August 31 Deadline for Comments on Pier 6 Towers

The Empire State Development Corporation is considering modifications to Brooklyn Bridge Park’s General Project Plan concerning the two high rise residential structures proposed to be built at the park entrance near the foot of Pier 6 and near the foot of Atlantic Avenue. The modifications would, among other things, slightly reduce the height of the proposed buildings, allow for the inclusion of affordable housing units, allow for a 75 seat pre-K facility, and eliminate the need for the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation to demonstrate the financial necessity of the development. A full list of the proposed modifications is here.

ESDC is soliciting comments on whether or not to approve the modifications, with a deadline of 5:00 p.m. Monday, August 31. Comments should be emailed to

BBPC President Regina Myer has circulated a letter urging support for approval of the proposed modifications. She wrote, among other things, that community concerns are addressed by reducing the height of the buildings, providing school space, and providing other space for community use. She also argues that revenue from the buildings is vital to park needs, including making the pilings that hold up the piers on which a large part of the park is located resistant to marine borers that could weaken the pilings and cause the piers to collapse. She further writes that the proposed development “would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that were not previously identified and studied, including on school overcrowding.” A complete version of the BBPC’s comments can be found here.

According to Politico New York, State Senator Daniel Squadron has urged constituents to email ESDC asking that they not approve the proposed modifications to the GPP. Similar pleas have come from Save The View Now and from Lori Schomp, aka Littlest bird, a principal in People for Green Space, who has a petition on; see here.

Share this Story:

, , , , , , , , ,

  • Willow Street Watch

    EVERYONE, Even if you testified should put you view IN WRITING

    Then you should send it in via REGISTERED MAIL or Fedex. at least use certified mail but with return receipt. (Nothing makes an impression like registered or FedEx)

    And let me take the liberty to suggest a tact the submissions should
    Take; Heights residents should point our that today the reason why
    The average person feels government is corrupt and incompetent is exactly what is happening here. They know, or they should know, how wrong it is to support or promote something which will effect a National Historic District. This project lowers our safety placing new demands on a public safety net without any provisions to upgrade public safety resources such as fire, police, & ems.

    There’s NO excuse for EVERY person reading this Not placing your opinion in WRITING and send it in…and again, Registered or FedEx makes the strongest impression.

  • RJG

    Here’s a copy of the comments I submitted to ESD/BBPD.

    “I’ve lived in downtown Brooklyn since 1984 and have been a member of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy for many years.

    I support Brooklyn Bridge Park’s proposed plans for the Pier 6 development site and urge you to approve the modifications to the GPP requested by the Park.

    The July 29, 2015 presentation on the Park’s financial model, which I attended, was thorough and informative; since I have a Master’s degree in Accounting I have to admit I even found the material interesting!

    When the November 21, 2014 “Technical Memorandum for the Pier 6 Upland Development” was published I read it carefully and found it comprehensive and convincing.”

  • Willow Street Watch

    The New York Development Corporation has three offices: Albany, Manhattan and Buffalo.

    Opinions of the Pier 6 development should be mailed or otherwise sent
    to: Howard Zemsky CEO
    New York State Economic Development Corporation
    625 Broadway
    Albany, NY 12245

    A copy should be sent to:

    Economic Development Corporation
    633 Third Avenue. 34th Floor
    New York, NY 10017

    You can always CALL Mr. Zemsky at either 716 846 8200 or
    518 292 5100 to in addition to writing, directly voice your opinion…

  • Willow Street Watch

    You can expect HEAVY mailings from those financially or in some manner personally connected with the BBPC so YOU need to do your part…

    Er, for the line, incompetent and corrupt I would_ upon reflection, substitute the term; “increasingly out of control”.

  • Joan Goldberg

    More residential development on the slip of land commonly known as Brooklyn Bridge Park is folly. Traffic is gridlocked now before PIERHOUSE is occupied. There are 3 limited access points, and park usership exceeds all expectations. What was to be a park is a real estate development site with a corrupt and incompetent corporate board tied to a municipal govenment that is an embarassment to all those who cast a ballot in its favor. Is any vestige of what was to be a park salvageable? The people of this city need more park. They do not need luxury housing in the park with the insulting veil of a sliver of affordable housing as the Trojan Horse that promises them a place to live. To me, that is the ultimate insult to the intelligence of every person within and without the Borough of Kings. Not ONE of the 800 people the members of People with Greenspace spoke with today believed that lie.

  • RJG

    The Empire State Development study in November 2014 took an in-depth look at the potential impacts the proposed project would have on traffic, transit, pedestrians and parking. No significant negative impacts were found.

    Details about the study’s look at transportation are on pages 15-19 of the 2014 technical memo.

    The complete Nov. 2014 technical memo is published at:

  • Slyone

    That memo claims the impacts on schools are insignificant, despite the fact that Pier 6 alone is projected to add 98 public elementary school students to the PS8 zone, where the local elementary school has a capacity of just over 500 students, hovers around 140% capacity, and waitlisted 50 kids for kindergarten this past April. The 4 park developments together — One Brooklyn Bridge Park, Pier 6, Pier 1, and One John — are projected to add just over 270 public elementary school student to the zone. Does this sound insignificant to you?

  • Joan Goldberg

    The BBPC Board voted NO to a new Environmental Impact Study (EIS). They feel the 2005 EIS supports their position and they do not want any disruption to plans to forge ahead, the community be damned.

  • RJG

    You’re looking for something from the ESD planner’s technical memo that it was never expected to address.

    “The CEQR analysis is not a needs assessment for new or additional services. Service providers like schools or libraries conduct their own needs assessments on a continuing basis.” (Page 6-1, March 2014 Edition)

  • Slyone

    I disagree — the technical memo is a way of determining whether additional environmental analysis under CEQR is needed. If impacts are “significant,” then they would go through a longer process with a view to informed decision-making and determining whether changes might be made to minimize adverse environmental impacts. The question to me is the standard they use and the scope of their analysis in making that significance determination.

    They say impacts on schools are insignificant, because Pier 6 alone is not predicted to add more than 5% to the “utilization rate” of a group of 8 schools stretching from Brooklyn Heights to Clinton Hill. I have no idea why this is the standard, but it’s the one they use to determine “significance.” I think that’s a problematic standard.

    In addition, I think the technical memo should have been looking at the impacts of all of the BBP residential development on schools (and other things) to see if new environmental analyses are required given changes and new info. Looking at all 4 residential developments in BBP, together they do add more than 5% to the collective utilization rate of the 8 elementary school “subdistrict.” But because the powers-that-be narrowed the focus to Pier 6 alone, and used the “+5% to the subdistrict utilization” standard, they were able to conclude no additional analysis is needed.

  • Willow Street Watch

    You position is truly amazing! You’re asking us to believe that an assessment done in 2005 before Sandy, before the economics post 2008, and with all the population growth/shifts of the last ten years is still valid? This is really Regina Meyer talk! Were all supposed to somehow believe that and meekly go along with this??

    You know folks, these kinds of posts are exactly why this entire matter belongs in FEDERAL court. This is a well oiled and very well financed machine you are facing and appealing to a local government itself in downward spiral is not going help……

  • Solovely

    Dear everyone,
    We can also tweet the govvy! 9 days left!


  • A Tree

    Am I the only one in the neighborhood who doesn’t see a huge issue with these new towers?

    The park almost certainly wouldn’t exist without these development projects. I’m not a huge fan of more overpriced “luxury” buildings either or these towers, but these towers are being put up squeezed between the BQE and the sea port. It’s not as if we’re losing anything of value.

    And no, I’m not being paid by the developers. I just think there are more worthy fights to be fought, like adding schools in the area.

  • Willow Street Watch

    Er, is your full post handle: two trees?

    The park wouldn’t exist argument is like saying: Wow, we’ve being given a new rolls Royce for free…but, the trunk is full of a class 3 or 4 biological. The trunk is a real hazard to my neighbors as I drive around but…I AM getting a “free” Rolls-Royce so I ought to be willing to overlook the danger to my neighbors…The last person I heard that gem of “logic” from was Regina Meyer

    Someone who gives you a gift with one hand while he robs you with the other hand is not a friend, he’s a crook! He may have a smooth act, but he’s still a crook and a danger.

  • Refresh2015

    Development is about far more than financing–but you would never understand that form the way developers proceed to impose on communities without proper compensation.

  • BrklynEdit

    A “crook and a danger”? Are you drunk? Do you never leave your house? First of all, you live in NYC so the fact that you’re seemingly offended and scared by development happening near where you live is embarrassing. And it’s even worse than that considering the development is happening to fund a gorgeous park that was built on your doorstep. Secondly, the development itself is not even at issue right now. What is at issue is whether or not it will include affordable housing. I can only imagine why you’d be opposed to that. If you were at all informed you’d be aware of what is actually being debated.

  • ClaudeScales

    While the question is whether ESDC should approve a modification to the Park’s plan that would, among other things, allow the inclusion of affordable units, those urging ESDC not to approve base this on the argument that the proposed plan modifications eliminate any further need for BBPC to provide justification for the development based on revenue needs. In other words, the modifications would effectively give the development, as modified, a green light. BBPC argues that it has shown that the revenue from the development is needed to meet projected maintenance costs.

  • Willow Street Watch

    I swear what we are seeing here is an increasing wave of pro development ghost posts….all making more and more complex specious arguments (of course) to confuse the issue.

    They do this because the reality is very straightforward here: the park was a scam from day one to develop high profit real estate.
    Without the park (false) reasoning there was no way development would EVER be approved.

    When you see pro development posts (bots?) introduce increasing micro issues, don’t be drawn in like the rubes they think you are. Just ask a simple question; if you give me a gift which contains some- thing which degrades or endangers my safety or way of life is that a valid gift and does that make you a reliable, genuine, trustable ally?
    Or should I end the relationship and not accept the “gift”?

  • Willow Street Watch

    But as has seen shown at numerous public meetings and post here, the ‘we need further funds to exist’ argument is not clearly supported by the facts. The entire issue of lack of application to other sources remains open. What is not open are the levels of nontransparency the BBPC operates in. And unless some kind of FEDERAL judicial or federal law enforcement intervention enters this picture, the BBPC will always operate largely in the dark. And the area residents are just supposed to go along with this and urge their representives to also go along with the “plan”…Un huh, Really?

    Does anyone know Howard Rorak’s home phone number?

  • Clint Padgitt

    After the disaster of the grossly oversized Pierhouse, one has a right to be wary about beginning an enormous development at the other main entrance to the park. Why is the BBPC sending out emails with misleading and unsupported reasons to build at Pier 6? Why can’t they wait until there has been a thorough analysis using up-to-date data? Why the big rush to start construction? There’s something fishy about all of this.

  • Solovely


  • Eddyde

    So what, just because it was published doesn’t mean it’s true.

  • nystrele

    There goes the neighborhood… again. So sad for beautiful Brooklyn Heights.