While the EDC is running the planning process, on paper the land remains state-owned and therefore they can proceed with a GPP. EDC has stated that the “GPP is intended for projects, like BMT, of regional importance and with strong State and City collaboration and coordination. It allows for a continuous process of engagement of all stakeholders including Federal, State, and local stakeholders to achieve common policy goals.”

We hope so. At the very least we have the ability through the Task Force to ensure the Vision Plan reflects what the community wants, and to include parameters for the GPP to preserve community input throughout the GPP process. This does not end when the Vision Plan is adopted. As the GPP process continues and we learn more through the environmental review studies, we can and will continue to advocate on behalf of the community.

This project has opened up opportunities to make changes to the infrastructure surrounding the BMT, which includes the intersection of Columbia Street and Atlantic Avenue, as well as the BQE entrances on Atlantic Avenue and Columbia Street. The CHA has made it clear from day one that this is a non-negotiable for our community, and we encourage everyone to continue to identify this at EDC engagement sessions.

No, this is not a blank slate. The Red Hook Container Terminal is staying at Pier 10. Piers 9A and 9B will be combined to form a single marginal pier, which, pursuant to the grant providing some of the funding for the project, will be used for maritime. The goal of this project has always been to preserve Brooklyn’s last remaining working waterfront, and so those uses will continue on the site. EDC is also building a “home port” for NYC Ferry at Pier 11 (a place to park the ferries at night), which also appears to be a non-negotiable.

The Brooklyn Cruise Terminal will remain. There is some discussion around moving the BCT from Pier 12 in Red Hook to the new Pier 9. If this becomes a seriously proposal we will add more details on the pros and cons.

Although not “set in stone”, most versions of a plan include using some of the pier space to create the infrastructure for a “Blue Highway”, which would reduce trucks on the street by (1) moving cargo from the container port to other parts of the City via the water and (2) bringing cargo to the site via the water and then sending it out for delivery using micro-mobility and other environmentally friendl(ier) forms of transportation.

Based on initial public feedback, below are some of the other uses for the site. Please note that this is not separated out by where on the site these things could be located. Some of these uses are more likely at one end of the site than the other (e.g., a hotel or convention center is more likely to be near the cruise terminal in Red Hook, whereas industrial warehouses are more likely to be near the flex maritime at Pier 9).

*Housing (luxury, market rate, affordable)

*Industrial (e.g., warehouses, cold storage facilities, bulk cargo sorting facilities, workforce development)

*Commercial (public markets, maker spaces, convention centers, hotels, retail, officers)

*Open Space (e.g., parks, waterfront promenade)

*Civic/Cultural (e.g., museums, schools, performance spaces)

That’s the billion dollar question. After decades of neglect by Port Authority of NY/NJ, all of the piers are in need of rehabilitation in order to restore the ability to have a working waterfront. Even with the $164 million MegaInfra grant, EDC’s initial calculations suggest nearly $1B is needed to upgrade the maritime infrastructure. This is before any investment in any other type of use, be it industrial, commercial, or open space. All of these secondary uses will also cost money, and it is the view of the EDC that this should be paid for with housing. This determination is based on assumptions about the projected revenue of a port operation or any other maritime use (which has public benefits in terms of job creation, climate change, and emergency goods access). While other uses might generate revenue, nothing is as profitable as housing.

While it isn’t “definite”, it is likely. The questions are (1) what is the purpose of the housing, (2) how much housing, (3) what type of housing would be included, and (4) what will that housing visually look like.

(1) Purpose:  This city is in a housing crisis. There is an opportunity to create housing to help meet this need, and there is space. To the extent feasible, it makes sense to include some housing on the site. However, EDC’s proposal goes beyond building to meet a need, to instead focus using housing as the currency to pay for infrastructure improvements and any public benefit. Money should not be the driver behind whether and to what extent housing is appropriate for this site.

(2) Quantity: How much housing will depend on the compatibility with other uses on the site, as well as the results of the environmental study that will be conducted during the GPP environmental review process. It is hard to know how much housing can exist on the site without that data.

(3) Type: There is an opportunity for 100% affordable housing, market-rate housing, and luxury housing. How much of each type is part of the conversation, and one which the community has an opportunity to weigh in on. Luxury housing will be the most profitable, but affordable will meet the needs of the housing crisis. This is why the purpose of the housing is so important, and why all of the various trade-offs need to be considered. 

(4) Appearance: This is really a question about height. In large part, the height of any proposed housing will depend on what other uses are on the site and what trade offs people are willing to accept. Low and mid-rise housing is more contextual to the neighborhood, but it also takes up more space that could otherwise be available to public uses and commercial activity. Would people be willing to accept a 10 story building if it meant a park? If it meant a public/commercial space that created jobs? This is all part of the analysis. It would be disingenuous to say that given the space constraints there is zero possibility of some tall buildings somewhere on the site. The real questions will be around how tall, how many, and where on the site. Much of this will be determined during the GPP process, but the community has the opportunity to have their preferences and trade-offs documented as part of the guiding principles.

Based on rough estimates, EDC calculated the capital expenditure to rehabilitate the BMT for maritime use as approximately $1B and the cost of any public amenities to be approximately $1B. Taking into account only the public funds already received for the project, the EDC concluded that 7000-9000 housing units (75% market rate and 25% affordable) were needed to pay the development. Task Force members and community members have requested more information as to how EDC came up with the estimates. There has also been significant push back on the decision to rely on housing, as opposed to other forms of public subsidy or commercial/industrial investment. Furthermore, EDC has not conducted any environmental assessments to determine whether the utility infrastructure or neighborhood infrastructure can support that quantity of housing.

So the short answer is: yes, that’s a number that’s been thrown out. The longer answer is that there are many reasons to be skeptical, and there is a lot of opportunity to push back. It is a common practice of developers seeking a rezoning to propose something they know will be completely untenable in order to anchor the community and ultimately negotiate for what they actually want. The community should not feel beholden to this number of housing units, nor the reliance on housing to pay for everything. This issue highlights the importance of community involvement.