Starwood & Toll Brothers Chosen to Develop Hotel & Residential Near Pier One

By on June 19, 2012 2:20 pm in brooklyn bridge park, Commercial Real Estate, Development, News

As anticipated, Mayor Bloomberg’s office announced today that the proposal for a hotel and residential complex on the space between Furman Street and Pier 1, Brooklyn Bridge Park submitted by Starwood Capital Group and Toll Brothers has been selected. The image (thanks to Curbed) shows how the buildings will look from the Promenade. As you can see, they will partially obstruct the view of the Brooklyn Bridge and largely obscure the view of Pier 1.

According to the Curbed article linked above, the hotel will have 200 rooms and the residential portion will have 159 units. The article also quotes from the Mayor’s press release:

The proposed building plan will feature nearly 16,000 square feet of restaurant space, 16,000 square feet of banquet and meeting space, 2,000 square feet of retail space, a 6,000-square-foot spa and fitness center and 300 parking spaces. It also includes park restrooms as well as maintenance space for park operations.

The hotel will be named Hotel 1.

Share this Story:

, , , , ,

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →
  • Neighbor Hood

    @resident..boy you sure have a good way of not addressing the points argued here as suits your point of view.
    Central Park is a great example..thx for bringing it up. It wasn’t constructed with the proviso that it be “self sustaining”…it’s a park mainly paid for with peoples tax dollars for people to enjoy. You can’t build huge condos and hotels in it!! And I use the park regularly and how you can say you use and enjoy it yet not even consider how these huge developments are going to change your experience of it is nuts. (or purposeful ignorance..which is it?). 2 huge new condo towers on pier 6 and the hotel condo at pier1? You don’t think concern and consideration of just the influx of park users, traffic and the obstruction of sun is enough valid to consider. Do you have a stake in this or just no imagination?

  • Mr. Crusty

    Bette your kidding right? I think the tourists staying at the Hotel will be looking a little higher than the park and water to see the incredible NYC skyline which as those of you that use the Promenade frequently, never fails to awe and move one. It is one of the most spectacular sites anyone could ever hope to get in this city. And why do you think the goal of everyone staying in Brooklyn would be to get to Manhattan?

    I would suggest reserving your room now, it is going to be a very hot hotel.

  • Mr. Crusty

    Neighbor Hood. Back to Central Park. Do all of those huge buildings on the perimeter detract from the beauty and usefulness of Central Park? Is the sun obstructed?

  • Mr. Crusty

    Neighbor hood: Central Park…it’s a park mainly paid for with peoples tax dollars for people to enjoy.

    Not true Neighbor Hood. Its mainly paid for with NON-TAX dollars through the Central Park Conservancy.

    As the official manager of Central Park, the Conservancy is responsible for the day-to-day maintenance and operation of the Park. Presently, 90 percent of the Park’s maintenance operations staff is employed by the Conservancy, which provides 85 percent of Central Park’s $42.4 million annual Parkwide expense budget through its fundraising and investment revenue

    Since its founding, the Conservancy has overseen the investment of more than $600 million into Central Park, of which more than $470 million was raised from private sources — individuals, corporations and foundations

  • resident

    @NeighborHood: You couldn’t be more wrong about Central Park. 85% of the maintenance budget is paid for by the Central Park Conservancy, a private group largely funded by the rich people that live on the park. When it was completely city funded, the park suffered from steep declines as city administrations lost interest or the financial capability to fund the park. Now the park is secure despite a great recession that has killed city budgets. So, in essence, the two parks are very similar. Construction largely funded by government, maintenance largely funded by rich people who live along side it.

    I’m also not ignoring the idea that it would be great if the city would just step up and fund maintenance. It would be great. But it’s not going to happen. I’ve accepted that fact. Frankly, I wish there were a lot of things government spent more money on. But, in this political era, raising taxes is a non-starter.

    As for changes due to development. I guess I was never too worried about it since I always knew it would be there. I’m not worried about losing the sun or view, since the buildings are relatively low near Pier 1, and I don’t know about you, but I tend to face the other way for a view. I’m not worried about the extra crowds, seems like a small percentage compared to the thousands of people that visit from all over Brooklyn. I can even think of a huge positive of new development with respect to one section I do use: development at pier 6 could provide some much needed shade on the dog run.

    I have no personal interest in the development. I’m strictly pro-park. The NIMBYs that oppose development may claim to not be anti-park, but that’s the effect of blocking development. I’ll point it out again, go research the troubles Hudson River Park is having after their revenue generation streams were block.

  • Suzie Q

    I volunteer Mr. Crusty and Resident to plant bluebells to welcome all the new billionaires to their condos on Pier 1.

  • resident

    @ Suzie Q: As opposed to all the “billionaires” already living here and in Dumbo? What’s another 157 units of housing next to neighborhoods that house, what, 30,000 of Brooklyn’s wealthiest residents, when it provides a beautiful park for the masses to enjoy?

  • Clampdown

    I really can’t believe someone here actually credited BBP with restaurants opening on Atlantic Ave. Colonie was the result of BBP? Hahahahaha. The catering to the influx of yuppies began years ago.

  • Mr. Crusty

    We would need the volunteers, not only to plant the bluebells, but to do everything else if we didn’t have the private development. But I do agree with your disdain for all those “billionaires”. Can’t have all that riff raff around, this is the Heights after all.

  • nabeguy

    Yes, this is NYC and things do change. For better or for worse is really the only departure point and that is subjective, as the arguments above are testament to. Having grown up in the Heights (which I doubt many or any of the above can lay claim to), I’m glad I cleared out, as the changes I saw coming were to the soul of the neighborhood that I had lived on for 55 years. Read the Carson McCullers piece in THE EMPIRE CITY…that’s what I knew .http://books.google.com/books?id=EZnkZDzR_iAC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Carson+McCullers+Firehouse&source=bl&ots=Sm_1ocTPKJ&sig=U4zHloNcm1CLqyKuUjMwIKO3P3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZrnhT_LfKcPn0QG26f2vAw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Carson%20McCullers%20Firehouse&f=false

  • yoohoo

    Resident and Mr. Crusty, thank you for your remarks as you seem to be the only people here who know what they’re talking about and who have a historical perspective. Those who advocated for Brooklyn Bridge Park since the 1980’s when the Port Authority planned to sell the piers to the highest bidders for residential development; who were not deterred by the initial opposition from certain elected officials; and who are grateful to see this park becoming a reality, are saddened by all those latter-day nay-sayers who are unable to accept compromise. Have you ever heard that compromise the art of politics? I, for one, see a glass almost full rather than an empty one.

    Instead of shooting off your mouths, you nay-sayers could make better use of your time to educate yourselves about the genesis of this park and to regain a sense of reality about the distinction between public and private property. You obviously don’t think about what it takes to maintain a public space, which on summer weekends is close to overflowing with visitors from Brooklyn and the rest of the world (just look at the packed playground on Pier 6!). Just wait until the swimming pool opens in a few weeks,for the soccer fields on Pier 5 this fall, and for the Fieldhouse with its velodrome and infield athletic facilities in a few years. You obviously don’t want to know that the BBP Conservancy’s wide range of programs is entirely financed by PUBLIC donations. And you talk about the park being built as the front yard for a small elite!

    You should remove your blinders and read up on dire finances of Hudson River Park and the commercial development that must be put into place on Governors Island to finance the upkeep of the future park there.

  • Mr. Crusty

    nabeguy we often have fond memories of the neighborhoods we grew up in and perhaps as a result see those neighborhoods through rose colored glasses. I have no idea what Brooklyn Heights was like over the last fifty years, and I am sure it was a great place to grow up, but if the below article from the NY Times is accurate, perhaps it wasn’t the nirvana that our faulty memories can sometimes convince us of:

    “The Hotel St. George complex, which at its height dominated the square block between Henry and Hicks Streets and Clark and Pineapple Streets, was originally renowned for its grand ballrooms and a huge salt-water swimming pool. By the 1970s it housed a topless bar called Wild Fyre, and its elderly residents were preyed on by muggers.

    “The crime was pretty bad back then,” Mr. Schmitt recalled. “For a long time it was kind of dicey walking around anywhere at night. Now you feel absolutely safe, but before the late ’80s you looked over your shoulder coming home from the subway.”

    Mr. Schmitt noted that as far back as the mid-1800s Whitman went to Middagh Street to meet sailors. In the 1970s and ’80s, Mr. Schmitt recalled, muggers attacked gay prostitutes who met clients every night at the corner of Middagh and Columbia Heights.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/arts/03expl.html?pagewanted=all

    Topless bars, street muggings, gay prostitutes. If that is the “soul” of BH that is disappearing that you were alluding to I for one welcome the changes.

  • WillowSt.Neighbor

    nabeguy,
    Amen!

  • dog lover

    I’d like to know — what’s to keep the next NYC Administration and City Council to decide to redirect the money generated by the hotel and highrises on both ends of the BBP to their own favorite projects?

  • Chucky

    It’s called the law. BBP is a seperate non profit entity. They entered into lease with the developers. If you enter in a lease with someone, the City can’t just come in and take that rent. Same thing here.

  • John Q

    You may be right in point of law Chucky, but the facts could turn out differently. Despite agreeing to pay roughly $3 million per year for One Brooklyn Bridge Park, RAL’s first act was to go to court to have their lease payments reduced to little more than $1 million and won. So you might not want to be counting all the projected revenues from the hotel/condo development until the construction dust settles.

  • chucky

    Not exactly true. They didn’t get their lease payments reduced. They challenged their tax bill – which is something that any property owner in NYC is entitled to do. Their rent bill was always a bit over $1 M and their tax bill was reduced from about $2 m to about $1 m. An independent third party decided that their bill was not calculated correctly based on comps. Regardless, this has no relevance to unfounded claims that the City is going to take this revenue and shift it to pet projects.

  • Gatornyc

    Chucky is dead-on accurate. The leases payments are contracts that are paid to the BBPDC and cannot be diverted to the City. The same is true of the PILOT payments. These are decreed by statute and they cannot be touched.

  • Neighbor Hood

    @yahoo..you admit the park is close to overflowing now on weekends and say wait until the pier 5 complex and pool open while defending this huge hotel condo deal??? That’s going to make the “park” experience better for the neighborhood or worse? And why can’t we have a system more like the Central Park conservancy? They don’t build in the park they fund raise. Bloomberg’s a billionaire businessman and he couldn’t get his cronies to line up some tax deductible funding for a simpler cheaper park that more of the hood could enjoy without making themselves filthy rich?
    And double amen to the poster who shot down the ludicrous idea that the new restaurants on Atlantic (which mostly took the place of previous restaurants) had a damn thing to do with the park. Talk about propaganda. And yes, why would we ever doubt the veracity of deals made between connected govt officials and developers. Look how well and honestly Ratner’s Atlantic Yards went. Just as promised. Right…no reason to fear this wonderful change at all. My apologies.

  • WillowSt.Neighbor

    I was at the park dedication and remembered Mayor Bloomberg saying that his friends in France had heard about the park.
    Hmmm. So much for BBP being a “neighborhood” park.

  • resident

    @Neighbor Hood: So now that your “Central Park is funded by taxpayers” argument has been proven incorrect, you’re floating an idea that rich people should pay, but just different rich people from the system already devised? Brilliant idea! Of course, the Central Park Conservancy has built up its fundraising over the course of 30 years, and you’d have to also compete with the Prospect Park conservancy, and you have the fact that a park built on piers takes a lot more in maintenance cost. But sure, lets all hold a bake sale, we’ll earn enough money. Note, this plan was put into effect for Millennial Park in Chicago, and failed miserably. The city is left paying the bill there, and plenty of politicians are trying to chip away at the money for parks in their own districts.

    Again, please go research the Hudson River Park issue and problems they’re dealing with due to income generating aspects of the park needed to fund maintenance being rejected.

  • Neighbor Hood

    @resident, I was merely pointing out he discrepancy between the 2 systems. I still maintain, and always have that the city can and should have funded a simpler open park space out of existing funds. When this idea was taking shape the city was flush with cash, and the mayor doesn’t seem to have trouble finding funding for projects he prefers (for whatever altruistic reasons he may have I’m sure). This area of Brooklyn is special and quite different from the rest of the city due in large part to its quaintness, relative calm and historic charm. This type of large overdevelopment destroys that “brand” if you will, and the very things that make this area of Brooklyn special and desirable.

  • Mr. Crusty

    Oh Neighbor Hood, throwing the entire kitchen sink into the argument, facts be damned.

    1) the park is hardly “overflowing” and only a small part of the eventual park is open for use. There wil be plenty of room for all.

    2) huge hotel and condo deal? 200 room hotel and 159 units. Let’s assume that each room and each unit represents 2 people. That’s a total of about 750 people at full occupancy. What percentage would use the park,at any one time? 10% maybe on a beautiful summer weekend, and I think that is generous. So 75 additional people visiting an 80 acre park is going to worsen the experience for the “neighborhood”. Absurd.

    3) why can’t we have a system more like the Central Park Conservatory? That’s like saying to yourself, why can’t I have a job more like Evanka Trump? The city would love it of people donated to the BBP Conservatory but wishing something doesn’t make it so. It’s not the “system” it’s the donations. BBP is not Central Park and will never generate that type of philanthropy.

    4) do you really think this is about Bloomberg making himself more money? Really? I know we are all cynical about politics but do you REALLY think that is his motivation. And as I showed previously with the history of the park, private development including a hotel and residential building were part of the plan way before Bloomberg was elected Mayor

    5) “no reason to fear this wonderful change at all” huh? What change are you talking about? Like I said the history of the park is there for everyone to read. There is no change. From day one the plan was to have private development pay for some of the cost of the park and it’s very expensive upkeep.

  • stuart

    the more geezers and curmudgeons that move out of the neighborhood because things have “changed” since the 1960’s, the better.
    The residents that will move in to take their place are younger, richer, smarter, and more attractive.

  • BH’er

    bunch of chicken littles around here, aren’tcha?

    the city will have every interest in seeing the park stay healthy and the more that gets built up around it, the more certain that is to happen

    my concern is that with buildings along columbia heights falling into disrepair (there are several that aren’t looking so hot these days), there won’t be enough of a voice to keep tall buildings from springing up – so, the sooner they build, the better – take up all the land with low slung buildings before we lose the population and influence to stop it

    second, is there any possibility for subway stops to be added to any of the tunnels that would empty out to the park on the 4/5, R, 2/3 or even A/C lines?

    It would be really great to have subway access to the park, which would bring more people and activity there

    The more development there is, the more we’ll see in new restaurants, more shops and more options all around.

    I don’t think anything could be better for our nabe than more development – and, the sooner, the better

  • A math major

    BHer, no worries about the state of the buildings on Columbia Heights. Tall buildings will never go up down in the park except down at the foot of Atlantic — the view from the promenade is legally protected.

  • Elmer Fudd

    Stuart, just how much MORE commission do you expect to make off all the smarter, prettier, richer people just rushing to move here?

    Where will they send their kids to school? Will they be able to walk on the sidewalks? Will there be any green space left for any relaxation? Will there be any supermarkets left to buy groceries from?

    Will there be any bohemians left? Any creative spark left to inspire artists and creative people? Any place left for young people to live who aren’t already rich, and can’t afford Million-Dollar condos?

    You are trying to kill Brooklyn as most people knew it, and loved it.

    When is too much $$ enough for you?

  • yoohoo

    One more thing: You forget that the piers were the property of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, so both states were involved in the negotiations to create the BBP. As I mentioned earlier, the PA introduced a plan in the 1980’s to sell Piers 1-5 to the highest bidder(s) for commercial development. That could have been big-box stores or residential development, or a combination thereof. A sample plan showed the entire upland area and all piers covered with housing and a public promenade along the periphery of the piers, similar to the Battery Park City Esplanade (don’t forget that the residents and businesses of Battery Park City pay for the maintenance and security of this amenity). The fan-shaped protected view from the entire length of the Brooklyn Heights Promenade imposes height restrictions of 55 feet along Furman Street tapering down to 25 feet at piers’ end, which would have meant low-density luxury housing. Luckily, this scheme was averted and nobody knows whether any developer would have responded given the limited weight-bearing capacity of the piers, the height restrictions and the many millions it costs to maintain the pier understructure. Then-Governor Cuomo was not supportive of the park concept and neither was then-Borough President Golden, but after the promulgation of 13 guiding principles the latter changed his mind and contributed generously for early planning studies.

    At the behest of park advocates, the “interbridge” area as far as the ConEdison-owned lot on John Street just north of the Manhattan Bridge and Pier 6 were eventually included in the BBP plan. What is now called Main Street Park in Dumbo was an NYC-owned parking lot and, to my knowledge, is already incorporated into BBP. Empire State Fulton Ferry Park, the section between the Brooklyn Bridge and the “Cove,” awaits formal transfer from the State of New York.

    Brooklyn Bridge Park was never envisioned as a “neighborhood” park. Like Central Park and Prospect Park, it is a NYC park under the jurisdiction of the Dept. of Parks and Recreation, and the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation is charged with building it. When the park is completed, there may well be a foundation like the Central Park Conservancy to operate it for NYC Parks. For the time being, the BBP Conservancy raises money to pay for each and every program.

    The Memorandum of Understanding that governs construction and maintenance of BBP was signed by Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg and provides for NYC and NYS funding of park construction and the mandate that operation and maintenance must be borne by the private sector.

  • yoohoo

    @BH’er, an extension of the Clark Street station was proposed and even investigated years ago. By the time the tunnel approaches Furman Street, it is already so deep in the ground that the construction costs would reach the stratosphere, and I trust you’re conversant with the MTA’s budgetary woes. Also, I doubt that, after 9/11, federal, state and city governing bodies and agencies would be amenable to any changes, expansion, or whatever, affecting the subway tunnels that traverse underneath the East River.

  • http://www.flashlightworthybooks.com Flashlight Worthy

    Yoohoo-

    Thanks for the history lesson — I never knew there was housing conteplated all the way out onto the piers.

    A couple minor corrections?

    The Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation was charged with building the park, but they now also seem to be charged with maintaining it as well. (Whether that was an official decision made and codified at somepoint or just the reality of “oh crap, we built and opened dozens of acres of park — who’s gonna empty the trash cans?” I don’t know.)

    As far as there being a foundation like the Central Park Conservancy some day… there already is — the Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy you mentioned. Whether their role morphs into one of *maintaining* the park as well as providing *programming* for the park, I don’t know (…though I doubt it. The Central Park Conservancy took on that role because the city was doing such a poor job of it. The BBP Conservancy wouldn’t need to do so as the BBP Corporation is doing such a good job of maintenance.)

    (Full disclosure, I’m a board member of the Brooklyn Bridge Park * Conservancy* under my real name, Peter Steinberg.)

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →