Comments From Court and All Sides on Pierhouse Decision

By on June 15, 2015 10:25 pm in brooklyn bridge park, Development, Environment, Legal, Real Estate

Justice Lawrence Knipel’s decision in the litigation over the obstruction of the Brooklyn Bridge view by the Pierhouse structure is best summed up in his conclusion, which begins:

The casual passerby walking along Brooklyn’s majestic Promenade is struck with an indelible impression that these buildings…are simply too large…When our government had the opportunity to significantly improve the view, a conscious decision was made not to do so, for reasons relating to economic sustainability…The decision may have been shortsighted, but it was a compromise without with Brooklyn Bridge Park might not have been created. In hindsight, this court cannot now say…that the compromise was erroneous as a matter of law.

The decision occasioned comments by interested parties: those opposed to the decision (Save The View Now, plaintiffs in the litigation; the Brooklyn Heights Association) and those in favor of it (the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation; the developers, Toll Brothers and Starwood Capital Group). These comments are included in full at the conclusion of Mary Frost’s Eagle story.

Share this Story:

, , , , , , , , , ,

  • DIBS

    Again??? Wasn’t this rehashed yesterday????

  • Willow Street Watch

    Typical snide remark. But yes the blog has quite properly covered this judges strange, convoluted logic. Not surprising, this is the level of “academic thought” you get in State courts.

    Again, did you read the the three “J” points I asked you to examine in
    earlier posts?

  • DIBS

    And remind me, given all your ranting about this, what exactly would you propose as an alternative solution??? Because all you did was complain.

  • Don A

    The bulkhead was not added to the original plan — they had mechanicals in the basement. Smart! After Sandy, they realized it wasn’t a smart plan and they added the bulkhead. They could have added those same mechanicals anywhere in the building. It would have meant losing at lease one condo tho and the developers profit on this – the most profitable development in NYC history – would have taken a 5-10mm dollar hit

    I happen to know the architects didn’t expect the BBPC to approve the bulkhead and we’re working on the alternative solution when the bulkhead was approved.

  • Willow Street Watch

    Again, actually READ the clear specific three point plan I advocated before any further abusive remarks or distractiions from what you and I both know I submitted. I doubt you or certain others here will, because
    there is little evidence that any of you CAN answer my points…

  • Andrew Porter

    “Expletives deleted…”

  • mlcraryville

    Judge Knipel would like to have it both ways :’It is a terrible thing, he says, that the Pierhouse does with its building’ BUT, he then goes on to whine,’What can you do when the time has run out?’ ,
    Indeed, Judge Knipel, you could stop it by simply taking into account the devious and deceptive ways the Corporation used to conceal the truth right up until last September, 2014 — nine years after agreeing to accept reasonable limits— when it was finally topped out and the flag was raised on the obtrusive, bloated building. Let the clock start running then because then and only then was when the corporation truly showed the hand it was playing and the awful truth was revealed to the community.