How Do Ya Like That: Proposed Look Of The Pierhouse Brooklyn Bridge Park Condos

The NY Post reports on the Toll Brothers and Starwood Capital’s unveiling of the “new look” of the Pierhouse condos planned for Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pier 1.

NY Post: The Pierhouse apartments are stacked vertically and many feature private outdoor terraces filled with trees, grass and other planting “We wanted to bring the feel of being in a park up into the building,” David Von Spreckelsen, of Toll Brothers, told The Post.

The lower units face the new Squibb Park Bridge linking the park to Brooklyn Heights above. The Brooklyn Bridge is slightly past the hotel to the north.

The new development is essential to completing the entire 85-acre park project as it will generate $3.3 million in revenues towards the expected $16.1 million annual maintenance budget, officials say. It will also include restaurant and retail space, a banquet hall, fitness center and 300 parking spaces.

This development will join One Brooklyn Bridge Park and the proposed residential project on John Street. DUMBONYC reported on the plans for John Street yesterday.

Share this Story:


  • Jorale-man


  • ColumbiaHeightster

    Let the hate begin…

  • Sylvester

    Now that the BBP is officially a NY City Park (and not a community development project), it is supposed to be illegal to build private residences on public parkland.

  • WhereBrooklynAt

    There shouldn’t be any residential buildings in this otherwise beautiful park.

  • RobertMoses

    Hope there’s room for a bunch of Citibikes!

  • TMS

    Are they building a new school for all the new developments going up? the local schools CANNOT support growing population of the neighborhood. Also, Central Park and Prospect Park don’t have houses smack dab in the middle of them. Why should this park?

  • StoptheChop

    Years ago, NYC and NYS forced park advocates to accept housing in BBP as part of their new paradigm: “Public parks should be financially self-sustaining”. That public policy position hasn’t changed. Park developers considered a range of money-makers and thought housing would be the most appropriate.

  • BenF

    Sorry, but placing housing inside the park does not in anyway relieve the taxpayers from paying for the park– it merely shifts the burden. Residents living within the park pay will PILOT’s (payments in lieu of taxes) to support the park, but all the rest of us will pay for fire, police, education and the myriad of other public services that the new Pierhouse residents will not pay for. So, in addition subsidizing wealthy residents to live inside a “park”, under this new paradigm, the public does not even wind up with a real park (one without housing) at the end of the day!

  • StoptheChop

    The PILOT is in lieu of property taxes, not NYC income taxes, of course.

  • cat

    This building looks higher than the original plan. Will it block the view of the Brooklyn Bridge from the Promenade?

  • Heights_Neighbor

    I thought BBP actually was not a NY City Park, and that’s why they can make their own rules. Did somethingbcangeL

  • Josh’s Corner

    This shouldn’t be allowed I think. Brooklyn Heights residents and others around, all New Yorkers I think should protest against this. I take photos from the Brooklyn Heights Promenade and I can assure you this structure will forever change what you see from up there. It will ruin the park, ruin the views, ruin the area plain and simple. Why can’t they just renovate the park? Make a picnic area? Or something for the family to do stuff? A dog park? Make little shops? But not this garbage they are putting up. Very sad. Was disappointed when I saw this on Saturday when I went there.

  • Josh’s Corner

    I honestly think it will

  • Joe A

    This has been gone over and discussed ad nauseam.

  • Joe A

    Then there wouldn’t have been any park and we could have lived with the dilapidated warehouses and rusting piers.

  • Joe A

    Renovate what park? The park that was only made possible and sustainable by including private development in a small portion of the available land? That park?

  • TMS

    What was the resolution?

  • Arch Stanton

    Um, more like the park is only an excuse to to develop the area for housing and commercial purposes. This story has been going on for over 20 years now. One of the first plans back in the late 80’s called for condos along the entire length of Furman St. When that didn’t fly, they came up with the park plan. The park is a win win for the developers, it allows them to build there and makes the property much more valuable. True we get a park out of the deal but it is stated purpose is disingenuous.

  • Joe A

    I think your questions about the development in the project footprint. I don’t have any answers regarding your questions about schools.

  • Joe A

    A reminder ladies and gentlemen. As bad as you may think the private development is, it sure beats this view:

  • Sal Manilla

    It looks nice, I would move there.

  • Bloomy

    The one issue I see with the building are the “private outdoor terraces filled with trees, grass and other planting” . While it looks nice and uniform in the concept photo, depending on private residents to upkeep the outwards appearance of the building may be a poor choice in the end. Hopefully everyone who lives there has a green thumb, but only time will tell.

  • Joan Craig

    The buildings, as I understand it, will be within the “project area” which includes both park and non-park (development) areas. So that takes care of the ” no-development-on-parkland issue” from a legal point of view.

    It would have been great, though, if the powers-that-be would have waited for the existing Watchtower properties along Furman and Vine Streets, which are not now generating real property taxes, to become available. Those could be converted to residential and hotel use, returned to the tax rolls (with the payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS)) going to support park maintenance. (And the taxes generated by that property presumably would be greater than those that will be generated once the Watchtower properties’ views are boxed in by the Toll development.) The burden on infrastructure would be less than the new development and the viewplane virtually unchanged. And the area where the hotel and condos are now going up could be re-designated as parkland.

    Win, win.

  • MonroeOrange

    wow Joe A and Arch actually disagree with each other…you guys better cut that tandem bike in half…i agree with Arch on this one (sorry Arch, im sure you don’t want to hear that!)! If the purpose was to have a park, then lets have a park, not condos with park land surrounding it. How does the city maintain the hundreds of other parks that don’t have condos built in it.

    And Joe, i would much rather have the abandon warehouses than condos….it was actually a very nice view before the park was there too!

  • MonroeOrange

    judging by the comments on here, you are very alone on this issue Joe…you couldn’t be more wrong about this one…we would all rather have the warehouses and rusting piers (which actually were a nice blend of old and new world eras) than condos that will benefit only very few, and hinder the view of many.

  • Sylvester

    Yes, something has changed. BBP is now a real NYC Park. It happened just recently.

  • gatornyc

    No Joe is not alone. The large majority (yes majority) is just tired of debating the issue. It’s over. There will be condos in the park and the park exists because of it. The end. Now try to go enjoy the amazing park.

    P.S. Which condo obstructs the view of anyone? Certainly not OBBP as it was an existing building. And not the new condo on Pier One which simply replaces the Cold Storage Building. All of these arguments have been made. Again its now time to just enjoy the park.

  • MonroeOrange

    wow…you must be related to Joe bc you clearly are just as delusional…what majority? look at this thread alone, you 2 are the only ones for this…and you are fooling yourself to think these won’t obstruct the view….

  • gatornyc

    From reading your posts it seems that you feel that everyone who disagrees with you is delusional. Unfortunately, it is you who is delusional. As I said in my prior post, you are only hearing from the people who hate condos in the park because they — and you — will complain about it for the next 20 years. Its over, we are getting a world class park and there will be condos in it. The end.

  • Joe A

    The fact that you agree with Arch on this one only confirms the correctness of my position.