(phote credit: Krispy on flickr)If I thought presentations by D.E.P. and the U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers last night at a C.B.6 meeting would give me some reassurance about the Gowanus Canal, I was terribly mistaken.
I walked out of that meeting dazed.
Though I will leave the technical and scientific explanations to the experts, here is what I took away from last nights meet.
The Gowanus Canal, as every one knows, is a cess pool after 200 years of industrial use. In other words, it is an environmental disaster. Efforts to clean it up so far have produced mostly studies, studies and more studies. D.E.P. and the Corp Of Engineers have been busy coming up with ways to improve the health of the canal, but they come up short on actions. In fact, two of the mayor improvements, modernizing the flushing tunnel as well as the upgrade of the pumping station are only slated to start in 2008 with a completion date of 2012. And as all New Yorkers know, this is all subject to the Budget Gods willing it all to happen in that time frame. So it may be delayed further.
Add to that the fact that though D.E.P. and Corp Of Engineer models take the rezoning and building up of the area into consideration in their studies, they admitted that the true extend of the Atlantic Yard as well as potential "revised" zoning would make them "have to go back to the table."
And most importantly, as Friends And Residents Of Greater Gowanus (F.R.O.G.G.) member Marlene Donnelly pointed out, D.E.P. does not have a great track record with keeping actively involved in the maintenance of the canal. Back in the 1960's the agency ignored the pleas for help from the community. The Gowanus Canal is in such a sorry state today partly because these pleas were not heard for the last fourty years.
The D.E.P representatives last night acknowledged that there is no legal mandate that would force the agency to keep up their efforts in the future. So, basically, if the city falls on hard times, if the pump station needs a new pump...the stink will be back.
Yet, we are already discussing rezoning the area along the canal from commercial/industrial to residential. It sure seems to me that this is way too premature. Now if our politicians truly represented the interests of their constituents instead of those of big name developers , they would hold off at least till 2012 to rezone. Why not first see if the suggestions by D.E.P and the Corp improve the water quality in the canal, keep sewer overflow to a minimum and make doubly sure that the chemical sludge at the bottom does not harm? Wouldn't that make sense?
I believe we are years away from a healthy, clean canal. Talking about residential housing on the shores of the canal at this point sounds not only foolish to me, it sound criminal. Looking at the D.E.P. time frame for the flushing tunnel and the pump station upgrade, I believe that constructions of condo buildings will start before we even know if these actions will improve the health of the canal sufficiently to allow humans to live on its banks.
Shame, shame shame to us all if we allow this to happen.
To read the U.S, Army Corp Of Engineer report, click here.
To read my follow up post, click here: Sanitizing The Gowanus Canal
Reactions To the Presentation From Fellow Bloggers:
Shooting The Sh*t About The Gowanus Canal from Found In Brooklyn
The Gowanus Canal Clean Up...Coming Eventually from Gowanus Lounge
.JPG)
19 comments:
Katia, I think you are right in your framing of the problem, but I also think that the only way the level of clean-up actually needed will really happen - and stay cleaned up in future years - is if Gowanus is allowed to become a much more dense and upscale neighborhood than the sparsely inhabited industrial dregs it mostly is today.
You are also ethically correct about the order in which that should happen. My sense of realpolitik though is that it needs to happen the other way around in order to actually get done.
If you look at the (30 year?) old Exxon spill under parts of E. Williamsburg/Greenpoint, it's only now that new high-priced high rise residential is being built there that regulators are starting to respond to public pressure to actually measure, characterize and remediate the pooled oil.
Change of this sort requires a constituency. And an effective constituency is one that is both large enough and already committed by being inside the zone, rather than on the periphery with the desire to move in.
The squeaky wheel has to be perceived as not only loud, but more in danger of falling off than other squeaky wheels to attract the attention of people allocating limited resources.
Hi Steve, Thank you for your well written comment. You may be right about the fact that the slow pace of the clean-up is a direct result of the fact that there are few people living along its shores and that there has not been enough public pressure to get the job done.
But what a sad comment about our society.
If indeed it will take development to clean the Gowanus, how do we make sure that we do not put people at risk? We are talking of a witches brew of chemicals and raw sewage bubbling in front of apartment buildings where people are raising children.
It makes me pretty uneasy.
It really IS a sad comment that it takes development to clean up the canal. I really believe that development will make it worse, especially if construction starts along the shores. Who knows what else will get dumped in there, breaks down or is found in the ground? The inpending construction will probrably change the results of their entire study.
Not to mention the fact that it IS a swamp and there is an ecosystem that will be effected....the building aspect of how it will effect the canal BEFORE the pumps and the dredging really didn't get discussed at the meeting and that is a MAJOR issue.
Greenpoint/Williamsburg really shouldn't be a model of how enviromental awareness and proper clean up happens. High priced residential buildings save the day?! Gross. Sick. Sad.
How can you build housing along an open sewer and water shed? Then, you would need to put what is built there on top of a garage or stilts, like they do in the Carolinas when there is housing built next to the ocean, because of flooding.
I don’t think our questions were fully answered. As much as I like Cohen – when he didn’t understand something, he kept asking questions until he got his question answered, but when Marlene didn’t get her answered – he cut her off. When I worked for the Brooklyn Bridge Park Coalition, I dealt with the Corps on a Reach study that also included the Downtown Brooklyn waterfront – year, after year, they do their little studies, until they are finally ready to implement it, 10 years down the road. Then it takes another 10 years to implement. Even with a retaining receptacle, there will still be overflows, and with all of the new construction, I think the canal is going to continue to be a sewer. I don’t think that doing the fixes to the sewer and fan is going to be much of a help.
Housing will not be developed until the canal is clean and the general area is cleaned up with government funds. I believe both major purchasers Leviev/Boymelgreen and Toll Brothers have options to purhase the land that are contingent on cleanups.
No clean - No Residential Development
How can we be sure? Where do we find the information?
Its so hard to get straight answers from anyone involved with the rezoning.
pardon me for asking but does steve gelmis's point of view have anything to do with the fact that he is the owner of the Carroll Street land that Toll Brothers has optioned to buy if the zoning goes through??Please let's have full disclosure.
Ask him.
All right, I'll ask:
Steve, are you indeed the owner of land along the Gowanus Canal?
It would certainly make a difference!
I think anonymous is missing the point by insinuating that there's a hidden agenda in my comment. I'm not hiding (I used my full real name), it just wasn't relevant to the specific observation I was making. Plenty of people know who I am.
Now that my identity has been made into an issue, and before we get lost in conspiracy theories, maybe I'd better give the long version.
Yes, I am one of the owners of 400 Carroll. I lived (but no longer do) in the taller of the two round buildings for three years until late 2005 and on a boat in the canal itself for the three years prior to that, during construction.
My interest in the topic is certainly a result of these circumstances but if my comment itself is read with the assumption that I am promoting the outcome I described, that would be a mistake. I have accepted it as the way things work, which is not the same thing. I was sharing an observation, not promoting an ideology.
My personal preference would have been for the neighborhood to remain low profile enough that I could have continued living there. That's my selfish position, if you will. But that wasn't reflected in my original comment either.
My friend and I spent years trying to figure out how to make a working waterfront usage out of it - water taxi stop, mini marina, canoe rental. In the end, none of these ideas were workable with the resources we had available. And nobody else was interested in helping us in any meaningful way.
When most of the properties around us went into contract or were sold outright, we decided to throw in the towel. We were not interested in being surrounded by a highrises, and the property tax will shortly reflect the permitted high-density use, whether or not we chose to use it that way. So it was game over.
I'm sorry to see it go. The money will be nice but it was not decisive. We had many attractive offers during the years we owned the place, and had we been able to figure out how, we would have been happy to delay that payday for another 20 years. We only sold when we believed that we were out of decent alternatives.
In the end, I'm torn about the fact that while there is no other place in the US as dynamic and creative as NYC, with that comes a churning pressure which makes long term plans on an individual level very difficult. I think that each is somewhat a consequence of the other.
In the case of Gowanus, I'm at least glad that a lot of new badly needed housing will get built, and that the making of that housing won't be a result of throwing a lot of existing residents out. That's the more typical NY story.
In the long run, the presence of those new additional residents will help to assure that the waterway is properly cleaned up. I'm not sure how much more one can reasonably expect.
Hi Steve,
You certainly have explained your position very well and I understand your dilemma. It sure is tempting to take the money and to give in to the developers. I can't blame you. Certainly this "new" Brooklyn is bears no resemblence to the one that made me move here 22 years ago. Seeing the borough go through its Manhattanization just makes me pretty depressed.
So, I guess I am not blaming you.
But there is a moral question about building houses in an area that is highly toxic and having people plunk their life savings into a condo apartment just to find out that we have to condemn it later because the clean-up was not enough.
Am I really too naïve in thinking that we can force the city to clean-up first and to down-zone later?
By the way, would you mind if I use your comments as a separate post? Your comments are well worth reading and add a different viewpoint. let me know
No developer is going to build if there is an environmental problem due to liability issue. From the practical side can't sell units when that information is disclosed. Can't sell units if the canal smells.....
I wouldn't be so sure, though I would like to think that people have more sense than to buy there.
But there is so much hype when it comes to real-estate. How else do you explain that people buy million dollar cubicles next to highways and bridges, where all they hear is the traffic noise?
I guess we can keep on writing about the Gowanus so that any buyer who researches the area is well informed.
Katia,
Two points. One, I don't think anyone will be permitted to build anywhere in the neighborhood without an acceptable level of addressing any problems in the ground itself, nor will they want to take the liability risk. In that sense the large developers represent a form of insurance to the neighborhood that it will be done up to standard, or if not, that there will be deep-pocketed enough parties to be held usefully accountable.
That's not the same thing as the canal itself of course. And no doubt there's a chance that may become a wild card which changes the entire situation.
Unfortunately for those who want to see it cleaned up though, if the canal clean-up derails development for another decade, I suspect it will more likely mean that the city pulls back and returns to the decades of ignoring the area and it's problems altogether. That precedent is already well established.
What I can say from experience though is that from October 1998 to January of 2002, when I lived in a boat on the canal itself, the flushing tunnel was running well (unlike more recently) and the canal was a pleasure to be near except during the 24 hours following a heavy rainstorm.
For that matter, the surface of the entire harbor was rather unpleasant for the three days following a storm, until the run-off from all around the city had time to be flushed out to sea on the tide.
That doesn't mean I think the canal was ever safe to swim or fish in. But I don't think it was inherently dangerous to live next to. If it is going to be further cleaned up over time, and if the pumping capacity to the sewage plant is going to be increased by 50%, then I would expect it to be even better than when I lived there.
So in everything I'm saying, please understand that my nuanced point is that I'm assuming that the push-pull dynamic that will ensure that a clean-up happens and is maintained long term is within the context of the starting point of the adjoining land being safe for residential use as a baseline, and with the effect of the new constituency being to bring the canal to a higher standard over the long term than would be the case otherwise.
Second. Maybe it was naive of me to have commented under my own name from the outset. I see now that most of your other commenters do not, including the person who implied I might have intellectually dishonest motives for my point of view.
I'm interested in the conversation, but as I've already said I'm really not advocating a position or trying to affect outcomes. My observations are retrospective reflections based on my own experiences. I've already made my move and I'm just watching what happens without any expectation of influencing events.
So thanks for asking, but since I've commented under my own name already, I'm not sure I have any basis to object to what gets done with my words.
If I become a target for people who can't think past reducing the discussion to "developers = bad / opposition = good - which side are you on?," I will be dropping out of the conversation going forward.
I guess we'll see what happens.
Dear Steve,
I have truly appreciated your comments because you have first hand experience living on the canal, you make your point very eloquently and offer a new perspective.
So I think that at least for me, it was important to read what you have to say.
Though I am an adult in my forties, I guess at heart I am still an idealist who thinks that this canal could be returned to a
clean waterway, for its own sake, without attached strings.
I am not anti-development per say, but during the last few years in Brooklyn, I have been horrified by the OVER-development which does not in the least take into account the fact that our infra-structure as well as our natural resources are already pushed to their limit.
But you may be entirely right. The city might just walk away from the canal again. That would not surprise me. I think here in Brooklyn, we have come to expect just about anything.
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to write such lengthy posts explaining your position. As I said, I for one found them very interesting and insightful.
So keep on commenting-even if you have to do it anonymously.
Katia,
In case I was mis-understood, I was not implying that you were over-simplifying my perspective. You've been both polite and solicitous, which I appreciate.
I was just anticipating that to the extent my statements become more widely disseminated, the reactions of others may be on balance less immune to over-simplification.
As for our respective standing as idealists, I've spent most of my professional life involved in the work of a significant number of progressive organizations, so I am more sympathetic with your feelings than you can know from such a limited dialog.
Even beyond its wider public value, I believe that maintaining an idealistic vision is an important part of one's quality of life and mental health.
However, speaking again from my own experience, the occupational hazard idealists have to watch out for is making the perfect the enemy of the good.
For example, in this case it might make more sense to push the city to require that new developments incorporate extra green technology, -- say, super water conservation measures, so as to avoid adding to the sewer system's flow load.
I think goals of that nature are within the realm of possible success and would make a meaningful difference to real outcomes, whereas I am skeptical that just pushing against development at all will really help the state of the canal. Either you win, and maybe the canal stays dirty, or you lose and have no effect on what is in process already.
The idealist who does not understand the world around them is at best ineffective, and can even potentially be a danger to themselves and others.
There is an aspect to this issue which may reasonably be compared to the fight over the Cape Wind project. One class of environmentalists see the view from Nantucket's beaches being degraded by the imposition of something industrial. The other side sees it as a substitution for that much climate-changing coal or natural gas being burned. There's truth on both sides, but one is ultimately a dead end because it looks only at its own closed circle of considerations.
What I fail to understand about the idea that Steve brought up here (but has long been talked about by others)-- that more people living along the canal will bring about the political force which will get the government agencies to make real cleanup of the canal.
This just isn't logical. The political force in this city is clearly with the developers. If these interested developers cannot bring their political will to to make a cleanup appropriate for residential use happen now, BEFORE they build. Then there never will be any significant political force backing a cleanup. Steve has too much faith in a long-ago democracy that is no longer present in our city.
If however, residential development does go forward under the limited cleanup plans that will only attain the lowest ranking of water quality standards, there may be a legal force exercised by those in harms way. Imagine the cost to the city should it all come to that!
Great Point! If the city allows residential buildings along the canal without first removing all the contaminants in the water and in the soil, they would certainly be responsible for any health issues creeping up later. The litigation would have a sticker price infinitely higher than what the clean-up cost is today.
Being pro-active does not seem to be in the nature of U.S. Politics in general. The motto has always been" lets wait till anyone notices" or until a problem bites us in the a**
You mentioned in your blog that you would like reader feedback -
well, just a brief note that I was very grateful for your Gowanus
info and the dialogue in the responses to it. Your manner is very
polite, balanced, calm. Thank you,
(I am a FROGG)
Post a Comment