Possible Plans for Bridge Park Development Site Released


The city has released the proposals submitted by seven development teams that are looking to develop a hotel and condo near Pier 1 in Brooklyn Bridge Park. The guidelines for the site call for 170 to 225 hotel rooms and between 150 and 180 residential units. The big-name developers that have submitted proposals include Extell, Toll Brothers and the Dermot Company. Pictured above, Two Trees’ proposal; click through for the other six. (For more renderings, the Observer has the best collection.) The board of Brooklyn Bridge Park now has to present the plans to community groups. After a proposal is chosen, construction is supposed to begin in 2013 and wrap a couple years after.
Brooklyn Bridge Park Gets Its Starchitecture [NY Observer]
Seven Developers Vie To Build Hotel in Brooklyn Bridge Park [Eagle]
Unveiling Park Plans [WSJ]

Extell; design by Beyer Blinder Belle


Toll Brothers; design by Rogers Marvel


Dermot Company; design by FXFowle


SDS Procida; design by Leeser Architects


RAL; design by Cangelosi Design & Architecture


Starwood Capital with Alloy, Hamlin and Monadnock; design by Bernheimer Architects, Alloy Development, nArchitects

53 Comment

  • I like Dermot and RAL fwiw (nothing, I know)

  • nooooooooooooooooooooooooo, i dont want building there, I want more green space.

    vomit, yuck, yuck, yuck.
    noooooooooooooooooooo dont put building there, we just old buildings down….

  • The SDS design looks nice. The other designs are unattractive IMHO.

  • The massing and height seems greatly increased since the pre-planning stages for the park. Won’t the neighbors freak?

  • Looks good, and will help enliven the park area in the off-season.

  • I like Dermot – creative and fits in; Starwood not very interesting at all

  • Another example of how NIMBY considerations hurts us all…..The best funding solution would have been a single very tall multi-use building (hotel and residence); but because the NIMBY’s object to anything tall, we are going to end up with a bunch of buildings (i.e. a development) which while ok, are no where near as inconspicuous as a single attractive 40 story building would be.

  • Why is it when they release renderings for these types of mixed use sites they look like they were designed from a 1950′s view of a colony on Venus or the like?

  • why can’t it just stay green space, why does it have to have something built on it?

    I like the openess of the park from the cantelever…………

  • why can’t it just stay green space, why does it have to have something built on it?

    I like the openess of the park from the cantelever…………

  • wow! Here’s something to sink one’s teeth into.
    Some of these schemes are really pretty nice. I like WASA/Studio A’s design the best I think. FXFowle’s design is great too.
    I really dislike the ones that look like a corporate park -RAL/CDA and Starwood. They don’t get it. This is a park. It’s fun and visually appealing.
    I strongly disagree w/ fsrq. Tall buildings here would be terrible. This concept of mid-rise buildings is far superior.
    The neighbor’s concerns about the project seems to have upped the bar in terms of design excellence, that is a good thing in my book.

  • wow! Here’s something to sink one’s teeth into.
    Some of these schemes are really pretty nice. I like WASA/Studio A’s design the best I think. FXFowle’s design is great too.
    I really dislike the ones that look like a corporate park -RAL/CDA and Starwood. They don’t get it. This is a park. It’s fun and visually appealing.
    I strongly disagree w/ fsrq. Tall buildings here would be terrible. This concept of mid-rise buildings is far superior.
    The neighbor’s concerns about the project seems to have upped the bar in terms of design excellence, that is a good thing in my book.

  • I prefer the more ‘radical’ and 20th century style buildings rather than those that mimic the area, however, i bet the latter wins

  • I don’t think any of these designs are “radical”. This is what contemporary architecture looks like. We have very little of it NYC.

  • noladarling

    Love the grass roofs! Sustainable green architecture is in short supply in our fair city. For what it’s worth, FxFowle’s design gets my vote…

  • Love the living wall and the grass roof concepts. Who says green space needs to be horizontal?? Let the buildings be camouflaged by GREEN!

  • expert_textpert

    What will this do to the view of bridge and city from promenade?

    I like starwood and RAL.
    I love the Fox and Fowle design but I don’t think it’s right for the site. It’s too big.

  • I like Two Trees. The rest are meh (or worse).

  • I like Two Trees. The rest are meh (or worse).

  • I think that these all look amazing and each has their merits. Brooklyn is a creative place and these designs show that to the world. We are living in the 21th century, and our architecture should reflect that. When I first heard about having to build in the park, I was as annoyed as anyone, but these will make the park an even better place; a real destination and a symbol of the new Brooklyn.

  • I think that these all look amazing and each has their merits. Brooklyn is a creative place and these designs show that to the world. We are living in the 21th century, and our architecture should reflect that. When I first heard about having to build in the park, I was as annoyed as anyone, but these will make the park an even better place; a real destination and a symbol of the new Brooklyn.

  • dittoburg

    Does the hotel include the mandatory affordable staying component? Should be 20% affordable staying at least or I’ll be outraged.

    • no there is no affordable component in this development. Affordable includes tax abatements which would defeat the idea of getting immediate money to support the park. Its only supposed to be used where development would NOT otherwise occur. Its unnecessary for this area as you can see there are many people willing to do the development anyway. affordable housing always requires subsidies. There are no subsidies for this development.

  • I think if they released a rendering that showed landscaped park and open green space that the public could use – the public would vote overwhelmingly for that. Or at least I would.

    Seeing the ariel rendering, I’m reminded of the original “wall” that warehouses created in 19th Century Brooklyn, here: http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Books/B0/B701/MAIN/images/image265.jpg

    None of the above options seem particularly audacious. I hate to reference “Habitat 67″ in Montreal, but, well, I just did. That was audacious, at least.

    C:

  • architect66

    The renderings don’t tell you all that much about the schemes, but they are all basically 9 story buildings on a 120′ x 550′ lot, with a smaller building of 4-5 stories on a 120′ x 300′ lot. The buildings on the larger of the 2 lots tend to have a lot of green space around them, except for the SDS building which has a huge atrium in the middle and takes up the whole site. None of the buildings is really taking a “contextual” approach, except for maybe the RAL proposal (big concrete and glass builidng, similar to One BBP maybe…)

    I think the best schemes are those which connect the park – Starwood’s seems to be open at the ground level, and the Dermot FXFowle scheme seems to have a plaza in the middle. Can’t tell so much about the WASA and BBB schemes – one seems to be pretty boring and conventional, the other looks just wacky. Both of these teams took the approach of showing a foreshortened rendering that minimizes the sheer 500 foot length of the building, so it’s hard to tell. FWIW (nothing, I guess) I think the Starwood building might be the best of the lot.

  • architect66

    The renderings don’t tell you all that much about the schemes, but they are all basically 9 story buildings on a 120′ x 550′ lot, with a smaller building of 4-5 stories on a 120′ x 300′ lot. The buildings on the larger of the 2 lots tend to have a lot of green space around them, except for the SDS building which has a huge atrium in the middle and takes up the whole site. None of the buildings is really taking a “contextual” approach, except for maybe the RAL proposal (big concrete and glass builidng, similar to One BBP maybe…)

    I think the best schemes are those which connect the park – Starwood’s seems to be open at the ground level, and the Dermot FXFowle scheme seems to have a plaza in the middle. Can’t tell so much about the WASA and BBB schemes – one seems to be pretty boring and conventional, the other looks just wacky. Both of these teams took the approach of showing a foreshortened rendering that minimizes the sheer 500 foot length of the building, so it’s hard to tell. FWIW (nothing, I guess) I think the Starwood building might be the best of the lot.

  • The maximum height for the new buildings was set in order to prevent any intrusion in to the protected “View Shed” from the Promenade.
    The old buildings that used to be on the site, the cold storage warehouses, did block the views.
    Lets remember that the site has only been vacant for about a year.

  • The Starwood scheme reminds me of the old World Trade Center.
    I find it awful verging on creepy. It is totally wrong for the site.

    • architect66

      I dunno Minard – it looks like the only scheme where you could walk right into the park without going through a hotel lobby. Also, hard to tell what the fins would actually look and feel like – they seem somehow more “organic” feeling than the narrow WTC things. I don’t think it’s totally wrong at all.

  • FSRQ, the height limitation is not to placate NIMBYs but to protect the view from the Promenade, as Minard mentions. The Promenade is a public asset, not just an amenity for nearby residents.

  • FSRQ, the height limitation is not to placate NIMBYs but to protect the view from the Promenade, as Minard mentions. The Promenade is a public asset, not just an amenity for nearby residents.

  • Starwood’s building looks like it should be in the Financial District or on Madison Avenue. It is buttoned-down corporate. It is totally wrong for a hotel on the park. Whatever goes there should be more fun and interesting. I like WASA and I like FXFowle and I like Marvel. Those are stylish modern buildings that don’t look Manhattan-Corporate.

  • Starwood’s building looks like it should be in the Financial District or on Madison Avenue. It is buttoned-down corporate. It is totally wrong for a hotel on the park. Whatever goes there should be more fun and interesting. I like WASA and I like FXFowle and I like Marvel. Those are stylish modern buildings that don’t look Manhattan-Corporate.

  • The Starwood one is also good for global warming! The increased flooding along the waterfront can just roll right underneath the building. ;)

  • If a single 20-30 story building was placed on the extreme Northeast part of the site – it would have had limited to no effect on the view from the promenade or BH and would have eliminated the need for this “development” which will ultimately have a much bigger footprint and more effect on the site (views as well as otherwise).
    Again short-sited anti-height NIMBY restrictions ruled the day – to most every-ones detriment.

  • To people who vote for “no construction, just green space.” That’s not realy an option. Brooklyn Bridge Park annual operating budget is 188K/acre. As the saying goes, “You can’t get something for nothing”, and this public/private development was the City’s solution to how to make the park “self-sustaining.” Without this deal, the park would never have been built. Given the inability to get large public projects to completion (I’m talking to you ARC tunnel), I think it’s a pretty smart deal. Without it, we’d be having a long blog argument about why we can’t have public access to a dilapitated waterfront. What a drag that conversation would be.

  • the self-sustaining thing is actually pretty smart. The first thing to be cut in any budget balancing is parks maintenance. That is why the city’s big parks became degraded pits until private groups were formed to pay for the restoration with private money. Here, the private money is built in to the equation and the park should never have to fall into a period of prolonged deterioration. New York is not Paris, there is no huge government funding of public spaces. New York is a business city and a pretty ruthless one to boot. The fact that we have any public parks at all is a miracle. They are products of our forefathers’ civic pride and vision. We would never build Central Park or Prospect Park today.

  • Any design is good. As long as it’s no high rises that would block views of Lower Manhattan, there should be no complaints from the neighbors.

  • Non of the designs are that great.
    If the renderings look so ordinary the actual building will be simply boring.

    Why don’t they try small innovative brooklyn architects or go for real star architect.
    Case in point : the carousel building in DUMBO is nice!

  • Non of the designs are that great.
    If the renderings look so ordinary the actual building will be simply boring.

    Why don’t they try small innovative brooklyn architects or go for real star architect.
    Case in point : the carousel building in DUMBO is nice!

  • It’s called a view shed, like a wrote earlier.
    Landmarks has nothing to do with it. It is protected by zoning.