With Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pierhouse Units Selling in Record Time, Here’s What Towers at Pier 6 Look Like

Word comes today that units at Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pierhouse are selling like hotcakes:

Curbed: The newest batch of condos rising in Brooklyn Bridge Park barely has a physical structure, but the still non-existent units are selling very fast, and at very high prices—record-setting prices in fact. The Journal reports that a four-bedroom penthouse in Pierhouse, currently being constructed beside Pier 1 in the waterfront park, went into contract for $11.18 million, and if it closes for that price, it will be the most expensive condo ever sold in the borough.

And despite local electeds pleas to Mayor deBlasio to slow progress of housing at Pier 6, a BHB tipster sent us this outline of what the footprint and profile of the proposed towers there might look like:

Share this Story:
  • nathan

    These are actually two plots of land, with a building on each. The second plot, with the shorter building (further from the water) is planned to be 100% low income housing, PER the MAYOR’s request. Brooklyn Bridge Park leadership held a meeting with residents of One Brooklyn Bridge Park, and dictated to them that the Park leadership has changed the mission of the park to include low income housing, at the mayors request. You may not be aware of this, b/c this is a 180 degree turn in direction from anything previously planned.

  • RemsenRes

    I applaud the mayor for this move. He should make both 100% low income housing.

  • TeddyNYC

    No more sunsets on State Street.

  • DIBS

    NO, they shouldn’t be. the locations would command premium pricing and because of that would generate premium real estate taxes. this is really a misuse of valuable land. Plenty of other locations for 100% low income/affordable

  • Rick

    Low income housing? Steven and Vanessa are not going to like this one bit.

  • Jorale-man

    That picture doesn’t exactly look like a legit architectural rendering. Unless the building really is going to be transparent blue?

    The again, they’re butchering the park so much with the Pierhouse Project, nothing would surprise me at this point.

  • gc

    WHAT, so we won’t be footing the bill for the seemingly requisite 10+ years of tax abatements that always seems attached for the benefit of the real estate developer crowd?

  • ujh

    Jorale-man, put on your thinking cap! What you see superimposed are the building “envelopes” that show the volumes, within which the buildings will be built.
    And Nathan, where did you get your information about the lower building being 100% low-income? The mayor may conceivably demand an 80% market-rate and 20% MAI (median area income) split, but MAI is NOT low-income.

  • econ 101

    Putting aside whatever your feelings were/are about using revenue from private housing to fund the maintenance and operation of a public park (and a beautiful one, at that), the economic implications of low income housing at Pier 6 are a loser for almost everyone.

    Subsidized housing will not generate revenues like private housing. That means there will be less money to keep up the park–entire sections of which are not yet operational. Some sections, like the dog run, are already in need of major renovation. It also means that the financial burden of funding the park’s operations will fall on fewer homeowners than originally planned, so those people lose.

    The only ones who benefit are the relatively few lottery winners who get subsidized units on the waterfront. So the general public subsidizes the construction of their new homes and presumably contributes to their maintenance and funds any future flood-related repairs, etc.

    One can be in favor of increasing the amount of subsidized housing stock for lower income families without supporting this particular bad decision. This is populist grandstanding by DeBlasio.

    @gc: the apartments at Pierhouse and John St. don’t have tax abatements attached–at least not for residents. On average, those homeowners contribute $20k a year to park fees–way above the average property taxes in the area.

  • Strauss

    1- DIRECTLY FROM THE PARK ADMINISTRATION, that is where the info comes that one building will be affordable housing.

  • Strauss

    2- Affordable housing is NOT MAI. Per page 62 of the mayor’s 10-year plan: 50-60% of AMI (Area Median Income) is best served by these programs, and he’d like to drive that as low as 30-50%.

  • MrBlifil

    That 4 bedroom penthouse would be nice, but a bit isolated no? Long walk to nearest subway and I’d hate to be dependent on the ferry. No cabs in the daytime. Hope the buyers had enough left over to buy their chauffeur a unit nearby.

  • thenewsjunkie

    Would that really be the best use of this property? No one in their right mind would argue against creating more affordable housing in Brooklyn and the rest of the city. But when it comes to determining how each plot of land should be developed (through the use of zoning and tax breaks) the city has to look at the big picture and how to reap the most gain for the greatest number of people with plots of real estate like these two. Could the city come up with some sort of arrangement that makes it possible for a developer to finance a 100% affordable housing development here? Sure. Would that make the most sense? Probably not. Our wonderful waterfront park comes with a huge annual operating cost and those piers are going to require constant maintenance in order to prevent them from succumbing to erosion and the elements. There are really only two ways to fund a park like Brooklyn Bridge Park – raise taxes or generate a revenue stream from the private sector and free market that can be used to support the park. Which would use choose?

  • thenewsjunkie

    How is it butchering the park? When you’re at the park are you looking in the direction of the BQE or are you looking toward the East RIver and Manhattan?

  • thenewsjunkie

    Crappy Subway options doesn’t seem to have hurt DUMBO.

  • GHB

    I feel bad for anyone who bought a south-facing apartment in One Brooklyn Bridge Park!

  • TMS

    I am dreading the completion of all Bklyn bridge park buildings. They are all ugly and unwanted by many current residents. Hudson River Park spans most of Manhattan without such buildings for income. It seems no one really looked into any viable options. Overzealous developers and political allies, in my opinion, seem to be ruining the tranquility and charm of Bklyn Heights. It’s no longer a small town feel anymore. It’s now just another big city.

  • johnny cakes

    Blame it on Regina Myers.

  • BrooklynCoffeeLover

    The BQE with those beautiful eyes. Mmmmmm

  • BrooklynCoffeeLover

    Don’t feel bad. They are happy to have the place and paid a ton for it.

  • flagel

    I could not agree more. ugly desecration of the area. so we will have some Chinese and Russian billionaires down there mixed in with some folks that likely wont like commuting to work from down there. If they will even work. Totally ridiculous.

  • DIBS

    Once the abatements end, taxes are very, very high

  • BH_1981

    Just curious, if these become affordable housing, will this be the nicest affordable housing in all NYC? This is a far cry from the “East New York” development for affordable housing De Blasio mentioned in his press release on his plan… getting one of these would indeed be like winning the lottery?

  • petercow

    Yeah – let’s build a 21st century housing project! The ones we built last century worked out great!

  • Steven Rosen-Ambriz
  • Guest

    that is public land the city sold for revenue, public park land and space that our tax dollars go to support. now it has been sold to developers to close government budget holes while GE still pays no taxes. if these greedy corporations paid their fair share instead of millions to their CEO’s we would not need to sell our park land for revenue. period. end of story. and our parks get chipped away for more of the 1%. no matter how you slice it, everything is for the 1%.

  • Guest

    that land was public park land the government sold to business developers

  • Lucia P

    that was public park land the city sold to business developers to close their budget gaps. instead of making corporations pay their fair share in taxes we chip away at parks for fast cash. those new buildings are hideously ugly and take away from the beautiful view. disgusting. shameful.

  • fast_walker

    It looks like various points of view have finally converged on this one topic (I hope this doesn’t kill this blog, I was almost disappointed!). Any subsidized housing on Pier 6 is a loss to everyone, regardless of your opinion about the park funding model. I second econ 101 and many others. Call me a cynic, but having disproportionately nice income housing project makes you wonder how fair the lottery will actually be. Will this encourage bribery in already corrput system? There’s a petition that has been started. You can help by signing:

  • Teresa

    Nice xenophobia there, flagel, with a touch of racism.