Garage Plan for Heights Building Rears Its Head Again
Despite the firestorm of community opposition that greeted a proposal to build a car garage in the courtyard of Brooklyn Heights’ historic Riverside Apartments a couple years ago, the Brooklyn Eagle reports that the building’s owner is still keen on making the parking plan happen. Riverside’s owner, the Pinnacle Group, wants to build a 134-car,…
Despite the firestorm of community opposition that greeted a proposal to build a car garage in the courtyard of Brooklyn Heights’ historic Riverside Apartments a couple years ago, the Brooklyn Eagle reports that the building’s owner is still keen on making the parking plan happen. Riverside’s owner, the Pinnacle Group, wants to build a 134-car, two-level parking garage (one level would be underground) in the building’s courtyard at Joralemon Street and Columbia Place. Pinnacle hired a new architect this time round for the plans, which were presented to Community Board 2’s Land Use and Landmarks Committee last week. The committee voted unanimously against the proposal, which is now headed to the LPC for possible approval. Riverside tenants are opposing the would-be garage for a variety of reasons, including the notion—which Pinnacle denies—that their landlord wants to take the building condo.
Update: A representative for Pinnacle sent us a rendering of the current plan for the garage, above. An image of the old plan and building are on the jump.
Owner of Riverside Apartments Comes Back With New Plan [Brooklyn Eagle]
What’s Going on at Riverside Apartments? [Brooklyn Heights Blog]
Architecture 101: The Riverside Apartments [Brownstoner] GMAP
Photo of Riverside Apartments by d.p.Hetteix; renderings from the Eagle.
The parking structure is visible from Joralemon Street, which is why it was reviewed by CB2 and will be by LPC. CB2 and LPC are not included in the “us” in the statement by 2:25.
I think the problem is people are treating this building as individually landmarked when in fact it’s in a landmark district. Uses that don’t detract from the overall aesthetic and historical value of the district are generally permitted. At this point, since the courtyard is viewable from the interior and BQE only, I don’t see how this would affect the district under that standard.
Having said that, I don’t see see some people here think neighborhood residents are entitled to parking, and any proposal that includes a garage automatically trumps other concerns (e.g. those of the tenants who actually live here and could be negatively affected).
I think affordable housing is important, but I’m with previous commenters in that this is a privately-owned building. It is not for us to say how he or she improves their property. You don’t like it, move out. How is this different than anyone else with rentals who improve their property?
Sam and the others who think this project will not hurt the tenants have no idea of its impact on all the ground story–namely it will seal them into a reinforced concrete tank. If you want to park your car, park it in your own front yard, backyard or somewhere else–Oh and did I forget to mention? at your own expense in construction cost, noise and air quality. While you are at it, provide gas masks for all the people exposed to your exhaust fumes. Keep your energy guzzling vermin to yourself.
Is there any hundred year old building in NYC that doesn’t have breakdowns of heat and hot water? It takes a lot of money to keep antiquated systems working. That is something that rent control advocates clearly do not remotely understand.
12:06, a tenant of this complex told me that sometimes they don’t have heat and hot water, so I’m guessing the tenants don’t have to worry about the “threat” of air conditioning and cable.
Polemicist, NYC has always been known for its inferior housing. Even fancy pre-war buildings had just one bathroom for an entire family, thank goodness most of these units also had a maid’s bath. I see on this blog every day perfectly nice, family homes that have been cut up into four-family, five-family apartment houses. Gross. It takes a lot of money to rise above grossness and break into just barely decent in this city. But the jobs pay a lot so we all decide to stay. Better not to think too much of how you would be living with the same income in other desirable American cities. It’s too depressing.
These buildings are much more attractive from the outside than from the inside. For one thing the corridors and stairs are on the EXTERIOR. the rooms are tiny. They are fine for low and moderate-income tenants, don’t get me wrong, although I would hope that the younger folks in there will aspire to something better and not just live out their lives holding on to childhood memories.
That does sound a little Dickensian.
I’m all for the project.
Progress and change within landmark areas are important if we are to maintain a modern standard of life. These buildings are not just a quaint stage set of “model Victorian tenements”. Ugh, just the phrase is kind of gross.
The wretched tenements of old are high priced living quarters today.
If anything, it is a symbol of how the rich have convinced the middle class in this city that crap tastes like caviar.
This is a fine building, but I want it to remain just as a reminder to everyone – the NIMBYs and politically connected developers alike – that what passes for housing today is offensive in this modern age of relative abundance.