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

By on June 5, 2013 7:50 am in brooklyn bridge park, Development

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:

,

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →
  • Joe A

    Amen.

  • bialy

    Joe A, you have to be the biggest bonehead in Brooklyn. Every single statement you have ever made on this site totally ridiculous. I doubt you even live in the Heights and are just some jealous wannabe from a crappy nabe and want the same for us. Take your condos and your stupid bike share and place them in your air space.

  • Joe A

    Ahhhh…. Bialy is upset. Looks like he is about to blow.

  • MonroeOrange

    once again..you are the only two who thinks this is beneficial……not just me who thinks your delusional, look at all the opposing comments (facts speak louder than your opinions)

  • BenF

    Please let us all know exactly who the “park advocates” were who were “forced” to accept housing?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    How so?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    I’m happy you agree with me on this issue, it will save me a lot of typing :) However to clarify my view, I don’t think the park itself is bad just the underhanded way it came to be.

  • Sylvester

    Joe (aka Mr. Crusty) and Gator always seem to work together in support of Regina Myer – for some reason or another. (Gator sings like a lawyer, he can always make absolutely nothing sound just beautiful.)

  • Ann B Chapin

    We DO need more schools!!

  • Ann B Chapin

    AMEN!

  • Joe A

    It was just a little dig at MO because he has demonstrated in the bike share threads, a complete lack of analytical tools or even an understanding of the facts involved.

    When it comes to BBP, it is less black and white with me. I have my opinion and you have yours and both sides can present reasonable arguments. I think the trade off of commercial development on a small portion of the project’s footprint is a reasonable price to pay for what will be a stunning world class park to be enjoyed by NYers for generations. But that is a subjective opinion. You may believe it could have been accomplished without commercial development. That is something that we will never be able to know.

  • Joe A

    I don’t know Regina Myer from a hole in the wall. Why does there have to be some alternative (corrupt) motivation to be supportive of the decisions that has brought this gorgeous park to our backyard? You can disagree with my opinions all you want but to suggest some dark sinister motivation is just silly.

  • Still Here

    The original advocates in the 1980’s who accepted the condition of self-sustaining park, as an alternative to as-of-right commercial development of the piers, were all from the community based associations of the time – BHA, FFLA, CHA, DNA, VHNA, CB2, CB6, etc as well as many unaffiliated private individuals, and were supported by the locally elected officials. The Brooklyn Bridge Park Coalition evolved out of this pool of community resources in the early 1990’s, and it represented many other surrounding community organizations, as well. The LDC formed by the state in 1998 to move this forward was also formed out of these same community resources. The original principals for the park, agreed to and accepted by all these groups, included an acceptance of a self-funding model, and while not preferred, residential was considered possible, but was viewed only as a remote possiblitly. A hotel/convention center always seemed to be in the plans including the broadly supported LDC plan in 2000. The actual inclusion of residential/condos, a surprise to everyone, did not show up until the LDC/BBPDC’s Master Plan in 2005 and was after much economic analysis of all alternatives.

  • MonroeOrange

    don’t try to back track now Joe…you insulted your boy Arch and now your trying to cover it up..stand by what you said..i do

  • BenF

    The LDC plan approved by both the Mayor and the Governor did NOT include residential housing. So that means that the 180 degree change from a funding stream that relied on a mix of uses (not including housing) was made behind closed doors by the BBPDC (a group composed almost entirely of wealthy residents of Brooklyn Heights) with no consultation with any of the groups Still Here mentioned– FFLA, CHA, DNA, VHNA, CB2, CB6. So it is false to say that the choice to accept housing was a community-based decision when in fact it was a unilateral decision made by a very small group of individuals — who also made the decision NOT to inform the original coalition members of the very significant change they made to the plan that all the aforementioned groups approved. The choice to rely on housing was a unilateral decision. It is a simply a lie to represent this choice as being democratically arrived at by a community based process. The truth is that the choice for housing was made by a small group of individuals who felt that residential housing was best for themselves. The public was not consulted, but simply informed of the decision well after it had been made.

  • gatornyc

    The definition of hyperbole is “bialy.” Who would have thought.

  • Joe A

    Arch is certainly not my “boy”, we have butted heads on issues in the past and I assume we will in the future. I think he is wrong on this but right on the bike share program. Do you find that somehow unusual?

    On the other hand, you are a moron and will always be a moron. See the difference?

  • MonroeOrange

    i see that you are clearly a child to not be able to debate without name calling….i now see that you are Mr. Crusty, which makes sense…good luck to you in life, you’ll certainly need it with that attitude.

  • PB

    The new building is no taller than the old buildings they replace. It just looks that way because this image is taken from ground level from down within the park — a view you were not used to having. You were used to looking down on the old buildings from above on the Promenade.

  • PB

    These two are not alone. Count me in for preferring a park with a few condos sprinkled along the edges to a “closed to the public” set of industrial warehouses and abandoned buildings (which is exactly what was there before).

    Yes. in an ideal world we would have nothing but flawless park. But we don’t live in an ideal world do we? Life is full of compromise. If no one compromises, absolutely nothing *ever* gets done.

  • PB

    BTW, a little late to conversation here but this whole “condos in a park is an abomination!” argument strikes me as absurd.

    The new development takes up fewer than 5% of the total acres of the park. And that was *before* all of Pier 6 was added to the park plan.

    If the city said this:

    “We’d love to build a park here but we’re nervous that the upkeep will be lost in future city budgets so here’s what we’re going to do: we’re going to take 95% of the land and build a gorgeous park!

    And we’re going to sell the other 5% of the land to the highest bidder and put the proceeds in a trust forever dedicated to the park. And better yet, we’re going to make sure the land isn’t used inappropriately… no warehouses, no factories, no cement plants… just quiet use.”

    Who would have argued with that?

    And what we have now? It’s fundamentally no different. To-may-to, to-mah-to. Bottom line, there’s a great park underway. There are a few buildings being built around the edges. There was no other *realistic* way to get the park done and maintained otherwise. End of story.

  • PB

    I completely agree re: the Watchtower properties. The Furman buildings are going to have their value cut dramatically by the new construction. If they became the hotel then the flatland below could be more park.

    On the other hand, these new buildings will block a LOT of the highway noise in that section of the park.

    Ah well.

  • Cranberry Beret

    I think the most relevant point is while there may have been (and continues to be) legitimate debate over whether it’s necessary for any significant new park to be self-sustaining, it’s clear that the people who answer “no” to that question were never going to persuade the “yes” people to build the park without the 95/5 compromise. (And by clear, I mean they tried for 20+ years and failed.) So for the “no” people to argue that they’d rather have 0 park instead of 95 at this point is just a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    Fair enough, as long as you don’t put me in the same category as MO :)

    As far as the BBP, which I do enjoy by the way, I think the attitude of “the ends justify the means” is a slippery slope. First it’s a beautiful park for some condos, next it’s a new library (but much smaller) for condos, then it’s no hospital for condos….

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    “There was no other *realistic* way to get the park done and maintained otherwise”

    Really, how about every other park in the city, how are they maintained?

    BTW adding “End of story” at the end of your thesis does not automatically make it true.

  • PB

    First, apologies for the “end of story”… That’s a little close mi des of me.

    In answer to your question about other parks and how they’re funded, let’s look at some major Parks in the city:

    Central Park’s maintenance is about 85% funded through private donations.

    Prospect Park is about half funded with private donations.

    Before either of their conservancies became the powerhouses they are the parks were a crumbling mess.

    The Highline is ~100% maintained through private donations from incredibly wealthy neighbors (they had a fundraiser recently where there was a challenge to write a million dollar check on the spot and more than one person accepted.)

    So yes, if you think private donations could bring in the $10 to $15 million annual budget of our park — every year — then we could ditch the condos. Of course, the Conservancy works extremely hard at fundraising and brings in less than $2 million a year.

    Hudson River Park isn’t properly funded. The city doesn’t pay and they don’t have enough money to keep the park together.

    Corona Park in Queens? There was just an article in the Times about how it’s falling apart.

    Rockefeller Park in Battery Park City? It’s paid for by the condos all along the edge of the park.

    Union Square Park, Madison Square Park and Bryant Park? All more or less renovated and supported by private fundraising from the businesses that immediately surround them. BBP lacks such businesses… unless you think The Brooklyn Ice Cream Factory and The River Cafe can pony up millions of dollars.

    I’m sure there ARE some major parks in relatively good shape that are mostly funded by the city but as you can see, BBP is far from the first to have to rely on funding other than the City Parks budget.

    (And for those that take issue with the size of the annual budget, don’t go on about electric carts and such. The vast majority of the budget is to maintain the pilings under the piers over time. Not budgeting for that results in our park falling into the Harbor like a number of New Jersey’s recent parks.)

  • PB

    Very well — and succinctly — stated.

  • Joe A

    Thanks for injecting some well needed factual information into the discussion.

  • Andrew Porter

    But that view allowed people to see the cops arresting cocaine importers working the Gran Columbia shipping lines!

  • Andrew Porter

    If there’s one thing you couldn’t blame on the Port Authority, it was “dilapidated … rusting piers.” The PA kept everything in excellent condition. The warehouses themselves were all replaced with new structures in the 1950s.

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →