It is rather distressing to me that what I presume to be seasoned veterans of the development and building trade can’t seem to be fully prepared for the contingency of providing a simple rendering in time for an article on their project.

No, I am not ‘’dying’’ to see it, but I am curious. I would like to see a rendering from street level rather than an aerial view that neither I nor others are likely to experience anytime soon. The issue as far as I’m concerned is not ‘’harm’’ to the Brooklyn Bridge itself, but rather the visual aesthetic which is so much a part of this great city and its amazing skyline, bridges included.

The notion of discussing the projects position almost entirely in relation to DUMBO leaves me thinking that we are not likely to see renderings of this project from the vantage points common to the pedestrians that make up the majority of ‘viewers’ in this city, Brooklyn shore view included. I suspect we’ll be reading a lot numbers based on heights and dimensions without the kind of visual support that one can look at and say ‘’that’s what I see when I walk or drive past.’’

The one aspect of this debate which leaves a bad taste in my mind more than any other is the fact that professionals who deal in the objective math and physics of architecture can’t seem to be concrete (no pun intended) and timely in the material support of their argument. I wonder what the developers response would be if one of their contracted suppliers couldn’t send them important specs on a moments notice.

Call and Email Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Cristine Quinn and urge her to reject this project!!!

Mr. Walentas and representatives of Two Trees Management have continued to marginalize those who have opposed this development.  Mr. Walentas’ claim that Mr. David McCullough, one of the most profound historians, lecturers and authors of our time, “has been hoodwinked into promulgating his inaccurate viewpoint by a group of neighborhood activists,” is unequivocally wrong.  This “group of neighborhood activists” Mr. Walentas refers to includes: DUMBO Neighborhood Association, the Brooklyn Heights Association, the Fulton Ferry Landing Association, the Vinegar Hill Association, the Cobble Hill Association, the Boerum Hill Association and the Fort Greene Association.  Collectively, these neighborhood civic groups represent the interests of tens of thousands of residents.  Moreover, their belief that the proposed rezoning and resultant 18 story building will have an overwhelmingly negative impact on the Brooklyn Bridge and the surrounding historic neighborhoods is shared by a number of local elected officials and by some of the most important city-wide and national preservationists. The Historic Districts Council, the grassroots advocate for New York City’s historic neighborhoods, the Roebling Society - Chapter for Industrial Archeology, the Municipal Arts Society, Society for the Architecture of NYC, and Richard Moe, President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, have all stated their clear opposition to this proposed development.  Furthermore, a petitioning campaign has garnered nearly 12,000 signatures from neighbors, fellow citizens and concerned individuals from far and wide stating their opposition to impinging on the grandeur of the Brooklyn Bridge and marring the historic character of the neighborhoods below.  It would be quite a challenging task  to “hoodwink” Mr. McCullough regarding a subject on which he is one of the preeminent experts, let alone to coordinate this task among so many groups and individuals, as Mr. Walentas has implied.

Your readers should be aware that in 2004 community groups united in opposition to a similar development proposal, and the vociferous public outcry over the detrimental impact on the bridge and the adjacent historic, land-marked neighborhoods persuaded local politicians to reject the controversial development.  Consequently, Two Trees Management failed to gain the requested zoning changes and waivers.  After Two Trees Management “spent $400,385 to lobby the city in 2007 and 2008,” (Brooklyn Paper, January, 27, 2009), the developer has once again filed a request for zoning changes and waivers to pave the way for an 18 story luxury rental building at the same site.  “Much of the lobbying money appears to have gone towards trying to sway support for the Dock St. project… Officials for the company -- including the Walentases -- have also dished out $29,700 in campaign donations over this period to Councilwoman Melinda Katz and another $19,800 to Council Speaker Christine Quinn.  Katz, a local Democrat running for City Comptroller, heads the council’s land use committee, which must eventually decide whether to put Two Trees' request for a necessary zoning change before the full council for final approval,” (New York Post, April 22, 2009).

The real reason we are once again debating the merits of this development is not because this proposal was “redesigned” from the original proposal that failed in 2004, as the developer maintains.  We are here today because Two Trees Management wants the public to believe that a community desired middle school can only become a reality if the public accepts an 18 story, out of context tower that encroaches on the bridge.  Two Trees Management also wants the public to believe that this is the only space for a middle school in the entire district.  In fact, this location may be less than ideal for a school.  It would be located in a federally designated flood zone, above the developer’s 465 car garage, below a potential terrorist target, the Brooklyn Bridge.  Private sector involvement in the education of our children is critical but approving this kind of spot zoning while a developer dangles the carrot of a leased “shell” is morally and ethically not the kind of public-private partnership that is desirable.

An extensive investigation conducted by NYC Councilman David Yassky’s office, which includes information revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request, yielded disturbing revelations.  One of the greatest public concerns has always centered on the credibility of the school site selection process with regards to Dock Street and the undue influence of Two Trees in this process. “Internal memos and e-mails show the agency had already decided weeks earlier to let father-son developers David and Jed Walentas include a middle school in their planned 18-story apartment tower rather than consider alternate sites for a school proposed by neighborhood groups and Councilman Yassky,”  (New York Post, DUMBO Stumble, April 1, 2009).  "Now I know that if we don't do the Walentas project that we don't really want to do anything else over there, but I think we have to follow up on this just so we can say that the Walentas project is such a good deal," the e-mail says.  The absence of  proper cost-benefit analysis  comparing alternate sites highlights the lack of consideration and fiduciary obligation to the tax-paying public. Meanwhile, repeated letters from the general public, requesting their environmental impact study on the Dock St. location, have gone unanswered by the SCA. Even more disturbing are the inconsistencies in the SCA statements relating to the need for a middle school, and inappropriate communication between the SCA and Two Trees Management officials, which raise serious questions of dubious dealings and a private developer’s undue influence over the process. In sum, the process has been ineffectual at best, and most likely harmful to the interests of New Yorkers.

We have all been bestowed with the enormous obligation, whether we like it or not, to prevent the desecration of our national monuments, and to respect and support our collective history and the symbols of our national identity.  By approving this project we will disappoint not only the generation who gifted the world this beacon of human ingenuity,  but also the dozens of generations that have maintained and preserved this early symbol of our country’s inventiveness, might, and hard work.   Should we allow this structure to rise in the name of urban progress, we will leave an indelible stain on our progress as a people, a nation and members of humanity.

Building close to the Brooklyn Bridge Tower would be a serious mistake, from a structural viewpoint.

Having worked closely with the New York City Bureau of Bridges in the 1970’s on repairs and enhancements to this unique, original bridge, I would ask these questions:

1. Can we be sure the foundation of the Brooklyn Tower would not be loaded by the building’s piles, causing subsidence of the tower?

2. Will the presence of the building’s utilities, and their future maintenance, interfere with the bridge’s maintenance and longevity?

3. Might fire protection for the bridge be compromised by the building?

4. Wind is the major force on this bridge.  The building code does not require a wind tunnel study, but obviously the wind forces will be changed by this new building.  What will these changes be?

5. The lighting of the cables is a dramatic part of the night water view.  Part of the lighting will be obscured.  How will this be compensated for by the building’s owners?

In my opinion, the Bureau of Bridges must vigorously contest this project until these and other questions are resolved.

Bill Kallman, PE