Developer Offers 75 Henry Residents Big Payout to Raze Pineapple Walk Stores and Build 40 Story Condo

By on December 3, 2015 12:20 am in Brooklyn Heights, Development, Real Estate

The Eagle reports that an as yet unidentified developer has offered the co-op board of 75 Henry Street, one of the high rise Cadman Plaza buildings that also controls some adjacent low rise townhouses, a payment of $75 million for the right to raze the existing store buildings along Pineapple Walk, which the 75 Henry co-op also owns and which includes the popular food mart in the photo on the end near Henry Street and the Park Plaza Diner on the Cadman Plaza West side, in order to build a 40 story condo apartment building which would have retail on the ground floor. According to the Eagle story, the 75 Henry board’s reaction has been cautious, noting that the proposed new building would block views from one side of 75 Henry and that the project would arouse substantial community opposition. Reaction from 75 Henry residents has been mixed. If and when the developer’s proposal is finalized, the board plans to put it to a shareholder/resident vote.

Photo: Panoramio.

Share this Story:

, , , ,

← 
Newer Comments  →
  • DIBS

    Given the produce quality at Gristede’s, the store would be a loss. It would also destroy views from 101 Clark St, ther other M-L building.

  • HereToStay

    75 Henry isn’t a M-L building. Also, views would only be minimally blocked – and no city/river views would be blocked. Same with light – minimal impact. Really too early to comment until we all see what is proposed, exactly.

  • DIBS

    It wasn’t my point that it was. A 40 storey building will certainly block all the views at 101 Clark which is about 32 storeys

  • BH Resident

    I took this photo this morning at around 9:00 am. Now imagine a 40 story building in between 75 Henry and 101 Clark. The light would absolutely be blocked. Not to mention the impact on the traffic on traffic on Henry Street. There would be enormous cranes and tons of equipment. And lots and lots of noise. Then there’s the long-lasting impact on infrastructure (subways, schools, etc). Open space is imperative for quality of life. Just because you can build something, doesn’t mean you should.

  • HereToStay

    You had said ‘the other M-L building’…. In any event, it would certainly NOT block “all” of the views.

  • HereToStay

    Oh Lord. Look at the angle you used – hilarious. If you are against development, fine, but don’t try to use scare tactics. It will have minimal effect on light and views. But even if it did, it does not mean that you shouldn’t build.

  • DIBS

    Go over and look at the site and the buildings. The retail business described that will be redeveloped run further than the length of 101 Clark, on both sides so, all of the units that face the Brooklyn Bridge will no longer have any view of that whatsoever. It remains debatable if some will have “peeks” at cadman Plaza park. No, units that face south are not affected, obviously. A 40 storey buyding effectively builcks all of a side of a 32 storey building.

  • DIBS

    “Minimal????” You are wrong. You can’t seem to grasp that a 40 storey building that will likely have a longer footprint than a 32 storey building will block most all of the views. If it has a smaller footprint, maybe it won’t.

  • DIBS

    In reality I suspect this will never happen and if it does, will mark the top of the market.

  • HereToStay

    The building would not run the full width of PW or 101 Clark. If most of the building took the footprint of the diner, very little view and light would be effected…

  • DIBS

    Oh, you’ve seen the plans already????

  • Open Minded

    There are certain regulations that will not allow the building to be built on the entire footprint of the existing retail space, so the building will be most like much closer to the Cadman Plaza, thus not blocking the light/views. People have to learn the facts rather than just speculate for the sake of being heard.

  • Brixtony

    Why are you so gung ho for this disaster? What do you see as a positive development for this…development?

  • Concerned

    “If most of the building took the footprint of the diner, very little view and light would be effected…”
    Anyone that is annoyed by “HeretoStay’s” posts on this subject should stop right here. This “point” he/she is trying to make here is absurd, stupid, ridiculous, etc… it shows you’re not dealing with someone who can deal process rationale debate on the subject. Let him/her go and don’t respond.

  • Boerum Bill

    Will there be a “poor door”?

  • DIBS

    I guess you too need to go look at the buildings. Of course it will block most of the views from that side of 101 Clark. More illogical speculation.

  • DIBS

    LOL

  • JDF

    I agree. I like to deal in facts. Since you cite it, what is the regulation you cite that prevents a building being built on the entire space? I ask because this would be a private sale. Since it can be 40 stories, what regulation prevents it from taking up all (or most) of Pineapple Walk?

  • DIBS

    It all has to do with the amount of space and what is buildable given the zoning in which it lies. You certainly cannot build 40 stories on the footprint of the diner. Also, I assume that this land is not yet a separate tax parcel from the rest of 75 Henry Street (it could be but doubtful). Separating them will be a not insignificant process. I’m wondering if this isn’t purely putting out feelers right now and the whether or not the developers have any actual plans.

  • HereToStay

    Wow. You really are smart.

  • HereToStay

    Lots of reasons. For one, most of the co-op owners would receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in their pockets (tax free – because that is how the distribution of co-op profits work), quality retail would FINALLY be attracted to what could be one of the most special little pedestrian walks in Brooklyn, and – perhaps most importantly – IT IS WITHIN THE LAW AND ALLOWS FOR PROGRESS… We live in NYC. Huge buildings get built. This is not in the historic district and is NOT the end of the world… Look, I have nothing to gain here, but I just cant stand all the anti-development talk on this site. There is no real reasoning behind any of it: except, for many, jealousy and fear.

  • HereToStay

    If they build a condo as part of a private sale, there does not need to be any affordable units built, so no poor door…

  • DIBS

    You’d better check again with your accountant on that one. Also, I believe all of BH is landmarked. There is no “historic district.” Are you even from NYC?????

  • DIBS

    And you apparently, from your comments, are not.

  • Maggie

    There is a Brooklyn Heights Historic District, has been since 1965, here’s the map. http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/maps/brooklyn_heights.pdf
    This particular site is not within the district.

  • DIBS

    Still under the purview of the LPC.

  • Maggie

    Not sure how you come to that conclusion… The site is not within the district, the building is not a landmark. Unless there is a designated scenic view that this building would impact, the LPC does not have any control or review right over this site. That’s why district lines are drawn the way they are and why there are fights over expanding district barriers.

  • Ben

    I’ve been reading DIBS enthusiastic comments in support of private development and developers for almost ten years now on Brownstoner and BHB. But now all of a sudden this tower is a problem. I wonder why this is??

    Oh, wait..

  • HereToStay

    Um, no it is not….

  • HereToStay

    That is what I was going to say to you…

←  
Newer Comments  →