brooklyn-bridge-park-pierhouse-lawsuit-filed-1
Photo by Barbara Eldredge

Can visitors to the Brooklyn Heights Promenade still see the breathtaking view of Manhattan they have enjoyed since the Promenade was created in the 1950s? Or has the Pierhouse development ruined it — and if so, can anything be done about it now?

Two community groups have filed yet another suit against Brooklyn Bridge Park and developer Toll Brothers, claiming Pierhouse is in the wrong but that it’s not too late to make things right.

Brooklyn Heights Promenade
Brooklyn Heights Promenade, 1954. Photo via Brooklyn Public Library

How the New Suit Is Different

The new suit is different in two key ways. The most important change is the players: The venerable and influential community organization Brooklyn Heights Association has joined Save the View Now in bringing the lawsuit.

The group, which has not previously joined the latter’s protests and legal cases, was instrumental in landmarking the Heights, creating the landmarks law, and allowing the creation of Brooklyn Bridge Park to move forward in the first place.

Second, the lawsuit, filed Thursday in New York State Supreme Court, is about a different part of the view and a different building. The suit alleges that the third building in the development, the condo portion at 130 Furman Street — the one furthest from the Brooklyn Bridge — is blocking a legally protected part of the view.

The legally protected view focuses more on Manhattan and the harbor, and less on the Brooklyn Bridge.

You can read a PDF of the suit here.

A Professional Survey

The suit claims the penthouse unit on top of the building “intrudes by approximately 20 feet” into the protected view. The claim is based on a professional land survey commissioned by Save the View Now. Here’s a diagram illustrating the intrusion (PDF).

The groups delivered the survey results to the Department of Buildings in October and requested a stop work order. On Wednesday, the DOB said no stop work order is needed. The groups filed their lawsuit the next day.

pierhouse-1-092314
The view from the Promenade in September 2014 when 1Hotel topped out. Photo by Brownstoner

Legal Protections

Some important background:

One, previous protests had mostly concerned the first building, 1Hotel, whose 30-foot-tall penthouse is blocking a view of part of the Brooklyn Bridge that is not legally protected. In 2005, the Brooklyn Heights Association hammered out an agreement with the park that any new development would be capped at 100 feet.

But details of that agreement were never legally codified, so the penthouse was allowed to stay.

Two, the DOB and the park previously investigated concerns that 130 Furman Street would intrude on the legally protected view. The DOB issued a stop work order earlier this year, changes were made, and the stop work order was lifted, as we reported at the time.

Profound Emotional Effect

The construction of the building has had a “profound emotional effect” on plaintiffs and nearby residents Steven Guberman of Save The View Now and author Daniela Gioseffi, the suit alleges. The two had previously “highly valued” the views from their homes and the Promenade.

The judge may issue an injunction to temporarily halt work while the legal case proceeds. The lawsuit requests a response within 20 days. If the plaintiffs win their case, the judge might require the removal of the penthouse.

[h/t: Eagle]

Related Stories
Pierhouse Lawsuit Dismissed Again, View-Blocking Top Will Stay But Canopy Illegal
An Update on the Pierhouse Court Case From Plaintiff Save the View Now
Activist Group Doesn’t Think Pierhouse Deserves a Liquor License


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. The majority of developers in NYC building these big buildings are lying cheating scumbags when they need to be. It’s a money game and they could give a rats a$$ about the community. The DOB is in lock-step with them.

  2. Very upsetting since inception of this project.. What is the point of an agreement when a party can’t adhere to its terms? What does it mean to have “legally protected” views if they are actually not protected? Seems like a case of which legal team interprets wording the best to their advantage.. I cant help but feel that the appeal and allure of this incredibly special neighborhood, its mostly protected historic architectural and cultural treasures, and all of the unspoken charmed vibes it gives off, are at risk.. As a resident of Brooklyn Heights, I cant help but feel the “profound emotional effects” as expressed in the article.. Really hoping that this lawsuit does something positive- if not in this particular case, but may it prevent future similar situations.

  3. I’d agree as well, it’s not really about the view but about money. Toll Brothers shouldn’t be able to get away with this clear violation because they have deeper pockets and can keep the lawyers going for longer.

1 2 3 4