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.
I want a parking garage — the existing ones are full and overpriced, and with the demise of the one on love lane, parking is basically impossible.
Public parking is certainly what the neighborhood needs. Putting a mid-size parking structure there, out of sight, and topped by a new garden, seems to me to be an ideal proposal. What’s the downside?
This would result in a residence that combines the charm of an historic building with the convenience of a modern building. All the newer apartment buildings have some off-street parking. Why are the tenants acting like this is some outrageous affront? Will this increase their stabilized rent? Is that it? It is clearly in the best interests of the neighborhood and in the best interests of the building itself.
those trees are scrazzly. i like the new proposal
every time i drive by this building on the BQE, i think to myself how lovely these buildings are and it doens’t even occur to me that it’s right near the BQE and how that can be very unpleasant. these trees probably don’t do THAT much to shield in terms of noise, but i’m sure they help somewhat with that, probably pollution too, and are generally pleasant to look at. it has taken them a long time to reach this level of maturity, it would be a shame to cut them down before they really needed to be.
i’m not familiar with this particular courtyard, but it seems to me any caliber of rear yard has to be better than a parking garage. if the lot were for tenants (owners?), that would be one thing. but if it’s a public garage, that’s a shame. i know, i know, private property and all that stuff, but still. patches of green space are important in this city. so is quality of life.
Oops! The Brooklyn Eagle and Brownstoner are both showing before and after pictures from the 2006 proposal.
At least 95% of the posts on this site are from people who’re logged in as “guest”. This means that someone reading the comments on this site will be reading almost everything in faded type. Now, I understand why the faded type is used for “guests”. However, in my opinion it’s not worth it.
The faded type is clearly legible, but over the long haul it is more fatigue-inducing than regular, darker type. So, Mr. B, do you really want to condemn your readership to slogging through so much faded type?
Just a thought. Again, I do understand why the faded type was introduced. I just don’t think it’s worth it. You’re shooting yourself in the foot (and inducing eyestrain in your readers) as things currently stand.
Many thanks for all you do.
Looks like there is enough room for both.
you mean 3 dwarf trees as opposed to the 5 mature trees there now? Yea, good point.
So I presume the landlord is trying to cash in on the lack of parking at One Brooklyn.
the drawings clearly show more trees going in.
meanwhile, the “landlord” is also known as the “owner” and it’s perfectly in their right to go condo.