A Condo Tower on a Library Site

"Hudson argues though that the original library building should be considered only about 35,000 square feet, based on areas that were actually accessible to the public. (The rest of the space was used for storage and mechanicals.)" This is a completely specious argument. The underground bunker which is to be the new library will have to cede some of its shrunken square footage to HVAC, storage and staff space. Perhaps 20,000 sq ft will be available for library patrons. This rules out gathering spaces for movies, classes, book readings and all the essential community functions of a library. Of course, an educated public would be a threat to the kleptocracy.

". . . it’s so much smaller than the former library, which measured 59,000 square feet. Many rooms in the new library will also be underground, another unwelcome change, Mr. White added. Hudson argues though that the original library building should be considered only about 35,000 square feet, based on areas that were actually accessible to the public. (The rest of the space was used for storage and mechanicals.) The reduction in size, by extension, then, is less severe." As someone who works in a library, I can confirm that behind the scenes storage rooms are essential to a functioning library. That's where we process books and update catalog records. That's where we store rare materials that need to be kept safe. That's where we keep extra materials that are needed to put on a great summer reading program, or decorate for holidays, or keep any of the others things needed to hold classes/workshops/events, or just generally make the library a fun. I won't even get into why a below grade library is a hit to the livability of the area. But the argument that a library only needs the part of the space that is available to patrons is ridiculous, and makes me think that they did not bother to consult with librarians when designing this space. Sure the library may not need the space for utilities if the building takes over that responsibility. But that doesn't mean they no longer need any behind the scenes space

One Clinton destroyed more than our neighborhood library. It is not something that the overwhelmingly majority of people ever wanted. It, like so many of its sibling towers, is an in-your-face building that will throw shade on Cadman Plaza Park as well as socio-financial shadows . The fact that the affordable housing units are located miles away re-inforces the reality that aspiring 1 percenters do not care to share their residence with less wealthy, possibly less white residents. The "planning" for this towering ghetto ignored its impact on local infrastructure, including subways, sewer and power inputs. The project emphasizes how the City Council and the Mayor acted at the behest of real estate and developer interests. Michael White and Citizens Defending Libraries provided endless, selfless service to the community in its fight against an infuriating trend to change the character of NYC. Let's see how this policy of social engineering works out.

I am impressed by the rendering, which shows the new building in gleaming light, while all about it are in dark, somber contrast. How interesting that the 30 story building next door, 300 Cadman Plaza West (which houses IRS offices, medical facilities and was Hillary Clinton's campaign HQ) is barely visible in this image.

I'm not a regular reader of the real estate section. But I know I miss my library. I've been a regular library patron of the Brooklyn Heights branch for at least thirty years. Maybe there's some humor that I'm not appreciating. On the same day The Times ran this "fair and balanced" piece about the construction of yet another luxury condo tower there's a short essay lauding public libraries as "a key for the health and happiness of a community," on page 19 of the NY Times Book Review. When one-bedroom apartments in the yet unfinished One Clinton will have a starting price of $1.1 million dollars that even the article's author, C.J. Huges, admits is "pricey for Brooklyn," library patrons should take comfort that some lucky tycoons will have marble floors with chevron patterns in their bathrooms and six-burner Bertazzoni ranges in their kitchens. Last time I looked there's not much to read on a stove. I would love for Mr. or Ms. Hughes to explain why housing for the super-rich trumps a place for children to go after school while their parents are still at work. I guess that's not an issue for the real-estate section.

Awfully reminiscent of the Donnell Library fiasco, though at least in this case the library system got a decent price for the buyout. The Donnell was dingy and outdated, but it had things its replacement does not: a vast assortment of CDs and DVDs on open shelf, a decent room in which to view non-borrowable rare materials, and a better assortment of non-English materials, and not just the limited selection in the new 53rd St. Library, which consists of almost-only bodice rippers for French, and books in Chinese, Russian, and Spanish. This stuff doesn't accurately reflect the customers in the area. Oh, and there was a heavily used auditorium in the old Donnell, and frequent recitals by up-and-coming young classical musicians, whereas now a steep staircase provides seating for people to see the occasional film or concert below, but it's mostly used by people recharging their electronic devices. I fear this Brooklyn downsizing will be similar or even worse -- a lose/lose for the community.

I see places like this and in dingy, dark, cramped LIC and wonder what conveyance the residents will use to get to work. The subways are already super crowded.

Yea yea yea, it’s the same cries of foul we heard when they built the Cadman Plaza Apartment buildings in like 1965.

Trashing public spaces, including a major public library, to benefit anther fatcat "developer" and built more luxury housing? What is it about the Donnell Library fiasco that the City refuses to learn? As I recall, this idea first got boosted during the reign of Bloomberg...another thing NYers have to "thank" him for, along with all the mega-tower luxury apartments for which the City effectively gave away the Hudson Yards area in Manhattan.

Grills on the roof deck? Been living in the Heights for years and have always been told that outdoor grilling is against the law (except in Brooklyn Bridge Park). Is this another perk in return for a campaign contribution (or more direct bribe)? Aesthetically, this is the third in a row of high rise apartment buildings, and I assume it is east of the line protecting historical Brooklyn Heights.