Questionnaire distributed at Brad Lander's "Bridging Gowanus Meeting" this past Wednesday.
"I attended the first and third Bridging Gowanus Meetings.
I can say that the "scenarios" presented at meeting 3 were pretty much the same scenarios we were asked to relate to in meeting 1---so i am not sure exactly where the "shared values" were discussed and developed...it must have been at the meeting i missed.
As the people in my group in meeting #1 made very clear, what the community needs is an infrastructure/hydrology/services study and improvements for what ALREADY STANDS HERE; since it is obvious to everyone except those who wish to call anyone with an intelligent objection to sewage backup and flooding a NIMBY, that our antiquated system, as well as our lack of schools and now, hospital care, just for starters is totally inadequate right now.
That is still true and still necessary post meeting #3.
Does it make sense to talk about how many extra floors on higher rise buildings we are willing to "trade off" for so we can add even more people to a system that does not serve the current population well at all?
Let me also add that I was quite surprised to learn that Pratt Institute, the group leading this study and who will be the ones to publish the results of these so called community planning meetings, do not have nor do they engage any engineers during this process.
How can urban planners plan communities without the knowledge, guidance and expertise of engineers?
Would you only use an interior decorator to renovate your bathroom?
I, for one, will be at the Planning Gowanus meeting on July 9th. Every single resident within a mile and a half of the Canal should be there as well.
This is OUR community and what affects one of us affects ALL of us."