Compiled Community Comments
Submitted to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation
May 15, 2024
Friends of Mount Prospect Park, a community organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing green space in Mount Prospect Park for the enjoyment of all, objects to our public officials’ shocking plan to construct a 40,000-square-foot, regional-scale, mostly concrete and paved skateboard complex on green park space – funded with over $11 million dollars of public money, through an opaque process that did not include community consultation about selecting this well-loved green park space as a site to pave. We object to insisting on pouring concrete and asphalt to pave a skate facility into this green park location, rather than building out and “greening up” other paved spaces – including but not limited to existing skate spaces. We consider it a further betrayal of public trust that after initially claiming a “feasibility study” had revealed the suitability of Mount Prospect Park as a site, officials have admitted no such study was conducted before they fixed on paving over swaths of Mount Prospect Park.
Our supposed leaders’ rollout of this plan has actively and unnecessarily pitted people who rely on local green park space against some skaters who want paved skate space with significant green features. Skating can be a green urban transit and recreational option – but not when it’s advanced through paving urban green park space critical to our wellbeing, including our physical and mental health and our environmental resiliency. We object to this plan, which would replace flexibly used green space with a large arena for a particular, limited pastime. No green park space in Brooklyn should be paved – or needs to be paved to give skaters great, healthful spaces with abundant green features. The conflict is manufactured and destructive.
There are already many Parks Department skate sites nearby that draw skaters’ complaints over design and condition: Thomas Greene (near many schools, near Atlantic Center and trains, and near Homage Skate Academy, whose director in 2010 said if only there were funding, they would excavate or build a bowl), Kensington/Conroy near Greenwood Playground, Washington skatepark, and Brower skatepark (the only other site in the purported “citywide initiative,” in Crown Heights directly next door to Prospect Heights/Mount Prospect Park). A nearby favorite location for skaters, Columbus Park Plaza, has a paved Parks Department lot where the Borough President and local City Council Member profess to support building a skate facility – if only there were funding. And obviously there are many, many other skateable paved areas throughout Brooklyn, which The Wilderness Society has assessed has the least green space per person of any borough.
Why not use our public funds and The Skatepark Project’s design expertise (Tony Hawk’s “donation” to this effort) to upgrade numerous nearby skate facilities? Why are the only two Brooklyn sites in the Mayor’s “citywide initiative” located side-by-side, and near other skate sites in relatively affluent areas – while most of Brooklyn appears to be an inequitable skate facility desert? Why does Tony Hawk support this effort in Mount Prospect Park, between the Central Branch of the Brooklyn Public Library and the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, near the Brooklyn Museum of Art and Prospect Park – when his foundation purports to have a mission to serve “underserved” people? And how can he claim to be a climate activist, featured as a lead speaker for international Climate Action Day mere months ago – while working with professional lobbyists and pricey public relation firms to pave over our urban green park space?
We’ve received no answers.
We demand that our elected officials and agency leaders preserve green park space. And we can also support creating and refurbishing great skate spaces, including adding terrific green features to already paved space, if skaters indicate they would enjoy those features. City officials can work with Tony Hawk’s Skatepark Project, and use design expertise to make a host of nearby shabby skate spaces “world-class.”
We submit these comments as follow-up to the May 1, 2024, online session conducted by the Parks Department, which has stated that a record-breaking 406 people registered – even though the public was admonished to speak only about design elements for the facility, and cautioned not to raise questions about the choice of site. Reports to Friends of Mount Prospect Park from breakout rooms indicated that community members nonetheless spoke up to overwhelmingly oppose siting a skate complex on green park space. They also report that many skaters in the breakout rooms seemed agnostic about siting, and that they (and many Parks Department staff in the breakouts) seemed unfamiliar with Mount Prospect Park.
At the May 1 meeting, the Parks Department presented a map indicating the (obvious and unsurprising) point that there is no skate facility within a five- to ten-minute walk of Mount Prospect Park. Where did this metric come from? Why is that measure offered as a test? Is it inaccurately derived from Borough President Antonio Reynoso’s Comprehensive Plan for Brooklyn (https://www.brooklynbp.nyc.gov/the-comprehensive-plan-for-brooklyn/), which notes, “Park Access: Most of the borough is within a five-minute walking distance of a park. However, significant pockets of southern and eastern Brooklyn have a 10-minute walk to access a park.... It should be noted that all parks are not created equal. Many City parks are too small for active recreation or covered in blacktop or concrete, meaning access to open space does not imply availability of green space.” (p. 101) That reference is obviously about the importance of access to green space – which will be significantly reduced if a 40,000-square-foot, mostly concrete skate complex is sited on Mount Prospect Park.
Environmental problems and questions
As a preliminary matter, in the interest of honest communication, officials and other professional proponents should cease putting forth representations of some percentage of green park space to be paved that include the steeply sloped sides of Mount Prospect Park, the playground built in the 1940s, and large chunks of the park that are fenced off and otherwise inaccessible to the public. Acknowledge that this plan would destroy a significant portion of well-loved green space that is used flexibly for many activities, and replace it with a mostly paved 40,000-square-foot, regional-scale, single-use facility. The paved space in the plan, as acknowledged by the CEO of Tony Hawk’s foundation, would be the size of more than five NBA basketball courts, or a middle floor of the Empire State Building. The foundation classes skate facilities as “regional” in scale at 30,000 square feet; this plan is 33% larger. We ask that proponents honestly describe and map the contours of the plan.
● Paving further increases heat effects and heat islands. The Brooklyn Public Library directly next door runs a cooling center because of already dangerous – and worsening – heat impacts. A member of Friends of Mount Prospect Park has examined satellite data from last summer that showed temperatures about 13 degrees higher in City skate facilities (even where there was some shade), as compared to adjacent green space.
● Paving green space generally increases flooding, runoff, drainage, and sewer problems. Proponents’ occasional references to sub-optimal absorption in areas of currently compacted earth is inappropriate, given that aeration and plantings could clearly improve absorption. (Friends of Mount Prospect Park offered a donation of professional aeration for Earth Day 2024, which Parks rejected.)
● Increase in noise, both from skating and from events that will take place at the facility
● Increase in local congestion and traffic on a block already jammed with tourist attractions and frequent events
● Impact on trees: Some are quite old, with extensive root systems that can be damaged during construction or by compression due to the weight of installed concrete.
● Cement has a notably large “carbon footprint.” What is the carbon footprint of the cement to be used in this plan, including volume and specific type of cement to be used?
● What specific environmental review has been conducted and/or will be conducted, of what aspects of the plan, and by what entity? We seek full, high-quality environmental review with transparent processes, including prior public announcement and community consultation on components of environmental review.
● Overall: How are we to be judged when we tell our children we are trying to deal with the climate crisis – yet when it comes down to actually making decisions, we blithely pave green park space, instead of using abundant paved spaces?
Safety
● The ramp entrance into Mount Prospect Park: “Hill-bombing” on the sloped, crowded access ramp to the park (next to the Brooklyn Botanic Garden) is acknowledged by all – including skate experts – as a real danger. The ramp entrance to Mount Prospect Park is used by people pushing strollers, people walking pets, elderly and frail people, small children accessing the playground, and people who use mobility aids or have disabilities. What specific intervention would prevent skateboarders from racing down the ramp that would not also impede people with disabilities, walkers, rollators, wheelchairs and strollers from accessing the park? What would be done to prevent collisions and keep people from being hurt? Where are there actual, viewable examples specifically showing such construction?
● The stairs entrance into the park: Professional lobbyists and Tony Hawk's foundation representative have stated that no skater will try to skate the Mount Prospect Park stairs or stair rails, which empty onto a crowded sidewalk next to the Central Library’s children’s wing, and then busy Eastern Parkway. Some people have already posted online that they are tempted to try and skate the stairs. If the professionals are so sure no one will ever try to skate these features and plow into pedestrians or Eastern Parkway, will The Skatepark Project indemnify the City, so our taxpayer money isn't used to pay out for any injuries or deaths?
● No sightlines from the street: The Skatepark Project foundation's best practices guide says it's very important for everyone's security and for monitoring any problematic activity in the skate facility that there be clear sightlines through the skate facility from the nearby street. But Mount Prospect Park is on a steep grade high up from street level, with no sightlines into the park.
● Natural park debris: Proponents of this plan say a so-called skate “garden” (pouring a large concrete skating surface inside a now-green park) has never been tried before. Outsized amounts of debris that create dangerous conditions for skaters (twigs, pebbles, etc.), naturally fall and scatter in the park. Isn't it problematic to have natural park debris like twigs and pebbles constantly falling on paved skate surfaces?
● Emergency access: In case of broken bones, traumatic brain injuries, etc., how will emergency vehicles efficiently access the park, given its positioning and design?
Transparency about finances and economic interest
● In the midst of severe budget cuts to Parks, why is over $11 million of public money being used to pave a single skate facility onto green space in Mount Prospect Park?
● Who is paying public relations firm BerlinRosen and lobbying firm The Wright Group to push this project, and why?
● What (if any) direct or indirect financial interests exist related to this project, including but not limited to corporate connections with Tony Hawk’s Skatepark Project foundation, potential concessions of any type, income from potential events, marketing of Brooklyn-related items, skate fashion items, designer skateboards, etc.?
● What is the full role of the Economic Development Corporation? Officials have said the EDC will help the project speed along faster than usual. Why is speed a goal here, especially as we are also told this is the first time such a project has been attempted within a park? Why is our green park space the test case for fast-track construction?
● How has the economic value of preserving and enhancing natural/green space (to residents, to the neighborhood, to New York City) been assessed – for ourselves and our children? If that value has not been assessed, we ask for a transparent process in which a strongly credentialed third-party professional conducts that assessment.
***
Friends of Mount Prospect Park opposes constructing a paved complex on green park space. If – over objections and without actual community consultation – our officials nonetheless go forward with this wrongheaded construction, we prioritize the following:
Provide immediate, specific, transparent, public identification of the process and timeline the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Economic Development Corporation, and the Mayor’s office are using – complete with all steps, RFPs/bids, contracting, approvals, consultations, opportunities for public participation, deadlines, etc.
Some longtime residents fondly call the park “Circle Park,” referencing its distinctive oval pathway. Disclose how much of the central oval in the park will be taken to construct the skate facility.
As discussed above, Mount Prospect Park is currently a beloved multi-use green space everyone can enjoy. We seek to fully preserve and enhance green space for existing uses, such as
High-quality green space for physical activities like walking, running, biking, skating or scooting around the oval; soccer, catch and other ball games; frisbee; jumping rope; exercise classes; walking pets; sledding on snow days, etc.;
High-quality green space for social activities like picnicking, children’s birthday parties, celebration of all kinds, chats and hanging out with friends;
High-quality green space for quiet activities like meditating and reading books.
Particular groups rely on the relatively quiet public park, finding in Mount Prospect Park a free, easy-to-navigate, accessible, low-key green space (in contrast with the highly dynamic loop traffic of Prospect Park, with its motorized vehicles, pelotons of bikers, etc). These groups should be fully accommodated, and include but are not limited to
Local schools, daycares and camps, including with toddlers/small children that frequent the green park space;
Families with dogs (many of which do not react well to skateboards);
Elderly people;
People with physical disabilities, including those who use mobility aids; and
People with conditions involving high sensitivity to stimuli
Other design points
Design should include maximal sound/noise mitigation. Related concerns include hours during which skating would occur, given the sound it generates. Amplified sound and any events would also be serious concerns.
Design should include maximal physical protection from skaters dynamically entering and exiting Mount Prospect Park to reach the skate attraction.
Given the potential for damage to trees in the park due to construction, we request a fully transparent accounting for the species, size/age and condition of all trees in the park, as well as a detailed professional explanation of how they will be protected and preserved. At some meetings it has been announced that the plan’s undisclosed details include “4,000 square feet of native microforest.” We seek detail and an actual commitment.
Heat mitigation measures should be guaranteed to offset (at the very least) the heat effects created by the addition of concrete.
Flood mitigation should be guaranteed to measurably improve water absorption – not just offset the additional water problems created by paving. The park is already susceptible to flood effects, and any construction should significantly improve upon the problem, rather than leaving us with the same, already problematic amount of water and runoff. Rain gardens and bioswales with native plantings could be good additions.
Lawn maintenance with the best possible suitability to New York’s newly designated subtropical climate and to existing green space uses should be performed on a fully adequate and publicly available, transparent schedule, so that what green space remains is well-tended.
Native plants and pollinator species would be great additions.
Raised beds would be appealing to many people – though Parks Department remarks now lead us to believe that despite what the Pablo Ramirez Foundation and Brooklyn Skate Garden’s publicized “vision” and “mood” drawings showed, community gardens are actually not funded, after all.
“Security lighting” should be configured to avoid light pollution and light impacts on the numerous neighboring residences facing the park.
Views of green park space from higher-floor residences on the block are important to people who live here and should be protected and preserved.
Some neighbors have voiced interest in additional benches and some tables.
Families with dogs have expressed interest in top-quality design features for their pets.
The Parks Department has raised the likelihood of graffiti incidents; we would like to see a vigorous schedule of maintenance to address the anticipated issue.
Explore using currently fenced-off areas of Mount Prospect Park, with a separate skate facility entrance, perhaps via Flatbush Avenue.
Additional points
The announced plan would limit public space currently open to all by converting it to single-use space for a relatively expensive sport. Costs include boards that need to be purchased frequently, as well as safety equipment like helmets, pads, etc. – whereas current uses of the green space require no purchases.
We ask that officials cease asserting that the park is “underused” or “underutilized,” while providing no support for their statements. One Parks representative admitted knowing of no support for the statement, though mused that perhaps the assertion could be explored through looking at requests for permits; in our experience it is rare for people who enjoy this neighborhood park to request permits to use the public space.
Community members have offered additional green suggestions, including incorporating solar features to power any lighting or other power-using aspects of the park, and adding green features to the playground. That said, our understanding from the May 1, 2024, Parks Department meeting was that these beneficial additions were not to be funded in the proposed plan.
As referenced above, the green park space is currently flexibly used every day, in all kinds of weather. How many days per year is it anticipated a skate facility would be usable, given precipitation, heat, etc.?
Contact: FriendsOfMountProspectPark@gmail.com
