From the Daily News:Let there be light - expensive light - on the streets of Brooklyn Heights, some locals say.
The upscale neighborhood is getting 65 new streetlamps this fall at $10,000 a pop - paid for with federal stimulus money.
But they're not just any run-of-the-mill streetlamps; these will be fashioned with filigreed bishop's crooks to make them look like antique streetlamps.
And, they cost three times as much as the perfectly functional lights they're replacing.
"I'm not going to apologize for it," said Brooklyn Heights Association President Judy Stanton, who helped broker the $650,000 deal. "I think it's a valid use of stimulus money."
Councilman David Yassky (D-Brooklyn Heights) is responsible for earmarking $250,000 of the money for retro lamps to be installed by the city Department of Transportation, and Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-Brooklyn) has promised another $400,000 by the fall.
In all, the Brooklyn Heights Association hopes to replace 229 neighborhood lights at a total cost of $2.7 million.
41 comments:
Fuckin city better make sure they don't keep too many firehouses open next year. We wouldn't be able to afford all of this....
And they're doing it with retro Bishop Crooks, like every other ritzy neighborhood around town hasn't wasted money on 'em.
Thing is the City had several vintage posts left over after they were mostly replaced from 1950-1965 and they let them rust and fall apart. Now they have gone and spent millions on new ones that were meticulously copied to look like the old ones.
www.forgotten-ny.com
pork much?
CALLING PRESIDENT OBAMA!
If you don't want to become a strictly one term prez (which I suspect you will be noting your many inexperienced blunders lately) you'd better keep a close watch on stimulus money being converted to pork!
E-mail all this Brooklyn Heights lamp post info to the White House and CC Bloomberg...if he gives a f-----g crap!
Yeah, let's close a couple of hospitals. This shit's getting expensive.
This is one group, like the Landmarks West crowd and Greenwich Village and East Side wine sippers like Civitas, that certainly has plenty of money for a city-wide preservation effort. Instead they live on our taxes to support their landmark designation, as they idlely watch our communities get destroyed around us.
They only give useless advice (you have to talk to your city council person) or tell us to wait our turn (while they expand their districts and jump the line) or craft a template that is meaningless to most of us (you have to PAY for a survey of your community!)
BASTARDS ALL.
OVERTURN THE LANDMARKS LAW! WE ARE TIRED OF THE BROMIDE THAT "IF ITS NOT IMPORTANT TO BROOKLYN HEIGHTS, ITS NOT AN ISSUE".
THAT LAW DISCRIMINATES, THE PRESERVATION COMMUNITY DOES NOT REFLECT NYC OF THE 21ST CENTURY.
WE SWIM - OR SINK - TOGETHER.
ANY DEVELOPERS OUT THERE READY TO DO THE NASTY?
Someone has to design, manufacture, install, and maintain those lampposts. One man's pork is a dozen or so others' jobs.
This is ridiculous! My tax money (thats what is is MY TAX $) is paying for something as riduculous as this???? What a waste.
I am so angry right now!
What is happening to this country? Have we lost our minds? People out of work, losing their homes, can't pay bills and we are putting new lampposts in Brooklyn Heights! HOW SHAMEFUL!!!!!!
Someone has to design, manufacture, install, and maintain those lampposts. One man's pork is a dozen or so others' jobs.
---
This money would be better spent as neighborhood catalyts to start community preservation groups around the city - instead of adorndment for one community that could afford this themselves.
What those people place on their monthly credit card bills is more than most of us live on.
The concept (community catalysts) worked when the developers backed efforts to spread interest for the waterfront and the bike nuts.
Please have Bloomberg, Espada and Monseratte hang themselves from them and it will be money well spent.
I have to say I saw them in Maspeth and wished we had them in Forest Hills...Back to the "City Beautiful" program at the turn of the century..I can think of worse ways the city spends money...I would rather have something that reflects the expenditure..Good....
Good!!!!
Your priorities are definitely screwed up! You live in Forest Hills?? It figures that a lampost would be more important to you than the well being of human beings in need.....
Good!!!!
Your priorities are definitely screwed up! You live in Forest Hills?? It figures that a lampost would be more important to you than the well being of human beings in need.....
------------
There will always be poor folk. Deal with it. Should the whole world remain ugly until the problem of poverty is solved? Of course not. Life requires beauty also, like dem lamposts, and even dem bike lane too. (also pizza pie).
How about spending it on parks instead? Rich, poor, everyone uses them. No one really gives a shit about faux old lampposts.
...and they are manufactured in India to boot!!! So our stimulus money is going overseas again to prop up a third world country. Our city and country are so screwed up!!!
Wait a minute,you mean they are going to use those crappy High- pressure sodium fixtures and not L.E.D's? And i thought all those massive libs were "green"! Phonies!
Brooklyn Heights = Bloomberg's People
Anonymous: Brooklyn Heights = Bloomberg's People
Isn't that exactly the same as a Brooklynite saying Queens=Archie Bunker?
And as another Anonymous pointed out, there are similar lamp posts in Maspeth. And here in Ridgewood. And in Sunnyside. And on 2nd Ave in the 50s in Manhattan. And probably in a bunch of other neighborhoods, too. (Those are just the ones I visited yesterday.) Are all of the people in all of those neighborhoods "Bloomberg People"? Or is it possible that they just want to beautify their neighborhoods by replacing uncharming, utilitarian cobra heads (designed in the 50s, an era of a lot of bad ideas in city planning) with something a bit more aesthetically pleasing?
"Archie Bunker" and "Bloomberg's people" are phrases which are worlds apart. Archie Bunker indicates a racist out of touch with reality and Bloomberg's people indicates the type of people who will be taken seriously.
And I don't see Maspeth screaming out for replacement of their utilitarian lampposts with Bishop's crook lampposts. Nor do I see it requesting federal stimulus funds that was originally intended for job creation to instead use on frivolity.
Crapper: How about spending it on parks instead? Rich, poor, everyone uses them. No one really gives a shit about faux old lampposts.
Unless, of course, the park is an elevated former railroad track and some B-Lister signed a petition for it in the past. Then it's an outrage.
Rich, poor, everyone gets light from streetlights. Personally, I don't think replacing ugly street fixtures with ones more pleasing to the eye is any more of a waste of money than your idea of running the Unisphere fountains all summer long. Interesting to know where your priorities lie.
(I visited the Unisphere yesterday, by the way. Didn't pay a dime to do so, either. The fountains are nice, although I don't know what the skaters are doing with themselves during the Open. You should take your grandmother if you love her. Or I could send you pictures.)
I guess you agree with Bloomberg that disproportionally spending money on a park in the sky is better than reopening the spur for transit.
I guess you also agree that Queens parks should suffer so that the High Line looks nice.
Another proud Bloomberg voter.
Crapper: "Archie Bunker" and "Bloomberg's people" are phrases which are worlds apart.
So one stereotype is okay, the other isn't. Interesting.
Whether people in Maspeth were "screaming out" for their lamp posts to be replaced I don't know. What I do know is they now have lamp posts very similar to the ones proposed for Brooklyn Heights (the Maspeth ones have longer masts). I don't know when they were put in or what pot of money was used to pay for them but clearly public money was spent on them. Same goes for Sunnyside. Same goes for Ridgewood. So maybe we shouldn't judge a neighborhood's politics by its street furniture.
"Bloomberg's people" is not a stereotype, it's a fact. Where has more city money been invested over the past 8 years? Why do you think this is?
And those lampposts on Grand Avenue have been there for more than 10 years. Certainly not when we were in the middle of the worst economic period since the great depression, and not using federal stimulus money meant to create jobs.
Crapper: I guess you agree with Bloomberg that disproportionally spending money on a park in the sky is better than reopening the spur for transit.
The High Line was never used for transit - it was a freight line. I'm not even sure if it could have been linked into the subway system even if anyone had wanted to do so. And even if it could have been I'm not sure what the advantage would have been since all or most of it is within reasonable walking distance of existing subways.
Here in Queens we have lots of unused and underused trackage - some practically in my back yard - that I would LOVE to see converted to transit use since we're terribly underserved here. My understanding is that every time a serious proposal has been made to do so it's been shot down by NIMBYs, which is a real shame.
And define "disproportionally."
Crapper: I guess you also agree that Queens parks should suffer so that the High Line looks nice.
No, I don't. I think that appropriate resources should be spent on BOTH.
Crapper: Another proud Bloomberg voter.
Not that what I do in the voting booth is any of your business but I'll let you in on a little secret: I've never voted for Bloomberg.
Crapper: "Bloomberg's people" is not a stereotype, it's a fact.
Well, everyone's favorite stereotypes are all true. Jews love money, blacks are criminals, Germans are all Nazis, Italians are mobsters, Queensites are yahoos, bikers are Tower People elitists and Brooklyn Heighters are Bloomberg stooges. Pffffft.
Ten years ago there wasn't a stimulus program so, presumably, the Maspeth lamps were paid for entirely out of city funds. The Brookly Heighters seem to have found a way to get similar lamps without charging the city, which is a good thing. You can call aesthetics frivolous, but then, why do you amuse yourself by taking and posting pictures of bad architecture?
Whether the tax money to pay for it comes out of the city budget or the federal budget matters little during a time of crisis. And besides, Bloomberg always seems to pull money out of his ass when it's to be used for a project for his favorite people (the affluent or developers).
If they could make the high line a park they could have used the line for a subway. And 10th Avenue is not near a subway.
There was a "City Beautiful" program around the turn of the century best represented by Riverside Drive with the thought being if you surround people by beauty they will react to it, behave better, respect more..A novel idea, and well, Riverside Drive still looks fantastic, and so do the results of the program. The steetlights are part of a bigger plan, and you have to start somewhere..Towns can not simply be cardboard box type houses, with matchstick light posts. There is a reason behind replacing those ugly posts. Everyone feels proud to have a beautiful block to come home to, or bring our family to. I mean the city deserves it...It does stimulate jobs because someone has to put them up and take the old ones down..Or maybe we should just lay them off and figure the city is done. It looks beautiful and perfect. If one person thinks twice about vandalising something because it looks nice, then it is money well spent...Ugly invites more ugly..Put em up in Forest Hills next...I wonder if the people who hate them or think it is a waste apply the same principles to their homes or buying a car...Sure we can all live in one bedroom ranches or drive in stationwagons from the 1970's..They do still run...And walls can be bare in the house.....Give me a break like money and image are not important to you....It is just as good for outside our houses, in neighborhoods, as inside...Don't worry you'll get your parks too..
Great Commentary Ridgewoodian !!!!!
"The steetlights are part of a bigger plan, and you have to start somewhere."
No, you seem to not understand. For Brooklyn Heights, streetlights is THE END of the plan, not the start. Why not put these in Jamaica if you're so gung ho about bishop's crooks beautifying an area that needs it?
"It does stimulate jobs because someone has to put them up and take the old ones down"
No, it would only retain jobs for another month or so. It doesn't create shit.
"Don't worry you'll get your parks too.."
Ok, genius...When? Especially since nearly all the open land has been developed?
Queen's Crapper,
No comment about the "City Beautiful program from the turn of the century, or do you just comment without digging into the backround and reasoning a little, trying to understand another viewpoint other than your own. Ugly invites ugly, enough said..
I am all for retaining jobs, apparently you think that is not worthwhile.
I would put them in Jamaica if I could and it were up to me, and perhaps along the line they will..It would help the blight of the community and on the eyes we too often see.
Parks, well if I conceed your arguement and agree wtih you there is no more open spaces, well then touche' you win. I take back my comment that you will get them. It is too late for any more parks, therfore any money saved up to beautify or create them would sit idle. Better to spend it then on beautifying the existing neighborhoods and if they start with the lamps, good....
Also no comment on how we all spend more on our homes than we have to in order to "beautify" them and the associated philosophy. Are you driving the 70's wagon? You can and it will be cheaper than buying a new car..They are still around on Craig's List...
Crapper: Bloomberg always seems to pull money out of his ass when it's to be used for a project for his favorite people (the affluent or developers).
Okay, let me get this straight....the Brooklyn Heights people are Bloomberg's favorite people (wealthy, I guess) and your evidence for this is that they're getting fancy new lamp posts. Lamp posts that Maspeth has had for ten years according to you. That Ridgewood has had for a couple of years. That Sunnyside has had for I don't know how long. Unless all these places are full of the Mayor's favorites (and I can tell you, Ridgewood isn't dirt poor but it's hardly Brooklyn Heights rich) it sounds to me like a case of LOTS of neighborhoods getting these new lamps. Of course, you can argue, Brooklyn Heights is getting theirs in the teeth of a financial crisis, and that Bloomberg pulled money "out of his ass" to get it done for his little darlings. But did you notice that the article you posted didn't mention Bloomberg once? Who's responsible?
"I'm not going to apologize for it," said Brooklyn Heights Association President Judy Stanton, who helped broker the $650,000 deal. "I think it's a valid use of stimulus money."
Councilman David Yassky (D-Brooklyn Heights) is responsible for earmarking $250,000 of the money for retro lamps to be installed by the city Department of Transportation, and Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-Brooklyn) has promised another $400,000 by the fall.
So if you want to "blame" anyone, it would seem to be Stanton, Yassky, and Velazquez.
Maybe the Mayor really only does like rich people. But you haven't made your case here.
Crapper: If they could make the high line a park they could have used the line for a subway. And 10th Avenue is not near a subway.
Is that your considered opinion as an engineer? Because it's always seemed to me that parks and subways are very, very different.
Even though it had been abandoned in 1980 the High Line was and is still basically structurally sound. But that doesn't mean it would have been simple to just repair the tracks and run trains over them. It would have had to have been electrified. Stations would have had to have been built. And to make it really useful it would have had to have been connected somehow with the rest of the system somewhere. All of this would have taken titanic amounts of money. If it had been really necessary I would have been the first to say, yes, do it. But it wasn't - unlike the East Side of Manhattan, or huge swaths of Queens, the West Side is fairly well served by mass transit. You say 10th Ave isn't near a subway. Well, at 14th Street the High Line is between 9th and 10th Aves. and is only about a block and a half from the A, C, E, and L at 8th Ave. Further north, where it does swing over to 10th it's two blocks from several 8th Ave Line stops and three away from a number of 7th Ave Line stops. Yes, they're AVENUE blocks, which are longer, but the Highline isn't outrageously remote from trains. There are also buses. There have also been various proposals for river to river trolleys which, if ever built, could serve the Meatpacking District.
Yes, Maspeth and Ridgewood have nice lampposts. But they did not use federal stimulus money meant to create jobs in the middle of an economic crisis.
Despite this beautification effort, both towns are going down the tubes.
One would think this money would have been better spent and actually created jobs if it went toward building a school, park or library instead of lampposts when there were perfectly functioning ones there already. Or, if "beautification" was the goal, then how about some workers to clean the streets?
The money spent on the High Line and on the 7 train extension could have converted the former freight line into the extension of the 7 train.
Agreed, let's get more street workers to clean the streets, and assign them maintenance of the new posts as well, so in 20 years they do not rip them out again only to return to them 20 years after that..It is now becoming obvious that someone thinks they were mistakenly removed in haste during the banal 60's and 70's...Perhaps going down the tubes has something to do with the ugliness..I see a connection.
Nope. The "going down the tubes" has only been happening in the past 5-10 years.
Crapper: Despite this beautification effort, both towns [Maspeth and Ridgewood] are going down the tubes.
Can’t really speak about Maspeth, I don’t spend time there. But I’ve lived in Ridgewood for just over eight years now. For a few years before that, when I lived in Elmhurst, I was a very frequent visitor. So I have a decade’s experience with the neighborhood. I’ve not noticed it “going down the tubes.” There have been changes, yes, some lamentable, some for the good. It’s become a slightly more “hip” place and there are more kids with multicolor hair and tattoos than there used to be. There are cabs now. None of this seems like a catastrophe to me. yes, there have been some homeless on the streets. Tht is a problem that needs solving. My rent is not what it was eight years ago - I wish it was - but then whose is? It’s still New York reasonable. I never fear for my safety at any hour of the day or night. How, exactly, is my neighborhood going down the tubes?
Crapper: The money spent on the High Line and on the 7 train extension could have converted the former freight line into the extension of the 7 train.
Huh? According to the Times, “the first two sections of the High Line cost $152 million…$44 million of which was raised by Friends of the High Line, the group that led the project.” By contrast, according to Newsday the extension of the 7 is going to cost $2.1 billion. That’s literally a whole other order of magnitude. And you know how much of that would have been saved if they had run the 7 along the High Line? Not one cent. Look at a map. Where does the 7 terminate now? Underneath Times Square. What’s the closest the High Line gets to there? The Javits Center - roughly 34th and 11th. They would still have had to build the 7000 foot extension just to get it to the High Line. Then they’d have had to figure out how to get the 7 out of the ground and up into the air in a reasonabe amount of space. And convince the residents of the Meatpacking District to accept an elevated train in their neighborhood. (When was the last time a new elevated service was initiated? Long time.) Oh, and there’s the little matter of the fact that CSX, the railroad company, still owns the length of the High Line between 30th and 34th. No, not really a practical idea. And as I’ve already indicated, not really necessary. There are transportation options in the area. Perhaps in the future some thought should be given to extending the L to 10th or 11th Avenues. The 7 is actually going to have trackage down to 23rd St. Maybe one day they’ll build a station that far south. But even if neither of those things ever happen the neighborhood, unlike many others, doesn’t totally lack for transit.
Ok let me explain something to you because you obviously are an obtuse moron.
I never said it would save money. The money would have been going toward something more practical than a park in the sky that has extremely high maintenance fees that the city and the Friends of the High Line can't afford, which is why a tax was recently proposed before it was tabled. You don't stimulate real development by building parks, you do it by providing transit access like what happened to Queens in the early 1900s.
Yeah, it would require lots of engineering to build and connect the two extant tracks. But we are currently building the 7 train extension down to the Javits Center at 34th Street, which is where the high line starts. And no, you wouldn't need to worry about the residents of the meatpacking district - "if they don't like it, too bad" has been the way the city has operated for centuries.
It probably would still be on its way toward completion, but infrastructure projects such as that are EXACTLY what federal stimulus money was supposed to be used for - to create decent paying construction and other jobs during times of crisis. Perhaps, rather than lampposts, it should have been put toward the 7 train extension, which had to be scaled back (losing the stop at the Javits Center).
And to answer your question about Maspeth and Ridgewood going down the tubes, apparently you have not noticed the prostitution, shootings, car break-ins, home invasions, overdevelopment, drunks, problems in parks, gang activity, etc. Go to a civic or community board meeting once in awhile and get your head out of your ass. Oh wait, you read this blog, so you must have read about these things. It says a lot about you that you only choose to leave your screeds when the topic is diversity or lampposts in Brooklyn.
I guess Ridgewoodian is also in favor of killing the Amazonian rainforest, which is what Friends of the High Line and the city did when building the park-in-the-sky.
Post a Comment