Save The View Now Scores in Opening Round of Pierhouse Litigation

By on April 23, 2015 1:18 pm in brooklyn bridge park, Development, Legal, News, Real Estate

Save The View Now, organized by Steven Guterman (at center in photo) and other Brooklyn Heights residents, as well as non-residents who enjoy views from the Brooklyn Heights Promenade and other locations, has filed suit on April 21 in New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, against Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation and various government entities, including the City of New York, along with Toll Brothers Real Estate, Inc. and Starwood Mortgage Capital LLC, developers of the Pierhouse, the combined hotel and residential condominium structure under construction in the uplands of Pier 1, Brooklyn Bridge Park, near the northern end of the Promenade. STVN’s complaint alleges that the defendants have violated restrictions, contained in the Park’s Modified General Project Plan and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, on the height and length of any structures built on the site, which restrictions were intended to protect and enhance views from the Promenade, the Fruit Street Sitting Area, and Middagh Street.

The relief sought includes declarations that various aspects of the Pierhouse structure are in violation of the restrictions set forth in the Modified GPP and the FEIS, and judgment ordering the removal of any portions of the structure that are in violation thereof.

At a hearing yesterday, the court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting construction of a penthouse atop the building on Parcel B, the southern portion of the Pierhouse, which would violate the 55 foot height limit for Parcel B. The TRO will remain in effect until further proceedings, which are scheduled to begin on May 11.

Share this Story:

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Reggie

    I think “scores a victory” is an overstatement. All the TRO really says is, there is sufficient possibility that complainant will prevail that it is in the interest of all parties, including Toll Brothers, that respondent not construct something it might, key word there, be ordered to demolish if proceeds. On the other hand, it’s not like the court declined to issue a TRO, which would definitely be a defeat for the community group.

  • Jorale-man

    Interesting about the penthouse on the southern building of the Pierhouse. I’ve been watching the height of that rise with trepidation and now it comes out that they’re close to violating the height limit there too.

    A side-note, Pier 1 has become a lot darker in the mornings since the north Pierhouse building went up.

  • TeddyNYC

    I usually go to Pier 1 in the afternoon/evening, but I was there once in the morning a couple of years ago and it was pretty bright. It’s a shame that it’s darker now for people who regularly use it at that time (like to avoid the summer heat later in the day).

  • sunlover

    That make no sense, just from a geometry point of view. The watchtower buildings across Furman St (to the east) are much much taller than pier house. Once the sun clears the watchtower buildings, then it should clear pierhouse too. I’m not denying your experience, I just don’t understand how that could possibly be.

  • ShinyNewHandle

    Sunlover, note that even the northern Pierhouse bldg extends southward beyond those Watchtower buildings and in front of the Squibb skate park. It now looms above the Middagh St. barrier, so it can actually cast an afternoon shadow on the north Heights!

  • sunlover

    I don’t know. Even the part of Pierhouse that extends south of the big Watchtower buildings a bit is not really that much taller than the buildings on Columbia Heights. Even though those Columbia Heights buildings are only like 4 or five stories high, Columbia Heights is still 4 or 5 stories higher than Furman St, so their roof lines are pretty close to the roof line of the pierhouse and it still shouldn’t make much of a difference.

  • http://selfabsorbedboomer.blogspot.com ClaudeScales

    I wrote “scores,” not “scores a victory.” To get a TRO was a score; the option, as you noted, would have been a defeat.

  • ShinyNewHandle

    Ah, but there *are* no more buildings on the west side of Columbia Heights all along the Fruit Street sitting area, and even on east side of Columbia Heights starting at Harry Chapin Park. Then the western gap continues where Moses circumcised Middagh Street.

  • ShinyNewHandle

    *eastern gap

  • Reggie

    Now you know why I scored a 360 on the English portion of the SAT.

  • StoptheChop

    And imagine the shadows over Pier 6 if the 31-story highrise happens.

  • Solovely

    Love this observation! So true! The darkness is also relevant to the Pier 6 conversation. These tall buildings are not without shadows!! and parks should be places of sunshine!!! Not in the shadow of concrete jungles. The height planned for Pier 6 dwarfs the height of the Pierhouse building. These buildings will be most intrusive on the park experience. We are losing losing.. a park! Who are the people making these decisions regarding our priorities, for US?

  • Doug Biviano

    Noticed the same thing going down Furman. It’s like a cave. We started calling it the Toll-house Tunnel as we pass under the broken 5 million dollar bridge…which if opened again will be like a canyon bridge once the new condos are complete.

  • Doug Biviano

    that’s right. Brooklyn is losing what it had going for it. Sun and sky. What a shame.

  • Jean

    I really appreciate the work this group is doing. I am stunned by the loss of light in that part of the park….absolutely depressing. I still can’t believe this monstrosity was ever allowed to be built.

  • StudioBrooklyn

    My favorite thing about the whole Pierhouse project is its tagline: “A Natural Evolution”. It’s NATURAL, guys, what’s the big fuss? :)

  • Jorale-man

    I see what you’re saying. The shadowed area around 7-8 am is concentrated on the eastern side of Pier 1 – the sun gets over the JW building but the angle of light is still broken by the Pierhouse in the area around the marshes. Farther out, over the west-facing lawn on Pier, it’s probably not such an issue but I do notice it at least early in the morning…

  • StoptheChop

    And we’ll all creep along at 8 mph, behind the dozens of tour buses….

  • ShinyNewHandle

    Yep. Darwin is spinning in his grave. As any biologist can confirm, evolution is not a synonym for development.

  • sunlover

    That makes more sense. And the “extra” shadow in that area near the marshes probably only lasts for an hour or so till the sun clears the pierhouse buildings as well.

  • Solovely

    Dear everyone, we must keep the fight on both sides of the park, concrete tunnels near our beloved Brooklyn Bridge and we must preserve the Atlantic Ave entrance at Pier 6 to be our a welcoming gateway to the park! Did you all see that the grand canyon is getting a shopping mall?? in the news? We need to take to the twitter maybe? to raise more awareness? #savetheviewnow #savepier6

  • Reggie

    “I’ve been watching the height of that rise with trepidation and now it comes out that they’re allegedly close to violating the height limit there too.”

  • peterbrooklyn

    Gotta love the way BBP is trying to frame it: “This lawsuit is an unfortunate attempt to enshrine the unprotected views of a select few at the expense of the millions who use the park.”

    I’ve lived here for many years. I rent. I’m certainly not one of the “select few,” though I often wish I was. I used to like to walk over to Columbia and Middagh at the end of the day, sit on a bench and enjoy the view. It was one of the pleasures of living here. Now there is no view. Plenty of park-related pedestrian traffic, but no longer any view.

  • ShinyNewHandle

    The BBP is even more disingenuous than that! Pierhouse can’t help but frustrate free views from the Promenade of the Brooklyn Bridge—panoramas that were enjoyed by zillions of visitors from all over New York and the world. Jerks.

  • TeddyNYC

    And some people who live nearby can kiss the late afternoon sun goodbye. A building of that height is so out of place there.