CBS New York and Other Network Outlets Cover Pierhouse Foes Save the View Now

Two more local television stations reported today on Save the View Now, the grassroots group aiming to curb the height of Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pierhouse.

 RELATED: WPIX Reports on Pierhouse

RELATED: All BHB Coverage of Save the View Now

CBS New York: The mayor’s pick for park president said the Pierhouse is just 3 feet higher than originally planned due to changes forced by Hurricane Sandy, and no more obstructive than a warehouse torn down on the site.

“There’s no bait and switch. The building that is under construction now is exactly the building that was approved,” said Regina Myer of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation. “This was all according to the plan for this beautiful park.”

But opponents have won an important ally as the Brooklyn Heights Association is putting its weight behind this fight over height, Aiello reported.

And from WNBC-TV:

And the struggle made the front page of this week’s Brooklyn Heights Press:

Share this Story:

  • Bongo

    That’s quite a surprising result. Nice work on the comparison. I’d love to see one of these comparisons from the “Fruit Street Seating Area”

  • guest

    Casting shadows and blocking views are two different things. The website is “” not “”. You are changing your argument. The previous sentence talks about blocking views and is clearly only talking about the promenade. It is possible to block views and not cast shadows and vice versa. Also it is not clear that the new buildings would cast more a shadow on the neighborhood than the cold storage building used to. This 2005 document is simply not the smoking gun you are making it out to be. I still am not convinced that anyone in 2005 was ever talking about the visual impact of the new buildings from the fruit street area – just from the promenade.

  • ShinyNewHandle

    Guest, do you realize that I am not “Jonathan”? I hand-retyped a portion of an old fact sheet because I had it nearby, and you had asked about 2005.

    (As to blocking views not being equal to casting shadows, the physics of light disallows that assertion, if you see what I mean: you cannot perceive the Manhattan skyline unless it is generating or reflecting light.)

  • Brixtony

    Perhaps an appeal to the international community (and nationwide media), as referenced by some of these stories and comments, would have some impact. A nice sarcastic BBC story might awaken a few consciousnesses. Anyone have a connection?

  • guest

    Yes. I realize you are not Jonathon. You are saying the 2005 document clearly implies that Park officials has promised that the new buildings would preserve a view from the fruit street area. It does not. As for your physics assertion – that is totally incorrect. Whether or not the building is blocking a view of the brooklyn bridge is all about the building’s position relative to the bridge and the viewing position. Whether or not it is casting shadows is all about the building’s position relative to the sun and the viewing position. Since the bridge is not a source of light, it has nothing to do with shade. Also, from many angles other buildings (like the watchtower buildings) cast shadows already so the shadow cast by the pierhouse is moot.

  • R.O.Shipman

    As Still Here said, the time frame is pre-2008. Any pictures showing the Cold Storage Building and the Bridge in the same picture. Then recreate the shot as closely as possible. Clarky has a good shot below, but it seems like his comparison wasn’t planned, but rather found an old picture that was pretty close to his angle.

  • lauren

    Thanks! I can see if I have anything…

  • ShinyNewHandle

    I am sorry you do not find the 2005 quote helpful.

    As for myself, I know when I’m being had.

  • guest

    On the contrary – I find the 2005 quote very helpful. It helps me to see that the park folks never promised to protect any view other than the ones from the promenade. So any outrage about views being blocked from columbia st is misplaced. There definitely was a promise to maintain views from the promenade, and I think the image that clarky linked to above very clearly shows that that commitment has been honored. I am sorry you believe you are being had. However, You have not really been able to explain the basis for that feeling.

  • clarky

    I’ve updated the comparison with a photo that is taken from the same vantage point as the old photo.

  • Brixtony

    It’s simple: a world-class view has been obliterated for the sake of wealthy buyers and developers. Remember – they still have the view from their investment.

  • Brixtony

    Perhaps you could enlighten us. Inquiring minds want to know.

  • Still Here

    Forgot the picture…..

  • guest

    Not that simple. The world class view from the promenade is NOT being obliterated. It’s actually barely a noticeable difference from what was there before. Lookbat the images that clarky linked to above to confirmn that. In addition, new world class views from pier 1 and other places in Brooklyn Bridge Park have been CREATED for the public because of the funding derived by these buildings. The only view being significantly negatively impacted is from the fruit street sitting area, which is not the special sacred view that everyone cared about in 2005 and is far from the best viewing position to take in the bridge and the skyline anyway.

  • greatina

    Here’s the cold storage warehouse peeking over the fruit sitting tree area when it made a cameo in Moonstruck. Next to it is the current construction. It’s by no stretch of the imagination the same height. Come see for yourself, it’s dramatic and impossible to mistake the dramatic difference.

  • Clarky

    Except the view from Moonstruck is of one of the two lower sections. The center part of the warehouse was about the same height and location of the new building.
    See here:

  • Brixtony

    YES – a world class view HAS been eliminated. I’m not comparing it to the old days of the warehouses. For a while, pre-eyesore apartments, the view was stunning from ALL OVER – fruit trees to Promenade. Instead, the view (and morning sun) is blocked from Columbia Heights, part of the Promenade and indeed, from the park itself. The north end is beginning to look like the backyard of the “rich folks’ projects” and it’s nowhere near completed yet. I’ve been in the Heights since 1990, walked that area thousands of times and think the “park must pay for itself” rule is ridiculous when developers are making a fortune, rents and purchase prices are through the roof with tax abatements going to real estate speculators and their money-making schemes. It’s a shame.

  • johnny cakes

    Crooked business… as usual. Regina is a hand-puppet for the developers..

  • guest

    I see. So you are talking about the views that have only existed for 4 years since the cold storage building was demolished. While those are undeniably wonderful views, it’s hard to get too upset about losing them for two reasons. First, the only reason they have existed at all for this short window of time is that the cold storage building was demolished to make way for the pierhouse. If there was no pierhouse, then the cold storage would never have been demolished and the view would never have existed. Also The park corp never promised to maintain that view. Most people who are upset about this issue are upset because the think that the park corp promised that the view would not be any more obstructed than it was when the cold storage buildings were there, and they think the new buildings are not keeping with that promise. If that were true, it would be a reasonable reason to be upset – however the photographic evidence that I’ve seen strongly suggest that it is not true.

  • mm2008

    Both buildings are/were approximately 100 feet high. Pierhouse also has an addition on top of the building that is 30 feet high. It doesn’t “count” as building height because it houses stairway and elevator bulkheads and mechanicals. So Cold Storage Warehouse = 100. Pierhouse = 100 + 30 = 130 feet.