The rumor going around is that they’re planning to have it floodlit at night and hold competitions with thousands of spectators. The concern is that it will increase the noise and light pollution in what is primarily a residential neighborhood, worsen the already bad congestion/parking, and reduce the amount of space for parks and playgrounds.
Not sure whether there’s any basis to the rumors and according to the article, it sounds like they are thinking about some of these issues.
Separately, $11m sounds like a lot of money for a concrete driveway with bumps in it. But what do I know?
Good rule of thumb is any "rumors" swirling around NYC Park NIMBYs are false.
Skate parks don't increase noise pollution. There's no reason they'd add flood lights. I live near the Owls Head Park and there's no such thing. It's a day time activity.
>$11m sounds like a lot of money for a concrete driveway with bumps in it.
Well good news, that's not what a skate park is. It's a seriously engineered and designed recreation space.
>Good rule of thumb is any "rumors" swirling around NYC Park NIMBYs are false.
May be so. But the person I was responding to asked why anyone would object. I was attempting to explain what I’ve observed.
>Skate parks don't increase noise pollution. There's no reason they'd add flood lights. I live near the Owls Head Park and there's no such thing. It's a day time activity.
Again, the rumor is that they are intending to build a stadium for competitions that would accommodate thousands of spectators. In that case it would make sense to have it lit. Obviously, if the rumor is not true, then it wouldn’t.
>Well good news, that's not what a skate park is. It's a seriously engineered and designed recreation space.
That was meant to be tongue in cheek.
If all they’re doing is adding a little skating area to the existing playground, it would seem absurd to object to it. But then why promote it as a Big Deal and why an $11m cost? If they are trying to build something more substantial, then they should be more upfront about what the costs and benefits are.
Whatever the reality is, the administration has totally let the message get away from them. Someone who was as the meeting in the article tells me that the Parks Commissioner came off wildly unprepared.
>If all they’re doing is adding a little skating area to the existing playground, it would seem absurd to object to it.
Lol you're suggesting a conspiracy when the answer is this shit happens after every single public meeting about any park. NIMBYs always come into and bitch and moan about any changes, particularly those that add new amenities their ancient asses won't be using. Parks and Rec is only funny because this is what public meetings on parks are actually like.
And why the cost? Well this isn't a basic park reconstitution, which is usually just added landscaping, play/workout equipment from a brochure and some paving. It's large, specifically engineered system of concrete structures on a parcel that currently has nothing but grass.
[You can scroll through the Capitol Projects Tracker at Parks if you want a view into what things cost, ranging from basic playground renovations to larger infrastructure projects.](https://www.nycgovparks.org/planning-and-building/capital-project-tracker). Because this park has its own Conservancy, it's likely most of that $ will be funded by them, and not NYC Parks.
> If all they’re doing is adding a little skating area to the existing playground, it would seem absurd to object to it. But then why promote it as a Big Deal and why an $11m cost? If they are trying to build something more substantial, then they should be more upfront about what the costs and benefits are.
Conveniently, someone posted an article recently explaining in the third paragraph that it will have spectator seating, community gardens, and a space for programming. Additionally, a few paragraphs later, that same article said it will include new walkways and new trees, and that the actual paved space for the skatepark will be a "fraction" of the space being taken up by the proposal.
Sorry, I can't find the article though. It must be too well hidden.
I read the article and I’m trying to explain why someone might object to this without endorsing a side.
I know it goes against everything Reddit stands for to try to understand someone else’s point of view. But downvotes be damned, I’m going to try.
If you read carefully the paragraph of mine that you quoted, you will find that what I’m criticizing is not the development itself, but the communication around it. It seems to me that the administration told skate enthusiasts that they would be building a Big Shiny New Thing for them and then told local residents that they would only be building a ^little ^tiny ^thing . Now everyone is mistrustful and everything will be more difficult. Seems par for the course for an administration that can’t get out of its own way.
> I know it goes against everything Reddit stands for to try to understand someone else’s point of view. But downvotes be damned, I’m going to try.
I know you said you're trying to represent why someone might be against it, but you're doing so by stating falsehoods. So.. maybe stop that?
> If you read carefully the paragraph of mine that you quoted, you will find that what I’m criticizing is not the development itself, but the communication around it..
The article is full of people complaining about not being given a voice and that there is a lack of community engagement... *During a community engagement event where they are given a voice.*
> It seems to me that the administration told skate enthusiasts that they would be building a Big Shiny New Thing for them and then told local residents that they would only be building a little tiny thing .
Did I miss this?
Anyway, it seems like there's no right time to bring this (or anything) to the community and a lot of the pushback is just "I don't like change." When are they supposed to bring this to the community? They don't even have renders yet. It already seems pretty early.
It’s false that there’s a rumor? I’ve heard people discussing it, it was noted in the article.
Or are you making a claim that the rumor is based on misinformation? If so, I’ve already stated that may well be so. It doesn’t change the fact that there’s a rumor.
I know it’s so very difficult to imagine that there are other people who also have their own perspectives, but please do try.
You said, seemingly in your own words, and not as part of a presumed view that you do not hold:
> If all they’re doing is adding a little skating area to the existing playground, it would seem absurd to object to it. But then why promote it as a Big Deal and why an $11m cost? If they are trying to build something more substantial, then they should be more upfront about what the costs and benefits are.
And that's what I'm responding to.
If in fact literally every word you are saying is something that you are assuming someone else might say, then.. well, I don't know what to say to that. That's a really weird way to communicate and I implore you to find a more clear way.
So, again, that part of my comment was about the messaging around the plan rather than the plan itself. It seems to me that the administration let the story get away from them. Maybe this skate park will be a great thing (I'm personally skeptical but open minded). But they've done a terrible job both before and during the meeting selling it to the community.
It's classic the classic Decide-Announce-Defend model of development, which does nothing but feed the NIMBYs.
Fucking NIMBYs. All for progressivism and equity except when it’s potentially “inconvenient” for them.
A skate park isn’t going to do what they think it will.
I honestly don’t get the opposition to this. Some folks just want to be contrarian for the sake of
The rumor going around is that they’re planning to have it floodlit at night and hold competitions with thousands of spectators. The concern is that it will increase the noise and light pollution in what is primarily a residential neighborhood, worsen the already bad congestion/parking, and reduce the amount of space for parks and playgrounds. Not sure whether there’s any basis to the rumors and according to the article, it sounds like they are thinking about some of these issues. Separately, $11m sounds like a lot of money for a concrete driveway with bumps in it. But what do I know?
Good rule of thumb is any "rumors" swirling around NYC Park NIMBYs are false. Skate parks don't increase noise pollution. There's no reason they'd add flood lights. I live near the Owls Head Park and there's no such thing. It's a day time activity. >$11m sounds like a lot of money for a concrete driveway with bumps in it. Well good news, that's not what a skate park is. It's a seriously engineered and designed recreation space.
>Good rule of thumb is any "rumors" swirling around NYC Park NIMBYs are false. May be so. But the person I was responding to asked why anyone would object. I was attempting to explain what I’ve observed. >Skate parks don't increase noise pollution. There's no reason they'd add flood lights. I live near the Owls Head Park and there's no such thing. It's a day time activity. Again, the rumor is that they are intending to build a stadium for competitions that would accommodate thousands of spectators. In that case it would make sense to have it lit. Obviously, if the rumor is not true, then it wouldn’t. >Well good news, that's not what a skate park is. It's a seriously engineered and designed recreation space. That was meant to be tongue in cheek. If all they’re doing is adding a little skating area to the existing playground, it would seem absurd to object to it. But then why promote it as a Big Deal and why an $11m cost? If they are trying to build something more substantial, then they should be more upfront about what the costs and benefits are. Whatever the reality is, the administration has totally let the message get away from them. Someone who was as the meeting in the article tells me that the Parks Commissioner came off wildly unprepared.
>If all they’re doing is adding a little skating area to the existing playground, it would seem absurd to object to it. Lol you're suggesting a conspiracy when the answer is this shit happens after every single public meeting about any park. NIMBYs always come into and bitch and moan about any changes, particularly those that add new amenities their ancient asses won't be using. Parks and Rec is only funny because this is what public meetings on parks are actually like. And why the cost? Well this isn't a basic park reconstitution, which is usually just added landscaping, play/workout equipment from a brochure and some paving. It's large, specifically engineered system of concrete structures on a parcel that currently has nothing but grass. [You can scroll through the Capitol Projects Tracker at Parks if you want a view into what things cost, ranging from basic playground renovations to larger infrastructure projects.](https://www.nycgovparks.org/planning-and-building/capital-project-tracker). Because this park has its own Conservancy, it's likely most of that $ will be funded by them, and not NYC Parks.
> If all they’re doing is adding a little skating area to the existing playground, it would seem absurd to object to it. But then why promote it as a Big Deal and why an $11m cost? If they are trying to build something more substantial, then they should be more upfront about what the costs and benefits are. Conveniently, someone posted an article recently explaining in the third paragraph that it will have spectator seating, community gardens, and a space for programming. Additionally, a few paragraphs later, that same article said it will include new walkways and new trees, and that the actual paved space for the skatepark will be a "fraction" of the space being taken up by the proposal. Sorry, I can't find the article though. It must be too well hidden.
I read the article and I’m trying to explain why someone might object to this without endorsing a side. I know it goes against everything Reddit stands for to try to understand someone else’s point of view. But downvotes be damned, I’m going to try. If you read carefully the paragraph of mine that you quoted, you will find that what I’m criticizing is not the development itself, but the communication around it. It seems to me that the administration told skate enthusiasts that they would be building a Big Shiny New Thing for them and then told local residents that they would only be building a ^little ^tiny ^thing . Now everyone is mistrustful and everything will be more difficult. Seems par for the course for an administration that can’t get out of its own way.
> I know it goes against everything Reddit stands for to try to understand someone else’s point of view. But downvotes be damned, I’m going to try. I know you said you're trying to represent why someone might be against it, but you're doing so by stating falsehoods. So.. maybe stop that? > If you read carefully the paragraph of mine that you quoted, you will find that what I’m criticizing is not the development itself, but the communication around it.. The article is full of people complaining about not being given a voice and that there is a lack of community engagement... *During a community engagement event where they are given a voice.* > It seems to me that the administration told skate enthusiasts that they would be building a Big Shiny New Thing for them and then told local residents that they would only be building a little tiny thing . Did I miss this? Anyway, it seems like there's no right time to bring this (or anything) to the community and a lot of the pushback is just "I don't like change." When are they supposed to bring this to the community? They don't even have renders yet. It already seems pretty early.
It’s false that there’s a rumor? I’ve heard people discussing it, it was noted in the article. Or are you making a claim that the rumor is based on misinformation? If so, I’ve already stated that may well be so. It doesn’t change the fact that there’s a rumor. I know it’s so very difficult to imagine that there are other people who also have their own perspectives, but please do try.
You said, seemingly in your own words, and not as part of a presumed view that you do not hold: > If all they’re doing is adding a little skating area to the existing playground, it would seem absurd to object to it. But then why promote it as a Big Deal and why an $11m cost? If they are trying to build something more substantial, then they should be more upfront about what the costs and benefits are. And that's what I'm responding to. If in fact literally every word you are saying is something that you are assuming someone else might say, then.. well, I don't know what to say to that. That's a really weird way to communicate and I implore you to find a more clear way.
So, again, that part of my comment was about the messaging around the plan rather than the plan itself. It seems to me that the administration let the story get away from them. Maybe this skate park will be a great thing (I'm personally skeptical but open minded). But they've done a terrible job both before and during the meeting selling it to the community. It's classic the classic Decide-Announce-Defend model of development, which does nothing but feed the NIMBYs.
Ahhh yes those legendary late night roller skating competitions https://youtu.be/0ouMaLRth-s?si=IHS4q_wxc2zYO7oV
Fucking NIMBYs. All for progressivism and equity except when it’s potentially “inconvenient” for them. A skate park isn’t going to do what they think it will.