However, the two groups had yet to reach an agreement on which of the revised versions of the guiding principles most adequately reflected the priorities and interests of all the parties involved. “Our goal is to crystallize the thinking on the piers so there can be a unified Brooklyn position,” Gelber explained to a local reporter following Cuomo’s speech. “I think you see the Coalition guidelines already in this [Golden’s] working document.”32 In spite of the governor’s public call for an immediate solution to the piers debate, the process of revisions and negotiations continued well into the following year.
ON APRIL 3, 1992, the Port Authority announced a new set of plans to sell Piers 1–5 for private development. According to Port Authority executive director Stanley Brezenoff, the agency’s decision to bypass the negotiations currently being conducted within the Brooklyn community was motivated by the fragility and vulnerability of the piers themselves. According to Brezenoff, one of the piers was in immediate danger of collapsing on top of an underwater subway tunnel, and all the piers were in urgent need of major repairs. From the perspective of the Port Authority, which still retained final responsibility for the oversight of Piers 1–5, the stalled negotiations among local elected officials and other leaders in the adjacent waterfront communities threatened to endanger the future viability of the property, whatever the intended use. “It isn’t a question of negotiation,” Brezenoff insisted. “After all this effort it seems doubtful than an approach that is acceptable to all parties will ever emerge.”33
Whatever internal disagreements had kept the Coalition and the borough president from reaching a consensus on the appropriate planning and principles for the Brooklyn waterfront, the two groups were immediately united in their resistance to the reemergence of the Port Authority as a player in the disposition of Piers 1–5. “We’ve made great strides,” Golden insisted to a reporter at the time, countering Brezenoff’s claim that stalled local negotiations were endangering the waterfront property. “We’ve listened to every community. And we have gotten to the point where we are almost unanimous in the usage of the piers. The greatest mistake that could be perpetrated now is to give those piers away. Rome wasn’t built in a day and our piers won’t come back in a day.”34
“We are going to go to the governor again and to Vincent Tese in hopes of getting them to stop the Port Authority from selling the land,” announced Assemblywoman Eileen Dugan regarding the shared commitment of the community’s elected officials to do whatever was necessary to resist the agency’s plans. “We think it is a natural resource for Brooklyn and we are not going to stand still while they give it away.”35
Following public outrage from community leaders and local elected officials—and a formal request for additional time for the completion of a public development plan from UDC executive director Vincent Tese, who was also serving as Governor Cuomo’s chief economic adviser—the Port Authority quickly backed off its plans to sell the property for private development. “Frankly, it’s something that I’m more than happy to do,” explained Brezenoff. “The priorities for us involved here are that the property be put to good use, that it not be a drain on our budget and that our capital expenditures be reimbursed.”36
THE REEMERGENCE of the Port Authority as a potential adversary in the disposition of the west Brooklyn waterfront property turned out to be the final nudge that the Coalition and Borough President Howard Golden needed to reach consensus on the common principles to guide a new public entity in charge of the piers. On June 29, 1992, the “13 Guiding Principles to Govern Redevelopment on the Downtown Brooklyn Waterfront” were approved by Coalition members, local elected officials, and other community leaders at a special meeting held at Borough Hall on 209 Joralemon Street in Brooklyn Heights.37
The “13 Guiding Principles” represented a comprehensive synthesis of the full range of issues and concerns of all the relevant parties in the proposed disposition of the Brooklyn piers, from the Brooklyn Heights community’s original concerns about protecting the scenic view and the cul-de-sac design of the neighborhood to the public entities’ insistence on the financial prudence and self-sustainability of the development plan to the maximization of access and opportunities (including job creation) for residents living outside the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the piers property.
13 GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO GOVERN REDEVELOPMENT ON
THE DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN WATERFRONT
1. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING;
a) The Plan shall celebrate the unparalleled vistas and historic nature of the site with a world-class design affording spectacular entry into Brooklyn;
b) The Plan shall be conducted by a public entity which holds title to the site which includes Port Authority and other public and private parcels;
c) The Plan shall encompass the waterfront area between Manhattan Bridge and Atlantic Avenue including Empire–Fulton Ferry State Park, the Brooklyn Bridge area and the upland of Pier 6;
d) The Overall Plan shall be agreed to before permanent use or construction is authorized;
2. FULL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND FULL PUBLIC REVIEW THROUGHOUT THE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROCESS;
a) Including representatives of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Coalition, Citywide and Brooklyn groups who have devoted years to public involvement and professional planning for the site;
b) Including Citywide and Brooklyn-area business, labor, civic and educational leaders;
3. RETAIN AND ENHANCE SCENIC VIEWS;
a) Preserve existing street-end view corridors including Atlantic Avenue and Old Fulton Street;
b) Protect and enhance the view of the Brooklyn Bridge and its towers, the Statue of Liberty and New York Harbor from the adjacent communities and the Promenade;
4. PUBLIC OWNERSHIP TO PLAN, DEVELOP AND MANAGE THE SITE;
a) In accordance with the overall Plan, issue carefully phrased sequential requests for proposals to construction and operation through ground lease for commercial developments;
5. MAXIMIZE DEDICATED PARK LAND AND OPEN SPACE FOR YEAR-ROUND PUBLIC RECREATION, BOTH ACTIVE AND PASSIVE;
a) The goal for the redevelopment is public access and use in a mixed-used development consisting predominantly of, and including the maximum level of, dedicated park land and open space, for both active and passive recreation;
6. FOSTER PUBLIC ACCESS AND USES FROM BROOKLYN AND THROUGHOUT THE REGION WHILE RESPECTING AND PROTECTING THE CHARACTER OF, AND IMPACTS ON, ADJACENT COMMUNITIES;
7. DEVELOP AND PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES EMPHASIZING DESIGN QUALITY AND PROVIDING ENFORCEABLE LIMITS ON THE HEIGHTS, BULK, MASSING AND FOOTPRINT;
8. DEVELOP A FISCALLY PRUDENT PLAN;
a) Specialized commercial uses (e.g., executive conference center/destination resort, restaurants, maritime center) shall be encouraged and residential and office uses shall be discouraged;
b) The site shall have only so much commercial development in a park-like setting as is necessary to enliven the area, to provide security and to finance ongoing operation;
c) The revenues from such commercial uses shall be committed to the operation and maintenance of dedicated park and open space areas and contribute to capital development costs;
d) The development of commercial uses, open space and park areas specified in the overall Plan shall be implemented in an incremental and coordinated manner;
9. FOSTER JOB DEVELOPMENT;
a) Favor development that generates permanent skilled jobs especially based on marine repair, hotel-conference and restaurant services and maritime activities;
10. FOSTER WATER-RELATED DEVELOPMENT;
a) Encourage uses that are enhanced by a waterfront location and/or that will enhance the waterfront;
11. REQUIRE A SCALE AND BUILT FORM THAT RELATES CLOSELY TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS;
12. FOSTER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SITE AND DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN, INCLUDING INCREASED TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES;
a) Troll
eys, buses and other public transportation to connect the site to rail and subway services;
b) Encourage the provision of pedestrian and bicycle access to, and usage within, the site;
13. MINIMIZE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION;
a) Minimize vehicular traffic congestion and pollution impact on neighborhoods to the north, east and south.
Source: Brooklyn Bridge Park Coalition, “13 Guiding Principles to Govern Redevelopment on the Downtown Brooklyn Waterfront,” June 29, 1992.
Even after the final document had been adopted and distributed, the “13 Guiding Principles” continued to have its detractors, both inside and outside the Coalition. A few months after the principles were adopted, Manheim confided to State Senator Martin Connor and Assemblywoman Eileen Dugan that several members of the BHA, Cobble Hill Association, and Fulton Ferry Landing Association on the Coalition had expressed frustration “at the whittling down of the Parks commitment in our own 16 Guiding Principles (already too weak, some thought) to get to the 13 Common Principles.”38 One of the key concerns was the issue of housing, with residents from the neighborhoods adjacent to the piers complaining that the document failed to ensure the complete absence of luxury condominiums and other private residences on the site, since Guiding Principle 8.a mandated that “specialized commercial uses (e.g., executive conference center/destination resort, restaurants, maritime center) shall be encouraged and residential and office uses shall be discouraged”—but not prohibited.
ON JULY 15, 1992, the newly adopted “13 Guiding Principles” were submitted to the UDC by the Coalition and the elected officials from Brooklyn. With the guiding principles for the new public entity approved and the Brooklyn community finally united around a common vision for the piers, it was the public entities’ turn to delay the disposition process. In February 1993, more than six months after the joint submission of the “13 Guiding Principles” to the UDC, Manheim expressed frustration that he had still not received formal acknowledgment that the document had been received, much less a response to its contents.39
Manheim’s frustration was further exacerbated by the recent release of the “Comprehensive Waterfront Plan” by the New York City Department of City Planning, which proposed splitting the Brooklyn Bridge Park site into two separate sites, Piers 1–5 and the Empire Stores/Fulton Ferry, only the latter of which was formally designated as a “Public Waterfront.” The private nature of the study and its recommendations were in violation of Guiding Principle 2, which called for “full public participation and full public review throughout the planning, development and management process” and increased suspicions within the Brooklyn community that the public entities, which had repeatedly complained about delays in the adoption of the guiding principles for the piers, had no intention of following the newly adopted principles.
“Moving into our 5th year as a 52-organization-strong Borough- and City-wide Coalition, it is appropriate to be encouraged at the progress we have made—but disappointed at the pace!” Manheim wrote in his “Summary Progress Report” for 1993. “City and federal governments need to be much more actively involved and adopt a long-range public benefit perspective appropriate for a capital project that pays its own way, once built. The State needs to redeem, in a timely fashion, the promise implicit in Governor Cuomo’s various statements of support. We are impatient to see interim public uses on the site, and detailed master planning get under way, in accord with our Bible—the PRINCIPLES.”40
FIVE
BANGING THEIR CUPS ON THE HIGH CHAIR
“I remember that Tony’s favorite phrase was “We’ve got to bang our cups on the high chair. We’ve got to bang our cups on the high chair.” And that’s what we did. We banged a few cups, and we got people’s attention.”
MARK BAKER
IN JULY 1993, a year after the Brooklyn Bridge Park Coalition and the elected officials in Brooklyn had approved and submitted the “13 Guiding Principles” to the New York State Urban Development Corporation (UDC), the agency still had not endorsed the document, nor had it formally acknowledged receipt of a follow-up letter from Anthony Manheim, dated January 15, urging the adoption of the “13 Guiding Principles” and requesting the opportunity to discuss the appropriate composition of the board of directors for the proposed independent public entity for the disposition and oversight of the piers.1
After almost ten years of involvement in the piers controversy, Manheim had become increasingly frustrated with the frequent delays in the negotiation process, from both the public entities and the Coalition’s partners in the Brooklyn community, and his private and public statements had begun to reflect the strain and impatience that he felt.
“It’s extremely irresponsible,” Manheim had complained to local reporter Anne-Marie Otey the previous July, shortly after he learned of the Port Authority’s short-lived decision to sell the piers to private developers in the midst of the ongoing negotiations between the Coalition and elected officials in Brooklyn and the UDC. Later in the same interview, Manheim implicated both Brooklyn Borough President Howard Golden and UDC executive director Vincent Tese, two critical allies in the community’s push for an independent public entity to take charge of the piers, for the failure of the park alternative to gain traction with the public authorities, in spite of the good faith and ongoing diligence of the Coalition and its supporters (figure 16). “We [the Coalition] have not had any contact with the PA [Port Authority], UDC, or EDC [Economic Development Corporation],” complained Manheim. “All discussions have gone on between the borough president’s staff and the agencies. Everyone has said, we’re giving Golden an opportunity to see if he can work it out. Now there’s the perception that Golden’s effort has failed,” said Manheim, before directing his ire at Tese. “We heard the UDC thought it was too park-y. Tese has an absolute fear and hatred of parks.”2
FIGURE 16
Anthony Manheim and Brooklyn Borough President Howard Golden, 1996.
COURTESY OF ANTHONY MANHEIM
Now that the Coalition had finally gained some leverage with local elected officials and in the governor’s office, Manheim was acutely aware that stalled negotiations and other delays could also work to the disadvantage of the community and the park movement and to the advantage of those favoring the private development of the piers. On the political level, the public support of even the most trusted allies in borough, city, and state government were only as reliable as the results of the latest election, while the hard-earned assurances of the Port Authority, the UDC, and other public agencies were always vulnerable to the changing priorities of private developers, who were continually warming to or shying away from the city’s waterfront properties, depending on fluctuations in real-estate markets, political loyalties, and regulatory environments. As the UDC continued to delay the process by withholding its endorsement of the “13 Guiding Principles,” Manheim grew to view the situation in “now or never” terms. If the hard-earned victories achieved by the Coalition and its antecedents in the west Brooklyn piers movement over the previous ten years were to slip away, with the promise of an independent public entity to control the piers in plain sight, the opportunity would almost certainly not be repeated.
The pressures on Manheim as the spokesman for the Coalition increased significantly in May 1992, when Coalition co-chair Tom Fox left the organization to become director of the newly formed Hudson River Park Conservancy, a subsidiary of the UDC, which was to oversee the planning and construction of the West Side waterfront between Battery Park City and Fifty-ninth Street. Now that Manheim was alone at the helm of the Coalition, he doubled his efforts to ensure the realization of the park that he had first envisioned almost a decade earlier.
“You have to understand how inspiring it was to think of [the waterfront] as being open to the public,” recalls Manheim of the passion and urgency that drove him at the time. “We New Yorkers lived at a time when you didn’t have access to the waterfront, when the waterfront was virtually walled off from u
s. And we realized that this was the one chance we would have, this one tremendous opportunity to create an enormous public resource in the center of the city and to take advantage of an opportunity that would never present itself again.”3
If the Coalition were to fail in its efforts to create a public park on the west Brooklyn piers, Manheim reasoned, it would not be because its members had failed to make their voices heard. In each subsequent public pronouncement and private correspondence, Manheim’s vision for the piers—and his assessments of the reasons that the Coalition’s goals had not yet been achieved—became clearer, more emphatic, and more confrontational, and he urged his fellow Coalition members to act accordingly.
“I remember that Tony’s favorite phrase was ‘We’ve got to bang our cups on the high chair. We’ve got to bang our cups on the high chair,’ ” Mark Baker remembers of Manheim’s increasing flair for drama and public confrontation. “And that’s what we did. We banged a few cups, and we got people’s attention.”4
“Every time we had a fight it seemed to increase the attention,” agrees John Watts. “We didn’t stage any of this, but that’s the effect it had. People in Albany said, ‘Those people in Brooklyn, they never are satisfied.’ And the answer was, ‘Yes. We’re not until we get what we think ought to be done.’ ”5
A History of Brooklyn Bridge Park Page 12
