Brooklyn Bridge Park, Community Groups Settle Lawsuit Over Pier 6 Towers
A full public review will be required to change the terms of the General Project Plan and move forward with the construction of affordable housing in two towers on Pier 6 in Brooklyn Bridge Park, according to the terms of a settlement reached in State Supreme Court Wednesday. Interestingly, the settlement also requires that building…
A full public review will be required to change the terms of the General Project Plan and move forward with the construction of affordable housing in two towers on Pier 6 in Brooklyn Bridge Park, according to the terms of a settlement reached in State Supreme Court Wednesday. Interestingly, the settlement also requires that building mechanicals be included in the building’s maximum height limits — a nod to controversy over construction elsewhere in the park.
More than a dozen community groups and the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. both declared victory. “This compromise will ensure the community a full review consistent with law,” said Frank Carone, the attorney for People for Green Space Foundation Inc. in a prepared statement from the group. “I believe truth, fresh air and sunlight will prevail,” said another member of the group, architect Joseph Merz, in the release.
The settlement will allow the park to move ahead with development, said a park spokeswoman in an emailed statement. “This is great news for the millions who enjoy Brooklyn Bridge Park,” she said. “We look forward the moving ahead with a fantastic project that will not only plug the final remaining gap in funding for this world class open space, but provide affordable housing, community space, and a beautiful gateway to the park’s southern entrance –- thus satisfying all of the goals of the Pier 6 request for proposals.”
News of the settlement was widely reported — The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Daily News, and Brooklyn Eagle all had stories. Above, one of 14 proposed designs for the towers.
The People for Green Space Foundation sued the park in July, arguing a new environmental review would be required. The Empire State Development Corp. will oversee the public review process.
Rendering by Asymptote Architecture
Related Stories
A Guide to Brooklyn Bridge Park Controversies, as Told in 10 Years of Brownstoner Headlines
Pier 6 Coverage [Brownstoner]
Community Group Sues Brooklyn Bridge Park, Pierhouse Developer Over Height, Views
people forget that Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill are landmarked, specifically to preserve the quality of these unique neighborhoods. Neighborhoods enjoyed by all New Yorkers and visitors to the city, especially now with the unanticipated success of the new park.
If it was just these 2 towers, it wouldn’t be so bad. But there’s the 44 and 19 story condos going up at LICH just 2-3 blocks away.
The Park Corporation has an interesting spin on this settlement. They can’t just move ahead with development. They have to get approval from the state to change the structure of the park. There is a side letter agreement that creates a robust community input process.
The park is SO POPULAR! Agree! Reason and truth will prevail! The Brooklyn waterfront has a higher calling than housing for a few, when it welcomes millions of visitors! We need a grand park entrance at Atlantic Ave. and the Park Corp needs to justify the loss of park space FOREVER in favor of 430 units and cars –at what should be a welcoming entrance to the park. Not a scary busy zoo-like intersection? There are already traffic problems here?
Also, PFGSF has expert witness testimony to put on the record for the state to consider in evaluating whether a supplemental environmental impact statement is needed. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Excited for what comes next.
Parks are for park visitors! … not housing! Unless it’s a turtle’s shell, a bird’s nest, beehive, or other similar housing for non-humans.
xo, Lori
the buildings would completely rise up and over the two landmarked neighborhoods they happen to be in the middle of (at the very least, adjacent to) … (never mind proposed LICH buildings) … obviously BBP is not technically within the designated districts or we wouldnt be having this conversation … But the impact of any new towers would clearly be felt — and change the feeling of — the surrounding landmarked areas (and forgive me for being colloquial – landmarked as in “you cant build towers”) … bottom line is that all the proposed new towers (BBP and LICH) are in a sense relying on a loophole …
Park was predicted on maximizing park space, and minimizing private real estate development in the park. Thanks for windfall real estate prices, the “predicated park plan” would seek more green space and more public space! for everyone. This is WHY they have to ask to change the plan. Because they are changing the Original PLAN.
Park welcomes millions of visitors – from Brooklyn, NYC and international visitors. This is a PARK not a housing development. Parks are egalitarian!
Affordable housing and parks are both crucial policy goals; to pit these noble public purposes against each other is sad and shortsighted.
Wait, how much are we subsidizing the Barclays Net’s center again? with tax dollars? And yet we cannot have a park??? WE only think about economic value from sports areas? BBP generates economic value too! And the park is CROWDED. All the space is precious.
Much love to all, even those we a different opinions!
Lori