Posted 4/26/2009 12:53:00 PM by Douglas

I'm a big fan of the Brooklyn Bridge, and as much as it would suck if its view was obfuscated by other structures, the reality is that it's not on the barren steppe of West Texas: It's in Manhattan, and while it's interesting to note that at the time it was built it was the tallest structure in North America, it's not anymore. It may be sad to think of its view becoming even more eclipsed by buildings, but not any more sad than the first structure that went up in New York that was taller than the bridge.

Now, alas, plans are proceeding to build an 18-story luxury apartment building within a hundred feet of the bridge on the Brooklyn side. (A vote in the process is expected this week.) The building, as proposed by the Two Trees Management Co., would stand 184 feet high and just about ruin the view of the bridge from on shore, as well as the view from the bridge looking toward Brooklyn—in other words, the view for just about everyone except those living in the apartments. To permit such a project so close to the bridge would be a shameful, inexcusable mistake. There is no other way to say it.

Would we wish to see an 18-story building go up beside the Statue of Liberty, or next to Independence Hall in Philadelphia, or beside the Washington Monument? Of course not.

Well, duh. That's why D.C. has very strict building laws that limit the height of any structure, to prevent colossal skyscrapers from turning D.C. into a city like (wait for it) New York.

But it turns out Mr. McCullough may have been a little misleading with his assessment.

As the primary developers of Dumbo, a neighborhood adjacent to the Brooklyn Bridge, we are incredibly sensitive to the importance of this iconic landmark. While we respect the scholarship, prominence and intelligence of David McCullough (“A Masterpiece in Jeopardy,” April 27), his opinion piece about the Bridge, in regards to our mixed-used residential project, Dock Street Dumbo, is not an accurate or fair representation of what we have proposed for the community we care so deeply about.

I would oppose anything as stupidly named as the Dock Street Dumbo, but I'm a bit of a heretic.

We are left to wonder if Mr. McCullough is even aware of the fact that the local opposition group is led by a number of people who stand to lose their private views from their expensive condos (in fact, one such view was used by Newsweek as the accompanying photograph but failed to note that it was a view from a private apartment). These individuals – who, it should be noted, were notified of this possibility in their contracts of sale – have unsurprisingly not publicly disclosed their personal interests in the matter, choosing instead to manufacture supposed “public harm” to the Brooklyn Bridge.

Yes yes yes, we know that the new "great view" is blocking someone else's "great view," just like it did first. Yawn. These people remind me of the idiots that jockey for position for their luggage at the baggage claim. The carousel is comin' around again, flap-jack. But, as long as we're manipulating people:

That the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission found there to be no impact on local historical resources, including the Brooklyn Bridge was not mentioned by Mr. McCullough, nor was the overwhelming support of the local Community Board, which approved the project nearly unanimously, nor was the support of Brooklyn Borough President, Marty Markowitz

"No impact?" It may not be significant, but there certainly some impact. Also, I generally stop listening to people that use terms like "nearly unanimously." Isn't that a meaningless fucking term? Like "sort of pregnant" and "almost sober?"