Kent the Park's current design is a missed opportunity when compared to similar projects in Oslo and Stockholm, where markets and museums attract commerce and culture to the waterfront. I share his sentiment that: Putting a bunch of fields on the waterfront in the middle of a pier is not exactly the thing you should be doing on what is essentially your face to the world. ... If Brooklyn wanted to distinguish itself as a great city, apart from Manhattan, it is the waterfront that could do it.Waterfronts and other park-like public spaces are highly volatile in the sense that they don't themselves bring life to city districts but instead draw their life from their surroundings. Central Park and Bryant Park in Manhattan, for example, are successful not because they are full of nice open space and grass but because they welcome people who are drawn to their districts by many nearby attractors – such as residences, commercial buildings, cultural and educational institutions, and entertainment – what Jacobs calls "primary uses." But by themselves parks can create large "border vacuums" – impenetrable barriers that discourage rather than encourage people from coming because they are dull, uninteresting, and thus dangerous places. People need reasons to come to the Brooklyn waterfront besides simply to enjoy the "magnificent view of skyscrapers," and people are needed to attract still more people who collectively contribute to the safety of the space. The current plan has been roundly criticized by some because of the presence of a hotel, restaurant, and condos that are made necessary for the tax revenues that will enable the Park to be self-financing – a state-imposed condition that is in part responsible for finally bringing this long-held dream closer to reality. The truth is, however, that these primary uses are highly practical because they serve as the attractors that will bring people to the Park to use them when it's dark or when the weather turns cold. More would be even better in this case, in order to make the waterfront a real part of the city, rather than merely a pretty place to have a picnic, play ball, or take in the breathtaking skyline (as important as these may be). I plan to check out Mr. Kent's Project for Public Spaces, which has its office in Greenwich Village, where I hope to meet some kindred spirits
|
Print
Send
RSS
 |
