Whitman Shareholders Vote “No” on Proposed Pineapple Walk Tower Deal

This just in!  In a vote of 191 to 112, the shareholders of Whitman Owners Corp have voted “NO” to further investigate a lucrative offer to purchase 387,000 square foot parcel of land on Pineapple Walk.

“I’m thrilled that the majority of our fellow shareholders were able to see past this seemingly attractive, but short-sighted and destructive deal and vote no. Our sense of community for the greater good within our own building, and towards our neighbors and local small business owners has won.” said Mary Kim, a Whitman resident of 11 years.

During a closed-door meeting held Monday night, where shareholders learned that Andau Enterprises had upped the offer from $75 to $130 million, the board made it clear that a “NO” vote would not only affect this offer but how they respond to potential future offers.  It was not however, made clear under what conditions the Board would re-consider this position.





Share this Story:
  • Concerned

    You normally only hear about this kind of stuff in movies like “It’s A Wonderful Life.” What a great group of neighbors!!! This is now Exhibit 1 as to why Brooklyn Heights is different than every other neighborhood in NYC. Thank you!!!

  • Brixtony

    Yay team!



  • petercow

    Impressed. Kudos.

  • gc

    Many thanks to the shareholders who were able to see the value in voting NO. I’m sure most are people who have been our neighbors for 20 or more years. I hope some of our neighbors who have moved here more recently can learn from their example.

  • Hank 75

    I wish the neighborhood stepped up with this level of community pride before the movie theater closed.

  • Roberto Gautier

    Agreed. The surprisingly altruistic action on the part of the shareholders at 75 Henry is perhaps a turning point in the so-called “new” Manhattan. Community action can indeed have amazing results.

  • Andrew Porter

    Wonderful! The lure of easy money for some, disruption for others proved to be not as powerful as we all feared.

    This is really great news for the north Heights and for the owners of those small businesses, who were faced with going out of business. Here’s the link to the article in the Eagle:


  • Diesel

    Surprising outcome, there may be hope for your species after all.

  • Jorale-man

    Great news. Let’s hope this is precedent-setting.

  • TeddyNYC

    Yeah, let’s hope this luck extends to the fight against the LICH towers, bringing the development down to a more reasonable size that doesn’t overwhelm the neighborhood.

  • http://selfabsorbedboomer.blogspot.com/ Claude Scales

    Good to see you back, old boy. If I had a Milk Bone, I’d toss you one.

  • rss

    This is wonderful news. Thank you neighbors!

  • StudioBrooklyn

    Too early to name the Whitman Owners Corp shareholders for BHB Top Ten 2016?

  • gc

    This vote should go a long way to debunk the idea, spread by some, that this neighborhood is in any way in favor of more development. Our neighbors at 75 Henry cast an overwhelming NO vote in spite of all the money they were offered. Our local politicians should take a lesson!

  • MaryT

    Ditto! Hooray! Community wins, developers lose. Take that, (the other) Mr. Potter.

  • Roberto Gautier

    What about a victory party or series of parties at local venues? Park Plaza Restaurant, Noodle Pudding, Fortune House, Community Rooms….?

  • Concerned

    Just remember this, Developers, that this rabble you’re talking about…they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath without a super tall blocking their views and sucking away precious resources? Anyway, 75 Henry doesn’t think so. People are human beings to them, but to you, a warped frustrated greedy developer, they’re cattle. Well, in my book they’re much richer than you’ll ever be!”

  • elpachuco

    Who’s saying that? The very idea of a historic district is to impede development to maximize property value and control the “character” of the neighborhood once you’ve made the initial investment.

    The irony of this vote is that it is Whitman residents — the neighborhood’s original gate-crashers — who were asked to thwart development. Whether they acted in their self-interest is an interesting question.

  • Andrew Porter

    A modest suggestion: now that the stores on Pineapple Walk have been saved, how about relaying the brick paving and redoing the sidewalks there, to eliminate puddles and make walking easier?

  • MaryT

    Hello, Brooklyn Heights! Hello, Rocco & Jezebel! Hello, Peas & Pickles! Hello, you old 75 Henry Street! Angels got their wings..

  • Concerned

    Nice!!! Well done, MaryT.

  • martinlschneider

    Let me put it this way: Civic virtue and community responsibility live on in Brooklyn Heights. Hooray for contributing to the stature of the Heights as a place where neighbors really count.

    Now, let’s find out just what limits there are on the ‘rights’ of any development that go with this precious, open acreage. We all need to recall that its original price to the developers was subsidized by Federal and City funds in order to provide for moderate cost housing in the first place.

  • Teresa

    Andrew, could you please provide the source/photographer for the photo? And do you have permission to post it? Thanks.

  • Diesel


  • Bornhere

    Agreed — somewhere, a little bell is ringing. Imagine the sound if ALL planned (and recent) high-rise construction in the Heights were put to a vote by residents.

  • Andrew Porter

    The post credits the Brooklyn Historic Society, and it’s also watermarked. It’s on their public photo website.

  • SongBirdNYC

    According to the city’s NYCityMap tool, 75 Henry Street has R8 zoning with Commercial Overlay:C1-5. http://maps.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/ Either the Brooklyn Borough President’s office or Community Board 2’s Land Use Committee can confirm what this means. I have it on my “to do” list to inquire next week. But I have a sneaky suspicion that the zoning does not have have any limitations on air rights other than what is structurally feasible.

  • SongBirdNYC

    With all due respect a watermark is not tacit permission to use an
    image. In fact, watermarks are used as a deterrent to unauthorized
    use. This is standard practice. Also, using an image without a
    photographer’s consent but crediting them does not make an unauthorized
    use suddenly legitimate or acceptable to the photographer/copyright
    owner. Admittedly you were using this image in an “educational” capacity which falls under fair use. BUT, fair use does not apply to
    images posted on this blog since we have advertisers and they generate
    income. Not trying to be nit-picky here. Copyright infringements, and repeated ones leave the blog vulnerable. As a photographer myself, I am
    personally very sensitive about infringement issues. Lastly, many years of my
    career were spent at the International Center of Photography and Getty
    Images in Artist Relations. It was part of my job to assist photographers with infringement cases. Here’s a handy guide to image use:
    If you need further clarification, please let us know. Thank you.

  • Taters

    Thanks for the education. I always had taken the slum-clearance line at face value. Time to pay a visit to the BHS and learn me some knowledge…