So apparently
39 stories right next door has finally rankled folks over at the BBG. They'll be addressing the need to protect the garden from the monster growing at the old Spice Factory site.
To sign the petition go here. And good luck BBG. You're gonna need it, and a well done shadow study.
Dear BBG Member,
Brooklyn Botanic Garden’s plant collections are under serious threat from a proposed massive building complex including two 39-story towers just 150 feet from the Garden.
The Garden is strongly advocating that current land-use zoning must remain—zoning that was designed to protect our conservatories, greenhouses, and nurseries where plants are grown for the entire 52 acres of BBG.
Outsized towers of this height would block hours of sunlight to these spaces and cause lasting damage to BBG, a world-renowned treasure whose plant collections have been serving the community and fostering generations of environmental stewards for over 100 years.
We are calling on our members and supporters to help us speak out against rezoning with our elected officials. Join us in signing a petition to City officials to oppose this rezoning and to protect the integrity and the beauty of the Garden! |
|
|
Join Brooklyn Botanic Garden in protecting this vital community asset at the Public Scoping Meeting on Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at the New York City Department of City Planning. As a valued member of Brooklyn Botanic Garden, I ask that you join us at this hearing to show your solidarity and stand with us against these zoning changes.
You can also to contact the chairs of the City Council's Committee on Land Use and the Council's Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises, the District 35 Council Member (the proposed project is in Council District 35), your own City Council Member, the Brooklyn Borough President, and the Mayor.
If you have further questions, please email membership@bbg.org. Thank you for your ongoing membership support and for helping BBG protect its sunlight.
Sincerely, |
 |
|
|
|
|
9 comments:
Shadow studies? Shadows cast by 400-ft buildings 500 feet away from the BBG? Not much of an issue. Due to the atmosphere, those molecules of air, sunlight is diffused and scattered around. At worst, a small area would receive a little less morning sun. That's all. It's not as though the shadows would turn the area into the dark side of a lunar crater. Nothing worth getting all worked up about.
Meanwhile, providing for people matters more than the placement of the flora in a man-made park. If it becomes necessary to move a few bushes, trees, flowers, etc, well, okay. After all, the designers of the park arranged things to their liking. Sort of Biblical, don't you think? The current placements can be modified if necessary.
why are you against new building being built?
lets progress take place.
the gardens will be fine
money always wins in the end. sorry
sssnole, the BBG is man-made. It did not evolve out of Nature. It did not fall from the sky in its current configuration. Neither did the buildings in the city. As you mentioned, it is a garden, not a park. Gardens are arranged to please the gardener. Hence, if the gardener sees the need to move some plants, then the plants are moved.
Meanwhile, Central Park is surrounded by tall buildings much closer to the perimeter of the park than this new building would be to the BBG. Central Park is thriving.
Yes, any and all plants and trees in the BBG are available for relocation. The placement of trees and plants is secondary to the needs of people willing to pay for housing in a crowded city. You gotta face it -- almost none of the flora in the BBG is native to the region.
Moreover, there's no effort to reduce the size of the BBG. Thus, a little relocating and replanting of flora is an insignificant issue. On the other hand, creating more housing for the people who pay the bills in this city is important.
With respect to moving trees, I would make an exception for the Camperdown Elm in Prospect Park.
You wrote:
The entirety of south Brooklyn is without parks or green space because nobody cared to preserve any of the land that was there.
Ahhh, Floyd Bennett Field is 1,000 acres of open land. The BBG is 50 acres. Prospect Park is 500 acres.
Today's scoping hearing at NYC Planning Commission was a farce. The auditorium was full to capacity (no doubt with many construction workers paid to be there - I saw a lot outside as well), and most people couldn't get in. After waiting around for nearly an hour people were allowed to sign a paper saying they'd been there - and were told to follow @NYCPlanning on Twitter for news of if anyone else would be allowed in.
Reminds me of the days of Atlantic Yards, with Ratner paying construction workers to disrupt the meetings and bringing busloads of kids in from Bed-Stuy with the promise of free sneakers and a hero sandwich.
At least this time they won't be bypassing ULURP by going directly to the state - let's hope Laurie Cumbo changes her pro-developer stance.
What have we got here? On one hand, we have possibly 39 stories of homes for people willing to pay substantial rent and lots of tax revenue to the city and state.
On the other hand, we have some plants and trees that might experience a small loss of morning sunshine due to the shadow cast by the building.
So, the obvious solution is the least expensive for all concerned. If necessary, move the plants and trees a few feet. Put them where the shadows won't impinge on their well-being. Easy-peasy. Undoubtedly the developer would pay to move the flora if a slight relocation would speed the approval for construction.
Question to me is, what's so bad about the developer's "threat" to build condos if the rezone doesn't go through? A smaller building with condos, for which there is serious demand, seems like a perfectly great addition to the area, especially with demand for condos/coops being so high.
As I believe Tim has said before, the only way to get truly affordable housing is through government funded construction, so I don't see why developer threats to build market rate should they not get what they want should carry any weight.
Alex
I agree with Alex - there is a need for condos in the area and the location is very attractive - and maybe their presence could slow things down at 12 Crown St., where they are doing everything to force out long-term rental tenants (like removing the in-building laundry - they say they'll replace it with a new and better one - post-condo conversion of course).
Post a Comment