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:

, , , ,

  • LoveLaneLovely

    I have been a big fan of the park/ development until I saw the new building blocking our beautiful view. I feel betrayed.

  • marshasrimler

    maybe. but this is another example of the steamroller developers and their handmaidens witty , guttman ,aschkenazy,collins, kantrowitz who insist on destroying our community. the schools are overcrowded. Did these folks ever send their kids to public schools . do they know what this is like
    Did the BHA people? NO MORE CONDOS

  • marshasrimler

    BBPDC was corrupt from day 1 when they put 1 BBP on state land to avoid ULURP. Developer tricks that that some pols and leaders went along with.

  • marshasrimler

    that is a good phrase DISEASED LEADERSHIP

  • marshasrimler

    sorry. but you are naive. I have been invalid in these issues since the 70’s.. developers and
    faux community leaders lie. lie.. lie

  • Fritz

    Did BHA agree to the Pier House? Finally a development I can hate. Was this private land before the Park?

  • gatornyc

    Wrong. The land and building that became OBBP was privately owned last by the Jehovah’s Witnesses before they sold it to the developer of OBBP.

  • marshasrimler

    Yes. But after the sale they made in part of the state park to purposefully get around going through ULURP

  • gatornyc

    But it was private land to begin with so what’s the problem? As private land, it never needed to go through ULURP to begin with.

  • marshasrimler

    Wrong. It was privately owned city land that changed uses and would have Gone through ulurp
    Except that it was put in the state run park (at the time) specifically to bypass ulurp