Lefrak Center At LakesideEdit

Lefrak Center At Lakeside is a prominent indoor ice skating facility in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. Opened as part of the Lakeside development in the mid-2010s, the center was designed to extend year-round recreation in a way that blends private investment with public access. Named for the LeFrak Organization, a private real estate developer that contributed to the project, the center functions as a hub for skating, curling, youth programs, and community events, anchoring the Lakeside campus near Grand Army Plaza and the broader Prospect Park complex.

The Lefrak Center sits at the heart of the Lakeside (Brooklyn) district, a redevelopment initiative that sought to transform a sizable stretch of parkland into a mixed-use recreational and cultural campus. The project embodies a public-private approach to urban amenities: private capital helps fund infrastructure and facilities while the city preserves access and programming for residents and visitors. The center’s presence has been tied to broader goals of urban vitality, local employment, and increased tourism to central Brooklyn.

History

The Lakeside plan emerged from a mid-2000s push to reimagine portions of Prospect Park for contemporary recreation. The Lefrak Center was conceived as a centerpiece of that vision, with the LeFrak Organization contributing support that made the indoor ice facility viable within a city park setting. The building was completed and opened to the public in the mid-2010s, coinciding with other Lakeside installations such as new walking paths, green spaces, and multipurpose venues. The project has been framed as a model of leveraging private philanthropy and development expertise to deliver public benefits in a high-density urban area Two Trees Management and other partners played integral roles in shaping the overall Lakeside plan.

Facilities and programs

An indoor ice rink designed for public skating, figure skating, and organized events, including occasional exhibitions and school programs.
A secondary ice space used for practice, lessons, and club activities, expanding options for skaters of varying ages and abilities.
The Prospect Park Curling Center operates out of the Lefrak Center, providing curling leagues, lessons, and recreational play that bring a winter sport historically uncommon to the region into a major city park setting.
Support facilities such as skate rental, concession spaces, and multipurpose rooms for community programming, youth leagues, and private events.
The center is integrated with the broader Lakeside campus, which includes adjacent parkside spaces, pathways, and public programming that attract visitors throughout the year.

The integration of these functions aims to maximize utilization of park facilities while offering a predictable, year-round amenity. The combination of public access hours and private management aims to balance broad community use with efficient operations and financial sustainability.

Operations and management

The Lefrak Center operates under a governance framework that blends city oversight with private management. It is tied to the park’s mission of providing accessible recreation while leveraging capital to ensure modern facilities and ongoing maintenance. Management strategies emphasize safety, programming variety, and accessibility so that residents from nearby neighborhoods and visitors from farther afield can participate in a range of activities, from informal skating sessions to structured leagues. The center’s programming and scheduling are coordinated with the broader New York City Parks system to maintain alignment with citywide recreational priorities.

Economic impact

Proponents argue that the Lefrak Center and the Lakeside project contribute to local economic vitality by attracting visitors, supporting nearby small businesses, and creating seasonal jobs. The presence of a year-round ice facility in a major urban park can extend the city’s appeal for families and tourists, potentially boosting nearby retail, dining, and service sectors. The private-public collaboration is often cited as a model for delivering costly urban amenities without placing undue burden on city budgets, while still maintaining public access and governance through New York City Parks and related agencies.

Controversies and debates

Funding and public-private balance: Critics have pressed for greater disclosure about the financial terms of the Lakeside arrangement and questioned the degree to which private investment subsidizes park infrastructure. Supporters respond that the partnership defers large upfront costs to private capital and accelerates the delivery of a high-quality facility without overburdening city finances.
Access and equity: As with many urban park projects that blend private funding with public space, debates have focused on whether the facilities serve the broad spectrum of city residents or disproportionately benefit users who can participate in organized programs or who live nearby. Advocates argue that the center’s open skating hours and public events provide broad access, while critics call for more targeted programs to reach underserved communities.
Privatization concerns: Some observers worry that private control of a public park amenity can set a precedent for further privatization of parkland. Proponents contend that the project maintains public access while delivering amenities that would be difficult to fund through conventional city budgeting alone, and that the public retains governance rights through city agencies and oversight.
Niche sports and cultural perception: The curling program, in particular, has sparked dialogue about the appeal and inclusivity of a sport that is less common in the United States. Supporters emphasize its educational and community-building potential, while skeptics question demand and long-term sustainability. From a practical standpoint, the curling facility helps fill wintertime demand for structured, low-impact recreation and can attract a diverse set of participants when paired with accessible programming.

In these debates, the central argument from supporters centers on value: for the price of leveraging private expertise and capital, the city gains a modern, well-maintained recreational facility that expands options for families, schools, and local clubs. Critics emphasize that any use of public land for private benefit should maximize equity, accountability, and ongoing public oversight. The discourse often pivots on whether the public gains sufficient, broad-based benefits relative to the private investment and the cost of maintaining such a venue in a busy urban park.