Seeds of discontent
Memo shows city knew of dangers posed to garden by development for months
The mayor threw his hat into the “Fight for Sunlight” controversy for the fi rst time on Feb. 7. Illustration courtesy of Continuum Company
COURIER LIFE, FEBRUARY 21-27, 2020 5
BY BEN VERDE
Mayor Bill de Blasio’s
claim that shadows cast by
a massive 39-story development
would not harm plant
life at the Brooklyn Botanic
Garden are bogus — according
to his own administration!
Internal memos reviewed
by the Brooklyn Paper show
that experts at the NYC Parks
Department believe that the
proposed 960 Franklin Ave.
mega-development poses a
serious threat to the borough’s
world-class horticultural
museum located just a
block away, with experts stating
that shadows cast by the
towering residential complex
could very easily starve the
garden’s most sensitive areas
of needed sunlight.
“The proposed project
would potentially lead to
a signifi cant adverse impact
to natural resources,
specifi cally to natural resources
found in the Brooklyn
Botanic Garden, due to
project-generated shadows,”
wrote David Cuff, director
of environmental review at
the Parks Department, in a
memo sent to offi cials at the
Department of City Planning
on Dec. 20.
Cuff’s memorandum featured
his critiques of an environmental
impact statement
concerning the rezoning application
that Continuum
Company needs approved to
build its 39-story mixed-use
development, with a special
focus on the “Natural Resources
Chapter” and “Arborist
Report” contained
within the study.
Basing his report on information
contained within
that report, Cuff found ample
evidence to suggest the development
would result in “signifi
cant adverse impacts” to
Brooklyn Botanic Garden’s
greenhouse facilities, which
are home to some 18,500
plants, along with the propagation
facilities necessary to
breed new plants.
Cuff’s fi ndings stand in
stark contrast to comments
that de Blasio made during
his Feb. 7 appearance on the
Brian Lehrer Show, when he
stated his support for the development
— which would
bring nearly 800 units of affordable
housing to the neighborhood
— along with his belief
that the project would not
harm the garden.
“I don’t think it ruins the
garden forever,” said de Blasio.
“I just don’t!”
In fact, Cuff’s memo goes
into detail regarding how
shadows cast by the 39-story
towers would affect different
exhibits within the garden,
with effects ranging from
mild to severe depending on
the climate and location of
the gardens various greenhouses.
Some of the more
dramatic effects would be felt
by:
Warm Temperate, Tropical,
and Desert Pavilions located
in Greenhouses D, E,
and F, which would suffer
some “long-term cumulative”
effect as a result of “even very
limited winter shading.” All
three greenhouses would receive
up to 1.25 hours of additional
shading in the wintertime.
Additionally, the
memo state’s that the Desert
Pavilion would lose up to 3.25
hours of sun between March
to October (although not explicitly
stated, it’s assumed
this is meant on a daily basis),
likely leading to the declining
health of cacti and
other specimens within the
exhibit.
Tropical and sub-tropical
species located in the Aquatic
and Orchid House, which
would lose up to 3.75 hours of
sunlight between March and
October, and 1.75 hours of
sunlight during the “critical
winter months.” The memo
goes on to state that, as a result
of the loss of sunlight,
some orchids would likely no
longer fl ower.
Growing areas for the
Desert, Tropical, and Warm
Temperate pavilions, and
the orchid collection, which
have “high sunlight requirements.”
These facilities
would lose up to 3.75 hours of
sunlight between March and
October, and up to two hours
of sunlight in during the winter.
In his memo, Cuff uses information
provided within
the environmental impact
statement to challenge some
of the conclusions within
that very report, including
the statement that, while the
effect of shadows from the
development would be permanent,
their “magnitude
is relatively small effects on
the productivity of well-established
plants.” Instead,
Cuff writes that the report
ignores how the loss of sunlight
would affect plants that
are not well-established,
such as those in the garden’s
propagation facilities, where
Brooklyn Botanic produces
plants hailing from various
warm-weather climates,
which may require yearround
sunlight.
Cuff’s conclusions largely
mirror those of green thumbs
at the garden itself, who have
stated that the loss of sunlight
upon Brooklyn Botanic’s
production facilities
could result in a cascading
effect that could devastate
the garden within a matter
of years.
“Should we lose propagation
growing facilities, more
than half of our collection
will be gone in a decade,”
Rowan Blaik, director of living
collections at the garden,
testified at a March 2019 City
Planning Commission hearing.
“There are simply no
commercial alternatives to
on-site propagation facilities
for botanic gardens.
Multiple messages left
seeking comment from City
Hall were not returned.