First Look At Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Hotel/Rez Complex

The Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. is expected to vote Tuesday June 19 on which developer will be awarded the contract to build the controversial BBP hotel and residential complex next to Pier 1 near DUMBO, as mandated by NYC Mayor Bloomberg to fund the future of the park.

Curbed refers to reports in The New York Times and Crain’s that favor Toll Brothers and Starwood Capital Group. Those companies have combined forces to offer a hotel comprising 200 rooms, with a 160-unit condo complex. There will also be 32,000 square feet of restaurant & banquet space, a 6,000-square-foot spa and 300 parking spaces. Under the development guidelines for the park, the hotel and connecting residences cannot exceed 100 feet in height, while a separate residential building can’t be more than 55 feet tall.

In addition, three more apartment buildings—one at John Street and two next to Pier 6—are planned for the park. The project, which would begin construction in 2013 and open in 2015, claims that it will generate $119.7 million in rent and other payments. It is conceivable that the multi-use residential and commercial complex will be complete long before the park itself.

Share this Story:

, , , ,

  • Livingston

    @ Rick:

    A wee bit touchy this morning, aren’t we?

  • hotel

    I think it will great that you can stay in a hotel at the waterfront. Friends and family can visit and have an time, one of a kind. Everyone thought the same thing about the standard hotel in the meatpacking district and the highline…The hotel is fine and the restaurants are good.

    it’s sad to see, the heights blog is a place of bitter resentment. I grew up here, love it. No one wants filming because of parking, no one wants hotels, no one wants change. Change happens, adapt, you’ll be ok.

  • Rick

    Maybe a bit, Livingston – just yesterday I was out in the park area directly in front of where the hotel is gonna be. All the foliage is starting to grow in now and get lush there, and there were so many birds, and some ducks and I was remembering several charming encounters with the muskrat there. And it is obvious that the peace and quiet there will soon be a thing of the past, and the wildlife there will likely be spooked and move on. It was just kinda nice having that for a while.

    I am one of many who liked the Empire State Park as it was. Yes, it was a bit scruffy, but it had grassy hills and Willow trees, and a lovely uninterrupted view of the bridge, instead of the big concrete plaza that has taken over now.

    Yes, different strokes for different folks, but it would be nice for NY to have more quiet places to recharge when this wonderful city becomes a bit too much.

  • Mr. Crusty

    Rick: “Yes, different strokes for different folks, but it would be nice for NY to have more quiet places to recharge when this wonderful city becomes a bit too much.”

    Exactly. That is why we need the funding that the commercial enterprises can provide to support creating and maintaining those quiet places both you and I crave. It just does not happen by itself.

  • stuart

    the re-development of the formerly industrial waterfront with new and re-purposed buildings and large areas of public parkland is a real advance for New York. At some point there will be waterfront parkland stretching from Atlantic Avenue to Williamsburg. When complete it will be an amazing transformation of the riverfront that was once teeming with warehouses and longshoremen but was then largely abandoned as the City’s economy dramatically changed from commercial port to advertising, media, and financial services. Why would anyone be opposed to this type of redevelopment consisting as it does of large segments of public parks?

  • Jorale-man

    I wasn’t going to jump back in here but I must say, it is sad that there some people who are so vociferously in favor of the hotels. I can understand having a sense of resigned acceptance about them (i.e. “no other option worked so I guess we’ll live with this”) but there seems to be a camp that really, really wants these buildings. I suspect they have business interests that they’re looking out for. But as @Rick has said, the whole point of a park is to carve out a space for nature where urban life doesn’t intrude. Now it appears there will be such an intrusion.

  • Bob Stone

    Short memories. No one seems to recall that, in the beginning, there was a community-approved plan to build a park that wouldn’t have cost one-half as much to build or maintain without residential housing within its footprint. The huge sums needed to maintain the park are a direct result of turning the park into a huge payday for the landscape architect, rather than having the expert park designers already on the City payroll do that job; of allowing the rotting piers to become a capital expense to be paid out of the operating budget; of loading the park up with elegant, but ultimately unnecessary (and expensive) features. To then turn around and point out that those same expenses demand extraordinary income streams shows that irony isn’t dead

  • Mr. Crusty

    Jorale-man. I don’t know if people are vociferously in favor of hotels (by the way it’s one hotel right?) but there are some of us that don’t see it as the end of the world. To have an upscale hotel with what I imagine will be a restauraunt with stunning views of Manhattan is not something that is necessarily detrimental to the area. Perhaps some of us would like to have a hotel nearby when we have visitors. Maybe some in the community would be interested in a restauraunt with views to kill for. Maybe the merchants in the area would like the increased business it will bring. Maybe some would appreciate that a private enterprise will be paying for the upkeep of a stunning new park at no cost to taxpayers. Maybe, just maybe your fears of the sky falling is just utter nonsense. I guess time will tell.

  • Gerry

    @ Bob Stone with the parks expensive features I wish it had a indoor pool a state of the art aquatics center 50 meters long and 15 feet deep open at 5am – 11pm daily.

    There is no place to swim in dowtown Brooklyn and no the crummy pools like EAC/St. Geroge, Marriott Hotel are not aquatics centers.

    St. Franicis Colege would not let the Pope in to swim no one gets to use that pool except the Heights Casino one evening per week

    The newer pool at the YMCA is just OK better than nothing.

    I swim early each morning at Hofstra University Swim Center because i work in Nassau County thats a great pool well run and reasonable prices.

    We need a pool in downtown Brooklyn.

  • Elmer Fudd

    Gerry, maybe the hotel will build you a pool. If not, there is always the very natural East River. Enjoy your swim.

  • BH’er

    What we really need in the heights: a velodrome…

  • yoohoo

    @Gerry, another know-it-all shooting off his mouth. How would you construct a 15-foot deep pool, with the water table a few feet below grade and the East River lapping at your door?

    The St. Francis College pool is given over to summer camp groups all summer long and availabel to senior citizens every weekday during the remainder of the year.

  • Rick

    @BH’er … Yes, a Velodrome would be nice, … but a Hippodrome would be awesome…

  • Rick

    …or dare we hope, maybe somewhere in Pier 6, a Pallendrome?

  • Knight

    St. Francis College wouldn’t let the Pope in to swim because once all those robes got wet he’d sink like a stone. But that’s not my point

    I’m surprised that no one picked up on the point made by “dog lover,” who noted that once these buildings are erected there will be nothing to stop politicians from diverting the income to projects in other areas of the city, thus leaving BBP seriously underfunded.

    I realize that we just went through a year-long process to explore other funding options, but when the park planners go into a process knowing fully well what they want the outcome to be, I don’t believe they gave other options the attention that they deserved. The point of the process was to kill all other funding ideas.

  • John Q

    It may seem like there is a ground swell of residents “vociferously” clamoring for a hotel, but heed my previous warning– a good number of these alleged “residents” are actually PR professionals and government flunkies masquerading as members of the public to create exactly this impression. The correct propaganda term for this is dis-information.

    Personally, I have no problem with members of the public using anonymity to engage in public debate on blogs like this, but I do strenuously object to paid flacks misrepresenting themselves as citizens. If they have important points to make, they are welcome to do so under their real names and they should identify the organizations that they are representing.

    BTW– Governmental, quasi-governmental and non-profits employing individuals who are engaging in these deceptive practices should prohibit their contractors from mis-representing themselves as ordinary members of the public. Not one penny of public money should ever be spent on bamboozling the public!

  • David on Middagh

    North Heights Res,

    Actually, the old warehouses that were demolished did partially block views of the Brooklyn Bridge from the north promenade. Our current, clear view is threatened. I believe the proposed development would be at least as tall & massive as the old warehouses, blocking at least as much of the view, if not more. If anyone knows for a fact that this isn’t the case, I’m all ears.

  • Mr. Crusty

    John Q says, ” a good number of these alleged “residents” are actually PR professionals and government flunkies masquerading as members of the public to create exactly this impression. The correct propaganda term for this is dis-information.”

    And you know this how exactly? Do you really think the “government” is paying people to pass on disinformation on the Brooklyn Heights Blog? Lol. Ok. And the black helicopters will be coming for all of us soon.

  • Shocked_BH_resident

    I’m actually shocked at the dialogue here and all the red herring and ad hominem arguments. This is undoubtably a blunder by our reprehensible government. THIS IS A PARK! Whether man made or not, it is a public space that was reclaimed from industrial ruin and created a spectacular refuge from the density of DT Brooklyn and Manhattan. Even the view from the BQE was amazing.

    This will be incredibly obstructive, and nobody will ever think of the $3MM/year it’s going to “generate”. Also, how do the economics significantly benefit the City? The rent? ~$120MM over 97 years? For over 500,000 sq ft.? That’s $2.5/sqft/year… this is a sham, pure and simple. The 13-1 vote only represents the depth of inadequate, short-sighted thinking by our selfish and/or moronic politicians.

    The planners who first created this City and those that had the foresight to set aside public spaces were intelligent, and forward thinking. Bloomberg is a leech, the local government are inadequate representatives, and Boss Tweed would even be embarrassed by association.

    @Rick, the points you are making are absolutely correct. You’re obviously a resident of the area, and an attendee of the park, as am I. Nobody here who frequents the lovely promenade or park would oppose any of what you’re saying. No matter how hard they try to goad you into irritation.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if 90% of the supporters of this plan worked for Toll Brothers or SCG… but then again, what would they care bout public opinion or local residents’ interests? They do whatever they want.

  • John Q

    My apologies for interrupting your blogging Mr. Crusty, but I wanted to let you know that your helicopter is waiting for you sir…

  • Suzie Q

    And let’s not forget how the much touted $3 million that One Brooklyn Bridge Park was supposed to generate magically turned into $1 million after RAL’s lawyers waved their magic wands.

  • Mr. Crusty

    I can assure you Shocked BH Resident that I am not an employee of toll or a paid PR flack hired by the government despite your paranoid delusions. I am a resident of BH and I will give my opinion whether you like it or not.

    You talk about, THIS IS A PARK! What is a park? There was NO PARK until the very people you are attacking created the park. It was abandoned commercial property. It was NEVERa park and if people like you got your way, it never would be a park.

    The concept of having private development pay for the creation and upkeep of the park predates Bloomberg who you call a leech. You characterize the other members who have worked hard to create this beautiful public space as morons. And YOU have the audacity to say, “I’m actually shocked at the dialogue here and all the red herring and ad hominem arguments. This is undoubtably a blunder by our reprehensible government.”

    Reprehensible government. . . Bloomberg a leech… Politicians all morons…. Yeah, you certainly sound like a Mensa candidate.

    For those of you that want a history of the park and see for yourself that private development to pay for the park was part of the plan from the very beginning should look at this PDF. It really is a great read on the park.

  • John Q

    Mr.Crusty you might want to consider employment with Toll Bros or a career in PR. Development in BPP was never conceived of as providing anything more than a contribution to the ongoing maintenance costs– and housing was totally prohibited as a funding source. Be honest– Bloomberg turned the “park” into a “project” and was 100% responsible for introducing housing. Even amateur “flacks” should give credit where credit is due. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to continue presenting what is little more than fractured fairy tale version of the story.

  • Mr. Crusty

    Not true John Doe. Some history:

    1992 “13 Guidelines” emerge from community discussions, including idea of a self-sustaining park that will generate revenue to pay for its operating costs.

    January 1994 Governor Mario cuomo announces that the Urban development corporation will take the lead in implementing a plan for mixed-use development on the Brooklyn waterfront at Piers 1 through 5

    February 1997 economic Viability study for the Park is released, recommending that the park include a pool, marina, conference center, hotel, and ice-skating facility.

    1999 developer proposal for movie theater, retail shops, hotel and marina between Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges dies in the face of community opposition.

    May 2002 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the state and the city finalizing a $150 million commitment to design and construct the park through the Brooklyn Bridge Park development corporation (BBPdc). MoU indicates that the park must develop its own resources for maintenance and programming, with no less than 80% of the area be reserved for park uses.

    All of this even befor Bloomberg was elected mayor, but nice try John Q. So who are YOU a flak for?

  • Shocked_BH_resident

    @Mr Crusty.

    I wrote a response, but apparently it did not go through. I won’t rewrite it.

    This park is a monstrosity, you’re arguments are absurd. Because they had an idea for a park 20 years that got rejected, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea now.

    Also, “flack” is spelt with a “c”.

  • Andrew Porter

    I want to thank everyone who posted here using their real names…

  • Mr. Crusty

    Shocked_bh_resident says the park is a monstosity. Interesting. I wonder how many people that have been down to Pier One agree with you. I’d venture to say not many judging by the way people seem to love the beautiful park, it’s sweeping vistas, it’s pathways, it’s green lawns, it’s sheer beauty. I know the park might not be able to hold a candle to rusting piers and dilapidated warehouses that youmapparently prefer but they’re trying shocked_bh_resident, trying.

    I’m also sorry you think my arguments are absurd but apparently,by a vote of 13 to 1, the BBP Board agrees with me. Oh, I know what you are going tomsay, they are just a bunch of money grubbing venal politicians corrupted by the vile developers that don’t give two s****s about the community, yada, yada. Yawn.

    Oh, thanks for correcting my spelling of flack. I am forever indebted.

  • Arch Stanton

    Crusty is right. Hotel & housing was part of the park plans before Mikey B. seized power.