Earlier today, I posted a letter we received from Two Trees Management Co., the developers behind the building that David McCullough said would ruin views of the historic Brooklyn Bridge. To add to the fray, we also heard from the architects behind the proposed project.

Here's what John H. Beyer, a partner at Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners LLP, had to say:

As the architects of a proposed building that is the subject of an opinion piece by author David McCullough (“A Masterpiece in Jeopardy, April 27), we were dismayed to discover that the article was accompanied by a rendering of the building that is inaccurate and significantly exaggerates the size and potential impacts of the building. We know this to be true because we created a rendering from this same perspective and the actual design is measurably smaller. Your rendering – which is acknowledged in a caption to be the work of those opposed to the project – is extremely misleading and your readers deserve to know that this is not what has been proposed.

The design is contextual and appropriate for this important site, and it is similar in height and massing to the nearby historic industrial buildings located in the DUMBO neighborhood next to the Brooklyn Bridge. These buildings range in height from 160 feet to 260 feet tall, and have recently been designated together as a historic district. In fact, the photograph accompanying your article was taken from an apartment in one of these buildings, 70 Washington Street, which is across the street and is about ten feet taller than the proposed building.

What your readers should have seen – were they shown the actual design – is a rendering that demonstrates that the new building will match the heights and massing of these adjacent industrial buildings. In its location next to the Brooklyn Bridge anchorage, it has been carefully positioned to minimize impacts on public views to or from the bridge. We feel that when observed in an objective light it is clearly a reasonable, sensitive contextual design.

Yes, I know. By this point, you're probably dying to see a rendering from the other side. I know I am. We are working on tracking it down in a format we can post, and will make it available as soon as possible.

UPDATE: Click through for a rendering from Dock Street Dumbo's architects. They sent us the photo to show how the new building compares with the current neighborhood. If you look below, the new project is the one closest to the bridge's entryway, and the different towers are highlighted with a green roof. Note how it's shorter, and of lesser mass, than many of the surrounding buildings. (If you click the photo, you should see a larger version).

This week, prolific author David McCullough took on the Dock Street Dumbo project, a high-rise residential building that one management company wants to build in a Brooklyn neighborhood directly adjacent to the iconic Brooklyn Bridge. In 1972, McCullough wrote "The Great Bridge," a history of the iconic thoroughfare. Now, he's gone back to the topic because, as he writes, "plans are proceeding to build an 18-story luxury apartment building within a hundred feet of the bridge on the Brooklyn side...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."

As he mentions in the piece, the building he's referencing -- which has been deemed controversial by much of the New York media -- went through the City Planning Commission earlier this week. The result? All but two members approved the project. In the end, the developers behind the building were victorious; zoning will likely be changed to accommodate the 325-unit tower, which has been reduced two or three floors in different sections as to avoid marring the vistas of the bridge. Next, the project will go to City Council. If it's approved, and presuming the developers don't run into any financial trouble, the building will become a reality.

Despite McCullough's view on the project, perhaps the Dock Street project isn't so bad. Earlier this week, NEWSWEEK received a letter refuting our piece from Two Trees Management, the company backing the project. Here's what Jed Walentas , the principal of the company, had to say:

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. In addition, the rendering created by project opponents and published by Newsweek, is incorrect architecturally and tremendously misleading to your readers.

Mr. McCullough fails to note that while Dock Street Dumbo will indeed include luxury rental units, it will also include the area’s first-ever affordable housing, as well as a much needed new public school that we, as developers, will be building for the City of New York. 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. These facts were supplied to a Newsweek fact checker; Newsweek chose not to print them. In fact, after careful deliberation, the New York City Planning Commission voted today to approve the Dock Street Dumbo project. The proposal now proceeds to the New York City Council for its final determination.

It sadly appears that the great author, a New England resident, has been hoodwinked into promulgating his inaccurate viewpoint by a group of neighborhood activists who have decided to use the Brooklyn Bridge as a centerpiece of their campaign against Dock Street Dumbo. 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.

An independent investigation of the Dock Street’s opponents claim, in fact, found no impact on public views of the Brooklyn Bridge and concluded “the result was objectively different from what opponents say.”

Any truly honest, objective review of this project would show that Mr. McCullough and Newsweek have been used, and sadly the only “public harm” here is the community’s potential loss of a new public school and affordable housing if Dock Street Dumbo’s dishonest, self-interested opponents prevail.