Citing "competing" complaints from dog owners about limited hours & neighbors plagued by noise, Pacific Park Conservancy affirms policy for dog run near 595 Dean.

Well, as the Atlantic Yards mantra (link) goes, "it's a very tight fit."

The placement of a dog run (in two parts, one for small dogs, another for large ones), with little effort to tamp down noise, close to a residential building (B13, 595 Dean West Tower) with a glass-and-metal facade, has led to conflict that's difficult to resolve.

Looking east toward 595 Dean west tower. Photo: May 8. All photos by Norman Oder

After some residents complained about disruptive dog barking, the Pacific Park Conservancy, which manages the 2.7 acres of open space on the southeast block of Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, last November reduced the dog run's open hours to 7 am to 6 pm Oct. 1 through April 30, and 6 am to 8:30 pm May 1 through Sept 30.

That left dog owners frustrated with overcrowding and the Conservancy's failure to recognize their needs during after-work hours. And it doesn't necessarily relieve the noise problem. 

Photo: March 27

Pushing back

A letter to the Conservancy from Brooklyn Community Board 8 last November cited dog owners' complaints about the unilateral decision to reduce hours, which it said raises safety concerns and failed to accommodate dog owners, particularly after 6 pm, given work hours.

Beyond that, an unofficial message (right) posted briefly at the dog run from dog owners expressed frustration at the Conservancy's unwillingness to "figure out a plan that works for all" and calling the 6 pm closure "absurd for any number of reasons."

It encouraged visitors to contact, every day, the Conservancy as well as Board Chair Ashley Cotton, a former executive at original project developer Forest City Ratner who lives in the 550 Vanderbilt tower.

Photo: March 27

(That message was quickly removed.)

Standing firm

The response, in a recent letter from the Conservancy to dog owners, was to reaffirm the decision:

The Conservancy board has reviewed multiple – and competing – complaints regarding the hours of the dog run. We came to a decision to make the dog park open from sunrise to sunset following a seasonal schedule of May 1 – Sept 30 6AM to 8:30PM and Oct 1 – April 30 of 7AM to 6PM.

We understand the importance of having accessible hours that accommodate your schedules and support the well-being of your dogs. At the same time, as stewards of a space located in a densely populated urban environment, we’re working to balance a variety of community needs—including those of nearby residents.

Please be assured that we are actively reviewing feedback like yours as part of an ongoing effort to find balance that works for as many community members as possible. We are committed to continuing to monitor the usage and feedback as we consider future adjustments.

Frustration

 Ian White, an organizer of the dog owners' protest, called the response "incredibly frustrating," observing that "Daylight hours seems an oddly anachronistic way to define the hours of an urban park."

Looking north toward the dog run, which is closer to 535 Carlton. Photo: May 8

He told me that dog owners would like to discuss previous proposals--"ideas on self-policing, limiting access, canopy cover/noise abatement, noise/complaint monitoring, fundraising, beautification"--but said "it's challenging to talk when one party seemingly ignores you."

Meanwhile, some residents of the west side of the West Tower of 595 Dean are frustrated. The most recent Google review, a list of the building's pros and cons, includes this observation:

• Noise from Outside: If your unit faces the dog park or the children’s playground, be prepared for a lot of noise. Screaming kids and barking dogs are a daily soundtrack. Keeping your windows closed is the only way to block it out.

I queried Randal Wilhite, a 595 Dean resident who'd previously posted a review criticizing the "bizarrely poor design choices" in siting the dog run. He said the issue was less the hours than the volume of noise.

"I don't think any reasonable person expects things to be completely quiet in Brooklyn at any hour," he wrote. "However, whether I am working from home, drinking coffee at 7 am, or trying to relax on the weekends, I continue to be disturbed by loud, incessant barking in my apartment. I do not know whom enforcement of the hours was intended to please, really, but it wasn't me."

The crux of the matter

The problem, as far as I can tell, is that the dog run is small, and lacks sufficient buffers. The actual size has not been stated, but it's a small fraction of the 2.67 acres of open space built so far.

Photo: May 8

(There's also so much demand from dogs to frolic that, in the space of five minutes the other day, I saw two examples of dogs in spaces where they're prohibited, as shown in photos at right. Is that because dog owners are scofflaws or because there's not enough space in which dogs can exercise?)

Updated: While a dog run is not the same as a larger dog park--according to research by the city of Ann Arbor, generally at least ½ acre--planners know, as Fairfax County in Virginia observes, that "vegetation should be planted on the outside of the fence to enhance the aesthetic quality of the site and to assist in mitigating noise."

Without any public responsiveness by the Conservancy, which has no website or full-time staff, I have to speculate, but I suspect that, given that the Conservancy is controlled by building owners, it's driven by their needs.

Photo: May 8

So they may consider potential tenants and residents more of a constituency than dog owners, but, at least for now, don't want to spend the money to either install sound barriers around the dog run or retrofit windows in a new building to add a higher level of soundproofing.

There is, however, a precedent for retrofits: remember how the Atlantic Yards project developer put a new green roof on the arena to tamp down escaping bass?

Location, location

As I wrote in May, the problems may relate, at least in part, to a debatable location for the dog run, as well as a flawed--or, at least, incomplete--execution. 

Note that the two dog runs planned, marked #13 on the schematic below and highlighted in purple and pink, were attached to the open space bordering the B6 and B7 towers over the railyard, between Sixth and Carlton Avenues. But those initial sites rely on the platform for development, so they are years away. 

The dog runs were placed a reasonable distance south of each tower, with a street--not a building--as a southern buffer.

So it seems that one dog run was shifted to accommodate the clear and growing need for it, plus--perhaps--the perceived value in marketing. 

On May 7, after a panel in Williamsburg, I queried the eminent landscape designer Thomas Balsley, who produced the updated open space plan in 2015, but is no longer associated with the project, to ask about the dog runs.

Conceptual open space plan by Thomas Balsley, annotated

He couldn't recall why specifically the dog runs were placed outside B6 and B7 and noted that different elements of the open space were designed to be shifted. (That's why it was called a "flexible concept plan.")

Nor was Balsley told in what sequence the buildings would be constructed. "I've been working with developers for a long time," he observed. "Nobody knows how long anything is going to take. The market comes and it goes."

Balsley said that dog runs typically represent safety and activity, offering "eyes on the park" that everybody wants, because "there is no peak time in a park for dog runs, really." So, he said, "you can't limit the hours." His advice: "put some more insulation in your windows." 

He noted that the dog run his firm successfully updated at Madison Square Park--which, I'd note, does have a wide street as a barrier--operates late into the evening, with no complaint from nearby residents.

If he had to look at the master plan again, Balsley said, he'd try to make the dog run central, but also ensure it faced the ends of buildings rather than a full facade, and avoid a courtyard effect that accentuates noise. 

He said designers aim to build a consensus as to the best location. In this case, it's not clear that happened.

Presumably the developer didn't want to put the dog run in the central lawn, between the two 595 Dean towers (B12/B13), and likely didn't want to put it near the only condo building, 550 Vanderbilt (B11). That left the space between B13 and 535 Carlton (B14). 

Sound issues

Also, the schematic design for the dog run--highlighted below in blue, by landscape architecture firm Mathews Nielsen for developer TF Cornerstone, with towers by Handel Architects--suggested far more robust tree cover between the dogs and the West tower, which may have helped buffer sound. 

The location is actually closer to the 535 Carlton tower (B14) to the west, but that building, given a facade of brick and concrete, has materials more resistant to noise. (If there were more brick on the B13 tower, maybe it would be less of an issue.)

535 Carlton at left. Photo May 8

The Conservancy and Greenland 

The Conservancy remains somewhat opaque.

I wrote last November that, at a public meeting, Greenland USA representative Jen Kuang, the Conservancy's Treasurer, acknowledged that the Conservancy's posted phone number (347-292-6479) didn't work, but that a new phone number, 646-930-4852, was expected to be attached soon to entrance signage.

Waiting for a new number. Photo: May 8

That still hasn't happened. (That new number is a voice mail. The other way to contact the Conservancy is conservancy@pacificparkbrooklyn.nyc.)

Today, Kuang is apparently gone, given that her name was absent from the recent letter. 

It's not clear whether Greenland, nominally the project's master developer but on the verge of losing six development sites to foreclosure, has any representative.

About the Conservancy

 

The Conservancy, as I wrote, initially has two Members, the Pacific Park Owners Association, which represents owners of extant buildings, and Atlantic Yards Venture, the project developer, currently owned by Greenland.

Those Members can collectively appoint up to eight of 13 Directors, thus ensuring that the building owners or developer control the Conservancy.

For several years, until all eight acres of open space are completed, the Developer will appoint seven members, while the Owners Association will appoint just one director. (That said, there are representatives of other developers, TF Cornerstone and The Brodsky Organization, named as Directors.)

However, if Greenland leaves the project, and/or the project is divided up, those appointing privileges may change.

The April 22 letter from the Pacific Park Conservancy Board cited the following directors:

• Glinda Andrews--former Chair of Community Board 8's Parks Committee
• Ashley Cotton--550 Vanderbilt owner, former Forest City executive, Conservancy President
• Suma Mandel--ESD representative
• Rick Mason--The Brodsky Organization
• Josie Mok--550 Vanderbilt owner, former Forest City executive
• Scott Solish--The Brodsky Organization, former Greenland executive
• Amir Stein--TF Cornerstone
• David Viana--ESD representative

It's curious that the board list no longer includes a Greenland representative, though Kuang was listed as the treasurer in the two most recent tax returns and spoke at the Quality of Life meeting last November.

There are no appointees, yet, from Community Board 2 or Community Board 6, or a representative of the Parks Department, though they are supposed to supply members.

Latest list of directors

No list of directors is posted publicly. Below are the most recently posted--but at least partly outdated--lists of directors, according to the Conservancy's 2022 and 2023 tax returns.

Despite superficial differences, the two lists actually pretty close, since only nine active directors are described both years, with seven additional directors and officers listed in 2022 as "former."

Conservancy board, from IRS returns