Brooklyn Heights Preservation Pioneers Speak Out Against Pierhouse’s Height Blocking View

Brownstoner reports on the battle over the height of Toll Brothers Pierhouse condos and hotel now in construction at Pier 1.

This latest dispute about the Park has raised the ire of two of Brooklyn Heights most beloved and passionate community activists, Otis Pratt Pearsall and Martin Schneider.

RELATED: Read Heights Preservation Leaders’ History of Brooklyn Bridge Park

At issue: the height of the new building and whether it violates either the spirit or the letter of a 2005 agreement that sought to preserve views of the Brooklyn Bridge from the Brooklyn Heights Promenade. In the opinion of preservationist Otis Pratt Pearsall and the Brooklyn Heights Association, it does. Park management has another take.

Brownstoner goes on to detail the 2005 discussions between Mr. Pearsall, the BHA and Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation to “hammer out an agreement intended to preserve or even enhance the existing view of the Brooklyn Bridge from the Brooklyn Heights Promenade — ‘a famous view of international importance,’ in Pearsall’s words — as future developments rose in Brooklyn Bridge Park.”

Now Pearsall and the BHA have cried “foul” because a three-story addition on the Pierhouse—which will contain a bar as well as mechanical and elevator equipment—is clearly visible crowning the hotel portion of the Pierhouse.

According to Mr. Pearsall, the most revered preservationist in Brooklyn, the 30 foot high addition “bifurcates” the view of the Brooklyn Bridge from the Promenade.

Martin Schneider, another greatly respected Brooklyn Heights’ voice, also weighed in about this latest dispute over BBP, which Brownstoner described as “another tempest (you decide if it’s in a teacup)”:

This article in today’s Brownstoner effectively summarizes and illustrates the issue over the projected height of the still under-construction Pierhouse at Pier One in the Brooklyn Bridge Park.

Despite the struggle to hold down the height of the building which Otis Pearsall engaged in nine years ago, it appears that this world class view of the great Brooklyn Bridge is about to be seriously compromised.

Exactly why that is happening remains to be revealed. Likewise, whether it can be rolled back is up in the air.

But this concise article sets the issue forth with impact. Hopefully, other media will pick up on it and with the help of an informed concerned citizenry, it will yet be stopped.

PHOTO CREDIT: Brownstoner

Share this Story:

, , , ,

  • Cindy Sm

    There aren’t enough $ billions in the Heights
    to have acquired all or the greater part of
    The entire area under the promenade???
    But NO… during that period the “leading
    Preservationists” in the Heights were too
    Busy making hundreds of million dollars
    Through their investment banks and the
    Start of London black pools. I was there
    To watch all this.

  • Cindy Sm

    See they want preservation where
    Someone else pays…basic London
    Doctrine don’t you know…

    Then when something goes terribly
    Wrong, they want to cry big A-A
    Tears…that bad 16 or 26 Court St
    Type destroying our Heights…

    Only ONE element destroyed or is
    Now destroying the Heights and
    They all have homes on Willow
    Or Columbia Heights and I DON’T
    mean beyond Clark held under
    Old law trusts…

  • TMS

    true that!

  • MonroeOrange

    I’ve been a vocal opponent against the building of the BBP for all these years, bc i KNEW that even though they had agreed to not have any buildings built there that would obstruct the promenade view, they would indeed be building to any height they wanted and then say…”oops!”.

    Does anyone really think they are going to somehow lower the building now? i hope so, but i don’t think so. And now that this building is already obstructing the views, who’s to stop other buildings from building higher than the promenade. The precedent has been set.

    I much preferred the view of the warehouse and pier to a park that has an ever shrinking amount of greenspace and buildings that obstruct the view. I’m sure John Roebling is rolling over in his grave.

  • MonroeOrange

    so you would have somehow stopped this construction, that it appears no one knew was happening, until it was built? That would have been a neat trick.

  • Cindy Sm

    Yes but the people who at base
    CAUSED this are the 1960’s – 80’s
    “Respectected/revered ” leaders”
    Who could have acquired the
    properties. What? There isn’t the
    Available capital especially at
    That time? Don’t make me laugh.
    And NOW they want to cry?
    Look, they want to dabble in
    Their black pools, and they want
    Preservation with someone
    Other’s funds. Hello? Are these
    Concepts going over all Your
    heads?

  • gatornyc

    The only portion of the building at issue is the “three-story addition on the Pierhouse–which will contain a bar as well as mechanical and elevator equipment.” It certainly appears to violate the preserved viewplane and therefore can and should be removed (builders have been required to and have removed improper additions before). It would not require the builder to “somehow lower the building.” In addition, a violation of the viewplane requirements certainly does not set any precedent and in any event there are no other development sites in the area.

    As for your comment that you prefer a view of a derelict warehouse and the unused, dilapidated sheds of the pier as opposed to beautiful parkland I can’t fathom a response other than to say I am quite sure John Roebling would have welcomed such a backdrop and use of the space.

  • Park Lover

    Could have bought what? These were working piers into the 80’s, with long leases (as is still the case with Pier 7). And it took a good 20 years to convince the Port Authority and other government agencies to convert them into a park. So what are you talking about?

  • MonroeOrange

    just spoke to Mr. Roebling…he is outraged!

  • Park Lover

    The BBPDC wants entitlement to call all the shots when it comes to quality of life in DUMBO, Brooklyn Heights and part of Cobble Hill — even though these neighborhoods have been around for well over 100 years and were original supporters of the Park. But now that it’s a “destination”– well “if you don’t like it, leave!” (The most obnoxious retort, whenever communities raise legitimate issues.)

  • gatornyc

    That’s funny, we just spoke and he has no idea what you’re talking about. Mr. Roebling is a huge BPP fan!

  • gatornyc

    From reading her posts, I’m pretty sure that Cindy doesn’t know what Cindy is talking about.

  • Cindy Sm

    In this we are speaking about privately
    Owned buildings. But the larger concept
    Is that there was no real attempt to
    Bring as much of the properties under
    The ownership of the security of indiv-
    Iduals loyal to the the Heights as a
    Unique highly valuable special place.

    And, by the way, as a long term Heights
    Resident, I was here to see the birth
    Of this quasi private corporation which
    Was from day ONE the corporation was
    Responsive to ONE entity…itself!

    And by the way, rock throwers,
    The law firms I was and am
    Associated with represented
    Most of the Heights “elite”
    I know the whole crew..

    Sure, they have all of you
    Focused on the (carefully
    Orchastrated) details of
    The process…

    But what is happening is the
    Classic disintegration/down-
    Ward spiral when you have this
    Kind of diseased leadership…
    All they can or will ever do is
    Destroy any high civilization.

    Keep on this path…you’ll be
    Left with NOTHING….

  • Carlotta

    PLEASE, stop that building!! It is sickening to be unable to see the view of the BROOKLYN BRIDGE on the BROOKLYN Promenade.An iconic world class view that has been ruined. I am sickened by it. want to get past all the mistakes and disagreements regarding the BBP and STOP THAT BUILDING FROM BEING FINISHED UNTIL THOSE EXTRA FLOORS ARE TORN DOWN!!! HOW DO WE DO THAT??? HELP!!!

  • Heights Observer

    Not true. No one was able to acquire the property in the 60s to 80s because it was controlled by the bi-state agency known as the Port Authority and was considered public land. Laws had to be changed and when they were, the rich real estate interests were the ones with the money to control the development of the park and the buildings placed within it.

    See Jane’s Carousel for another iconic view spoiled because billionaire Walentas’ wife Jane, wanted it that spot so she could see it from her bedroom window. Remember this is their world and we just live in it!

  • Cindy Sm

    Well, if you want to get the “real
    Estate community” under control
    You have to do two things;

    First you have to find a credible
    Series of grounds to bring this
    Matter into FEDERAL court.
    Because once the matter is
    Out of the NYC/state court
    Circle of their friends, the games
    Stop.

    Second you have to become a
    Real DANGER to the Real estate/
    Lobbyist/financial sector. You
    Have to put serious MONEY on
    The street say $50,000 for in-
    Formation on criminal activity
    In the real estate and related
    Fields. They have become a
    Danger to some of the most
    Valued elements of your lives
    But the heights in each of the
    Above don’t kid your self,
    Necessary actions; these
    Types need to see you put
    Up Serious MONEY…..

  • Cindy Sm

    Trust me, want to get the real estate
    Sector under control…put money
    On the street. The first say three
    Real estate biggies to be indicted
    In strong cases..you’ll get calls
    “Asking for a meeting” cause
    The a few others to come under
    Serious investigation, they’ll be
    A panic. But the Heights has to
    Put serious money on the street…

  • Park Lover

    Ah– but the BBPDC is “Mayor’s Pet”, and they know it– so they feel untouchable (they know they’re unaccountable). Never admit a design mistake, whether it’s as simple as shiny silver domes on the playground (quietly removed) or the traffic disaster at Pier 5 — or totally inappropriate building heights. Don’t expect anything from BBPDC or the BBPC apologists on this one….. they’ll just keep on keepin’ on, as they please, which includes helping the private developers maximize profit!

  • Park Lover

    Yep– those of us who worked hard for the park 20-25 years ago were well and truly snookered by Bloomberg and his developer pals, who saw the park as a development vehicle; and our longstanding communities continue to be treated like nonentities today by an unaccountable EDC/BBPDC. Which is what makes deBlasio’s refusal to reconsider the Pier 6 skyscraper, as long as he can impose a layer of “affordable” housing, regardless of impact, so maddening.

    PS, I still miss the trees and hills that the BBPDC so willingly sacrificed for a merry-go-round.

  • Rock E. Fella

    I checked in with Emily Roebling and she loves BBP (just wishes she could see it from her old place on Columbia Heights)…

  • ujh

    The view from the Brooklyn Heights Promenade is protected by law only within a fan-shaped view plain. Its northern boundary runs approximately through the middle of the Brooklyn Bridge. Thus, the higher section of Pierhouse, which obscures part of the Brooklyn Bridge, and the Pier 6 development site lie outside this protected view plain. Every person who attended the multiple, lengthy planning sessions knows this. I’m surprised that Messrs. Pearsall and Schneider, Ms. Rimler and others must be reminded of this fact.

  • ujh

    You, or we the community, can’t do anything because the view from the Promenade is not protected in its totality, only a fan-shaped portion of it. As the northern part of Pierhouse lies outside this protected view shed, it may not matter whether or not there’s an addition to the building’s height.

  • martinlschneider

    Please see the Nov 5, 2005 issue of the Brooklyn Paper which describes the issue of the view. UJH is hair splitting. “Approximately the middle” of the mile long bridge is still unclear. The view of the great bridge that everyone is concerned about is the tower-to-tower view which is the view that really counts. Doubters need only take a look and then believe what they see and not what they’re told.

  • Solovely

    Dear everyone,

    Mr. Pearsall (and others) is on the record with his much beloved name and status in our community; would ujh care to identify herself/himself? many pert opinions expressed herein, many judgements on our commenting community, and this commentator remains anon? — yes, solovely aka Lori

  • ujh

    Mr. Schneider, if you can instruct me how to embed a scanned document into this blog, I’ll be glad to send you a diagram entitled “Brooklyn Piers/ Figure 6/Zoning and District Limitations,” which I most likely saved from documentation pertaining to the planning of BBP. As an alternative, I can send the scanned document to the BHA with the request that it be forwarded to you. Please advise!

  • Still Here

    ujh – True. The protected Promenade view plain lies just south of the tall part of the hotel and condos and protects views of the water, not the Bridge. However, I believe that there was an agreement between BHA and BBPDC regarding the height of the Pier One hotel building with respect to the bridge deck or light necklace, which was obviously vaguely defined in the plans or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Also, this agreement was before hurricane Sandy which may have altered plans, heights, and locations of mechanicals.

  • MonroeOrange

    you can’t use my bit after i already cleverly used it…get your own material!

  • MonroeOrange

    I’ll take Mr. Roebling’s word over any offspring….i got it straight from the source!

  • brooklynheightsblog

    You can add an image by clicking the little box…
    V

  • martinlschneider

    I am not a lawyer. What I do understand is the clear intention of those with the vision and public interest to protect something very special. Pls see: http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/28/43/28_43nets2.html
    for the original story.