Height of BBP’s Pierhouse Hotel: What Exactly IS the Deal?

To understand the disputed height restrictions of the Pierhouse Hotel structure in Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pier 1, a number of variables need clarification, including the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation’s (BBPC’s) adherence to its own agreement, how the NYC Department of Planning Brooklyn Heights Scenic View District figures into the discussion, and the impact of Hurricane Sandy on New York City waterfront construction requirements.

What is not in dispute is that in the fall of 2005, Otis Pratt Pearsall—the well-respected preservationist from Brooklyn Heights—representeing the Brooklyn Heights Association (BHA) met with Matthew Urbanski, project manager for Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, and Wendy Leventer, President of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation, as BBPC was then called.

In a recent email to Mr. Urbanski obtained by BHB, Mr. Pearsall states the meeting’s purpose was to discuss “limiting the height of the hotel proposed for Pier 1 so as to assure an uninterrupted view of the Brooklyn Bridge roadbed from the Brooklyn Heights Promenade.”

According to a 33 page BHA document dated November 2, 2005, which was meant to codify the discussions early that year, Mr. Pearsall stressed: “Clearly the hotel (including any mechanicals visible from the Promenade) should not in any circumstance be permitted to exceed the 98 foot roofline of the [National] Cold Storage buildings [which occupied the approximate space where the Pierhouse is being built] without the bulkheads.” (See photo below, from Bridge and Tunnel Club, via Brownstoner, of the warehouse building before its demolition, and compare with photo at top, by Claude Scales, of Pierhouse structure taken from approximately the same position on the Promenade–between Pierrepont and Clark streets–today.)

This is where BBPC institutional memory comes into question. Regina Myer replaced Ms. Leventer as President in December 2007. Presumably, a transfer of responsibilities included a commitment to the carefully negotiated deal about the Pierhouse structure, especially because the importance of Brooklyn Bridge views from the Promenade was clearly documented on page 14 of BBP’s RFP for Hotel and Residential Development at Pier 1 from 2011.

“Respondents must comply with the requirements of Article X, Chapter 2: Special Purpose Districts, Special Scenic View District establishing the SV-1 Brooklyn Heights Scenic View District. These requirements seek to protect the waterfront views of the Lower Manhattan skyline, Governors Island, the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge from the Brooklyn Heights Promenade.”

Given that the Pierhouse Hotel as now built is an estimated 130 feet high—including three stories of visible mechanical equipment as well as an outdoor bar—Marvel Architects, designers of the Pierhouse complex, did not honor the 2005 agreement which is also documented in BBP’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Chapter 24 “Response to Comments on the DEIS.”

[Editor’s Note: Marvel Architects did not respond to repeated requests for information regarding the Pierhouse Hotel structure].

According to the aforementioned NYC Zoning Resolution, Article X on Special Purpose Districts, the Brooklyn Heights Scenic View District is “…to be protected pursuant to the provisions of this Section includ[ing]: the panoramic view of the lower Manhattan skyline which includes such landmarks as the Brooklyn Bridge archway, the South Street Seaport, the Whitehall Ferry Terminal, and the vistas of the Statue of Liberty and Governor’s Island.”

The purposes of this district, specifically designated as SV-1, are:
“(a) to preserve, protect and prevent obstruction of outstanding scenic views as seen from a mapped public park or an esplanade or a mapped public place directly accessible to the public; and
(b) to promote the most desirable use of land and direction of building development, to assure the maintenance and enhancement of the aesthetic aspects of scenic views, to conserve the value of land and buildings and to protect the City’s tax revenues.”

SV-1 might be invoked because the Pierhouse Hotel’s height clearly obstructs the Promenade view of what’s called the “necklace” of the Brooklyn Bridge – its elegant and much admired cable structure.

But in his email to BHB, Mr. Pearsall disputed this interpretation. “There is no Scenic View Plane for the Brooklyn Bridge,” wrote Mr. Pearsall. “There is the SV-1 Brooklyn Heights Scenic View District…. It barely touches the Bridge. It has no application to the tall part of the hotel, which is in the unprotected triangle north of the View Plane.”

Mr. Pearsall’s insistence that SV-1 is not the ruling authority in this matter underscores his belief that the only binding height restriction on the Pierhouse Hotel is the 2005 agreement.

“The deal at issue was between the BHA, Van Valkenburgh Associates, and the Park Corporation,” Pearsall said to BHB. “What documentation it required was up to the Park Corporation. I surmise that the Park Corporation was responsible for controlling the height of the hotel, although this process all took place after my involvement.”

According to Belinda Cape, BBP Vice President for Strategic Partnerships, the actual Pierhouse Hotel height was driven by building conditions imposed as a result of Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

“After Hurricane Sandy,” Ms. Cape said in an email yesterday to BHB, “the need to place additional back-up mechanical equipment, as required by NYC building code, did increase the size of the bulkhead to about 3 stories in one isolated location, which is permitted under NYC zoning.”

A conversation with the NYC Department of City Planning’s Press Office determined that Brooklyn Bridge Park building heights are not subject to City Planning approval, but are solely governed by documents specifically drafted by the BBPC and approved by the state, including the BBPC’s FEIS.

In her email Ms. Cape added that “Throughout the design process – inclusive of post-Sandy alterations – BBP kept the community and BHA fully apprised.”

Last Wednesday in a statement posted on its website, the BHA clearly stated that it was not informed about the Pierhouse height. “We are saddened and disappointed that the new buildings seriously compromise that iconic, world class view [of the Brooklyn Bridge]. We have communicated this to the BBPC and we request that its leadership and the developers of this project take any steps possible to mitigate the Pierhouse development’s visual obstruction of the Bridge.”

As Mr. Pearsall stated so succinctly in 2005, “Please remember, there are views and then there are views. This is one of the world’s best. Let’s not nibble at it.”

Share this Story:

, , , , ,

  • Banet

    You made a donation to the Park *Conservancy*, not the park *Corporation*. The Conservancy is responsible for the yoga and kayaks and school fieldtrips and such. Don’t punish them for someone else’s actions.

  • Banet

    You also made a donation to the Park *Conservancy*, not the park
    *Corporation*. The Conservancy is responsible for the education of hundreds of class fieldtrips and the free kayaks and the book readings and such. Don’t punish them for someone else’s
    actions.

  • marshasrimler

    my apologies. Nina Collins is part of the library destruction gang not the BBP destroy the view from the promenade gang

  • Solovely

    Does the Conservancy truly distinguish itself from the Park Corp? Many times the Conservancy has supported Park Corp on “development real estate/ corporation activities.” Even when the Conservancy taking a position seems unnecessary, the Conservancy has done so voluntarily? I wish the Conservancy would be the advocate for the park visitors and park programming and not muddle the waters.

  • Andrew Porter

    Bedbugs? It ain’t gonna be a 1970s SRO…

  • Andrew Porter

    You bring the pitchforks, I’ll bring the tar and feathers! (Just kidding…)

  • marshasrimler

    the conservancy is a puppet of the development corporation

  • marshasrimler

    well said..

  • marshasrimler

    I agree… The conservancy led by Nancy Webster is in the pocket of the BBPDC. Ask anyone on the CAC and they will tell you that

  • marshasrimler

    the conservancy is a puppet of the corporation and consistently supports all there outsized development plans

  • Heights Observer

    Let’s cut to the quick. Realistically, can anything be done before it is too late? I have seen instances where buildings are forced to remove floors. Can this be done here?

  • mykelde

    No surprise that BBP is engaging in double-speak. they’ve lied before & no doubt will do it again. it makes me sick. Thanks BBP for ruining the view for Heights residents.

  • PubliusBklyn

    I’m on the CAC and wholeheartedly disagree with your statement.

  • gatornyc

    The Conservancy is responsible for all of the fantastic free programming at the park. You are too blinded by your own agenda to see all the worthwhile things the Conservancy does. If people stop donating to the Conservancy, all that wonderful programming goes away and the public is deprived of a tremendous asset.

  • gatornyc

    Flat out wrong. Many on the CAC appreciate the work that Nancy Webster does and respect the positions that she takes even if they disagree with her at times.

  • marshasrimler

    ok..others agree

  • marshasrimler

    and many do not

  • TMS

    I bet you don’t know that more bedbugs exist in hotels and upper income homes than ever did in the 1970s SROs. Read up on the topic. Movie theaters, subways, high end stores, hotels, schools. They spread because people are largely uninformed about them.

  • Banet

    Apology accepted but your word choice makes it extremely difficult to take your opionns seriously.

    While you may not agree with the plan put forth for the library, the word “destruction” is such an extreme word choice on your part that it makes an attempt at reasonable debate seem pointless. :-/

  • marshasrimler

    It is destruction of a public assest to enrich a well connected developer David Kramer . David was part of the BBPDC along with Askonasky and the others
    That should make you wonder what is really going on here

  • gatornyc

    You said “ask anyone on the CAC and they will tell you that.” Now you are down to “many do not.” You should be more judicious in your posts when making such pointed allegations.

  • marshasrimler

    everyone on the cac knows that Nancy Webster is a puppet of the bbpdc. some accept it and many do not. In any case Nancy Webster has supported the outsized development and lobbied for it from her first day on the job.. enough said.. she is really a secret lobbyist for the developers

  • Unred

    I totally agree. I decided a while back to stop contributing because the park was so unfriendly to dogs, but now it seems unfriendly to its neighbors. That Pierhouse was always going to be a nuisance, and now even more so. The waterfront is not at all the relaxing place it used to be.

  • Jorale-man

    I truly wish something could be done about this but there needs to be some legal effort and I don’t see anyone stepping forward to mount that. The skyscraper at Pier 6 stands a better chance of being stopped, or at least brought down to size, I think. But if the BHA or some other group did mount an effort, I’d support it however I could.

  • ujh

    Amazing that the “experts” can’t even distinguish between the park’s Conservancy and (Development) Corporation. As a subsidiary of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, the BBP Development Corporation carries out the Mayor’s wishes. Therefore, the Mayor stands behind the park’s development.
    As to the argument that BBP has too much development and doesn’t need the projected revenue, have you forgotten Senator Squadron’s suggestion, picked up by Mayor de Blasio, that the “rich” park conservancies, alliances and friends give up some of their “wealth” to pump into the hundreds of the city’s neighborhood parks and playgrounds languishing for years with minimal or no maintenance? Can we be certain this suggestion won’t be resurrected in the future and the BBP won’t be asked to pay its share?
    The decision by some not to support the BBP Conservancy any longer is deplorable and indicates how little invested these individuals are in the park and may indicate that they don’t participate in any programs offered by the Conservancy. Instead of endlessly criticizing, I suggest you volunteer your time to help make the park better, then you would know how difficult it is to maintain it.
    The vilification of Nancy Webster is outrageous; she and her staff are turning themselves inside out year after year to line up hundreds of free programs, which begin in May and end in September. Shame on you!
    As to the CAC: Yes, it’s advisory in nature, like community boards; it may recommend but cannot approve or reject a corporate policy.
    And one more thing: While lawsuits are filed and planning comes to a standstill, the cost of park construction and maintenance rise, and the city has to provide ever more money – your tax dollars – to finish the park.

  • ujh

    Solovely, you’re way behind the times. BBP doesn’t need park visitor advocates, it has plenty of visitors already, something you and your friends are constantly complaining about. The Conservancy offers daily programs. It’s not muddling any waters, it has no park policy function. There’s nothing wrong with Nancy Webster commenting on park design and construction; after all, her organization is supplying appropriate programming for the sites Explain your statement that the Conservancy has supported the Park Corporation on “development real estate/corporation activities” many times. Have you ever attended the Conservancy’s board meetings? Do you take its board members for total idiots?

  • Todd Spencer

    This hotel/complex is covering the Promenade view of the bridge one brick at a time. It’s a crying shame. As they say, corruption always start at the top. I’m sure the BBP team all got treated out to nice steak dinners and given a special little envelope $$$ in-order to approve this crazy project. Not sure what the community can do at this juncture. My gut feeling is that payback will come if and when the next hurricane Sandy hits NYC. The Pier House/Hotel will be transformed into the new Brooklyn Park indoor swimming pool. ; >