View Full Version : Hudson River Park

Pages : [1] 2

February 19th, 2002, 02:47 PM
The information below is from Hudson River Park website (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org). Later I will post pictures of some piers.

In a city as dense and diverse as New York, Hudson River Park will be many things to many people. It will be a place where park-starved New Yorkers can soak in the sun or celebrate the seasons. A place where parents and teachers can help educate their children about the ecology and history of the Hudson. A place for running, playing, dancing, boating, or simply watching the boats sail by. A place for relaxing with your friends and neighbors.

A granite esplanade will span the entire five-mile park, bringing the public close to the water, while town docks, boat houses, a beach, and launches for canoes and kayaks will allow people to touch and even enter it. Back on land, undulating green lawns and groves of trees will separate walkers from the New York's finest bikeway. Ballfields will open for both children and adults.

But the best part of Hudson River Park will be the piers. Stretching up to 1,000 feet into the Hudson River, thirteen rebuilt piers will allow park visitors to leave the city behind them and experience the light, water and open space that are unique to the riverfront. Hudson River Park's piers will be islands of repose in the midst of our vibrant city.

Green shorelines, blue waters and open sky became the focus when planning for the park began over a decade ago. Since then, park planners have continued to work extensively with local communities, environmental organizations and businesses to create a living, breathing park for all visitors.

In 1998, the Hudson River Park Act officially created the park, reserving extensive portions of the waterfront exclusively for public recreation, and significantly limiting the types and locations of commercial activities. The Act also designated the river itself an estuarine sanctuary, and requires that every dollar made within the park goes right back into the park's construction, maintenance or operations.

The estimated park cost is $330 million. Both the State and City have already each committed $100 million to the project. The remainder will come from a combination of sources, including lease revenue and private fund-raising.

Much of the project's cost will be for infrastructure —rebuilding the pier structures, seawall, and the underground platforms which support the riverfront land. Those underground and underwater structures were built largely of wood in the 19th and early 20th centuries and must be replaced. The remaining capital expenses are for traditional park amenities like pavings, gardens, benches and lighting.

Hudson River Park's first section opened in Greenwich Village in September 1999, and further sections are under construction. The projected date of completion is 2005.

Lower Manhattan and Tribeca *


Hudson River Park begins at Battery Place with a bikeway and walkway that will continue along the entire length of the park to 59th Street. From there, it will connect to the Riverside South Park (also under construction), and Riverside Park. This is the beginning of the Hudson River Valley Greenway Trail, which will eventually run all the way to Troy, north of Albany.

Today:*The area between Battery Place and Harrison Street is the only part of the park without a river view. Between West Thames and Albany Streets, there is a children's playground, basketball court, community garden plots and a dog run. Tennis and basketball courts are located between Murray and Warren Streets.

Pier 25 provides a small "town dock", a snack bar and a sand area for beach volleyball. A miniature golf course is open from May to October. The "Yankee," the last surviving Ellis Island ferry, is docked here.

Pier 26 is the home of the Downtown Boathouse (www.downtownboathouse.org ), where members can store small craft like canoes and kayaks, and the public can borrow them or launch their own boats for free. The River Project (www.riverproject.org), an ecological education and research center, is also located at Pier 26.

Pier 32 is a deteriorated pier, now severed from the shoreline. Birds and other wildlife are now claiming it as their own.

Pier 34 contains two "finger" piers that link to the Holland Tunnel Vent Shaft. The southern finger is open to the public for strolling, sitting, blading or fishing. The northern finger is reserved as access for maintenance for the vent shaft. An art installation by Ron Baron, entitled "Birds," is currently located between the fingers.

In the future: The southern end of the park will feature a plaza linking Hudson River Park with Battery Park City, historic Battery Park, and the East River Esplanade. Park activities here may include active recreation, a community garden, a dog run, and a children's playground. The waterside esplanade (which will continue to the northern end of the park) begins at Harrison Street.

Piers 25 and 26, located at the North Moore Street Gateway, will both be fully rebuilt as public park piers, with an emphasis on ecology and boating.

Pier 25 will feature flexible areas for both active and passive recreation, children's play areas and a clam bar or similar concession stand. Moorings south of the pier will accommodate 40 boats, and a "town dock" will provide short-term docking for small craft. Historical ships and a water taxi will dock here, too.

Pier 26 will continue to house an "estuarium," an education and research center, with demonstration gardens, interpretive science exhibits and classroom space devoted to the Hudson River. A boathouse and launch for non-motorized boats will be located here as well.

Pier 32 will be an ecological pier with a get-down and lookout on the bulkhead.

Pier 34 will continue to offer access for fishing and other activities on the southern finger. Consideration will be given to opening up the northern finger as well, if the Port Authority's operational needs for the Holland Tunnel Vent Shaft do not conflict.

Greenwich Village *


Today: The temporary walkway continues north throughout this area, and the NYS Department of Transportation has completed the dedicated bikeway/bladeway between Clarkson and Horatio Streets.

Located at the end of Houston Street, Pier 40 is the largest pier in the park and is 95 percent commercial. Pier 40 Operating LLC maintains a public esplanade around the perimeter, and provides 2,300 long-term parking spaces, plus areas for excursion boats, police storage, truck and bus parking, and other uses. Hudson River Park operates two children's athletics fields for soccer and baseball, as well as some indoor recreational space. The Pier Park and Playground Alliance (www.pier40.org ) operates batting cages and other recreational facilities.

The Tamaroa is berthed on the north side of Pier 40. If you've read or seen The Perfect Storm, you'll recognize this decommissioned US Coast Guard vessel as the heroine of the story.

Pier 42 (at Morton Street) is closed due to pier condition.

Pier 45 is open for public use, but contains no amenities. Just to the north, a bow notch reminds us of the days when the ships became too long for the piers, and the bulkhead had to be pierced to accommodate the extra length.

Piers 46, 49 and 51 are condemned and unused.

The Gansevoort Peninsula is actually landfill. It is mostly devoted to municipal services: NYC Sanitation Department truck parking, salt storage, an unused marine transfer station, and Fire Department Marine Company 1.

Historical Note: Thirteenth Avenue. Manhattan once had a well-used Thirteenth Avenue. It ran from Bloomfield Street on what is now Gansevoort Peninsula all the way to 23rd Street. The area was later excavated to permit newer, longer ships to dock without blocking the channel. Today, only a one-block stretch remains on the Gansevoort Peninsula.

Pier 54 (at 13th Street) is a flat open pier that provides public access. It is distinguished by a steel arch — the remains of a once-grand building built for ocean liner passengers.

Historical Note: Famous Tragedy: Look closely at the entrance arch at Pier 54, and you'll see that it was once a Cunard-White Star pier. It was the departure point for the Lusitania's first voyage. It's also where the Titanic's survivors returned onboard the Carpathia.

In the future: At least half of Pier 40's 1.2 million square feet will be reserved for public park uses, with the rest devoted to compatible park/commercial activities, such as long-term parking. Detailed design of this pier is still to come, but its re-creation may involve demolition of parts of the eastern and western walls to open up more views. The perimeter walkway will be preserved and enhanced, and the courtyard and roof will likely become a 10.5 acre public park with lawns, sports fields and courts, and terraces. Other uses could include restaurants, performance space for arts companies, a boat showroom, and a water taxi stop.

Pier 42 is reserved solely for park uses, but its rehabilitation awaits completion of the other public piers. Future recreational activities might include in-line skating and flexible active space on the eastern portion of the pier, boat slips for non-motorized boats, and, on the western portion, lots of space for sedentary folks to sunbathe, read or relax.

Pier 45 will be one of the first piers to be reconstructed. It will feature a lawn, wooden boardwalks, open shade structures, seating areas, sun decks and plantings. It will also have a water taxi stop on its south side near the bulkhead .

Pier 46 will emphasize active recreation — such as flexible ball play — on its eastern portion and a perimeter walkway. A western walkway extension of the pier will allow close-up viewing of the adjacent ecological pier.

Pier 49 will become a pile field and viewing balcony.

Pier 51 is slated to become a children's play area and will include water features.

Following relocation of the essential services provided by the Department of Sanitation, the Gansevoort Peninsula will be filled with ball fields, a children's playground, and a sunning beach. Other possibilities include a boating center, overlooks and a water taxi stop. Fire Department Marine Company 1, Manhattan's only remaining waterside fire station, will remain on Pier 53, and three seasonal floating docks will be added on its north side to provide slips for about 60 small boats.

Pier 54 will become a public pier featuring the arch and granite bases from the original pier structure. Historic vessels will be docked and interpreted, and a terraced, wooden boardwalk deck with lounge chairs and some active recreation could also be included.

Chelsea *


Today: The interim bikeway/walkway runs along the West Side Highway from 14th - 34th Streets, but is narrow in some areas due to construction. An irregular area between 14th and 15th Street east of Route 9A currently includes a temporary dog run.

Pier 56 is condemned.

Pier 57 is used for municipal bus parking.

Historical Note: A Floating Pier. Pier 57 is eligible for the State and National Registers of Historic Places. It was built in 1952 and is significant because of its innovative engineering design by Emil Praeger, who designed floating piers for Allied landings in World War II. Pier 57 is supported by three buoyant, hollow concrete boxes. These 27,000-ton sections were built in Haverstraw, NY. Upon completion, they were flooded and floated down the river to their current location. The pier's method of construction was widely heralded and publicized in engineering journals at the time.

Pier 58 is a pile field.

Piers 59, 60 and 61 and their head houses are operated by Chelsea Piers Management (www.chelseapiers.com) under a long-term lease as a sports and recreation complex, featuring a golf driving range, a marina, two ice skating rinks, a bowling alley, a track and gymnastics center, commercial excursion boating, television and film studios and restaurants. A public pedestrian walkway hugs the perimeter of each pier.

Historical Note: Piersheds at Piers 60 and 61. These two piersheds are rare surviving examples of early 20th Century passenger ship terminals. Designed by Warren & Wetmore, they were completed in 1910. They remain intact, with the original materials and some original equipment, and have been restored by Chelsea Piers Management.

Two temporary in-line skating rinks operated by Chelsea Piers are located on Pier 62, and a landscaped public area occupies the western and southern sides of the pier.

Pier 63 currently houses Basketball City (www.BasketballCity.com) and the Equestrian Center. Immediately west of the building is Pier 63 Maritime, a barge offering public access and a variety of boats including the historic Frying Pan.

Historical Note: The Lightship Frying Pan, located at Pier 63 Maritime was built in 1929 and served as an offshore floating lighthouse in the Atlantic Ocean at Frying Pan Shoals, 35 miles from the mouth of Cape Fear in North Carolina. It was later moved to Cape May, NJ, then to Southport, NC, then to Maryland, where it sank and sat underwater for three years before being raised and brought to New York.

Pier 64 is condemned; the pier shed is empty. A pier headhouse was demolished in mid-1997 to make room for public access. On the eastern side of Route 9A, Thomas F. Smith Park has been dramatically expanded and will become part of the enlarged Chelsea Waterside Park.

The bulkhead area north of Pier 64 to 30th Street is being used as a staging area for the Route 9A Reconstruction Project. Pier 66 and Pier 66a are unusable due to pier condition. A heliport operated by Air Pegasus is located on the bulkhead between 29th and 30th Streets. Pier 72 (at 32nd Street) is condemned.

Historical Note: The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Float Transfer Bridge (Pier 66a), just north of Pier 64, was an active railway transfer point from 1954 to 1973, linking the river with the B&O Warehouse on Eleventh Avenue and 26th Street. The float bridge was constructed with a wooden Howe truss (patented in 1840) to handle the twisting stresses of transferring railroad cars to barges. It is listed on the State and National Registers of Historical Places. Hudson River Park Trust is currently restoring this structure, which will become a living reminder of the commerce that once dominated life on the Hudson.

In the future: The park between 14th and 15th Street east of Route 9A area will become part of the park as soon as it is no longer needed to highway reconstruction staging. A permanent dog run will be located here.

Decking and piles at Pier 56 (at 14th Street) will be removed and a small area will be rebuilt to provide public access over the river.

When the buses are moved from Pier 57, public esplanades will be created on the northern and southern sides.

Piles at Pier 58, which is severely deteriorated, will be removed.

Piers 59, 60 and 61 will remain as the Chelsea Piers Sports and Entertainment Complex.

Chelsea Waterside Park, between 22nd and 24th Streets, will be one of the largest park areas along the river. It will include Piers 62, 63 and 64, and large land areas on both the eastern and western sides of the roadway. The eastern portion is being built by the Route 9A Project and will be completed this year. It will include athletic fields for soccer and baseball, a basketball court, a children's playgrounds, food concessions and comfort stations, and a dog run. Piers 62, 63 and 64 will all become public park piers featuring views, sitting and playing areas.

At Pier 66a, the restored Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Railroad Float Transfer Bridge will allow 21st Century park visitors to learn how cargo once moved on the river. A small boat launch will also be included here.

Pier 66, just north of the Floatbridge will be rebuilt to provide a public boat dock for day-time tie-ups for up to 20 boats, and a viewing and sunning area at the western tip. A boathouse on the bulkhead will house approximately 150 small craft.

Pier 72 will be removed and its pilings will be retained to support wildlife. Another shoreline beach will be constructed south of Pier 76.

Midtown Maritime District *


Today, this portion of the waterfront is still alive with commercial maritime uses such as tour boats and river ferries. In the future, these thriving activities will continue and be enhanced by walkways, landscaping, another public pier and other public amenities.

Today: Pier 76 (across from Javits Convention center) is currently a City Police Department tow pound.

Pier 78, and the land adjacent to it, is the New York Waterway Ferry Terminal (www.NYWaterway.com), and is privately owned. It provides ferry service to Weehawken and Lincoln Harbor in New Jersey, as well as excursions. It also runs a bus service for commuters and theatergoers. Pier 79 contains vents for the Lincoln tunnel and a bus garage for New York Waterway.

Piers 81 and 83 are home to World Yacht (www.WorldYacht.com) and Circle Line (www.CircleLine.com), which together offer luxury dinner cruises and tours around the island of Manhattan. A small concession stand is located near Pier 83.

Pier 84 is open for interim public recreational use, and will include a community garden, seating, lighting, and a boating area.

Pier 86 houses the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum (www.Intrepidmuseum.org), and other historic vessels.

In the future: The waterfront esplanade and bikeway/blade way will continue through this area.

At least 50% of Pier 76 will eventually become part of the park following relocation of the tow pound. The remainder will remain under New York City control and likely be used for commercial purposes.

Pier 78 will continue to be used as the New York Waterway Ferry Terminal. Pier 79 will also become a ferry terminal, and will include public access and viewing areas.

Piers 81 and 83 will continue to be used by World Yacht and Circle Line for tourist and excursion boats until at least 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Pier 84 will be programmed entirely for park uses and could include town docks with day slips for small boats, sitting areas, a community garden, and a boathouse. Water taxis will stop here as well.

The Intrepid Museum will continue at Pier 86.

Clinton *


Today: Piers 88, 90, and 92 are the Passenger Ship Terminals and are not part of the park.

Pier 94 is also known as the "Unconvention Center." It is used for trade shows and is not part of the park.

Piers 95 and 96 are closed due to pier conditions.

Pier 97 is used for sanitation truck parking.

Pier 98 is used for Con Edison employee car parking, a training facility and delivery by barge and storage of fuel oil.

Pier 99 is a Sanitation Department marine transfer station.

In the future: Piers 88, 90 and 92 will continue as passenger ship terminals. Pier 94 will be used for trade shows or other commercial purposes as decided by the City of New York.

North of Pier 94 through and including Pier 97 will be the new Clinton Cove Park. Pier 95 will have a get down near the shore, and Pier 96 will have a small boathouse; the remaining piles and decks on both piers will be removed.

Pier 97 will be used for passive and active recreation, with a boardwalk, flexible court space (for sports like basketball, tennis, volleyball, badminton and handball), open shade structures and benches. Water taxis will stop here, and there will be a town dock with day slips for small boats. Historical vessels may also be stationed here.

Piers 98 and 99 will continue to be used by Con Ed and the Department of Sanitation.

February 20th, 2002, 11:30 AM
Pier 25 provides a small "town dock", a snack bar and a sand area for beach volleyball. A miniature golf course is open from May to October. The "Yankee," the last surviving Ellis Island ferry, is docked here.

Pier 26 is the home of the Downtown Boathouse (www.downtownboathouse.org ), where members can store small craft like canoes and kayaks, and the public can borrow them or launch their own boats for free. The River Project (www.riverproject.org), an ecological education and research center, is also located at Pier 26.

The view from Battery Park on Piers 25 and 26.


Pier 32 is a deteriorated pier, now severed from the shoreline. Birds and other wildlife are now claiming it as their own.


Pier 34 contains two "finger" piers that link to the Holland Tunnel Vent Shaft. The southern finger is open to the public for strolling, sitting, blading or fishing. The northern finger is reserved as access for maintenance for the vent shaft.

The view on the vent shaft of the Holland Tunnel on northern finger of Pier 34 from the Hudson River.


The Tamaroa is berthed on the north side of Pier 40. If you've read or seen The Perfect Storm, you'll recognize this decommissioned US Coast Guard vessel as the heroine of the story.

The Tamaroa at Pier 40 in May of 2000.


Pier 54 (at 13th Street) is a flat open pier that provides public access. It is distinguished by a steel arch — the remains of a once-grand building built for ocean liner passengers.

Historical Note: Famous Tragedy: Look closely at the entrance arch at Pier 54, and you'll see that it was once a Cunard-White Star pier. It was the departure point for the Lusitania's first voyage. It's also where the Titanic's survivors returned onboard the Carpathia.


Piers 60 and 61 and their head houses are operated by Chelsea Piers Management (www.chelseapiers.com) under a long-term lease as a sports and recreation complex, featuring a golf driving range, a marina, two ice skating rinks, a bowling alley, a track and gymnastics center, commercial excursion boating, television and film studios and restaurants. A public pedestrian walkway hugs the perimeter of each pier.

Historical Note: Piersheds at Piers 60 and 61. These two piersheds are rare surviving examples of early 20th Century passenger ship terminals. Designed by Warren & Wetmore, they were completed in 1910. They remain intact, with the original materials and some original equipment, and have been restored by Chelsea Piers Management.


Two temporary in-line skating rinks operated by Chelsea Piers are located on Pier 62, and a landscaped public area occupies the western and southern sides of the pier.


Built in 1931, MV John J. Harvey, at 130 ft and 268 net tons, is the second most powerful fireboat ever in service on the East Coast of the United States. She has five 600 HP diesel engines, and has capacity to pump 16,000 gallons of water a minute. Her pumps are powerful -- enough so that when she and the George Washington Bridge were both brand new, she shot water over the bridge's roadway. She was retired by the New York City Fire Department in 1994 and bought at auction by her current owners in 1999. She was placed on The National Register of Historic Places in June 2000.

The John J. Harvey fireboat at Pier 63 Maritime.


January 8th, 2003, 10:34 PM
Battery Park North (http://www.wirednewyork.com/battery_park.htm) and the construction of 20 River Terrace (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/20river_terrace/default.htm) on 14 September 2002, with Pier 32 (http://www.wirednewyork.com/piers/pier32/default.htm).


Hudson River Park's Pier 45 on 29 May 2000.


Delaware's tall ship Kalmar Nyckel at Pier 63 Maritime (http://www.wirednewyork.com/piers/pier63maritime/default.htm) is visiting New York City for Sail for America. 14 September 2002.


January 8th, 2003, 11:49 PM
I like these pictures, and the historical descriptions. *This is a part of NY that you never hear very much about.

May 31st, 2003, 03:44 AM
May 31, 2003

A Piece of Hudson Riverfront Is Reclaimed for the People

On a pier poking 860 feet into the Hudson River and once used for such grinding work as shucking oysters and hauling freight, 25 young honey locust trees were quivering in a soft breeze yesterday and a thick cushion of grass stretched the length of one and a half football fields.

That revitalized pier, two shorter piers nearby and the connecting Greenwich Village waterfront were christened yesterday by state and city officials as a park, the first portion of the long-talked-about transformation of the mostly ramshackle Manhattan waterfront that runs for five miles from Battery Park to 59th Street. Once finished, Hudson River Park, as it is known, will provide a waterside refuge to the tens of thousands of residents of TriBeCa, Greenwich Village, Chelsea and Clinton.

"There's always been the notion that we would be recapturing the waterfront, but we never did it," said Adrian Benepe, New York City's parks commissioner and one of several officials who reached for superlatives to explain the event's significance. "Since the first Dutch merchants pulled in in 1624, the Manhattan waterfront has been commercial and the residents of Manhattan have been shut out of their river."

But however high the hopes of reclaiming the waterfront, the project still faces uncertainties. Only $200 million has been allocated to finish all six park segments, a job that is estimated to cost twice that amount.

"Without money, all the political will in the world won't build the park," said Tom Fox of Friends of Hudson River Park, a leading advocate of a river park.

Critics have accused the park's builders of using green space as a Trojan horse for the commercial entertainment and recreation that will become available at some piers along the park, so conflict is sure to dog the park. The park's builders have yet to find places for the sanitation trucks and tow pound that occupy some piers. And while many environmental groups fought for the park's creation, others like the Clean Air Campaign say that it will harm the spawning grounds around the pier pilings used by striped bass and other species.

The portion opened yesterday spans three-quarters of a mile of waterfront from Clarkson to Horatio Streets. It includes an esplanade landscaped with azaleas, begonias, trumpet creepers and a granite fountain as well as three precast concrete piers, at Jane Street, Charles Street and just north of Christopher Street. The Jane Street pier, with a jungle gym and prow, is essentially a playground. The Charles Street pier has artificial turf that can be used for kicking a soccer ball, and the Christopher Street pier, with its true grass lawn and long wooden benches, is intended for sunbathing and contemplation.

From the end of Pier 45 near Christopher Street yesterday, the eye took in a broad gray swath of rippling river, the newly muscular skyline of Jersey City, the Statue of Liberty and a solitary mallard duck floating by.

With Howard G. Abel of Abel Bainnson Butz as the landscape architect, the project used several structural approaches to create a sturdy park designed to resist the abuse of thousands of users for 50 years. According to Marc Boddewyn, vice president of design and construction for the Hudson River Park Trust, the park's builder and operator, Pier 45 is built on 1,200 concrete pilings ranging from 80 to 110 feet in length. Its platform rises for three feet at points to contain enough soil for the 25 locust trees, and the irrigation system encourages the trees' roots to grow laterally.

The sun can be intensely hot on the pier — politicians came away with reddened faces yesterday — so shade is also provided by synthetic-fiber canopies. The railings are made of stainless steel to eliminate the need for painting.

Residents of Greenwich Village have been longing for completion of the park, which will be open from dawn until 1 a.m. On Thursday, Elliot Smith, a 60-year-old art dealer, arrived at the park to walk Tchotchke, his chocolate Labrador retriever, and was disappointed that its opening had been delayed a day. He was stoic.

"Everyone in the neighborhood has been watching with anticipation and impatience, but great projects take time to complete," he said.

The Hudson River Park Trust's board includes five members appointed by Gov. George E. Pataki, five by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and three by the Manhattan borough president, C. Virginia Fields. It will raise money for maintenance through rents collected from commercial users on park property, like Chelsea Piers.

To finish the project, trust officials hope to tap some the hundreds of millions of dollars made available to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation after the collapse of the World Trade Center. If financing is found, officials believe the entire park can be completed in five years, Mr. Boddewyn said.

As officials munched on barbecue and toasted each other and the park — Mr. Pataki called it "the Central Park of the 21st century" — considerations of money were set aside. Mostly officials were tickled at the idea of a park in the middle of the Hudson.

"It takes a while for your mind to get used to it — to be walking barefoot in the grass and be over the river," Mr. Benepe said. "It's like a Sheep Meadow over the water."

Copyright 2003*The New York Times Company

May 31st, 2003, 04:35 PM
May 31, 2003. Photos of just opened segment 4


Pier 45



Restored bow notch. When ships became too large for the piers, several of these notches were cut into the bulkhead.

The bulkhead wall is a NYC engineering landmark. The capstones that were too damaged to be used were incorporated into the landscape at several places.

Pier 46. The lawn is artificial.

I had my doubts, so a closer look. I was only sure when I tugged on a blade and it wouldn't come out. There is a bed of granular material that feels like soil.

View north from pier 46



Childrens' pier at Jane St

May 31st, 2003, 04:50 PM
I live so close, I can't believe I haven't made it over there in months.

May 31st, 2003, 05:03 PM
I live really far. But I was there two weeks ago.

June 2nd, 2003, 12:25 PM
I tell ya, that is a nice looking park. When it is all said and done, it should be an inspiration for crappy waterfront all around the city. *It would be nice if every area of the city had something beautiful like this. *Now, just get Pier 40 settled and that little matter of the $100 or so million, and we're good!

June 2nd, 2003, 04:01 PM
Yeah, the money will be a constant issue. Like the Central Park Conservancy, people like Nicole Kidman and her Perry West neighbors, and Citigroup in Tribeca are going to have to step up.

TLOZ Link5
June 2nd, 2003, 04:17 PM
Oh God...that's absolutely gorgeous. *Makes me almost envy West Siders if they have such a lovely park at their disposal. *And those shots with Perry West really do the buildings justice.

June 3rd, 2003, 10:52 AM
This project has had me as excited as any world record skyscraper. *I encourage forum members to visit. No expense was spared. *This is extremely high quality from construction materials to plantings. *Gorgeous!

June 4th, 2003, 12:37 PM
Some more info:


June 4th, 2003, 02:07 PM
View south from pier 40. Segment 3 waits development. Hopefully, construction will start by 4th qtr 2004.

There are some tempy recreational facilities. If you have an urge to float through the air with the greatest of ease...

June 5th, 2003, 09:51 AM
But look at that bike path.

June 5th, 2003, 10:41 AM
The bike path is great, although I haven't tried trapeze school yet. Next adventure will definitely be taking out a kayak on the Hudson - anyone up for that? I would have done it already but it's been RAINING every time I think of it.

Nice pics Zippy.

July 7th, 2003, 12:02 PM

July 7th, 2003, 12:31 PM
Pretty. Is that Morton Square on the left?

edit: never mind. The answer is yes.

(Edited by Gulcrapek at 12:36 pm on July 7, 2003)

July 8th, 2003, 01:13 AM
Those fake old lampposts. People should be sick of the retro craze by now.

July 8th, 2003, 05:20 PM
Who doesn't like them ?
They didn't take much risk...

August 6th, 2003, 12:45 AM
August 6, 2003

Piers as Parks Downtown

Lower Manhattan's residents face a long period of reconstruction before the promise of a redesigned World Trade Center site becomes reality. In the meantime, there is something that can be done quickly and relatively inexpensively to reassure people who remain committed to the area, and that is to proceed expeditiously with the next downtown segment of the Hudson River Park.

The park is a city-state project that will eventually stretch from the Battery to 59th Street, giving New Yorkers long-denied access to the waterfront. Recently completed sections near Greenwich Village offer an inviting mix of open space and gardens. Much the same can now be accomplished farther south in TriBeCa, where the plan calls for converting two ramshackle piers into splendid little parks that extend 1,000 feet into the river. Standing on the already rebuilt Greenwich Village piers is a bracing experience, much like being on the bow of a boat. The TriBeCa additions would provide yet more space for a growing crowd of pier lovers who come for sports or picnics, a place to read or simply sit and breathe.

The cost of redoing these piers would be about $70 million, a modest fraction of the $1.2 billion provided earlier by Washington to help revive the city. There are, of course, other claimants to that money, which the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation must figure out how to spend fairly and wisely. The city wants a chunk for the East River waterfront. There are cultural and transportation needs as well. There's a new wish list every week.

The decision may fall to Gov. George Pataki, who has considerable control over the corporation. That is a good sign for the future of the park; Mr. Pataki helped get it off the ground in the first place. It can now use another $70 million worth of his help in a neighborhood that richly deserves it.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

August 6th, 2003, 08:54 AM
From the Battery Park City Broadsheet:

River Project, Manhattan Youth, Boathouse, and Yankee Discuss Relocation

In they ambled, tanned, cheerful, late to the meeting. Jim Gallagher and Bob Townley had missed the agenda item that concerned them, as leaseholders at piers 25 and 26 who need to consider where their businesses will temporarily relocate while the Hudson River Park Trust reconstructs the piers. Unconcerned, they just brought the issue up again at the end of the meeting, after the HRPT representative left.

This relaxed sensibility has always dictated operations at piers 25 and 26. The four leaseholders - Mr Townley's Manhattan Youth, Mr Gallagher's Yankee ferry, Cathy Drew's River Project, and Jim Wetteroth's Downtown Boathouse - were pioneers at the downtown waterfront, rooting their programs where there was nothing but a platform in the water. All four organizations are now quite successful.

Design plans call for the piers to be rebuilt, and Connie Fishman of the HRPT says reconstruction will take about three years. If the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation approves in September the $60 million requested by the HRPT, reconstruction of the piers could begin as early as next year.

Linda Roche, chair of Community Board 1's waterfront committee, is helping the leaseholders plan for their temporary relocation.

One of the first questions asked of Ms. Fishman, who attended the CB1 meeting, was if there is temporary space available at other HRPT piers.

"It's not that big a park," she responded. "There aren't utilities in most places, which is a big impediment. It limits where you can relocate people to."

Looking ahead, the River Project is requesting 5,000 square feet at Pier 40 and electricity to run the Estuarium tanks. Mr Gallagher said he would like to move the Yankee to the south side of Pier 40, and would provide his own fendering (bumpers that protect piers from docked boats) if need be. Mr Wetteroth said he might be able to store the kayaks of the Downtown Boathouse on a barge docked at the Tribeca waterfront. "We don't need a lot of utilities," he said. Mr Townley, who runs the largest program, did not speak of his plans.

The reconstructed piers will feature modern facilities, upgraded recreation areas, designed plantings, and commissioned public art. Pier 25 alone will gain 180,000 square feet of public space. But current leaseholders fear the easy, low-key ambiance may be lost. At the same meeting, an entrepreneurial duo proposed a "sensational and fabulous" replacement for the slightly ratty but beloved and inexpensive miniature golf course at Pier 25.

"The organic way the piers have been run is finished and it won't be back," Mr.Gallagher said.

The River Project (http://www.riverproject.org)

TLOZ Link5
August 26th, 2003, 10:57 PM
I'm very glad to say that I went to Hudson River Park for the first time ever today. *I brought a friend of mine that I've made at NYU who is from New Jersey; he was totally blown away by it. *He thought it was one of the coolest things ever to be built in NYC. *We went to Piers 45 and 46, where there's not much to do other than sunbathe (it was cloudy today), use the quality public restroom, stare at the water and the skyline(s), people-watch, and get crepes from that nice lady who comes over there with a push-cart (they're yummy, by the way). *One of those bow notches separates the two piers, and it's really worth going to.

August 27th, 2003, 07:38 PM
A few more pics from the park...







October 1st, 2003, 11:12 AM
From the Downtown Express http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_23/trustspringsrink.html

Trust springs rink surprise

By Lincoln Anderson

Recent complaints about lack of communication between the Hudson River Park Trust and the community were highlighted at last Thursday’s Trust board of directors meeting, when an enclosed ice-skating rink was proposed for a location inside Community Board 2 — even though Board 2 had never been notified or consulted. In addition, the Hudson River Park Advisory Council never reviewed the plan. In fact, the Trust’s own board even seemed surprised by the proposal.

The enclosed rink would be a permanent park structure just north of Spring St.

Also, the general outlines of the Trust’s interim plan for Pier 40 near Houston St. became clearer last week. The plan would include adding 600 more cars of residential parking and installing one huge multipurpose field covered by artificial grass in the pier’s courtyard.

In addition, the Friends of Hudson River Park voted earlier the same morning to file a lawsuit over the Trust’s failure to pick a developer for Pier 40 by a deadline in June.

At last Thursday’s meeting, Robert Balachandran, the Trust’s president and C.E.O., presented to the Trust’s board the plan for the rink, to be enclosed by a tensile, fabric-structure roof and to be located just south of Pier 40 slightly north of Spring St. The rink, slated for a Dec. 30 opening, would be used for ice-skating in winter and rollerblading and other events in summer. The building’s design includes sliding windows and rollup doors to lend an open feeling, as opposed to a tennis bubble-type covering without openings.

The project cost would be $2.6 million, to be reimbursed by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., the agency funding post-9/11 projects in Lower Manhattan.

An L.M.D.C.-funded $600,000 project for interim tennis courts in the same area has been delayed a year so repairs to the bulkhead (seawall) and infrastructure can be made first, allowing the courts to be permanent.

Trust board member Henry Stern, former Parks Department chairperson, immediately expressed concern, noting, “This is not an ice rink. This is an icehouse. And that’s not what parks are about. Parks are about open space. The idea of new open space and putting a building on it is a problem.”

Likening the building to a “suburban Quonset hut,” Stern noted, “If we proposed to do this in Central Park, the landmarks community would be outraged.”

Balachandran said the covering was needed to keep the rink cool, which is the main operating cost.

“It’s a structure,” Balachandran added. “A building sounds too pejorative.”

Balachandran said that unlike Central Park or Rockefeller Center, the Hudson River waterfront gets “brutally cold in the winter.”

Stern asked why putting the rink in one of the park’s existing pier-shed houses wasn’t considered. The L.M.D.C. grant money extends as far north as Houston St., which makes Pier 40 an eligible site. But Balachandran said they didn’t want to put it on Pier 40 because it could complicate the pier’s development.

Asked by Trust board member Julie Nadel how long the structure would be in the park, Balachandran said, “This is forever. This would be a permanent structure.”

Nadel asked if the Hudson River Park Advisory Council had seen the plan. Balachandran said no, but that Governor Pataki has “had it in the works for several months.”

Former state Senator Franz Leichter, a Trust board member, asked if the proposal had every gone before the community boards. Connie Fishman, the Trust’s vice president, said yes — Board 1. However, Judy Duffy, Board 1’s assistant district manager, said only the rink, not the structure, had been presented to the board. (Duffy later said a tennis bubble had been shown, but that it wasn’t anything like the structure.)

Balachadran acknowledged that the plan had not been shown to Board 2.

Arthur Schwartz, former chairperson of Board 2’s Waterfront Committee, passed a reporter a note that read: “This proposal is outrageous — a permanent facility without any public process. This is in C.B. 2 and C.B. 2 has never discussed it. It isn’t in Board 1.” Canal St. is the boundary between Boards 2 and 1.

Trip Dorkey, Trust chairperson, said they should defer voting on the matter but that he might bring it up over the phone with them at some point in the next two months. Board member Diana Taylor, an appointee of Pataki who is Mayor Bloomberg’s companion, wanted to know if there was a time limit on using the L.M.D.C. money for the ice rink. Dorkey said they’d check.

Last year, the Trust had been considering Pier 25 at N. Moore St. in Tribeca, or a spot nearby, as the site for the rink. But the electricity at the site apparently was not sufficient, Duffy said.

Pier 40 interim plan

In regard to Pier 40, Balachandran said that at the end of this year, the existing lease for the pier, held by C&K Properties, expires. FedEx and other commercial tenants, like Academy Bus and the Police Department Barrier Unit, will have to vacate the pier at that time under the Park Act. The Trust has put out a request for proposals, due back by Nov. 7, for operators for residential parking on the pier. The lease is for four years with two one-year extensions. Balachandran said a guideline has been set of 2,800 to 2,900 cars, more than the current 2,000, though the developers can come back with proposals for more or less cars, he noted. The Trust hopes to include a clause in the lease allowing 60-day cancellation.

Balachandran didn’t have any design plans for the Pier 40 interim uses to show last Thursday. He said that the Trust’s staff is currently working on the designs for public space on the pier, but he did not say when it would be built.

Chris Martin, Trust spokesperson, said there will be one “really big field” in the pier’s interior courtyard covered by FieldTurf, an artificial-grass surface. “It could be for baseball, soccer, lacrosse and football. It’s going to be multipurpose,” Martin said.Balachandran said that “absent any speed bumps in the selection process,” they should have a parking lot operator in place by Dec. 31.

Balachandran said he expects they will have some designs for the interim plan to show the Trust’s board by the next board meeting, probably to be held in November, and that before then they plan to make presentations to a committee headed by Duffy as well as to “the community.”

Balachandran had said in July that he would have a Pier 40 plan to show the board within two months. Explaining the added delays, he said, “We hadn’t sat down with the community yet. First, internally, we had to have some idea of what we wanted to do. It would be unfair to the community to go to them first… We want the fields; we want open space.”

Asked if the individual community boards would have a chance to review the Pier 40 plan, Balachandran said, “I’d say ‘capital C community.’ But we’re going to act through the Advisory Council. Everyone will have an opportunity to be heard.”

Pier 40 committee

Duffy said the Advisory Council has set up a Pier 40 committee to review the interim plan.

In addition to the need for field space on the pier, Duffy said, “I think we’d like to reclaim some of the third-floor roof space for passive recreation space. A car doesn’t have to have a river view.” An interim playground on the roof with a soft surface is an idea, too, she said, since the new Pier 51 water playground at Jane St. is always mobbed.

The hope is to have the interim active and passive recreational uses on the pier ready by the spring, she said.

However, the lack of information about the Trust’s doings remains a serious problem, said Jim Smith, chairperson of C.B. 2. He said the ice rink episode exemplifies the problem.

Told that Duffy will be heading the Pier 40 committee, Smith was dubious about it, since Duffy is an employee of C.B. 1, whose chairperson, Madelyn Wils, is on the Trust’s board of directors.

“It comes down to appearances,” Smith said. “I’m not that comfortable with having an employee of a community board acting as head of a committee that’s supposed to be a watchdog of a body, one of whose members is her boss.”

“In the end, the community boards are going to have a review,” he said. “It’ll go its appropriate way and it’ll have an appropriate process.”

As for the lawsuit by Friends of Hudson River Park on the failed Pier 40 development process, Schwartz, who is the Friends’ attorney on the case, said it will have to be filed by Oct. 10, since the statue of limitations is four months from June 10, when the Trust said it made the decision not to pick one of three development groups vying for the pier. Schwartz said he’s rounding up plaintiffs, but can’t comment on who they might be.

Summing up the basis of the lawsuit, Schwartz said: “The Trust acted in bad faith when it failed to choose a developer and attempt to negotiate final plans for Pier 40. It set back the process for too long a time, in my opinion, so they could receive greater rent from Pier 40. Pier 40 is to provide needed park and recreational space for Downtown, and not be an income generator for the park. The Trust will have a hard time explaining to a court why they couldn’t pick a developer to negotiate with. They didn’t have to pick a plan…. All they were required to do was pick a developer and have three months to negotiate. The legislation says they ‘shall pick a developer,’ not ‘may pick a developer’ or ‘ought to pick a developer.’ ”

“The ice-skating rink could draw thousands and thousands of people to the park,” Schwartz said, “and [the Trust] didn’t come before the [community] board at all. I think the Trust has the impression no one is guarding the chicken coop. And this is the middle of a period where there is so much going on.”


The Trust’s proposed ice rink just south of Pier 40

October 1st, 2003, 01:07 PM
I like the idea of a rink but I don't like that ugly tent over it.

December 16th, 2003, 05:31 PM
Baltimore & Ohio RR Float Transfer Bridge

In 1890, the B&O RR purchased land on 12 Ave between W24 and W26 St and built a freight yard. Tracks ran from the yard across 12 Ave to the float transfer bridge, which was used to load and unload RR cars onto barges. The barges were towed to facilities in Jersey City, and later to a new port in St George, Staten Island. The landfill for the Staten Island facility came from foundations being dug for new high rise buildings in Manhattan.

The float transfer bridge operated until 1973. In the early 80s the land was sold and the B&O went out of business. The Postal Service and Dept of Sanitation repair facilities now occupy the site.

The float transfer bridge has been restored, and is open to the public. It's listed on the National Register of Historic Places.






December 18th, 2003, 01:23 AM
Cool thanks for the posting. I can't wait to see the Float Transfer Bridge.

December 18th, 2003, 02:01 AM
Many thanks to all of you for those beautiful pictures...If i'll get the chance to live in NY (cross my fingers), i think that every sunday's i'll go out for a walk.....

December 18th, 2003, 08:45 AM
December 18, 2003

Money for Hudson Park Trust Is Running Out


The plan to create a five-mile-long park along the Hudson River waterfront to 59th Street from Battery Park was announced in 1998 with great fanfare and a $200 million commitment from the city and the state.

Five years later, the money is running out and the 550-acre park is only half finished. Critics yesterday testified at a public hearing, saying that the Hudson River Park Trust, which was created by the governor and the mayor to oversee development and operation of the park, has failed to seek additional public financing or conduct public hearings to explain its plans. Nor has the trust moved to eliminate parking garages and other operations within the park's borders, critics said.

"My concern is that the vision of the park embodied in the state legislation is in jeopardy because of the pressures on the trust to find revenues and not complain about the lack of capital funding," Albert K. Butzel, chairman of the Friends of Hudson River Park Trust, said yesterday. "The real crisis here is the lack of public funding."

Mr. Butzel, whose group has established a fund for the park with $1 million contributed by the Durst real estate family, spoke yesterday at the hearing about the trust conducted by Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, chairman of the committee on corporations, authorities and commissions.

Mr. Butzel and others complained that to offset the lack of money, the trust has sought other revenue from commercial development, which is often incompatible with the plans for the park.

Earlier this year, the trust completed a section of the park that runs along Greenwich Village and won rave reviews. Charles E. Dorkey III, chairman of the trust, said yesterday that the agency was building Clinton Cove Park, between 54th and 57th Streets, and hoped to begin construction of Pier 84 at 42nd Street next spring.

But, Mr. Dorkey said, the trust expected to exhaust the $200 million provided by the state and the city by the end of next year. He said it would cost another $200 million to complete the park. The trust has applied to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation for $95 million to build a section of the park between Chambers and Houston Streets, he said.

He said the trust, whose members are appointed by the governor and the mayor, had not asked either the city or the state for more financing. Mr. Dorkey also rejected complaints that his agency had failed to solicit public involvement. "I would characterize the public input into the design of Hudson River Park as easily the most inclusive of any project of its kind," he said.

Mr. Dorkey later acknowledged, however, that the agency had never invoked a 60-day comment period before taking "significant actions" affecting the park or the community, as required by state legislation.

Mr. Butzel said the trust had failed to notify the public that it considered a skating rink at Pier 40, where there are plans for athletic fields, or that its current proposal is to expand the parking garage on the pier and extend the lease for seven years.

"This is an agency in crisis," Mr. Brodsky said yesterday. "This is a park that could take the next step, or bog down badly."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

December 18th, 2003, 09:16 AM
the 550-acre park is only half finished.
I know thisis not meant to be exact, but the park is not nearly half finished. Only one of seven segments is fully complete. Two short piers were recently completed in segment 7 (W57 St). The area at pier 84 (south of Intrepid) is fenced off waiting construction. Work on the ferry terminal at pier 79 (Lincoln Tunnel vent) is progressing. The MTA has moved out of pier 57 (W15 St), and RFP has been issued.

That's it.

December 18th, 2003, 01:06 PM
I think I hear heels dragging.

Nah, it's just the wind..... ;)

December 18th, 2003, 08:34 PM
Mr. Butzel and others complained that to offset the lack of money, the trust has sought other revenue from commercial development, which is often incompatible with the plans for the park.

Well...at least is better than nothing :roll:

Charles E. Dorkey III, chairman of the trust, said yesterday that the agency was building Clinton Cove Park, between 54th and 57th Streets,

The more they built the park...the more new construction will happen. I have noticed alot of activity around that area.

and hoped to begin construction of Pier 84 at 42nd Street next spring.

I can't wait to see Pier 84 being built. It makes sence since there are alot of new residential buildings in that area. Who knows it might spruce up more development.

December 18th, 2003, 09:15 PM
This will get done sooner or later. It's an amazing asset for all the city and will continue to be a residential catalyst in the area. Someday, not too far away, NYC will be known for it's waterfront access, parks, and activites (I hope).

April 8th, 2004, 11:06 AM
Park Frozen As City Trucks Blockade Pier

by Blair Golson

Park advocates are charging that the city’s Sanitation Department is unlawfully squatting on a West Side pier that should have been demolished three months ago to make way for the northern end of the Hudson River Park.

The postponement threatens to further derail the long-delayed plan to create a five-mile, 550-acre waterfront park from Battery Park City to 59th Street, the city’s largest open-space project since the creation of Central Park in 1853.

For years, the Sanitation Department has used Pier 97 at West 57th Street as a marshaling yard for its trucks and a depot for street salt. But according to state legislation, that property should have been turned over on Jan. 1, 2004, to the Hudson River Park Trust, the city/state agency tasked with building the park. The entire park had been slated for completion in 2003, but to date the trust has finished just one of six segments—in Greenwich Village. Furthermore, the trust recently spent the last of the $200 million that the city and state had committed for the park’s creation in 1992, and it will probably need a minimum of $200 million more to complete it.

To pay for the renovation of Pier 97, the trust has to once again hit up the city or state for additional funding, a request it cannot make until the Sanitation Department vacates the pier. The Sanitation Department can’t vacate, however, until it completes the long-delayed construction of a new facility at a site across 12th Avenue, which might not happen for another three years. Until then, the Sanitation Department will effectively remain a squatter on the trust’s property. And, in the meantime, construction on yet another piece of the long-overdue park will continue to stagnate.

"I’m just this side of total despair," said Ross Graham, co-chair of the Friends of Hudson River Park, a civic advocacy group. "I don’t want to create a furor on city and state levels, but I would like [the Sanitation Department] to think they must be more responsive and try harder to find a way to resolve this problem."

Tom Fox, who was one of the driving forces behind the park’s creation (and who’s also president of the New York Water Taxi ferry service), said he and other park advocates joke, somewhat morbidly, that "they’ll be wheeling us in our wheelchairs" by the time the park is finished.

Ever since 1998, when Governor George Pataki signed the Hudson River Park Act into law, the Sanitation Department has been on notice that it would have to relocate its Pier 97 facility by Dec. 31, 2003. Almost six years later, however, construction crews are just now beginning to excavate dirt from the relocation site.

The delay can partially be explained by unforeseeable events: The initial demolition contractor had to be removed from the job in 2002 for withholding wages from workers, for example. Nonetheless, some argue that the Sanitation Department has been apathetic and slow to take action, confident in the knowledge that the park’s supposed guardian, the Hudson River Park Trust, is by its very nature unable to take a strong stance against city departments like Sanitation.

As a city/state agency, the trust’s board of directors contains an equal number of mayoral and gubernatorial appointees—making it effectively impossible for them to do anything without the consent of both the Mayor and the Governor. And while the arrangement appears to achieve its aim of putting a check on rash unilateral actions, it also makes it next to impossible for the trust to take strong action—like filing a lawsuit—against a city-controlled department like Sanitation.

"It’s unlikely that a board of directors that is half-controlled by the city is going to vote to sue the city," said Albert Butzel, president of the Friends of Hudson River Park.

The same principal seems to apply when it comes to getting the trust to pressure the Sanitation Department to pay rent for its pier-squatting—an option that Mr. Butzel has proposed.

"The idea that the Sanitation Department should pay rent is not something that the city wants to do," said Mr. Butzel. "Therefore, the city’s representatives on the board of the Hudson River Park Trust are not going to support a motion where the trust asks for that kind of relief."

Christopher Martin, a vice president of the trust, released the following statement to The Observer via e-mail:

"We know how important Pier 97 is to the community as a recreation pier and are still committed to its reconstruction. In the meantime, we coordinate closely with the Department of Sanitation on its relocation plans and are confident that they are making their best efforts to complete reconstruction of their new garage as quickly as feasible so that the trucks currently located on Pier 97 can be removed and the pier rebuilt."

Unlike the trust, which effectively can’t file suit against the Sanitation Department because of its city/state nature, the Friends group is bound by no such restraints. But for now, at least, Mr. Butzel said he has no plans to file a suit of his own, though he will reserve the option if the situation begins to deteriorate hopelessly.

Trust board member Henry Stern, who was the city’s longtime parks commissioner, said the situation at Pier 97 had never come before the board, but he dismissed out of hand the idea of the trust filing suit against the Sanitation Department.

"If you sue the Sanitation Department, you’re really suing the Mayor, because he appoints the sanitation commissioner," Mr. Stern said. "And neither the Governor’s people nor the Mayor’s people are going to resort to the courts to handle what should be handled within the executive branch."

Contrary to the claims of some on the Friends, Mr. Stern argued that it is actually advantageous in this situation to have mayoral appointees on the board.

"I believe the presence of the mayoral appointees on the board, including [Deputy Mayor] Dan Doctoroff, gives us more of a chance to persuade the Mayor to get rid of the Sanitation Department (from the pier)," he said.

Mr. Stern also said he felt somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of Sanitation paying rent to the trust, as it might not even be legal for the trust to "commercialize" the pier in that way. However, he did add that he wasn’t opposed to having Sanitation compensate the trust in another way—perhaps by using capital budget funds to help pay for the pier’s demolition and reconstruction.

Mayoral spokesman Jordan Barowitz said the Mayor’s office is engaged in discussions with the trust to expedite the Sanitation Department’s departure from the site.

"There’s an agreement in place that Sanitation will move into the garage across the street within three years," Mr. Barowitz said. "And in the short term, we have identified some improvements that will enhance access to the park and [solve] some transportation issues."

The short-term improvements Mr. Barowitz referred to include the Sanitation Department’s purchase of the second of two plots—at 57th Street and 12th Avenue—for their new facilities. The second plot will house some of the trucks that now park on the street next to Pier 97. However, one of the principal reasons the trucks are parked on the street—as opposed to the pier itself—is that construction is currently taking place on the pier. Many of the wooden supports for the concrete structure have deteriorated to the point that they need to be replaced immediately. This has yielded the ironic situation of Sanitation tossing money into a sinkhole to keep up a pier that it isn’t even lawfully entitled to occupy—and which the trust intends on destroying as soon as possible.

A Long, Troubled History

The Hudson River Park emerged from the ashes of Westway, the failed plan to build a submerged highway along the Hudson River out of landfill, which would have extended Manhattan’s western border by 1,000 feet. (West Side activists famously killed the project in 1985 by exploiting the dangers that the project might have posed to the river’s striped-bass community.) In the wake of the project’s defeat, West Side activists—many of whom were Westway opponents—proposed as an alternative the grand, landscaped boulevard that would become the West Side Highway and the Hudson River Park. In 1992, after much haggling, Governor Mario Cuomo and Mayor David Dinkins committed $200 million to the project. The park didn’t start in earnest, however, until the Hudson River Park Conservancy, the precursor of the Hudson River Park Trust, finalized a financial and design plan for the entire park in 1995.

At that point, park advocates on the conservancy were aware that $200 million would cover only about half of the park’s costs, but the group expected to garner other revenue from a variety of other sources: the federal government, development fees imposed on new projects rising up along 11th and 12th avenues, and private contributions.

In September of 1998, Governor Pataki signed the Hudson River Park Act into law at Pier 25 in Tribeca, where he was flanked by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and community activists. The signing formalized many aspects of the park’s development—parts of which had been underway since 1992.

"Years from now, this project will be seen as the turning point in the development of Manhattan’s West Side waterfront," Mr. Giuliani said at the time.

The legislation also ushered the Hudson River Park Trust into existence as stewards of the park. The trust broke up the park’s construction into six segments, from Battery Park City to 59th Street. Aside from the completed Greenwich Village segment and some maritime commerce, like the Circle Line ferry and the Intrepid Air and Science Museum, much of the water frontage still consists of old piers, broken-up concrete and gnarled patches of weeds. (The bicycle/pedestrian path that runs through the park was completed in 1999 by the state Department of Transportation.)

Almost from the group’s inception in 1999, it seemed to many in the Friends group—who were allowed to attend but not comment at trust board meetings—that the trust wasn’t being sufficiently proactive in going after the sources of revenue that would be needed once the initial $200 million was gone. Their fears proved prescient: To date, just about the only private money has come from developer Douglas Durst, who has a development in the West 50’s, and who made a $1 million contribution to the park fund.

Despite the trust’s visible progress, over the years the organization has still fallen short of the hopes of many park advocates. In December of last year, The New York Times reported on a public hearing in which Mr. Butzel, among others, criticized the trust for not actively seeking out other sources of funding. Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, chairman of the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, called the trust "an agency in crisis."

Most members of the Friends group, however, say they are heartened by the efforts of the trust’s new president, Connie Fishman, who was one of the trust’s longtime vice presidents. Under Ms. Fishman’s tenure, according to the Friends’ Mr. Butzel, the trust has become more aggressive in seeking out sources of funding, and Ms. Fishman seems to be serious about bringing a swift resolution to the Sanitation Department situation at Pier 97.

You may reach Blair Golson via email at: bgolson@observer.com.

This column ran on page 1 in the 4/12/2004 edition of The New York Observer.

April 19th, 2004, 10:53 PM
Bike path around 42nd Street, with the Helena (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/helena/default.htm) in the background. 18 April 2004.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/parks/hudson_river_park/images/hudson_helena_18apr04.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/parks/hudson_river_park/default.htm)

Hudson River Park (http://www.wirednewyork.com/parks/hudson_river_park/default.htm)'s bike path.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/parks/hudson_river_park/images/hudson_river_park_18apr04.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/parks/hudson_river_park/default.htm)

Hudson River Park's Pier 46 (http://www.wirednewyork.com/piers/pier46/default.htm) on 18 April 2004.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/piers/pier46/pier46_hudson_18apr04.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/parks/hudson_river_park/default.htm)

May 3rd, 2004, 06:16 PM
My friends and I had a lovely stroll along the Hudson River from Rector ST/Place to Chambers Street. It was heavenly. We felt so cut off from the hubbub of the City. I look forward to a return trip when more of the Hudson River Parkway is completed.

May 5th, 2004, 08:31 AM
Volume 73, Number 52 | April 28 - May 4, 2004

Trust fund could get more flush with Hillary and Chuck’s support

Big push is on for funds to complete Hudson River Park

By Lincoln Anderson

It’s no mystery the Hudson River Park has a serious budget shortfall.

The park’s estimated price tag is $400 million, and the $200 million allocated for the park by the city and state — $100 million from each — is almost used up.

For several years, park activists have sounded the alarm, raising fears that the park’s Greenwich Village segment, which opened last summer, may be the only section that gets built, while the Tribeca, Chelsea and other sections of the five-mile-long park will be left as barren asphalt strips along the waterfront with dilapidated piers unsafe for public use.

But there could soon be a sea change in the park’s finances. The Hudson River Park Trust, the organization building and operating the park; politicians; and Friends of Hudson River Park, the park’s main advocacy organization, are now all pulling together to secure the needed funds. The fundraising blitz is being waged at all levels of government, city, state and federal.

Connie Fishman, the Trust’s new president, said that within the past month, New York’s two senators, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, supported a request by Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki to seek federal funding for the park through the Waterfront Resources Development Act.

Fishman said the WRDA (pronounced “warda”) bill, which was supposed to have passed last year, is still in committee in the Senate. The House passed its own version of WRDA last year. The Trust doesn’t anticipate getting the full amount but hopes for something.

“The request was for $115 million,” said Fishman. “They won’t give you that much — but why not ask?”

Privately, some say it’s realistic to expect the park might get $20 million from WRDA.

There is no request for funds for Hudson River Park in the House version of the WRDA bill, which was passed last year.

“The governor’s office asked us the night before the bill was going to go to the floor if we could put a request in — but it was just too late,” said Jennie McCue, a Nadler aide. “Congressmember Nadler is very supportive, but there wasn’t enough time.”

McCue said the Senate should consider the WRDA bill in the next few weeks, and the two versions of the bill will then be conferenced to iron out the differences, during which time Nadler will try to get the request for Hudson River Park into the House version.

“Congressmember Nadler will do all he can to get it into the bill,” McCue said.

In 2000, Pataki wrote a letter in support of getting WRDA funds for the park, but it didn’t pan out. Some questioned then how hard he pushed for the funds.

Asked how much more money the Trust needs to finish the park, Fishman said $200 million.

The Trust has also requested $70 million from the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., the agency doling out money for post-9/11 recovery and rebuilding projects, to build the park’s Tribeca segment.

“We’re just waiting to hear,” Fishman said of the L.M.D.C. request. “They haven’t put us on their monthly agenda, and without being on their monthly agenda, they can’t vote on it.”

Joanna Rose, an L.M.D.C. spokesperson, said of the Trust’s request, “It’s under consideration.” Rose noted the L.M.D.C. already made a commitment of $25 million for 12 park projects in Lower Manhattan, for restoration of existing park spaces and building new parks. Asked whether the Trust’s request for the Tribeca segment would be heard at the corporation’s May 27 meeting, she said she couldn’t say.

Albert Butzel, president of Friends of Hudson River Park, said the lobbying effort has also been occurring at the city and state levels. Under Speaker Gifford Miller, the City Council has come out strongly for the park, allocating $50 million for the project in its current budget. Meanwhile, the mayor, who announced his budget Monday, has allocated $10 million for the park. The Council and mayor must reconcile the two amounts in the final budget. Butzel hopes Mayor Bloomberg ups his ante.

“It would be nice to get it up to $50 million, but if it was $20 million, that would be nice,” offered Butzel.

In the state budget, where more legislative bodies negotiate on the budget, expectations are a bit lower for Hudson River Park funds. Like the mayor, the governor in his budget has proposed $10 million for the park. The State Senate has also budgeted $10 million for the park. Butzel said the Friends are lobbying Pataki and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno to bump up this amount, hopefully to at least $15 million.

As for the L.M.D.C. funds for the Tribeca segment, Butzel said, “We’re all expecting it to come. But the longer the wait, the more the concern. We’ve been waiting two years.”

Butzel said the full-court press for funds, especially federal funds, comes from necessity.

“Now the park has no money — everyone’s behind this,” Butzel said. “For five years, everyone knew they were going to run out of money this year. Now we have two senators there and we have a substantial voice; they’re on powerful committees.”

Schumer and Clinton also made a request for $25 million for building the Hudson River Park esplanade in the current annual federal transportation bill, but it failed.

Change at the trust

The active push for more cash came after Fishman took over as president of the Trust in January, following the departure of Rob Balachandran, the Trust’s former president, for the private sector.

“Connie is doing a good job,” said Butzel. “The fact that she’s been down to meet with Schumer and Clinton’s staff is terrific. It’s going to take time, but I finally think things are finally back on track. Connie, when she came to our board meeting, said her priority is to get the park built.”

In the past, the issue of requesting federal funds was problematic because of fears it would require an environmental impact study under the National Environmental Review Process. The study, it was feared, would slow down the start of construction on the park.

Nadler made waves in 1998 when he advocated seeking federal funds for the park, for which he said a federal E.I.S. would likely be needed. Park advocates were angered, fearing a lengthy study.

Said Linda Rosenthal, a Nadler aide, “Jerry was trying to get the funds and the governor and the Trust said No because there would be another E.I.S. Even if it caused another E.I.S., the E.I.S. would have been done by now. We didn’t think it would have necessitated an E.I.S.”

“That was a long time ago,” said Butzel, recalling the disagreement with Nadler. “We wanted to get the park going. It’s different now: They’re working through the Senate, the park is a lot further along, the governor is behind it — there’s a lot more coordinated effort.”

Four years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers, before issuing a permit for the park’s “in-water” work — rebuilding of the piers and bulkhead (seawall) — had to determine if a full-scale federal environmental impact study would be needed. The Corps found the park’s impact would not be significant and only required a relatively short environmental document to be done. As a result, based on the Corps’ previous ruling, Butzel said, if park funds are allocated under WRDA, it’s unlikely a major federal E.I.S. would now be required.

Then there are also the major piers that are to be redeveloped by private developers. Butzel said there are hopeful signs at Pier 40, the 15-acre pier at W. Houston St. He said he believes the Trust is looking to issue a request for developers for the pier by the end of the year. The Trust’s last effort to redevelop the pier with a park ended last year without a developer being chosen. Also, a developer is expected to be chosen for Pier 57 in Chelsea by this summer.

Chris Martin, the Trust’s spokesperson, did not respond to questions about Pier 40 by press time.

Fan of federal funds

Tom Fox, who was the first president of the Hudson River Park Conservancy, the Trust’s predecessor, from 1992-’95 and who was on the early planning committees for the West Side waterfront’s redevelopment, said he called for federal funds as early as 1986.

“We assumed early on that it would be $100 million, $100 million and $100 million — from the city, state and federal government,” Fox said.

However, he recalled of the former opposition to funds from Washington, “There was fear of NEPA, and there was still controversy over the park and there was a reluctance from the city and state to have the feds involved.”

Fox had another idea to generate revenue for the park that never got adopted: a tax on inboard real estate value in the area between 14th and 59th Sts. and 12th and 10th Aves. This tax of $3 to $5 per sq. ft. would have been an assessment on the amount real estate would have benefited from being near the new park, and would have applied to the new high-rises, for example, now sprouting on the Village waterfront.

“You’re seeing this with Greenwich Village right now,” said Fox. “There would have been a park tax, if you will, where we could capture some of the appreciation that would be happening as a natural effect of the park.”

Fox, who today runs New York Water Taxi and is a Friends board member, estimates this tax would have netted the park $80 million to $100 million.

Nevertheless, his hopes are high the Trust is at last taking the right approach for getting the rest of the funding.

“Connie now is taking a very active role in going to Washington and pleading her case,” Fox said. “It just didn’t happen before. She’s doing a very good job.

“But,” he added, “it ain’t over till it’s over —Where’s our L.M.D.C. money ?”


Hudson River Park’s future is looking brighter

For years there has been growing concern among Hudson River Park activists that the funds for the park’s construction were running low. Now, the park’s funds have almost run out.

Going back to previous administrations, the city and state pledged $100 million each for the park, and that money was allocated. Last summer, the Greenwich Village segment of the park, costing $59 million, was opened; thus far, it remains the only section of the five-mile-long park to have been built.

There is money left to construct some Uptown portions of the park, which stretches from Chambers to 59th Sts., but there is none on hand to build the Downtown sections in Tribeca and Chelsea.

However, things have started to look brighter since January, when Connie Fishman took over as president of the Hudson River Park Trust, the organization building and operating the park. Most notably, the Trust has reached out for federal funding in a major way. The Trust — along with Friends of Hudson River Park, the park’s chief advocacy and lobbying group — prevailed upon Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki to get Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer to request $115 million for the park in the Water Resources Development Act.

Seeking to obtain federal funds is a departure for the Trust, which in the past was reluctant to do so. The Trust, and others, including the Friends, feared the possibility that a lengthy environmental impact study would be required to get federal funds. However, the Army Corps of Engineers’ assessment four years ago, when reviewing whether to issue permits for in-water work for the park, that a full E.I.S. wasn’t needed indicates a federal E.I.S. would likely not be required if WRDA funds are indeed allocated.

To come back up to date, we hope Senators Clinton and Schumer will do everything in their power to secure as much of the requested $115 million as possible.

On another front, it’s high time the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation decide on whether to grant the Trust’s request for $70 million to construct the park’s Tribeca segment. We’re aware there’s great demand on the L.M.D.C.’s remaining $1 billion, with the strongest call coming from backers of improved rail links from J.F.K. and the Long Island Rail Road to the Financial District.

While creating better connections and reviving Downtown’s economy is obviously critical, this park project is just what the community needs to spur its rebirth after 9/11. It’s a project that fulfills exactly what the L.M.D.C. is charged to do.

Things were looking bleak for Hudson River Park for a while. But if the WRDA and L.M.D.C. funds come through, the outlook will change 180 degrees. We hope Congress and the L.M.D.C. can appreciate the inherent importance of this project and how it will benefit New Yorkers, and will help move to make the full park a reality.


May 5th, 2004, 04:20 PM
I suppose the future is bright, but I was looking forward to more completed park and piers around Chelsea nad Tribeca this year. Guess not. Dang these money wasters! (Hooray for the money chasers).

May 5th, 2004, 05:15 PM
The park needs a Conservancy. Maybe some of the Perry West residents.

TLOZ Link5
May 5th, 2004, 05:35 PM
The park needs a Conservancy. Maybe some of the Perry West residents.

Agreed. Though I thought the the HRP Trust was essentially that. But if there is no Conservancy, how do they pay for the park's maintainence?

May 5th, 2004, 05:50 PM
As part of the city and state park systems, it will get budget money. Also, some commercial uses (pier 40 etc) will generate revenue. I know we have a thread about this somewhere, the percentage of park maintenance funds that come from donations.

TLOZ Link5
May 5th, 2004, 06:16 PM
You guys know that bow notch between Piers 45 and 46, somewhere around there? The bridge over it has been closed for a long time now; does anyone know what's going on?

May 5th, 2004, 11:13 PM
Here is the list of summer events from FRIENDS OF HUDSON RIVER PARK


Tuesday, June 8th
The History of Hudson River Park (Part 1): Lecture and Walking Tour
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

LOCATION: Pier 40 lobby (at West Houston Street)
Directions: By subway, take the 1 or 9 train to Houston Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M21 to West Houston and Greenwich Street, then walk west.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park at Pier 40 for an early evening lecture, the first of two on the history of Hudson River Park. Tonight’s program will focus on the Westway Highway project and its defeat, which in turn led to the birth of Hudson River Park. Lecturers include key players in the Westway saga: journalist Jack Newfield, architect Craig Whitaker, and lawyer Mitchell Bernard. The talk will be followed by a 30-minute walking tour of the beautiful new Greenwich Village section of the park. Cost is $5 per person, which includes light refreshments. (FoHRP members will be admitted for free.)

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Tuesday, June 15th
The History of the Tribeca Waterfront: Walking Tour
12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Location: Pier 25 (at North Moore Street)
Directions: By subway, take the 1 or 9 train to Franklin Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M20 to North Moore Street, then walk west.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park at Pier 25 for a lunchtime walking tour led by the distinguished Tribeca historian Oliver Allen. Oliver will describe some of the historical highlights of the area, from Native American settlements to the Washington Market to the heyday of the Tribeca piers. A light lunch will be available. For those who have time, after the Tribeca tour there will be a walk north to the beautiful new Greenwich Village section of Hudson River Park. Cost is FREE. Please arrive at least five minutes before the scheduled departure time.

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Tuesday, June 22nd
The High Line and Hudson River Park: Walking Tour
6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.

Location: 23rd Street and 11th Avenue, Southeast Corner
Directions: By subway, take the C or E to 23rd Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M23 to Chelsea Piers (22nd Street and 12th Avenue) then walk one block east and one block north.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park and our co-sponsors, the Friends of the High Line, for an evening walking tour led by architectural historian Matt Postal. Beginning at the corner of 23rd Street and 11th Avenue, the tour will follow the route of the High Line south, and end in the new section of Hudson River Park. During the tour Matt will discuss the relationship between the two projects, their history, and their impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. Cost is $5 for FoHRP members and $8 for non-members. Please arrive at least five minutes before the scheduled departure time.

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Wednesday, June 23rd
Sunset Boat Cruise
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Location: Pier 40 (at West Houston Street)
Directions: By subway, take the 1 or 9 train to Houston Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M21 to West Houston and Greenwich Street, then walk west.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park for a two-hour sunset cruise! This relaxing and entertaining evening will begin at the north side of Pier 40, where passengers will embark on the Queen of Hearts, a classic Mississippi Riverboat which can accommodate 350 passengers. The Queen will glide down the Hudson River, into New York Harbor, to the Statue of Liberty, and back to Pier 40. The cruise includes a 40-minute onboard discussion of the maritime history of the west side waterfront, led by Ted Scull of the World Ship Society. The remainder of the cruise is yours to enjoy the water and superb views of the city. Dinner will be provided. Cost: $10 per person (family discounts are available).

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Tuesday, July 6th
The Marine Environment of Hudson River Park: Lecture and Walking Tour
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

LOCATION: Pier 40 lobby (at West Houston Street)
Directions: By subway, take the 1 or 9 train to Houston Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M21 to West Houston and Greenwich Street, then walk west.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park at Pier 40 for an early evening lecture on the marine environment of Hudson River Park and the estuary. Lecturers include John Waldman of the Hudson River Foundation, Mike Ludwig of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and Noreen Doyle of the Hudson River Park Trust. The talk will be followed by a 30-minute walking tour of the beautiful new Greenwich Village section of the park. Cost is $5 per person, which includes light refreshments. (FoHRP members will be admitted for free.)

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Tuesday, July 13th
The History of Tribeca: Walking Tour
12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Location: Pier 25 (at North Moore Street)
Directions: By subway, take the 1 or 9 train to Franklin Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M20 to North Moore Street, then walk west.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park at Pier 25 for a midday walking tour of the colorful history of Tribeca. A light lunch will be available. Cost is FREE. Please arrive at least five minutes before the scheduled departure time.

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Saturday, July 17th
Lunchtime Boat Cruise
1 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.

Location: Pier 40 (at West Houston Street)
Directions: By subway, take the 1 or 9 train to Houston Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M21 to West Houston and Greenwich Street, then walk west.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park for a midday boat cruise! This relaxing and entertaining trip will begin at the north side of Pier 40, where passengers will embark on the Queen of Hearts, a classic Mississippi Riverboat which can accommodate 350 passengers. The Queen will glide down the Hudson River, into New York Harbor, to the Statue of Liberty, and back to Pier 40. The cruise includes a 40-minute onboard discussion of the waterfront history of the lower west side, led by NYC Tours doyenne Joyce Gold. The remainder of the cruise is yours to enjoy the water and superb views of the city. Lunch will be provided. Cost: $10 per person (family discounts are available).

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Tuesday, July 20th
The History of Hudson River Park (Part 2): Lecture and Walking Tour
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

LOCATION: Pier 40 lobby (at West Houston Street)
Directions: By subway, take the 1 or 9 train to Houston Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M21 to West Houston and Greenwich Street, then walk west.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park and our co-sponsors, the Municipal Art Society and the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, at Pier 40 for an early evening lecture, the second on the history of Hudson River Park. Tonight’s program will focus on the advocacy that secured governmental support for the Park and the design and construction of the Greenwich Village section. Lecturers include key players in the Park’s development: Tom Fox, the first President of the Hudson River Park Conservancy; Connie Fishman, President of the Hudson River Park Trust; and Al Butzel, Director of Friends of Hudson River Park. The talk will be followed by a 30-minute walking tour of the beautiful new Greenwich Village section of the park. Cost is $5 per person, which includes light refreshments. (FoHRP members will be admitted for free.)

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Wednesday, August 4th
Sunset Boat Cruise
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Location: Pier 40 (at West Houston Street)
Directions: By subway, take the 1 or 9 train to Houston Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M21 to West Houston and Greenwich Street, then walk west.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park for a two-hour sunset cruise! This relaxing and entertaining evening will begin at the north side of Pier 40, where passengers will embark on the Queen of Hearts, a classic Mississippi Riverboat which can accommodate 350 passengers. The Queen will glide down the Hudson River, into New York Harbor, to the Statue of Liberty, and back to Pier 40. The cruise includes a 40-minute onboard discussion of the waterfront history of the lower west side, led by NYC Tours doyenne Joyce Gold. The remainder of the cruise is yours to enjoy the water and superb views of the city. Dinner will be provided. Cost: $10 per person (family discounts are available).

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Tuesday, August 10th
The Waterfront History of Chelsea and the Village: Walking Tour
6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.

Location: Pier 62 (at 22nd Street)
Directions: By subway, take the C or E to 23rd Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M23 to Chelsea Piers at 23rd Street.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park and co-sponsors, the Municipal Art Society, at Pier 62 for a lively walk led by NYC Tours doyenne Joyce Gold. The tour will take in the piers from which the doomed Luisitania departed and survivors of the Titanic arrived; the site of New York’s first state prison; the departure of Robert Fulton’s Clermont, the first operational steam ship; and much more. The tour will end with a walk through the beautiful new section of Hudson River Park. Cost is $5 for FoHRP members and $8 for non-members. Please arrive at least five minutes before the scheduled departure time.

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Tuesday, September 14th
Greenwich Village History: Walking Tour
6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.

Location: Gansevoort Street and the West Side Highway, Southeast Corner
Directions: By subway, take the A, C, or E line to 14th Street and 8th Avenue, then walk west. By bus, take the M14 to West 14th Street, then walk west.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park and co-sponsors, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, at the southeast corner of Gansevoort Street and the West Side Highway for a lively walk led by a distinguished mystery guide! The tour will explore the little-known history of Greenwich Village, including but not limited to the waterfront, and will include a visit to the new section of Hudson River Park and the 800-foot long Christopher Street Pier. Cost is $5 for FoHRP members and $8 for non-members. Please arrive at least five minutes before the scheduled departure time.

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Saturday, September 18th
Lunchtime Boat Cruise
1 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.

Location: Pier 40 (at West Houston Street)
Directions: By subway, take the 1 or 9 train to Houston Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M21 to West Houston and Greenwich Street, then walk west.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park for a midday boat cruise! This relaxing and entertaining trip will begin at the north side of Pier 40, where passengers will embark on the Queen of Hearts, a classic Mississippi Riverboat which can accommodate 350 passengers. The Queen will glide down the Hudson River, into New York Harbor, to the Statue of Liberty, and back to Pier 40. The cruise includes a 40-minute onboard discussion of the history of Hudson River Park. The remainder of the cruise is yours to enjoy the water and superb views of the city. Lunch will be provided. Cost: $10 per person (family discounts are available).

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

Tuesday, September 21
The Manhattan Waterfront by Philip Lopate: Lecture and Walking Tour
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

LOCATION: Pier 40 lobby (at West Houston Street)
Directions: By subway, take the 1 or 9 train to Houston Street, then walk west. By bus, take the M21 to West Houston and Greenwich Street, then walk west.

Join the Friends of Hudson River Park at Pier 40 for an early evening lecture, led by distinguished author Philip Lopate, whose recent work Waterfront has received glowing reviews. Phillip will share his views on the Manhattan waterfront, followed by a group discussion. The lecture will be followed by a 30-minute walking tour of the beautiful new Greenwich Village section of the park. Cost is $5 per person, which includes light refreshments. (FoHRP members will be admitted for free.)

Contact information: contact Friends of Hudson River Park at 212-757-0981 extension 200, email info@fohrp.org, or visit www.fohrp.org. Advance reservations are encouraged but not required.

May 6th, 2004, 11:32 AM
You guys know that bow notch between Piers 45 and 46, somewhere around there? The bridge over it has been closed for a long time now; does anyone know what's going on?

I know what you mean, they just opened that Crepe stand near there. I don't see any visible reason for having it closed off, I wish they'd fix it already.

Good list Edward, those $10 cruises look like a good deal.

May 6th, 2004, 02:23 PM
The HRP Board will continue to be paid their ridiculous salaries while the major segments (Segments 3, 6, Pier 40) sit idle. For once, I support that crazy lawyer in the West Village who is threatening to sue again.

TLOZ Link5
May 14th, 2004, 05:51 PM
The Christopher Street Water Taxi stop on Pier 45 is now open. Rode it today.

May 23rd, 2004, 02:09 AM

Trust trims proposals for Pier 57 down to 4

By Albert Amateau

The Chelsea Piers proposal for Pier 57 would offer art galleries, a dance center, a 25-meter indoor pool and a nine-court tennis center.

The Hudson River Park Trust expects to select a development team this summer to transform Pier 57, the former city bus depot on the Hudson River, into a cultural destination, according to Noreen Doyle, executive vice president of the state and city agency building the 5-mile-long riverfront park.

The Trust began its two-step selection process last September when it issued a request for expressions of interest for the pier on the Chelsea waterfront and received responses from eight development teams early this year. None of the teams expressing interest has been eliminated, but the Trust last month invited four of them to outline their plans at an April 21 public meeting.

The Trust’s broad development goals for the 300,000-sq.-ft pier off W. 17th St. are for a combination of “quality park-enhancing” cultural, educational and maritime recreation uses, commercial and noncommercial, according to the R.F.E.I. issued in September.

“We’re drafting a request for proposals which we’ll share with the Advisory Council before we issue it later this month,” Doyle said on Monday. The Hudson River Park Advisory Council is made up of elected officials, members of Community Boards 1, 2 and 4, whose districts include the park, park advocates and members of the Trust’s board.

All four teams that made presentations last month proposed to have historic ships, marinas, maritime and environmental programs, art galleries and public space. Two have significant performing arts programs and three have swimming pools.

One of the four teams, Original Ventures, is a consortium including Hudson Guild — the Chelsea neighborhood settlement house — which proposes to establish the Hudson River Performing Arts Center, with space for music, dance and theater events. Also part of the Original Ventures plan, the National Maritime Historical Society would have a Sea History Maritime Center with revolving exhibits. In addition, Riverkeeper, the nonprofit group headed by Robert Kennedy Jr., would establish its headquarters on the pier with an environmental education and outreach center in the pier head house.

The Cipriani group’s Leonardo at Pier 57 plan includes an Italian retail, crafts and cultural center, a ballroom that would double as a restaurant and event space and a resort-style rooftop pool.

The Performing Arts Center would include a two-level auditorium with seating for 2,500 guests and flexible enough to accommodate 5,000 standing. Hudson Guild would develop an incubator arts complex for local nonprofit arts groups and set up an employment center for Chelsea youth in connection with commercial tenants on the pier. Music, theater and television production studios are also part of the Original Ventures project, along with a swimming pool, a marina and berths for visiting historic vessels. Michael Kramer, a Chelsea resident and former member of Community Board 4, is a principal. The design and construction members of the team include HRH Construction, KeySpan and the architectural firms of Richard Dattner, Dan Ionescu and Buckhurst, Fish & Jaquemart.

Discover 57, a team that includes LCOR Development Services, Bovis Lend Lease project managers, Meta Brunzema Architects, JM Zell Partners Museum Services and DMCD, Inc., a museum design firm, are associated with John Doswell, a member of Community Board 4 and a founder of Friends of Hudson River Park, in another proposal that was shown last month at the public hearing. Brunzema is also a member of Community Board 4.

Discover 57 would devote the pier to maritime, educational and recreation uses, public space and compatible commercial uses. The Jacques Cousteau Society would establish a visitor center and museum, with Cousteau’s historic vessel Calypso and the research vessel Alcyone as part of the permanent exhibit.

Also part of the Discover 57 plan, retail shops, art galleries and a 35,000-sq.-ft. event center would be located on the first level, with a smaller event center and a restaurant sharing the roof with public space. A public esplanade would encircle the outside of the first level and the old Grace Line waiting room would be restored and opened to the public. Discover 57 would also have docking space for dinner and excursion boats, a diving shop and teaching center, a marine supplies shop and space for U.S. Coast Guard boats and a Coast Guard classroom.

Finally, the lower level in the Discover 57 plan would include artists’ studios, gallery space and a hall for visiting exhibits. There would also be museums on the Hudson River and the maritime industry as well as and a National Geographic retail shop.

Chelsea Piers, which has been running the sports and entertainment complex on Piers 59, 60, 61 and 62 on the Chelsea waterfront for more than 10 years, also presented its plan for Pier 57 at the April meeting.

The Chelsea Piers plan calls for a row of art galleries, studios and space for on-site art handling. About 40,000 sq. ft. would be devoted to a dance center for high-profile established dance organizations and smaller dance companies. The center would serve for training, rehearsals and headquarters for between eight and 12 companies in collaboration with Dance/ NYC, the local branch of Dance/USA, the national service organization for professional dance.

Included in Chelsea Piers proposal, a River Arts Center would offer year-round classes in the plastic and visual arts for both children and adults. A 30,000-sq.-ft. aquatics center would have a 25-meter indoor pool with a diving pool. The aquatics center would have special programs for teens, seniors and the handicapped. A 100,000-sq.-ft. tennis center with nine indoor courts, two squash courts and locker rooms would be included in the plan. Chelsea Piers’ plan also includes a co-generation plant on site that would make the pier energy self-sufficient.

David Tewksbury, vice president of Chelsea Piers, who made the presentation on April 21, said the John J. Harvey, a decommissioned fire ship, and Pegasus, a 1907 tug, would be among the historic ships that would be berthed at Pier 57. A maritime center would accommodate small boats in the Chelsea Piers plan.

Leonardo at Pier 57 is the plan of the Cipriani restaurant group with Plaza Construction Corp. and The Witkoff Group for an Italian crafts, retail and cultural center.

The design calls for a two-story pedestrian street lined with Italian shops and crafts. High-end Italian companies are said to be ready to become part of the project and La Triennale di Milano, a museum and gallery, would establish a cultural center on the pier. Casa Sicilia, a Sicilian bureau promoting the art and products of Sicily, would be among the features. Milanostudio a fashion and photo studio in Milan, would also join the project with studios and classrooms.

Under the Leonardo plan, the Cipriani group plans to operate a restaurant and event space, and MarineMax, a division of Ferretti, would operate a marina and nautical store on the pier. A resort-style outdoor pool is planned for the roof of the pier. The Cipriani plan also calls for parking to address the traffic and transportation needs of the project.

The second-floor Cipriani ballroom would be available for important community events and the walkway around the perimeter of the pier would be restored with benches and lighting consistent with Hudson River Park design standards.

Other teams that submitted expressions of interest but have not been invited to make their plans public are:

Pier 57 Development Corp., a consortium of RW Consultants and MJ Properties, which would create tradeshows, an auction house, catering, ballroom and event space, restaurants and retail, a maritime museum and marina, a greenhouse and a co-generation energy facility.

Pier 57 Maritime — a team of R2 Electric and Pier 63 Maritime — which proposes open space and public recreation, charter boats and accessory parking, historic vessels, artists’ studios, offices for nonprofit groups, food and beverage cafes and snack bars, catering and events, kayak and canoe storage, boat building and a small boat marina. John Krevey, the principal in the team, currently operates Pier 63 Maritime

Another group that did not make the cut of four, U.S. Four, Inc., would organize Pier 57 Development Corp. to create a restaurant and cabaret, catering and event space, a theater, artists’ studios, commercial gallery, performance arts education, television soundstages and a public outdoor gallery on Pier 57.

Also, a team that calls itself The Hub submitted an expression of interest after the deadline but was accepted. However, Doyle said The Hub submission, which included a parking garage with an unspecified number of spaces, along with an educational and scientific center, did not meet any of the Trust’s selection criteria. She also noted that the stand-alone parking use is illegal under the Hudson River Park Act.

May 25th, 2004, 04:07 PM
Nice details on the plans...


May 25th, 2004, 04:44 PM
Those are nice details. I'm liking the Discover 57 proposal. Seems like the most interesting/fun.

May 26th, 2004, 01:39 AM
They are all nice and would add a lot to the park and area.

I have to say, though, I like the Chelsea Piers proposal, as it mixes sport, which is important for a park, with galleries, which is important to the city and this neighborhood in particular, with arts, retail, education, and open space. I think it's a nice design and good balance of uses. Plus, it produces it's own energy!

I think Hudson River Performing Arts Center and the Leonardo are both great and should be pursued elsewhere in the city, perhaps Brooklyn Bridge Park, or elsewhere for this park. Maybe combine the remaining 3 to develop Pier 40 finally!

May 27th, 2004, 01:39 AM
Call me crazy, but why spend millions on a temp development, when you have developers wanting to build the whole project?


Contracts are issued for Pier 40 field, tennis courts

By Lincoln Anderson

The Hudson River Park Trust’s board of directors at their May 20 meeting approved $5.5 million in contracts to build a 3 3/4-acre, interim sports field at Pier 40. The Trust also awarded a contract of just under $900,000 to build three permanent tennis courts by the river at Spring St.

Citnalta Construction Corp. was the winner of the contract for general construction work for the field at Pier 40, located at the foot of W. Houston St. Citnalta submitted what the Trust deemed the “lowest responsible bid” for the work, $3,072,000. With contingencies, the cost could rise to $3,899,588.

The field will be 400 ft. by 400 ft., large enough for several different games to be held at once, and will be covered with an artificial grass surface, such as FieldTurf.

The Trust will pay for the work out of its general funds, plus $1.6 million from the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. that had previously been slated for an ice-skating rink at Spring St. and the tennis courts.

The Trust shelved the ice-skating rink plan last year after it was rejected by Community Board 2 and Assemblymember Deborah Glick; the tennis courts, initially planned as temporary, will now be permanent.

The United States Soccer Federation and NIKE are also contributing $250,000 to the cost of building the field. As part of the agreement with U.S.S.F./NIKE, a banner will be displayed somewhere inside of Pier 40’s courtyard, facing the field, and there will be youth soccer clinics held at the pier.

A contract for electrical work for the field, including an emergency evacuation warning system — necessary as the pier will be receiving increased public use — was awarded to Seven Star Electrical, which offered a bid of $1,420,066.

A contract for plumbing and construction work in connection with the field was also awarded.

Connie Fishman, the Trust’s president, said that with approval of the contracts, work would start “immediately” on the field and it will be ready for use by early December. Fishman said the field will be used 12 months a year, and that the artificial surface’s expected lifespan is six to seven years.

She said it’s clear the field was the community’s top priority for the pier, and that any developer the Trust might bring in to fully redevelop the pier in the future will surely recognize that fact.

“Having [the field] there will show any developer that this is what the community wants,” Fishman said.

The Trust’s effort to find private developers for a full redevelopment of the 15-acre pier into a mixed park-and-commercial site failed last year without a developer being chosen.

In addition, as part of the Pier 40 interim plan, the existing rooftop field will be renovated and a new passive-use open space, also to be covered with synthetic turf, will be built to the west of the rooftop field.

The tennis courts at Spring St., two doubles and one singles, will be a hard surface, asphalt covered with Har-Tru. Citnalta also submitted the winning bid for this project, at $896,117. With contingencies, the cost for the tennis courts could rise to, but is not to exceed, $1,002,229.

Fishman said the courts will be free and operate the same way the two tennis courts formerly on Trust property near Battery Park City did: If people are waiting in line to get on the courts, those who are playing must get off after an hour.

After the meeting, Noreen Doyle, the Trust’s vice president, congratulated Tobi Bergman, president of Pier Park & Playground Association, or P3, a local youth sports advocacy organization, regarding the field. Wearing their “GV” logo baseball caps, several coaches from the Greenwich Village Little League also attended the meeting, eager to see the Trust give the go-ahead for the field’s construction.

Said Bergman in a statement, “The new fields will be a major improvement for the quality of life for Downtown families, who will for the first time have what almost every other community in the nation takes for granted, places for children to play sports…. The leadership and design staff of the Trust needs to be congratulated for staying with this project as a variety of code issues created unforeseen complications…. In the end, everyone stuck together and that’s why this is happening.”

June 4th, 2004, 01:55 PM
The Christopher Street Water Taxi stop on Pier 45 is now open. Rode it today.


June 4th, 2004, 02:31 PM
Kayaks can be rented for free from the Downtown Boathouse (http://www.downtownboathouse.org/) on Pier 26 (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/parkmap/p26.html).


June 10th, 2004, 05:19 PM

June 10, 2004

Donna Karan, the fashion designer, plans to unveil a giant bronze sculpture of an apple designed by her late husband, Stephan Weiss, in Hudson River Park today.

The sculpture, which is nine feet tall and weighs 6,000 pounds, will be temporarily placed in the park, which is near Mr. Weiss's Greenwich Village studio. Among those invited to the unveiling were Hugh Jackman, the Broadway and film star, and Ralph Lauren. Anthony Ramirez (NYT)

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

June 11th, 2004, 12:44 AM
The apple's kinda cool. I saw them hoisting it into place on Tuesday. Looked pretty good.

June 11th, 2004, 01:35 AM
Donna Karan, the fashion designer, plans to unveil a giant bronze sculpture of an apple designed by her late husband, Stephan Weiss, in Hudson River Park today.

I am going down early today to check it out. 8) It sounds like a cool thing to take some pictures.

June 14th, 2004, 09:19 PM
Bike path along Hudson waterfront, with Morton Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/morton_square/default.htm) and Perry West (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/perry_west/default.htm). 12 June 2004.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/parks/hudson_river_park/images/hudson_river_park_12june04.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/parks/hudson_river_park/default.htm)

June 24th, 2004, 04:09 PM
Trapeze School is in session:




June 25th, 2004, 12:02 PM
Excavation for the Segment 3 tennis courts is well underway just south of Pier 40.

Segment 3 is extremely frustrating. The Trust is hoping (pipe dream) for $70mil from the Lower Manhattan rebuilding fund to get the segment built. If this segment's nice, but temporary, basketball courts, skate park, trapeze bars, batting cages and now tennis courts were surrounded by some additional plantings, masonry and stonework, the Segment could be halfway towards completion by now.

Instead we'll watch the Trust spend millions on these fillers just to tear them down in the next five-ten years - and - worse - they could be used as an excuse not to build the envisioned ecology-oriented Segment 3 at all.

June 29th, 2004, 11:44 PM
Actually, it's smart.

When the park was just a pipedream, the temporary esplanade was built and maintained to get people down to the river, and generate public support. The more people use it, the better chance a permanent park will be built.

Big Apple


Construction of the Clinton Cove segment near W 57 St, with the ubiquitous retro lamp posts.

July 8th, 2004, 11:09 AM
There is new activity along the waterfront from Canal Street to Pier 40 (Houston St.). The asphalt is being ripped up and all but the bike path is blocked off.

July 8th, 2004, 11:38 AM
Those are the temporary tennis courts.

July 8th, 2004, 12:13 PM
Ah, I should have re-read your last post! Why don't they "construct" the planned park instead of something temporary? You're right, it's frustrating.

July 8th, 2004, 12:55 PM
I just took some photos of both development that are happening simultaneously. They eventually will connect and it will be a big long park. :P I can't wait.

Riverside Park South:


Hudson River Park:


July 8th, 2004, 01:37 PM
Thanks for the photos.

The top photo (illustration) is of Segment 3 (out of 7) of Trump's Riverside Park South, which should be finished in the next 6-12 months.

The two photos below the top illustration are of Segment 4 of Riverside Park South. Site preparation for Segment 4 is already well underway and it should be open not long after Segment 3.

Once Segment 4 is complete and Clinton Cove of HRP is finished, only Pier 97 (new Dep of Sanitation truck parking is under construction as we speak across the West Side Highway) will remain before there is a seemless connection from Riverside Park South to HRP.

I love how fast Riverside Park South is being built. I guess that's what happens when something is privately funded.

July 8th, 2004, 03:54 PM
2 amazing projects for Manhattan and NYC. Does anyone think there would ever be a shot at burying the entire West Side H'way and putting parks (and builgings to help pay for it) above. It would really be a major improvement for the city.

July 8th, 2004, 04:05 PM
The Road Not Taken (http://www.thirteen.org/nyvoices/highlights/road_not_taken.html)

July 8th, 2004, 10:35 PM
From http://www.thirteen.org/nyvoices/highlights/road_not_taken.html

Federal government was going to finance the project with money from the Highway Trust Fund.

How could NYC did not let this happen? The Federal Government was up for this. What were NYC thinking back then? :roll:

In 1985, Judge Thomas Griesa dealt the project its final blow by ruling that Westway might harm the Hudson's striped bass population and therefore couldn't go forward.

:x Where is this judge at? I am going to pay a little visit.

July 9th, 2004, 03:07 AM
From http://www.thirteen.org/nyvoices/highlights/road_not_taken.html

Federal government was going to finance the project with money from the Highway Trust Fund.

How could NYC did not let this happen? The Federal Government was up for this. What were NYC thinking back then? :roll:

In 1985, Judge Thomas Griesa dealt the project its final blow by ruling that Westway might harm the Hudson's striped bass population and therefore couldn't go forward.

:x Where is this judge at? I am going to pay a little visit.

What do you mean? Think about all the Striped Bass that were saved and allowed to frolic by the West Side H'Way.

July 9th, 2004, 05:34 AM
We could have wound up with 3 miles of Trump Place. The unique Meatpacking District would be swept away. The West Village would survive, but be overwhelmed. The same for Tribeca.

The parkland created would not really be a park, but more like the BPC esplanade. What I like about Hudson River Park is that at the pier ends, you are out of the city, just like places in Central Park.

Westway was primarily a real estate plan. There was no real traffic management. The big flaw was that a high speed interstate would constrict at the Battery Tunnel. It would not have solved one of Manhattan's biggest traffic headaches - the Holland Tunnel.

July 9th, 2004, 05:03 PM
The parkland created would not really be a park, but more like the BPC esplanade.

Hey there is nothing wrong with that! As long as it is public like BPC park it will be amazing!

I hate to cross the west side everyime I want to access the river park. Sometimes I am urge to run or bike infront of trafic when I get a chance just to get there. (sometime I do) It is not healthy for me and others like me. :|

July 9th, 2004, 05:27 PM
where is that apple located :?:

July 9th, 2004, 06:15 PM
I like BPC too, but I don't want to see an entire West Side of it. The Westway road would have had limited entry/exit points, at major cross streets, so there would still be a street for you to cross.

I left out an important point. It would be a mistake to evaluate likely Westway development under today's attitudes toward urban life. Westway was spawned in an era of urban decline, with declining population and rising crime. Cities were regarded as unmanageable, their streets incubators of crime. They were chaotic and needed to be "upgraded."

Urban renewal. There are examples in the area. Independence Plaza, with its towers on a raised plaza and low buildings forming the fortress, was planned for all of Washington Market. In 20 years I have been there once. A perfect compliment to the WTC superblock.

BPC was planned the same way, but only one development was built under that design - Gateway Plaza, its gateway to the compound keeps the city at arms length.

I think that this is the sort of development we would have gotten. Vertical suburbia, and when it's necessary for the residents to leave the enclave, jump on Westway and tunnel out of the city.

I hated Westway. I am much happier with Meier and Gehry on the Hudson, and whatever chaotic development comes along.

July 21st, 2004, 12:39 AM

July 20, 2004

Insiders say the two leading candidates to redevelop Pier 57 at West 15th Street are Original Ventures, which proposes a performing arts center, and the Pier 57 Preservation Trust, which would build a Cousteau Society visitor center and museum.

The Hudson River Park Trust wants to revamp the pier, now used as a bus depot, for cultural, educational, maritime or possibly artistic uses. It solicited ideas in October, then invited four respondents to submit proposals.

James Ortenzio--a former chairman of the trust, who now serves as Manhattan's Republican Party chair--is said to be championing The Witkoff Group's plan, which would create an Italian heritage center featuring shops, a marina and a Cipriani restaurant. A fourth idea, from Chelsea Piers Management, emphasizes a marina and incorporates recreational facets.

Mr. Ortenzio says he's not backing any one proposal and would prefer to see key elements of each combined.

Copyright 2004, Crain Communications, Inc

July 21st, 2004, 01:34 AM

July 20, 2004

Insiders say the two leading candidates to redevelop Pier 57 at West 15th Street are Original Ventures, which proposes a performing arts center, and the Pier 57 Preservation Trust, which would build a Cousteau Society visitor center and museum.

The Hudson River Park Trust wants to revamp the pier, now used as a bus depot, for cultural, educational, maritime or possibly artistic uses. It solicited ideas in October, then invited four respondents to submit proposals.

James Ortenzio--a former chairman of the trust, who now serves as Manhattan's Republican Party chair--is said to be championing The Witkoff Group's plan, which would create an Italian heritage center featuring shops, a marina and a Cipriani restaurant. A fourth idea, from Chelsea Piers Management, emphasizes a marina and incorporates recreational facets.

Mr. Ortenzio says he's not backing any one proposal and would prefer to see key elements of each combined.

Copyright 2004, Crain Communications, Inc

Taking the best of each makes sense, but why can't they pick one developer for this and combine 2 or 3 for Pier 40, which is much larger. I think they all have some merit, although the Cousteau one seems the least "exciting." I would go with the Chelsea Piers on for this pier and cobine elements of the rest for 40.

As long as something good gets built soon, I guess we should all be happy.

July 21st, 2004, 09:16 AM
We have a separate thread for Pier 57 (http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewtopic.php?t=132).

July 29th, 2004, 12:16 PM
How the West Was Done

At Greenwich Village, a preview of Manhattan's Hudson River Park.

By Allen Freeman


The first segment in the grand remaking of Manhattan's West Side waterfront is in place, and it offers a preview of New York City's largest landscape architecture project since Central Park. When fully finished, circa 2010 (depending on public funding), the $400 million Hudson River Park will radically transform Manhattan's lower West Side and midtown waterfront—once a gritty workplace of merchant ships and a port for the great ocean liners—into a linear parkland.

Completed last year at the edge of Greenwich Village, the first segment offers three new park piers and 3,300 linear feet of esplanade bordered by a sequence of small inland parks. This summer, adults and children have flocked there—in big numbers on pleasant days—entering from the western edge of the village or coming up from Battery Park City or taking the subway from more distant parts of the city. They stroll or bike, play or sunbathe, catch a water taxi, or sit in the sun or shade and gaze downriver to the harbor and the Statue of Liberty, upriver toward the George Washington Bridge, or across to the rising skyline of Hoboken, New Jersey.

The Hudson River Park, of which the new segment is a small part, will parallel the West Side Highway from Battery Park to 59th Street and encompass 13 new recreational piers. Negotiate the five-mile route today by foot or bicycle, and you'll see decrepit old piers with uses—a municipal tow pound, for instance—that are incompatible with recreation interspersed with construction sites where new piers are being built and upland park fragments are taking shape.

Eventually the Hudson River Park's five miles will be a component piece of a 28-mile linear waterfront park system that will encircle Manhattan (see Landscape Architecture: "An Island unto Itself," July 1999, and "East Side Story," August 2003). The completed park will also anchor the southern end of the Hudson River Valley Greenway Trail System, a patchwork of waterfront and community trails extending from Battery Park up to the community of Waterford north of Albany.

Overseeing the construction and maintenance of the Hudson River Park is the Hudson River Park Trust, a public benefit corporation housed in Pier 40 just south of the new Greenwich Village segment. Created in 1998 as a city-state partnership, the trust has selected three teams of landscape architects, marine engineers, and architects for four of the park's seven segments. Leading two of the teams are landscape architects: Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates at Chelsea and Sasaki Associates with Donna Walcavage Landscape Architecture + Urban Design at Tribeca. The trust hopes to have final construction documents for these segments next spring. Landscape architect Miceli Kulik Williams and Associates entered a joint venture partnership with architect Richard Dattner & Partners for two more segments adjacent to the Clinton and Hell's Kitchen neighborhoods. These segments are under construction.

For the segment at Greenwich Village, the New York State Economic Development Corporation selected a team in early 1998, before the Hudson River Trust came into existence, and then the trust took over the $46 million project as the client and owner. Howard Abel, FASLA, of Abel Bainnson Butz led that team, negotiating with city agencies and community groups and refining the design with the trust. "The trust felt a responsibility to reanalyze what it had inherited," Abel says, referring to the work the Greenwich Village team had already completed. "We added some new program elements and facilities and looked closely at the design of the entrance, but the park's theory didn't change."

To go into the park from the West Village, you cross the West Side Highway's six lanes at the Christopher Street light. A display fountain surrounded by ample places to sit marks the entrance into the north-south esplanade. Examples of the Hudson River Park's design vocabulary are immediately evident: bluestone and granite paving, art deco-inspired light standards, a stainless steel railing with an ipe hardwood handrail at the bulkhead, and the weathered old stone bulkhead itself.

Several hundred feet upriver, the straight esplanade inflects inland in a shallow semicircle called a bow notch. This smooth bite out of the bulkhead was taken years ago to accommodate the largest ocean liners. A new pedestrian bridge suspended over the water at the line of the bulkhead now lets you walk across the notch. A couple of pleasantly understated freestanding pavilions rise on the upland side, one for restrooms and the other for concessions. The pavilions' shallow vaulted roofs, their profiles facing the water, echo the curve of the bow notch.

You can walk out into the river on the largest of the new segment's three new piers, Pier 45, which extends 800 feet into the Hudson. (All three piers were built over the piles of historic piers.) Near its center is a long panel of grass that tilts very slightly toward the south. Along its northern edge, benches curve in a design suggestive of rolling waves. Surrounding the grass are areas of boardwalk and patterned pavement with ramps and short runs of stairs. Tensile fabric canopies and small bosks of honey locusts offer spots of shade. The park's lightweight, comfortable chairs are not affixed to the deck, and users looking for companionship or sun or shade frequently rearrange them. An open shower provides a place to cool off on hot days.

To the north lie the new Piers 46 and 51. Extending about 400 feet into the river, Pier 46 offers picnic tables and synthetic turf for touch football or Frisbee. Pier 46 is more programmed and—so far—less frequented than the longer Pier 45 to its south. At the end of Pier 46, wooden piles protrude slightly above water level. The pile field marks the length of old Pier 46 and serves as a marine habitat. Farther upriver, another full-length pile field—all that is evident of old Pier 49—has been reserved for possible future development. Near the north end of Segment Four (also known as the Greenwich Village segment), stubby Pier 51 reaches only about 100 feet into the Hudson as a children's play area with a nautical theme and water features that have proved to be popular.

The inland green strip between the esplanade and the Hudson River Bikeway (which runs next to the West Side Highway) is interrupted by entrances at Christopher Street and other intersecting east-west streets and by slight changes in grade and a variety of plantings, from evergreens to roses. To help keep some of the traffic noise out of the park, Abel Bainnson Butz sloped the ground up against the highway and densely planted the park's east ridge. The occasional breaks open views of the park and river for cyclists and motorists.

"Our development pattern is first to demolish the old piers because they are falling apart," says Marc Boddewyn, ASLA, the Hudson River Trust's vice president for design and construction, in explaining the wholesale demolition and reconstruction of the waterfront. "That's because we have obligations to the state and federal governments not to let debris fall into the river. You can maintain the wooden piers if you have the money, but the structures were often built for a 30-year lifespan. They would rebuild these things every 10 to 20 years as uses changed or piers burned down or vessels crashed into them."

Boddewyn and Connie Fishman, the trust's president, are giving a run-through tour of the park in late May, starting at its northern end at 59th Street: "Look over there at old Pier 97," he says. "The [pier's fenders are] in better shape than I would have thought, but the timber itself isn't. For anything in the splash zone, if marine borers and other organisms don't [destroy the wood], a good old case of rot will." A landscape architect, Boddewyn leads a trust staff of only two—a marine engineer and another landscape architect who works as a project manager—and oversees a battalion of engineering and construction consultants that expands and contracts according to the workload.

Asked why the park's new piers are being constructed only where old ones stood, Fishman replies that the Army Corps of Engineers and the New York State Department of Environmental Construction—the agencies that regulate water construction in the Hudson—mandate it. "We can't add piers in places where there were none previously, and we can't increase the total amount of covered-over area from what it is today," she says. "In particular, the agencies that look at fish resources try to maintain continuity. The fish get used to their environment and interact with it in a certain way."

The fish, or at least some of them, like sun. "In addition to not wanting to shade new areas, the agencies also don't want the pattern of water and the way it flows through the existing piers to be radically changed," she continues. "So when we rebuild a pier, we leave most of the timber piles in place, even though they no longer have any weight-bearing capacity." Reconstruction involves selective removal of old wooden piles, which are replaced with precast concrete versions, spaced about 25 feet apart in bents of six or seven across, to support new concrete decks.

Look where the pile fields are sticking up, Fishman says. "There are always more birds and fish around the old piles than in the areas where the water flows freely. The wood attracts barnacles and worms and other things that attach themselves to the piles. The fish come and eat those, and the birds come and eat the fish. And so it goes."

Fish habitat affects the progress at West 56th Street near the north end of Hudson River Park, where a public boathouse is being constructed as part of the new Clinton Cove project. Except for the plantings, Clinton Cove, which will include a floating public pier, is expected to be complete by summer's end. This brings up another ecological prohibition: a moratorium on pile driving in the river from the first of November to the first of May. "The juvenile striped bass like the winter here," Fishman says, "and then when the water warms up, they leave and go out in the ocean. Pile driving shakes up the sediment, and the fish don't like the vibration." The moratorium increases construction costs, she says, because fall shutdown and springtime remobilization add time to the job.

Asked the trust's criteria for landscape architecture design, Fishman says the trust seeks a degree of consistency through design elements like the railing and light pole but believes that each area should be designed by different teams to express neighborhood character. The trust staff, together with its board of directors, makes the designer selections, she said. The 13-person board includes not only public officials like the governor, the mayor, and Manhattan's borough president but also Madelyn Wils, a community activist and member of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. Fishman mentions Wils as one of those important to the trust's approach to community involvement and reviews as well as designer selection.

But it was Fishman, as executive director at the trust's inception five years ago and more recently as the trust's president, who set the policy of putting landscape architects in leading roles on each of the projects. Boddewyn says that Fishman did this because she fully understands the roles of landscape architects, marine engineers, and architects. Fishman herself says, "New York is really a building city, not a landscape city, and this is the biggest park project that has been going on here for years. Finding the firms with the capacity to do the job was part of the selection criteria because these jobs take a lot of work."

Howard Abel, as leader of the Greenwich Village segment team, puts participation in building the park into a practitioner's perspective: "For us, as landscape architects, to get commissions like this, to [lead] a $46 million project, is really where all of us in the profession want to be. That, and the fact that New Yorkers love to visit the park."


September 18th, 2004, 09:44 AM

Some people dump on Hudson Park garbage idea

By Albert Amateau

The Gansevoort Peninsula, where the Department of Sanitation used to burn garbage and now keeps its trucks, is supposed to be transformed into a green seven-acre extension of the Hudson River Park sometime in the future.

So the city proposal at a packed Community Board 2 waterfront committee meeting on Monday to build a new marine transfer station for recyclable waste at the end of the peninsula provoked conflicting responses.

Some saw the proposal as a betrayal of the city promise to devote the peninsula to park use and keep garbage off the waterfront. Opponents also feared that diesel-fueled trucks and barges would pollute the air and the river.

The peninsula, located in the angle between Little W. 12th and Gansevoort Sts., looks like a pier but is really the remnant of a block-wide landfill created in the mid 1800s that extended from W. 10th St. to the mid W. 20s.

Kate Ascher, an executive with the city Economic Development Corp. told the meeting that the city has not yet decided on the location of the marine transfer station, but if it were on the Gansevoort Peninsula it could be built without altering the design of the proposed park extension.

But the project would bring up to 60 trucks and two barges moved by tugs to the peninsula. Recycling trucks would arrive on Route 9A from Lower Manhattan and from neighborhoods to the north.

Ascher said a new environmentally efficient “green” facility could enclose as many as 35 trucks at a time dumping recyclable metal, glass, plastic and paper into barges for transfer to a proposed new recycling processing center on the Sunset Park waterfront in Brooklyn.

The transfer station, part of a citywide recycling system, would also be an education center that would allow school children and adults to see the process and learn about recycling and the environment, Ascher said.

The current marine transfer station, unused for several years, would be rebuilt in a new position closer to the proposed service road for the existing fireboat pier extension on the north side of the peninsula. Ascher said there would be no outdoor queuing of trucks, the dumping into barges would be enclose and controlled to prevent recyclables from falling into the river.

Several environmental advocates at the meeting said they welcomed the Bloomberg administration’s new commitment to recycling, announced on Tuesday. But the big plus for parks advocates was the likelihood that the city and state would come up with money to transform the peninsula to park use sooner if it also included the transfer station.

“This is going to be an expensive part of the park to build – there’s a tremendous price tag on the Gansevoort part,” said Albert Butzel, president of Friends of Hudson River Park, adding that including a marine recycling transfer station “would have a significant effect on the government money for the park.”

But Stu Waldman, a West Village resident, indicated that trading a fast-track park for an unacceptable use on the peninsula was a devil’s bargain.

Ann Arlen, a former member of Community Board 2 who headed the environmental committee, said that air pollution from diesel fuel is a leading cause of asthma and that the tugs that move barges are the most polluting of all vehicles.

Noting that recycling trucks would arrive at the proposed transfer station on Route 9A, Zack Winestine, a West Village activist, said the project would make air quality worse for joggers and bike riders in Hudson River Park.

“The presentation is disingenuous at best,” added Winestine, “Would it be an education center for school children? How many school buses do you expect? West Side development is growing – what about the future?” he asked.

Ellen Peterson Lewis, another West Village activist, remarked that the transfer station would move raw recyclable material. “None of it will be sanitized. There is some inevitable putrescible material and it stinks,” she said.

Ascher acknowledged that there would have to be a system of odor control. The project, which she stressed was not a certainty, would also require state legislature amendment to the Hudson River Park Act.

“The only way this can get built is if there are answers to hard questions about pollution levels,” said Jim Tripp, an environmentalist and solid waste management advocate. “Just because this is a park, we’re going to have to be careful about this project.”

Don MacPherson, chairperson of the community board waterfront committee who conducted the Monday meeting, noted that the board had previously taken a position that no municipal services should be located on the peninsula. “That doesn’t mean that we refuse to discuss the issue,” he said.

But the committee declined to make a recommendation to the full board which meets Sept 23.

Connie Fishman, president of the Hudson River Park Trust, reminded people at the Monday meeting that the Department of Sanitation has frequently failed to meet its timetable to remove facilities like the salt pile from the peninsula. The marine transfer could help speed the process, she said, but it would require an amendment by the state legislature to the Hudson River Act that created the Trust and the five-mile park being built from The Battery to 59th St.

A final decision on the project could be as far as seven years in the future. The proposed Gansevoort project or an alternative somewhere else in Manhattan would be connected to the mayor’s plan to build a $45 million plant in Sunset Park Brooklyn. The city would be joined in the project by the Hugo Neu Corporation, one of the largest recycling companies in the nation, in a 20-year contract to handle all of the city’s recyclables. The plant would receive metal glass and plastic from marine transfer stations in the five boroughs and process it for ultimate sale to manufacturers.

Currently, sanitation collection trucks take recycled paper to the 59th St. Marine Transfer Station to be taken by barge to a commercial paper firm in Staten Island. Recycled metal, glass and plastic goes by truck via the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels to a Hugo Neu plant in New Jersey. All Manhattan garbage goes by truck to American Refuel, in Montvale, N.J. for incineration.


Downtown Express is published by
Community Media LLC.

Email: josh@downtownexpress.com

September 18th, 2004, 09:56 AM

L.M.D.C. park money is coming, Trust says

By Albert Amateau and Josh Rogers

The head of the Hudson River Park Trust says she expects by November the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. will authorize the money to build the Downtown section of the Hudson River Park.

“We anticipate development of that segment of the park with money from the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. — we’ll know by November,” Connie Fishman, the Trust’s president, said at a committee meeting of Community Board 2.

The Trust has applied to the L.M.D.C. for $70 million to build the park from Houston to Chambers St. The plans for this section include rebuilding two piers, adding boat and kayak docks, children’s play areas, a place to study river life, a dog run, tennis courts, a bird sanctuary off the water. The existing skateboard park and beach volleyball courts are likely to be in the park as well.

An L.M.D.C. spokesperson said the agency does not comment on what its board may do in the future. The board’s next two meetings are tentatively scheduled for Oct. 14 and Nov. 10.

Al Butzel, president of the Friends of Hudson River Park, said he was happy when he heard Fishman’s comment and that it coincided with what he has been hearing up until now. “They have told us that something is coming,” he said.

Over the last year, he has had many discussions with aides to Gov. George Pataki and with Dep. Mayor Dan Doctoroff about the park. Both the Trust and the L.M.D.C. are joint state-city agencies.

Butzel said the Trust is proceeding as if it will have the money to build the Tribeca section of the park and should be ready with the government applications once the money is approved. He thinks construction could begin a few months later.

In the spring, Butzel began hearing $46 million of L.M.D.C. money would be authorized for the park. In June, Mayor Mike Bloomberg and the City Council agreed to put $31 million more into the park, but Butzel said that was dependent on matching money from the state. He said a likely scenario to get the Downtown section built would be $46 million from the L.M.D.C., and $12 million each from the city and state.

The L.M.D.C. was created with federal money to help Lower Manhattan rebuild after 9/11 and it has about $860 million left to spend on a competing group of Downtown projects. Officials at the September board meeting would not say if it would take more or less than a year to make decisions on the rest of the money, but Dep. Mayor Doctoroff indicated it would likely be less.

“It’s important we provide clarity what the future of Lower Manhattan will look like and I think we’re getting very close to doing that,” he said at a press conference after the development corporation’s board meeting.

Butzel, in a telephone interview, said he is hopeful there will be enough park money to rebuild Pier 25 1,000 feet into the water and adjacent Pier 26 by 800 feet, providing new waterfront views to park visitors. The Trust has been considering building only a small piece of Pier 26 to accommodate the Downtown Boathouse and The River Project, if it did not get enough money. The piers will deteriorate over time if they are not rebuilt.

Fishman told C.B. 2 waterfront committee members that she anticipated getting L.M.D.C. money at a meeting to explain a plan to move the park’s trapeze school from Tribeca to Pier 40, near Houston St.

“We’re trying not to evict [them] and we’ve located a place on the east side of the roof of Pier 40,” Fishman said.

Others will also have to move during Tribeca construction: Manhattan Youth, which runs after-school programs, the historic Yankee Ferry, the Boathouse and River Project, which studies marine life.

Jonathan Conant, director of Trapeze School New York, told the C.B. 2 waterfront committee on Sept. 13 that he wants to move the trapeze to the roof of Pier 40. where the school could operate all year round under a specially-design 120 by 66-ft. tent.

The move has the support of the Trust, whose headquarters are on Pier 40 at Houston St.

The waterfront committee also likes the idea and voted unanimously at the meeting to recommend the new permanent location be approved by the full board at the end of this month.

Fishman described Trapeze School’s summer seasons in the park as “hugely successful,” but said it would be necessary soon to move the trapeze from its present location.

In its present location in the open, at ground level, the trapeze school has the added benefit of providing entertainment for passersby and frequently attracts crowds of park visitors watching students go through their paces.

“The only disadvantage of the Pier 40 rooftop will be that people can’t watch it,” said Tobi Bergman, a waterfront committee member.

The roof of the 14-acre three-story pier has a small soccer field but is used mostly as a for-profit parking facility. However, the entire pier is to be redeveloped at some point in the future with at least half of its total space devoted to park use and the remainder commercial. Meanwhile, the pier courtyard, formerly leased for truck parking, is being converted to interim use as a playing field.

The proposed new location of the Trapeze School New York tent currently accommodates 40 cars that could be moved to other space on the roof, Fishman said.

The proposed trapeze tent, designed by FTL Design Engineering Studio, would be as light and transparent as possible. “The fabric is like Saran wrap with white dots on it,” Nicholas Goldsmith, principal in FTL, told waterfront committee members.

The school has a 30-day renewable lease for its present location, which may be cancelled when the Trust begins to build the Downtown segment of the park. The school would have the same kind of 30-day renewable lease for the Pier 40 roof location, which the Trust could also cancel when the redevelopment of the entire pier begins, Fishman said.

Downtown Express is published by
Community Media LLC.

Email: josh@downtownexpress.com

September 26th, 2004, 08:17 AM
Last week I noticed rolls of chain-link fence and a backhoe at the area between the Chelsea Piers and the westside heliport. They may be starting construction there soon.

Clinton Cove, at the north end of the park, is almost complete.

Work is continuing at the pier south of the Intrepid.

November 27th, 2004, 07:05 PM

Green light for Hudson Park green, Pataki says

By Josh Rogers

Gov. George Pataki said Monday during his semi-annual report on Downtown’s post-9/11 progress that the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation will fund the Tribeca section of the Hudson River Park.

Officials have been saying for months that $70 million from the L.M.D.C. was likely, but the Hudson River Park Trust’s president, Connie Fishman, said she did not hear for sure that some money was coming until just before Pataki’s Nov. 22 speech at the Ritz-Carlton in Battery Park City, site of all four of the governor’s Lower Manhattan progress speeches.

Fishman said more discussions with the L.M.D.C. are needed as to what and how much the Pataki-created agency is funding, but the governor’s announcement means construction on the delayed project could begin by the middle of next year under the most optimistic schedule.

She said as Downtown’s residential population continues to increase, better park spaces for families are needed.

“They need a place to play as well as a place to work and the riverfront is the best and most easily accessible place available,” Fishman said in a telephone interview.

The project has the support of Community Board 1, Councilmember Alan Gerson and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who asked the L.M.D.C. to fund the park at the agency’s board meeting two weeks ago.

At his speech before the Association for a Better New York (abny), Pataki said: “Through funding from the L.M.D.C., we will be able to complete the Tribeca section of the five-mile, 550-acre [park] and provide the community with even more recreational space and access to the river.”

He also announced that he and Mayor Mike Bloomberg had signed executive orders setting up the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center to manage and coordinate all of the Downtown construction projects planned over the next six years; that all four of the living ex-presidents had agreed to serve as honorary members of the foundation to raise money for the World Trade Center memorial; and that the dismantling of the contaminated Deutsche Bank building across from the W.T.C. site would begin in December.

As for the Tribeca section of the Hudson River Park, the plan includes rebuilding all 1,000 or so feet of Pier 25 for a children’s play area, volleyball courts and a mini-golf course, and about 900 feet of Pier 26 with a marine study center, kayak center, large plants, and a green lawn. The piers already host many of those uses, but they are deteriorating and permanent structures need to be built to replace them.

Fishman said about half the park’s costs are to rebuild the piers. The plan also includes trees and plants off of the piers and a bird sanctuary viewing area near Canal St. The recently opened tennis courts will remain near Spring St., but the skateboard park may be moved to a nearby location, Fishman said.

After the L.M.D.C. board approves funds for the park, she said it will likely take between four and six months to get the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development to issue final environmental and funding approval. HUD has final say on all development corporation money, which was approved by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks.

It will take about 2 1/2 years to build the Tribeca section. Fishman said the Trust will work out a construction phasing plan and that some of the existing uses on the piers may be able to temporarily relocate. Those uses include Manhattan Youth, which runs afterschool and summer day camp activities on Pier 25, the River Project, which studies marine life at Pier 26 near the Downtown Boathouse, which has kayaking programs.

Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, said he is happy to hear the park will be built, but he hopes construction starts after the summer. “We stand ready to vacate the pier this season or next,” he said. “We prefer next season.”

He said that would give him more time to find other places for outdoor programs such as on Governors Island. Manhattan Youth holds the lease for the pier and during construction will lose space for its programs and about $60,000 in sublease revenues from other groups, Townley said, although he added it is a positive development.

“I’ve always viewed it as no choice because the pilings on the piers are disintegrating,” he said. “Some people will miss the old funkiness of the pier, but probably more people will like the new pier. I think the crowds will increase.”

L.M.D.C. money

The park money will leave less than $800 million in L.M.D.C. funds left over. Pataki said he would work with Mayor Mike Bloomberg to come up with a plan by March on the best way to use the rest of the remaining funds.

“As we develop the allocation plan, we must engage the public so all voices are heard,” Pataki said.

This line is not likely to mollify advocates who have criticized Pataki and the L.M.D.C. for not spending more money on affordable housing and job training programs.

“If the governor at this point does not have a grasp of what the needs of Lower Manhattan are, he’s living in a hole,” said Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York, which has tracked L.M.D.C. expenditures closely.

Damiani said the L.M.D.C. should follow the same public hearing laws required of other Community Development Block Grant allocations. The 9/11-related C.D.B.G. funds do not have the same restrictions as other grants. Typically the L.M.D.C. board votes on spending plans at its public meetings and then solicits comments on the plans on its Web sites and in public notice ads in local papers.

Pataki did not say if there would be more extensive outreach before the final spending plan is unveiled in March and Kevin Rampe, L.M.D.C. president, said that has not yet been decided.

After the 2001 attacks, the agency was granted $2.8 billion of federal money and the largest expenditures to date include $750 million to repair utilities damaged on Sept. 11, 2001, $300 million for a housing subsidy program to encourage residents to move and stay in Lower Manhattan, $225 million to buy the Deutsche Bank building and develop site plans for the complex’s redevelopment, and $200 million for business retention programs.

Damiani said in some cases, the L.M.D.C. and other moneys spent on corporate retention went to companies whose executives were later quoted as saying they were not planning to move out of Downtown.

“We’re giving money away to corporations that say they would have stayed in Lower Manhattan anyway, when the needs of low and moderate income families are being ignored,” she said.

Pataki released a report Monday prepared by Appleseed estimating that L.M.D.C. investments have led to $2.1 billion of economic impact in the short run and will contribute $1.3 billion each year.

The governor said the biggest priority for the remaining L.M.D.C. money was to help pay for the $350 million memorial construction costs, followed by the undetermined W.T.C. cultural building costs. He announced that next week, he, Bloomberg and John Whitehead, L.M.D.C. chairperson, would announce at least 20 members of the memorial foundation to join former Presidents Bush, Clinton, Ford and Carter in the efforts to raise money to build and maintain the memorial.

Other big projects under consideration are improvements to the East River waterfront, along Fulton St., near Chinatown and south of the W.T.C. site.

Construction center

The Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center will coordinate the projects planned south of Canal St. or southwest of Rutgers St. Pataki and Bloomberg will pick an executive director to head the center.

Carl Weisbrod, president of the Downtown Alliance and a L.M.D.C. board member said it’s “critical” for the businesses he represents and for residents to have one place keeping track of all of the government agencies and developers with billions of dollars worth of projects underway.

“It’s absolutely essential to have a full coordination of these various construction projects,” Weisbrod said.

The center is to remain open through 2010 and will oversee all projects in the geographic area that are valued over $25 million and any that require work on Downtown’s streets or highways.

One of the projects the command center will manage is the deconstruction of the Deutsche building. Pataki toured the damaged building after his speech with Amy Peterson, a L.M.D.C. vice president, and George Cavallo, regional director of the Gilbane Building Company, which will oversee the deconstruction.

The governor said that the building will be taken down safely. “It’s not going to be one of these mass explosions,” he said, according to a pool press report. “It’s going to be piece by piece from the inside.”

Pataki also announced:

• His support for rebuilding the Borough of Manhattan Community College’s Fiterman Hall, which was damaged in the attacks. Antonio Pérez, the school’s president, told Downtown Express that the school has about $127 million in insurance and Federal Emergency Management Agency money and needs $60 million more for the demolition and reconstruction costs. The college’s board is expected to vote to hire Pei Cobb Freed & Partners to design the new Fiterman.

• Memorial architects Michael Arad, Peter Walker and Max Bond in December will unveil the final model for Arad’s “Reflecting Absence” design for two sunken reflecting pools where the Twin Towers once stood. Arad and Bond walked with Pataki in the memorial area Monday. Arad said later that the access to the memorial from Liberty St. will be decided soon, once a decision is made on where to place the ramp for delivery trucks and tour buses.

• Subway construction on the $750 million Fulton Transit Center and $400 million South Ferry station will begin in December. The Fulton project will begin with the 2,3 lines at Fulton and Nassau Sts. and the south entrance to the 4,5 stop at Maiden Lane and Broadway.

• The environmental study on the $6 billion rail link connecting Lower Manhattan to J.F.K. Airport and the Long Island Rail Road would begin with a week. He said he expected Congress to approve a $2 billion tax transfer to the project sometime next year.

• In his earliest ABNY speeches, Pataki spoke enthusiastically about the plan to build a vehicular tunnel near the W.T.C. and under West St., but the project is opposed by many residents and on Monday the governor only mentioned “a revitalized West St.” which could or could not include a tunnel.

• Pataki made several mentions of the Freedom Tower but unlike in other speeches, he did not say anything about the height of the first tower that will be rebuilt at the site. W.T.C. site architect Daniel Libeskind had proposed a symbolic height of 1,776 feet back in 2002 and Pataki later named it the Freedom Tower. When the building’s cornerstone was laid July 4, 2004, aides to Larry Silverstein, the tower’s developer, said the building may not be precisely 1,776 feet. Asked after Monday’s speech whether it would be 1,776 feet, Silverstein had a simple answer: “Yes.”


January 9th, 2005, 05:45 AM
January 9, 2005


Trouble in Parkland

In 1998, with great expectations and after years of citizen lobbying, the New York State Legislature gave formal approval to one of the most important civic projects in 100 years - the creation of the Hudson River Park. As envisioned by its planners, the park would replace five miles of industrial hulks, parking lots and rotting piers on Manhattan's Far West Side with an inviting mix of open space (some of it on brand-new piers), gardens, pedestrian walkways and tasteful commercial development. It would run from 59th Street to Battery Park City and, when finished, would give New Yorkers ready access to one of the world's great rivers.

One section of the park, adjacent to Greenwich Village, has been completed. It is a magnificent realization, with gardens and lawns and three new park piers for fishing, strolling and sunbathing that could well redefine, nationwide, what waterfront parks can be.

But there is trouble in parkland, and as usual it involves money. Including the Greenwich Village section, only half of the park has been built or assured - some sections between 42nd Street and 59th Street are nearing completion and some financing is in place for a stretch in Chelsea. But the original $200 million pledged by the city and state is nearly exhausted. Unless new money is provided expeditiously, valuable momentum will be lost and large stretches of riverfront will remain in their decayed state for years.

There are two obvious sources of new financing. The City Council has approved $31 million that the Hudson River Park Trust, the agency in charge of design and construction, plans to spend on the Chelsea section. But Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said that he will not release the money until the state matches it - a reasonable enough position, since this has always been a 50-50 deal. Surely Gov. George Pataki - who publicly recommitted himself to the project in a speech last November - can find $31 million, or a chunk of it, in a budget that is likely to exceed $100 billion.

The other source is the roughly $850 million that remains of the federal funds made available for the reconstruction of Lower Manhattan in the wake of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Two years ago, the park trust applied to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation for $70 million of that money to build a mile-long section of the park south from Houston Street to Battery Park City at the tip of the island.

That would be an entirely appropriate use of the money because the proposed parklands are adjacent to the neighborhoods most affected by 9/11 and would provide downtown residents with open space at a time when they will be buffeted by new construction on all sides.

On this score, Mr. Pataki has been strongly supportive, although he has not specifically committed himself to the $70 million. Mr. Bloomberg has been coy. His aides keep saying privately that the Trust will get the money, but the Mayor has been silent. For its part, the corporation supports the concept and John C. Whitehead, its chairman, is an enthusiast. But the corporation is also being lobbied by other claimants and will not act without the joint consent of the governor and the mayor.

This worthy and remarkably cost-effective project deserves their unambiguous support and the modest financing it needs to see it through.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

February 18th, 2005, 12:28 AM
Pataki pledges P.A. park dough

Governor George Pataki announced last week he would match the city’s $15 million investment in the Hudson River Park in order to build the riverside park’s Chelsea section.

Pataki said the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey would kick in $10 million to go with the previously announced $5 million from the state’s Environmental Protection Fund and $15 million from the city.

The park’s Chelsea section includes Piers 62, leased by Chelsea Piers for its roller rink, and Pier 63, home to Basketball City. Pier 63 would be converted into park space as part of the plan developed by the Hudson River Park Trust, a state-city agency.

The state and city long ago set aside $100 million a piece to design the park and build the first section in Greenwich Village. An estimated $200 million more is needed to build the rest of the park, which stretches from the Battery up to W. 57 St.

“This new, additional funding will build on our commitment to fulfill the vision of Hudson River Park and ensure a lasting legacy for our children and generations to come,” Pataki said in a prepared statement Feb. 9.

The governor said in the fall that the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation would invest the money needed to build the Tribeca section of the park, estimated at $70 million. The L.M.D.C., also a state-city agency, has about $820 million left in post-9/11 funds.


February 18th, 2005, 12:39 AM
Farmers’ market floated on Pier 40

The Waterfront Committee of Community Board 2 heard a preliminary report this week on the marketing study commissioned by the Hudson River Park Trust on ways to develop Pier 40 as an economically viable and community-friendly part of the Hudson River Park.

The Bay Area Economics Consultants executives who came to the Feb. 7 waterfront meeting with Connie Fishman, Trust president, and Noreen Doyle, Trust vice president, acknowledged that a “big box” retail outlet on the 14-acre pier off Houston St. was not compatible with a park, despite its revenue potential

But one of the possibilities involved the idea of a permanent farmers’ market. The Ford Foundation has been working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop public markets in several cities, the consultants said. Similar markets have been established on waterfronts in Seattle and the San Francisco area, they noted.

Another possibility involved a company on the West Coast that leases small unprogrammed spaces to artists, craftsmen and hobbyists who lack their own studios.

Don MacPherson, committee chairperson, said committee members were interested in the possibility that public parking could remain as a commercial use of the pier along with the active and passive recreation space now on the pier.

A written report on the B.A.E. study will be made public soon, according to Chris Martin, Trust spokesperson. The study is intended to help the Trust draft a new request for proposals for potential developers. Under the Hudson River Park legislation, at least 50 percent of Pier 40 must be noncommercial park space.


March 16th, 2005, 03:34 PM
I wonder why the city is not planning a Navy Pier-like structure/development for any of these waterfront plans?

bohemian rhapsody
March 16th, 2005, 10:53 PM
I wonder why the city is not planning a Navy Pier-like structure/development for any of these waterfront plans?

That would be very cool. Perhaps they're not considering that because of nearby Coney Island? But something on Manhattan would still get business.

March 17th, 2005, 01:57 PM
That would be very cool. Perhaps they're not considering that because of nearby Coney Island? But something on Manhattan would still get business.

Then they should built it on Coney Island...that would be even better.

May 7th, 2005, 07:54 AM
City halts garage work in Hudson Park

Downtown Express photo by Lincoln Anderson
Construction workers were building the Gansevoort garage addition last Friday, but the city has now put a hold on the project.

By Albert Amateau

In a deal brokered last week by State Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman, the Department of Sanitation has agreed to voluntarily cease construction of the temporary garage that it began in January on the Gansevoort Peninsula.
The agreement, pending further hearings on the lawsuit by Friends of Hudson River Park seeking to get the Sanitation Department off Pier 97 as well as the Gansevoort Peninsula, could be the first step in the broader long-sought goal of freeing the full 5 miles of the Hudson River waterfront park for park use.

“This is something that cries out for a reasonable solution,” Stallman said to Daniel Alterman, attorney for Friends, and Susan E. Amron, representing the city, at the April 29 hearing on the Friends’ application for a temporary restraining order against further work on the two-story garage. Sanitation has said the “temporary” two-story structure could serve until 2012 or beyond.

“It seems to me that eight years is somewhat long,” said Stallman. “But it also seems fair to everybody to have a finite term of [Sanitation] use, known to everybody and legally enforceable,” he added.

“We also want to make sure we don’t create a short-term problem by precipitously forcing these uses onto other communities,” Stallman said. He set Thursday May 7 for more discussion on the issue, and asked Amron for Sanitation’s voluntary agreement to cease work on the garage. The department agreed on Monday afternoon to cease work as of Wednesday.

Alterman said on Tuesday that he was gratified that Sanitation has agreed to cease construction on the garage. “I’d be pleased if this leads to a more global agreement to make the Hudson waterfront free of Sanitation uses much earlier that 2012,” he added.

Albert Butzel, president of Friends of Hudson River Park, a community group advocating for the 5-mile riverfront park being built between the Battery and 59th Sts., said, “It’s early in the action but it’s a step forward to get Sanitation off the waterfront and get some rent for the park in the meantime.”

The suit also wants the court to set “a reasonable rent or use and occupancy payment” that the city must pay to the Hudson Park Trust for the continued occupancy of Pier 97 and most of the peninsula from the Dec. 31, 2003, deadline set in legislation until Sanitation leaves.

The suit charges that the Sanitation Department’s continued use of the peninsula to park garbage trucks violates the 1998 Hudson River Park Act by not using its best efforts to get off the waterfront before the deadline. Sanitation’s response to the Friends’ complaint says the department has been diligently working to relocate the garbage truck parking. The effort involves six garages for Manhattan districts in Lower Manhattan, the Village, Chelsea, Midtown and the East Side and the Upper West Side.

“The District 2 garage now at the Gansevoort Peninsula, the District 5 garage now at E. 73rd St. and the overflow from District 1 [Lower Manhattan] will eventually be relocated at a new site,” the reply says.

One possibility for the new site, according to Sanitation Department spokesperson Kathy Dawkins, is the 800,000-square-foot U.P.S. parking lot between Washington and West Sts. stretching north of Spring St.

Conjecture among real estate people is that U.P.S. has selected the Brodsky Organization to develop the site but the city is moving to take it for Sanitation under eminent domain. Bob Godlewski, U.P.S. spokesperson, said, “We’re continuing to try to maximize the value of our property there and we have to protect the facilities that we have there already. We have a staging area for tractor-trailers there.”

However, the southern part of the Hudson Sq. neighborhood, formerly known as the Printing District, is increasingly becoming a high-end residential area, and was recently rezoned for residential use. Just north of the site and a block east on Greenwich St., more than 200 units of luxury housing have gone on the market with condos selling for more than $2 million. More luxury apartments are on the way, including one on Washington St. just south of Spring St., planned by Vendome Realty to be designed by the firm of the late Philip Johnson.

Albert@DowntownExpress.com (Albert@DowntownExpress.com)

May 7th, 2005, 10:58 PM
Can you rent Jet Skis at Hudson River Park for a ride in the Hudson? If not, are there any areas where you can?

May 31st, 2005, 11:47 AM
Things are looking up for the Park. It finally got the LMDC money to go forward with the Tribeca section, Clinton Cove just opened, and Pier 84 is well underway:

"LMDC to Allocate $70 Million for Hudson River Park. Last Thursday, May 12, Governor George E. Pataki announced that that the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation will allocate $70 million of the funding it controls to build the Tribeca section of Hudson River Park. This money will allow the Hudson River Park Trust to rebuild a one-mile long segment of the waterfront south of Houston Street and turn it into a magnificent new park, complete with two new public park piers.

Friends of Hudson River Park and its supporting groups, organized into the Hudson River Park Alliance, have been advocating for this funding since early in 2003. The funding was also been supported by The New York Times in two separate editorials, the most recent of which appeared in January 2005.

With the $70 million, the Hudson River Park Trust will reconstruct two decrepit piers in Tribeca, transforming them two magnificent park piers extending almost 1,000 feet out into the Hudson River. These new piers will include open lawns, an area for sports, a playground, a living museum of the River, a small restaurant, boat docks, a boat house and much more. It addition, the Trust will build a mile-long esplanade bordered by lawns and gardens, with a basketball court and other recreation facilities scattered along the way. The Tribeca section will connect with the completed Greenwich Village section of Hudson River Park, creating a largely unbroken 3-mile stretch of public waterfront.

The $70 million LMDC allocation brings to more than $120 million the new public funding for the Park that Friends and its supporting groups have played a key role in securing over the last 11 months. This is in addition to the $200 million the State and City had committed to the Park in previous years. The total of about $320 million represents three-quarters of the total cost of the Park."

Douglas Willinger
October 12th, 2005, 05:12 PM
What do you mean? Think about all the Striped Bass that were saved and allowed to frolic by the West Side H'Way.

And of the extra brake dust emissions and run off into the Hudson River from the guaranteed extra stops from a West Side "Highway" with traffic lights due to not constructing a tunnel.

Or that from not constructing the new landfill (as a buffer with improved storm water management infrastructure, or as a substitute such a tunnel project with far less new land fill that would serve as a replace the existing aging sea wall.

Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio

TLOZ Link5
October 12th, 2005, 06:29 PM
Maybe Westway was a good idea; maybe not. But at the same time, that money would have been -- and was -- better spent on improvements to mass transit.

November 1st, 2005, 03:51 PM
October 31, 2005

Ground broken on the West Harlem Piers

Government officials, including Mayor Bloomberg and U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, broke ground Monday on construction of the West Harlem Piers, an $18.7 million project that the city says will connect West Harlem to the rest of the Manhattan waterfront greenway. A new bicycle and pedestrian path, a docking pier, a recreational and fishing pier, and landscaped open space along the Hudson River waterfront are scheduled to be part of the project, which is being built on a city-owned parking lot between 125th and 135th streets. Construction, according to the city, is expected to start by the end of the year, and the piers should be completed by the spring of 2007.

Copyright © 2003-2005 The Real Deal.

November 4th, 2005, 08:20 AM
I always liked the cheap burgers at the b-b-q stand ... lousy lemonade, though.

I prefered the hot dogs. For beverages I would cross the parkway an go the the Supermarket in tribecca.

I am going to miss the "observation deck" at the end of the pier. Yet, another lofty perch.

RE: Hudson River Park - todat I will be taking photos of that new construction site that Bloomberg "broke ground" on last week: the harlem piers. I have been following that one since the "planning process" began eight years ago.

I will post the photos of the "construction process" as often as I can.


November 4th, 2005, 09:27 AM
does anyone know if there is a resturant going up on this pier. The previous maps of this same schematic showed a resturant.

Also, For YOur Information: construction on this site starts in a few weeks......at last.

The HRP website mentions a restaurant.

No pile driving permitted in the river Nov-April, but work can begin to demolish the pier decks.

Other construction in the park:

Segment 6: Pier 66, just north of the float bridge, is almost complete;
work continuing at pier 84,with a cafe and fountain.

Bikeway/walkway improvements at the Ganesvoort Penninsula, pier 57, and the passenger ship terminal near W45th St.

November 4th, 2005, 11:29 AM
The HRP website (http://HRP website) mentions a restaurant.

This is a "VERY BIG ISSUE" with the powers that be in the nabe, until recently I lived only a few blocks away. So it will be tricky for me to get any answers on this: I am if favor of Commercial development on the waterfront-so nobody will talk to me anymore.,,,kidding.

Thanks, BTW ... I read your research on the Marble hill, spyten duval? (way uptown) --- very good stuff,thanks for the info.


November 5th, 2005, 08:23 PM
Why don't they use the Yankee ferry to shuttle people to the South Bronx for Yankee games?

In fact, why are there so few operating ferries upstream from Lower Manhattan overall?

November 5th, 2005, 09:14 PM
Why don't they use the Yankee ferry to shuttle people to the South Bronx for Yankee games?

I am not certain, but I do not think the Yankee is has a running engine. My guess is that it is probably beyond repair. Where ever it goes these days, it gets there with the aid of a tug boat.

November 12th, 2005, 05:00 PM
Yankee may go down the river

Mackenzie-Childs said he was surprised the Hudson River Park Trust didn’t make more of an effort to find room for his ship at Pier 40 near Houston St., but he thinks he may be able to stay Downtown at Pier A.

He does want to bring the Yankee back to its home for the last 15 years, Pier 25, once it reopens. He said the park will need the ship back. “There’s a great chance it’ll end up being a very sterile park,” he said.

"To try to justify building more Chelsea Piers and those sorts of things - I think that's just flimflam," said Willner. "I think that that's a developer's concept of how to preserve piers. Piers are not places for development. They're places to tie ships up and to load and unload cargo. They were never meant to be huge piling cities in the river."
Chris Martin, spokesperson for the Trust, said the Yankee can’t go to Pier 40 because the only area where it would fit is deteriorating.

It is my opinion that there is opposition to "Anthing but park" - Does that means the Yankee too.

It is clear to me what - "anything but parks" AND "not development of any kind" - means. NO Commercial development.
My argument here is that I would like to see the Yankee return to pier 25, and I would like to see a resturant on Pier 25, but not likey - Political opposition.

The following is supporting documentation for my opinions/statements.

From: GothamGazette. com
So what does Benstock think of all the new plans for the waterfront, especially Hudson River Park, which is going where Westway would have?
"It's the same kind of project," she says. "And it's illegal in the same way." And she is fighting it in the same way. "I'm preparing for litigation. The only fair arena where citizens can fight environmentally damaging boondoggles now is in the federal courts."

She is not alone in opposing Hudson River Park, which she sees not as a park but as a development project, a boon to developers.

The local Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups.
What they all want instead, Benstock says, is "a genuine waterfront park that preserves the river."

"The point about the Hudson River is this: We want the Hudson River left alone. No Army Corps permits are required to leave a river alone."

Benstock said she was too busy with the legal case to discuss her opposition in any more detail. But she did fax over three articles from the Wall Street Journal that were critical of the Hudson River Park, and of other development plans for the waterfront.

As for the other waterfront projects? "I have no opinion about parks, if they're real parks," she said. "I love real parks. " What she doesn't like, she says, is a development project masquerading as a park. "You might as well call the World Trade Center a park."
Visit the IOTW Archives!

WHADDAYASAY?? GothGaz wants to know what YOU say about this issue. Fire away!


November 12th, 2005, 06:03 PM
I would like to provide some additional documention; the following is an attempt to substantiate my previous statements regarding _ "political oppostion" to Development at the Hudson River Park.

From Gothomgazete.com

"To try to justify building more Chelsea Piers and those sorts of things - I think that's just flimflam," said Willner. "I think that that's a developer's concept of how to preserve piers. Piers are not places for development.

People often ask journalists to delve into and deliver opinions about stories they are too busy or lazy to investigate themselves. But as I immersed myself in this story, my acquaintance's question began to seem more and more curious. He sat at the center of the region's environmental community. He spent his days talking with power brokers in the top ranks of the region's environmental groups, some of whom were major players on the Hudson River Park project. He sat on the same boards they did. Weekended where they spent their weekends. If anyone should have been able to deconstruct the mess, it was he.

"I thought it was miraculous," said River Project director Cathy Drew. "Maybe it was just entropy, but no one had tried to form that kind of alliance before, even of all the environmental groups let alone all the civic groups. Everyone's in their own little world. And here was a guy who managed to convince us that we should all work together."
In place of what project opponents saw as the deluxe, elite vision of the Conservancy, Mylod and his confederates argued that a more modest, conventional waterfront park - bikeway, trees, benches, scenic vistas and some rehabilitated piers free from stuff that doesn't belong on the water - would have sufficed and could have been paid for entirely through public funds. "A simple, natural, affordable park that looks like a real park," said Benstock wistfully.

Mylod and the other opponents to the project -- they recoil from the word "park"-- shared a dark vision of what the state wanted to do along the West Side of Manhattan, and were not shy about discussing their overarching interlocking conspiracy theories. They viewed the park, the act that legalized it, the Conservancy that designed it and the Alliance that supported it, as elements in a large conspiracy to facilitate uncontrolled real estate development on and along Manhattan's West Side piers. The park was merely camouflage, they said, to allow the development to take place without alarming citizens. The payoff for a politician's support of the park would be campaign contributions from real estate development interests, as well as votes he or she would attract by championing and delivering a project that not only provided needed park space but also appeared to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Hudson River.

"John and Marcy believed the Hudson River Park bill is a plot," said Mele, "and that's all I got out of them. They were obsessed with the conspiracy. They were obsessed with the means. I was trying to look at the end."

But apart from their wilder and more sinister conspiracy theories, there was something to the opposition's criticisms. Allowing the Hudson River Park Trust to manage the park was, in their view, an insult to the very idea of democracy and an open invitation to corruption. While certain members of the Trust could perhaps be counted upon to act in the public interest - the state and city parks commissioners, and the NYSDEC commissioner - others would, in Mylod's view, be political appointees sympathetic to real-estate interests, "people sympathetic to the Pataki administration's goal of making available to a lot of campaign contributors and others massive leasing opportunities and construction jobs." Free from oversight, and public scrutiny and accountability, the Trust's powerful and wealthy members - or at least members indebted to the powerful and wealthy - would not be bound to follow the public's wishes, and could alter their plans at will, allowing continued destructive development. The process was inherently unfair, arranged by New York City's elite to favor politicians and real estate developers. "It boils down to not very much democracy," said Mylod, despairingly. "Democracy be damned."

"For all of their ranting about how we're going to lose the river," said Mylod, "the Alliance leaders know very well that this is about commercial development. Private development sets a very dangerous precedent that in the future public parks will require private dollars and so will have to accommodate commercial development." And the 30 percent was just the beginning. Benstock, Mylod and their allies viewed the unnecessarily deluxe project's construction and maintenance costs as so high, and in their view so certain to spiral ever higher, that it would allow the Trust to justify even more development. The park was to be built in segments, and with sometimes vague descriptions of what was planned for each segment, opponents predicted that in five or ten years increasing construction and operating budgets would generate pressure for more commercial development in the interpier area in order to supply additional funding. There was a deluge of real estate development money, they argued. A tiny rivulet in the dirt would quickly turn into a gully and pretty soon a roaring river. The fact that the Hudson River Park Act contained specific language restricting the amount of space in the park that could be used for commercial development didn't reassure the opponents, who argued that politicians beholden to real estate interests would simply amend or rewrite the legislation.

Butzel argued forcefully that the bill he had helped craft would prevent such abuses, and that one of the Alliance's primary goals and greatest achievements was the creation of legislation that provided habitat protections lacking in the original Conservancy concept plan. "If you pass legislation that says, these areas are park and this is what park means, you can't have commercial in them. Even if it's true that the economics of the park force people to look for new revenue sources beyond what we anticipate being there, there's a very, very substantial obstacle to that revenue source being the development of these park areas. You'd have to change this legislation, and that would be extremely difficult."

In their nightmares, critics imagined clones of Chelsea Piers, the much-criticized waterfront commercial amusement park already constructed in the park's footprint and whose paid-admission activities make about as sense on the Hudson River as anchoring a Bertram yacht on the front lawn. "I've been to Chelsea Piers once," said NYPIRG senior attorney Gene Russianoff, "and some of it serves good purposes. But I'm repulsed by the notion that these piers are parking lots and a Greg Norman boutique. It's crazy - the edge of the waterfront with private restaurants that only people from Denver would eat at."

"To try to justify building more Chelsea Piers and those sorts of things - I think that's just flimflam," said Willner. "I think that that's a developer's concept of how to preserve piers. Piers are not places for development. They're places to tie ships up and to load and unload cargo. They were never meant to be huge piling cities in the river."

WHADDAYASAY?? GothGaz wants to know what YOU say about this issue. Fire away!

Visit the IOTW Archives!

P.S. A search on Benstock at the gazette will give more info if you so require.

November 12th, 2005, 06:32 PM
Marcie Benstock?

" What she doesn't like, she says, is a development project masquerading as a park. "You might as well call the World Trade Center a park."
The World Trade Center she refers to is the one with the twin towers still standing, so you get an idea as to how old the above article is.

This is old post-Westway stuff. Benstock helped defeat Westway, but when it was replaced by the Hudson River Park proposal, she continued to oppose it, wanting the waterfront to stay as it was in the 1990s.

Her bizarre position was not shared by the majority, and she became increasingly isolated as a political force. Her legal efforts to stop the park obviously failed, given the first segment completed was in her community.

I haven't heard her name mentioned in years.

I am not going to the community board, I have found that my voice is drownd out in the crowed - This is a much better forum for having ones opinions heard.Discussions are more fruitful when there is a basis in fact.

I'll try to attend the CB1 meeting and find out exactly what is being built on piers 25 and 26.

November 12th, 2005, 08:04 PM
The concerns raised in the articles (it would be helpful if you could provide links to the web pages / articles) sound strikingly similar to the concerns regarding the waterfront parks being discussed south of the Brooklyn Bridge:



November 12th, 2005, 08:34 PM
Here's the link from Gotham Gazette archives.

There is no date, but two links in the article point to two WSJ items dated Sept 1999.

December 2nd, 2005, 07:25 PM
Arthur Schwartz, chairperson of the board’s Waterfront Committee, spoke against the south side of Pier 40 because it would, among other things, block the romantic harbor views where he proposed to his wife.

If this does not demonstrate the futility of going to community board meetings- nothing does.

And he's a board chairperson....


December 29th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Construction update: Dec 29, 2005

Segment 3 (Tribeca) construction has begun. Demolition at pier 26
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/2272/hrp01c3em.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp01c3em.jpg)

Segment 6. Boathouse at pier 66.
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/1354/hrp02c2lh.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp02c2lh.jpg) http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/411/hrp03c6xi.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp03c6xi.jpg)

Cafe at pier 84
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/5123/hrp04c5oy.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp04c5oy.jpg) http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/4334/hrp05c5nh.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp05c5nh.jpg)

Bikeway/walkway improvements:

Gansevoort Penninsula
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/5057/hrp06c5jw.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp06c5jw.jpg)

Pier 57
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/9994/hrp07c3ra.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp07c3ra.jpg)

Passenger ship terminal
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/8730/hrp08c8pj.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp08c8pj.jpg)

February 23rd, 2006, 10:04 PM
A Ribbon of Green ?That Hasn’t Got Any

Paying for Parks With the Public Purse
By Matthew Schuerman

The five-mile-long Hudson River Park was born from the rubble of Westway—the controversial plan to sink the West Side Highway and cover it with park, which met an ignominious end in 1985.
But reclaiming the waterfront—and getting the hookers off the piers—still sounded good to pretty much everyone.
So planners conceived a new ribbon of green around the edges of lower Manhattan, and phased in a little bit of profit-making development, too, to maintain the greenery. In fact, they even went so far as to say that the park would pay for itself.
But that was 1995, and the financial plan showing that the park can indeed pay for itself hasn’t been revised since.
Rents from developments like Chelsea Piers still cover the rent, but only for a small part of the planned park. Some 70 percent of the park remains to be built—and who will pay for that?

“The party line is that it will be totally successful,” said Albert Butzel, the president of Friends of Hudson River Park, a booster group that has helped raise funds for the park, which is controlled by a city-state agency. “The reality is that it is going to need a lot of help.”
Building the park will require some $450 million, and aggressive fund-raising will be required to obtain that money. But more harrowing to some park critics is the lack of a budget for day-in, day-out costs like mowing the lawns, picking up litter and patrolling the property, which may reach $17 million to $20 million once the park is finished.
Mr. Butzel is thinking of something normally taboo: a new tax.

“Initially, my sense is that this is not what we all bargained for when the Hudson River Park sold the park to the city. It was supposed to be self-sustaining,” said Edward Baquero, managing partner at Coalco, a real-estate investment company that owns two properties that abut the park, including a building with Diane von Furstenberg’s studio on West 12th Street.
But he doesn’t rule out a special assessment district. “We should see what really went wrong,” Mr. Baquero said. “Was it a judgment error? If not, why was it off? I think they need to be very transparent.”

“They,” in this case, is the Hudson River Park Trust, the quasi-public agency overseeing the park. The costs of both constructing and operating the park have climbed since first outlined in a 1995 brochure issued by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Governor George Pataki.

The annual operating cost once completed was supposed to hit $10 million. Currently, with just 25 to 30 percent of the park up and running, the budget is about $12 million, paid for by rents, concessions and other revenues. As more parkland will come on line, the trust will gain a few more profitable ventures—like a banquet hall and marina planned for Pier 57 at 15th Street—but Noreen Doyle, executive vice president of the trust, said that no one knows whether the new revenues will offset the new expenses.

Park Tax?

The Friends of Hudson River Park, Mr. Butzel told The Observer, is two or three months away from releasing an analysis of 15 years of data comparing properties in the West Village—which is where the first sections of the waterfront park have been completed—with those elsewhere in Manhattan. The group is pursuing a two-pronged strategy, he said: The data may, in and of itself, convince enough people to contribute voluntarily, or it may persuade them to form a type of business-improvement district that would make those contributions mandatory for owners of property within its boundaries, which he said would probably extend about two blocks in from West Street.

“We haven’t received any feedback from property owners. This isn’t even a public idea,” Mr. Butzel said. “This is still years away.”

He said the study, undertaken with the Regional Plan Association, a nonprofit planning group, would consider a number of variables that may have contributed to value appreciation, such as proximity to a subway station, as well as the citywide real-estate boom.

“Even between one block and three blocks from the river, you can see the difference,” Mr. Butzel told The Observer.

“I think all of these are good ideas,” said Ms. Doyle, adding that the trust wasn’t involved in the tax-district study.

“I think the Hudson River Park was not so focused on the issue of self-sufficiency. No one was in charge like Charles Gargano, who wanted to make sure it was really self-sustaining,” said Mr. Butzel, who is also a board member of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy, a support group for that park. “The Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation has leaned heavily in that direction so that revenues would be adequate, and the price of that is that buildings may be higher than they need be. But I think that residential development is a reasonable strategy. We are talking about one 30-story building. Why are people so upset about this?”

Those principles also state, however, that “Specialized commercial uses … shall be encouraged and residential and office uses shall be discouraged.”

Of course, residential development is exactly the kind envisioned for the park, and for good reason: A marina just would not make much money. Brooklyn’s new park would need six Chelsea Piers in order to pay for itself.

The other document that state officials point to is a 2002 agreement between Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg. That agreement repeatedly refers to a “sustainable” park but never elaborates. (Environmentally sustainable? Financially sustainable?) At one point, the document permits but does not require commercial development to take place on the park: “the development of appropriate commercial uses may occur within the project area, provided that all revenues derived from such uses shall be used exclusively for the maintenance and operation of the project.”

A Ribbon of Green ?That Hasn’t Got Any

Of course, there is a liberal argument that new parks should pay for themselves whenever they can, so the public money can go to parks in poor neighborhoods that are poorly maintained. It’s the reverse of environmental racism, of putting all the transfer stations and power plants in poor neighborhoods where property values are low anyway and the residents are too disorganized to raise hell. We’re not even talking about power plants here; we are talking about luxury condos with river views.

The state and city are already chipping in plenty of land and money to create both the Hudson River and Brooklyn Bridge parks; the self-sustaining part only pertains to the operation and maintenance budgets.

Besides, some park lovers—or at least park administrators—argue that relying on the city and state to pay annual expenses is just a bad management practice.

“Government has its ups and downs, and over the years, if you have a built-in ability to make sure you always have the bathrooms clean and lawns maintained, how much better would it be,” said Tupper Thomas, the administrator of Prospect Park in Brooklyn and the president of the Prospect Park Alliance, a private support group. And fund-raising, she added, doesn’t qualify as a “built-in ability”; it’s a very hard thing to do.

The opponents of Brooklyn Bridge Park, who fear that the condominium owners will turn the park into their private domain, would welcome the chance to try out a special assessment district.

“We proposed that last year. We called it a P.O.D., a parks oversight district, or a P.I.D., a parks improvement district,” said Judi Francis, the president of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund. “We are not stupid. We know that it will improve our real-estate values. But give us the tax burden of the park without the privatization.”

In other words, why can’t Brooklyn be more like Manhattan?

February 25th, 2006, 12:18 PM
...Lincoln Harbor Marina in Weehawken, N.J., where they will be able to stay at least until April.

“It’s very calm here,” Richard MacKenzie-Childs said in a telephone interview last week. “It’s very easy watching the boat in a marina, but we prefer being part of a community in Tribeca.”
Weehawken strikes mas a great big missed opportunity to create something fine and urban, and IMO infoshare's photos help make that point.

February 25th, 2006, 11:31 PM
Weehawken strikes mas a great big missed opportunity to create something fine and urban, and IMO infoshare's photos help make that point.

Thanks Ablarc, glad to hear you viewed the photos. I read recently that the current owners have put the ferry up for sale. Not certain: anyone have any intel on this story I would love to here it.


February 26th, 2006, 11:29 AM
The opposite bank of the Hudson strikes me as a missed opportunity to annex a better fifth borough to the city than Staten Island.

February 27th, 2006, 06:45 AM
The opposite bank of the Hudson strikes me as a missed opportunity to annex a better fifth borough to the city than Staten Island.
Yeah, Englewood Cliffs to Bayonne would make a dense linear borough that would come complete with rail transit, Hoboken, Jersey City, Weehawken and even --appropriately-- West New York. It's defined topographically, and it's already more like New York than Staten Island is. Anywhere but the real world it would make a great land swap.

February 27th, 2006, 08:51 AM
The opposite bank of the Hudson strikes me as a missed opportunity to annex a better fifth borough to the city than Staten Island.
You're a couple of hundred years too late to start that fight ... all over again:

Settlement of New Jersey


... the early European settlement of New Jersey was a contest between the Dutch and the Swedes. The Dutch West India Company worked to stimulate settlement in the area by granting patroonships, land grants in which the grantee was given proprietary and manorial rights over settlers he sponsored.

In 1620, a trading post was established at the site of Bergen, New Jersey, which would later be developed as the first permanent white settlement in the area. Other Dutch enclaves followed at Fort Nassau and at Jersey City.

Swedish settlements began in southern New Jersey in 1638, which touched off a rivalry between the two powers over the fur trade. The Dutch under Peter Stuyvesant successfully evicted the Swedes in 1655.

The entire region was claimed by England for the Duke of York (later King James II (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h536.html)) in 1664. The name New Jersey was introduced, which honored the isle of Jersey in the English Channel.

The Duke's claim was passed along to two of his supporters, Lord John Berkeley and Sir John Carteret. These enterprising businessmen offered land at bargain prices and full religious toleration to attract settlers. Confusion soon developed, however. The governor of New York, unaware of Berkeley's and Carteret's proprietorships, assigned lands to several Puritan (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h573.html) groups.

Tension developed between the Anglican proprietors and the Puritans with the latter refusing to pay rents to the former.

In 1674, Edward Byllynge bought out the Berkeley share to establish a Quaker (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h486.html) settlement. The colony was divided into two sections that year. The Byllynge Quakers controlled western New Jersey; Carteret owned eastern New Jersey until his death, when control passed to another Quaker organization, the Twenty-Four Proprietors.

As things turned out, the Quaker leadership was no more popular with New Jersey society at large than Berkeley and Carteret had been. Ill feeling and even rioting led to the surrender of the Quaker charters to the Queen in 1702, although the actual ownership of land remained with the previous entities. The royal governor of New York served both colonies until public protests resulted in the appointment of a separate official for New Jersey in 1738.

February 27th, 2006, 09:57 PM
... the early European settlement of New Jersey was a contest between the Dutch and the Swedes. The Dutch West India Company worked to stimulate settlement in the area by granting patroonships, land grants in which the grantee was given proprietary and manorial rights over settlers he sponsored.

"Patroon" from Wikipedia: I guess this is how waterfront development was done way-back-when.

A patroon was a proprietor of a tract of land in the 17th century Dutch colony of New Netherland in North America. In order to encourage emigration to America, the Dutch West India Company granted patroons powerful rights and privileges, close to those of the feudal period.
A patroon could create civil and criminal courts, appoint local officials and hold land in perpetuity, but in return would be obliged to establish a settlement of at least 50 persons within four years. Settlers on the patroon's estate were relieved of the duty of public taxes for ten years, but were required to pay the patroon in money, goods, or services in kind.
The largest and the one only truly successful patroonship in New Netherland was Rensselaerwyck, established by Kiliaen Van Rensselaer. Rensselaerwyck covered almost all of present-day Albany and Rensselaer counties and parts of present-day Columbia and Greene counties in New York State.
Albany has a CBA basketball team called the Patroons, once coached by NBA legend Phil Jackson.

New Netherland(s) (Dutch: Nieuw-Nederland, Latin: Nova Belgica or Novum Belgium) was the territory claimed by the Republic of the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands on the eastern coast of North America in the 17th century most of which was contained in modern day New York State, but also streched into modern New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut and Delaware.

Arent van Curler, later van Corlaer, ( 1619 - 1667 ) was the cousin of Kiliaen van Rensselaer and undertook the management of Rensselaer's patroonship Rensselaerwyck in the Dutch colony of New Netherland in 1637.
He was born in Nijkerk, Netherlands.
In 1643, Van Curler married a widow, Antonia Slaaghboom, and the couple settled near Fort Orange.
In 1662, he founded Schenectady on land he purchased from the Mohawks. He was known for his fair dealings with the Indians, negotiating disputes and arranging for captives to be freed.
He died, drowning in Lake Champlain in northern New York, while attempting to visit Governor de Tracy of Canada.

February 27th, 2006, 10:30 PM
There's a great work of narrative history about the Renssalaerswyck patroonship called "Death of a Notary"...a fascinating and well-written account of Dutch New Netherland.

February 28th, 2006, 12:52 AM
In 1643, Van Curler married a widow, Antonia Slaaghboom, and the couple settled near Fort Orange.
She was probably relieved to get rid of that name ....

February 28th, 2006, 08:01 AM
Right after Death of a Notary, I read Island at the Center of the World, an account of life in New Amsterdam through the experiences of Adriaen van der Donck, who became a prosecutor at Renssalaerswyck. He later settled in New Amsterdam, where the Dutch West India Company granted him a patroonship north of the Spuyten Duyvil Creek.

Van der Donck was known locally as De Jonkheer (young gentleman), and his estate called De Jonkheer's Landt. After the arrival of the English, it was called Youncker’s Land, and finally Yonkers.

February 28th, 2006, 10:02 AM
I love this community. Thank you for posts like the above, which keep me learnin'!

February 28th, 2006, 08:15 PM
Spuyten Duyvil Creek.

Any takers on this Question?
Does SPUYTEN DUYVIL translate into "the spitting devil" OR " to spite the devil" OR "THE DEVILS WHIRLPOOL" , OR maybe something else altogether - I have found no general agreement or authorative claims on any - my surmise is "the devils whirlpool".

February 28th, 2006, 09:17 PM
From wikipedia ...


Spuyten Duyvil Creek

[URL="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2urmgtcitm3oe?method=4&dsname=Wikipedia+Images&dekey=Marble+hill+manhattan+map.png&gwp=8&sbid=lc07a"]http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/d/d8/Marble_hill_manhattan_map.png (http://www.answers.com/topic/spuyten-duyvil-creek)

Spuyten Duyvil Creek, also known as the Harlem River Ship Canal,
is a one-mile-long channel connecting the Hudson (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2urmgtcitm3oe?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Hudson+River&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc07a) and Harlem Rivers (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2urmgtcitm3oe?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Harlem+River&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc07a) in
New York City (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2urmgtcitm3oe?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=New+York+City&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc07a), separating the island of Manhattan (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2urmgtcitm3oe?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Manhattan&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc07a) from the mainland.

The neighborhood called "Spuyten Duyvil" (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2urmgtcitm3oe?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Spuyten+Duyvil%2C+Bronx%2C+New+York&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc07a) lies to the north of the creek.

Spuyten Duyvil Creek originally flowed north of Manhattan's Marble Hill (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2urmgtcitm3oe?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Marble+Hill%2C+Manhattan%2C+New+York&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc07a).
The construction of the ship canal to the south of the neighborhood in 1895 (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2urmgtcitm3oe?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=1895&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc07a)
turned Marble Hill into an island, and when the original creekbed was filled in,
in 1914 (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2urmgtcitm3oe?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=1914&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc07a), Marble Hill became physically attached to the Bronx (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2urmgtcitm3oe?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=The+Bronx&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc07a), though it
remained part of the borough of Manhattan.

"Spuyten Duyvil" means "Devil's Whirlpool" in Dutch (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2urmgtcitm3oe?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Dutch+language&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc07a).

External links

History of Spuyten Duyvil Creek from Washington Heights & Inwood Online (http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/000471.html)

March 1st, 2006, 03:20 PM
See this thread: In Search of the Spuyten Duyvil Creek (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4128)

May 16th, 2006, 03:11 AM
May 16, 2006
After 20 Years of Delays, a River Park Takes Shape

Albert Butzel might seem an unlikely proponent of commercial development on the West Side of Manhattan. After all, two decades ago, as the lead environmental lawyer, he almost single-handedly killed the Westway project, which would have shoved the shoreline westward to create 169 virgin acres for recreation and real estate speculation.

For 10 more years, as Mr. Butzel retreated to write a novel, the West Side waterfront continued to crumble in bureaucratic limbo. But he remained concerned about what would replace the derelict piers, which, Herman Melville wrote long before in "Moby-Dick," had confined New Yorkers in an insular city "belted round by wharves as Indian isles by coral reefs."

"It took from 1985 to 1995 to figure out what the Hudson River Park was going to be," Mr. Butzel, who is 67, recalled last week. "By 1996, what was a nice concept plan on paper had been sitting in a closet for a year and had very little political support." Galvanizing environmentalists, civic leaders, wary local residents and public officials — most of them former Westway opponents — Mr. Butzel has, since 1996, helped raise $360 million, mostly from the city and state government, and prodded officials to get the promised park built.

He never finished his novel. But about one-third of the park has been completed. Tonight, 10 years after ground was broken for the reconstruction of the West Side corridor, Friends of Hudson River Park will celebrate its success so far by honoring Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff and Douglas Durst, a developer who is the principal owner of New York Water Taxi and a supporter of the park.

When completed, Hudson River Park will be a five-mile-long green ribbon of bike paths and walkways between Battery Park City and West 59th Street, punctuated by recreational finger piers jutting into the river — about 120 acres in all.

The first section of the park opened three years ago in Greenwich Village. Two acres near 55th Street opened last spring. This fall, a portion near 42nd Street is to open. A section near 26th Street is to be completed next spring. Work has begun on an eight-acre park just north of the Chelsea Piers complex, which is to be finished by 2009, in time for the 400th anniversary of Henry Hudson's arrival. Construction is to begin on two other sections after the Sanitation Department vacates a garage and other facilities.

Even before a portion of the elevated West Side Highway collapsed in 1973, Westway was envisioned in the early 1970's as a replacement road coupled with an ambitious real estate venture, which acknowledged that the West Side piers had outlived their commercial maritime role. Westway would have, in effect, extended the Battery Park City mix of housing and commercial development north on landfill with an interstate highway buried underneath.

Rebuffed by the courts and under deadline pressure to shift federal Westway money to mass transit, New York officials abandoned the Westway plan in 1985.

Vowing not to repeat the mistakes of the political goliaths he defeated over Westway, Mr. Butzel and Tom Fox, his predecessor as president of Friends of Hudson River Park, an advocacy group, applied the lessons of that interminable battle. He forged a consensus. He got government — especially Gov. George E. Pataki — on his side by appealing to the governor's abiding commitment to the Hudson. He marginalized his opponents by broadening his own tent. And he learned to compromise, including diplomatically persuading his organization not to publicly oppose the proposed West Side football stadium.

While he largely overcame the early concerns of West Village residents, critics still complain that the park has taken too long, cost too much, will generate congestion from its commercial ventures and has been entrusted to a public corporation, the Hudson River Park Trust, that is insufficiently accountable to the public. Marcy Benstock, who as head of the Clean Air Campaign was also instrumental in defeating Westway, has recast herself from Mr. Butzel's chief ally to his nemesis.

She supports parkland along the shore and would allow most existing piers to remain as long as they are safe, but she generally opposes replacing derelict piers except for essential, water-dependent uses. "It will never end unless the mayor and governor rule out construction in the river," she said.Mr. Butzel overcame the environmental and legal hurdles on which Westway foundered and, he recalled, "much to our shock Marcy didn't sue."

She still opposes the project but the reason she has not sued, she says, is Mr. Butzel. "He crafted permit and approval documents that are so long and mind-numbingly contradictory and complex," she said, "that it takes forever for a lawyer to read them much less to understand them."

When Westway was finally defeated in 1985, two constituencies celebrated: friends of the striped bass, whose Hudson River habitat was preserved; and subway riders, because the federal government agreed to trade a billion dollars of Westway money for mass transit.

"Westway might have been the most spectacular river park in America, but it was doomed when it became a plebiscite on whether people prefer highways to mass transit," said Kent Barwick, the president of the Municipal Art Society.

Instead of tunneling through landfill, a six-to-eight lane street-level boulevard was built with computer-controlled signals. Vehicular traffic is moving relatively well, according to transportation officials.

"Given the decision to maintain a highway at grade, what we're getting is also spectacular," Mr. Barwick said.

Even Ms. Benstock praises the part that is on land, although she expresses concern that reconstructed piers now reserved for recreation might some day be destined for commercial development.

Mr. Butzel says he still needs $100 million more from government to finish the project, as well as the right mix of parking garages, restaurants, ferries and other concessions on about 30 percent of the site to subsidize operations and maintenance of the public portion. It is uncertain, though, whether the existing concessions and those still subject to approval will generate enough revenue to sustain the park. "We need as much commercial as will allow the park to be self-sufficient," he said.

One element in that mix, a project that included the city's largest banquet hall on a 880-foot-long pier at West 15th Street, was called into question this month when one of the partners withdrew. His spokesman blamed the lengthy approval process, but the other partners say they are still committed.

Meanwhile, the fish have thrived. Striped bass spawn in the Hudson and the babies find shelter in the warm, calm waters near the piers and protected basins along the western shore of mid-Manhattan.

"Westway would have caused them great harm," said Michael Ludwig, an ecologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service. "The bass are definitely back and are doing relatively well."

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

May 29th, 2006, 03:58 AM
May 29, 2006
City Is Holding Its Horses, and That's Holding Back a Park

A bubble over part of the pier houses stables for the unit and basketball courts. A park agency wants the stables and courts torn down.

A mounted patrol at Pier 63 in Manhattan.

When the Hudson River Park Trust began building a waterfront park eight years ago, the project's backers believed that lack of money was all that stood between them and the completion of the five-mile-long park.

But as the trust has set about demolishing Pier 63 at West 23rd Street for more green space, it has run into two obstacles that have proved at least as vexing as fund-raising: schoolchildren and the New York Police Department.

A portion of the pier is covered by a large white bubble and since 1997 has been leased by the trust to Basketball City, a private enterprise that allows public school students to play free on its indoor basketball courts on the second floor there.

Basketball City subleases the first floor of the bubble to the Police Department, which has used it for horse stables since 2004.

Even though the trust, which is a joint city-state agency, has sought to move both groups off the pier for the past several months, neither the Police Department nor Basketball City has promised to be gone by the trust's June 7 deadline for them to leave.

"It's hard to find a home for horses in Midtown Manhattan," said Paul J. Browne, a spokesman for the Police Department.

And Bruce Radler, managing partner of Basketball City, said that if the horses stayed beyond the deadline, his group should also be able to remain on the pier temporarily, while he looks for another site.

"With the Police Department here in the building, there's not going to be any construction going on, so why shouldn't we be able to stay here and continue to run our programs for kids?" Mr. Radler said. "If we're not here, there's no other place for them to go."

While Basketball City charges as much as $225 an hour for corporate teams to use the courts, it allows 29 boys' and girls' basketball teams from public schools to play games and hold practices on the courts free because their schools do not have gyms. In return, the children are required to perform community service projects.

John Sarci, the boys' basketball coach and athletic director at the Beacon School, a public school on the Upper West Side, said that before it started using Basketball City, the school paid $6,000 a year for private court time for games.

Practices were held in the school's gym, where the 15-foot ceilings necessitated jump shots with very little arc. "If we lose Basketball City, I don't know what we're going to do," Mr. Sarci said.

But Chris Martin, a spokesman for the trust, said that now that it had the money to complete the Pier 63 section of the park, it was time for everyone to leave so that the bubble and the pier can be demolished to make way for trees and grass.

Pier 63 Maritime, a private company that operates on an old railroad barge at the pier, also faces a deadline to leave, though that group is not contesting the order.

"We will pursue all remedies available to us under the law to have them vacate the premises," Mr. Martin said. During a similar battle last November between the trust and a couple who lived aboard a boat at Pier 25 in TriBeCa, the trust ordered the gate padlocked, effectively stranding the wife on the boat until the couple agreed to have their vessel towed away.

Mr. Martin said he hoped the situation at Pier 63 would not reach that point, adding that the trust had been working with the police to find a new location for its stable.

"They have been accommodating us, or attempting to accommodate us," Mr. Martin said.

The deadline to leave comes as the Police Department is seeking to increase the total of the mounted troops to 160, up from the current number, 85.

Mr. Browne, the police spokesman, said the city would most likely move its 30 horses at Pier 63 to its tow pound at Pier 76. The new stable however, probably will not be finished by June 7.

"It will take some time," Mr. Browne said.

But Albert K. Butzel, president of Friends of Hudson River Park, a private nonprofit advocacy group, said he had run out of sympathy for both Basketball City and the Police Department.

Mr. Butzel said the Police Department had broken its promise not to delay park construction and was violating the Hudson River Park Act by maintaining horse stables on parkland. His group, he said, is considering filing a lawsuit.

"You would think that those responsible for law enforcement would be the first to obey the law, but here is an example of the police thumbing their nose at it instead," he said.


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

May 29th, 2006, 11:33 AM
May 29, 2006
City Is Holding Its Horses, and That's Holding Back a Park

Pier 63 Maritime, a private company that operates on an old railroad barge at the pier, also faces a deadline to leave, though that group is not contesting the order.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

I have added a tag for pier63 on Wickimap (http://www.wikimapia.org/#y=40744916&x=-73952579&z=13&l=0&m=s). For (hi-res) sky views of the various facilites that are mentioned in the news article. The general location on the map is West 23rd Street and the Hudson River.

May 30th, 2006, 02:57 PM
Surfs Up In Manhattan? Beach Proposed For Hudson River

May 29, 2006

Manhattan residents may have a sandy spot to call their own in the future, if a plan by state officials and environmentalists who want to put a beach along the shore of the Hudson River is ever realized.

The plan, which calls for the creation of a man-made beach just steps from the Meat Packing District, still faces technical and regulatory hurdles.

Right now, a city Department of Sanitation depot occupies the proposed location. However, the depot plans to relocate in 2012.

There is also a question if crowds of potential swimmers will stay away from the beach because of fear of pollution from the river.

Copyright © 2006 NY1 News. All rights reserved.

May 30th, 2006, 04:05 PM
"You would think that those responsible for law enforcement would be the first to obey the law, but here is an example of the police thumbing their nose at it instead," he said.

Sounds typical to me.

May 30th, 2006, 04:47 PM
It's more an issue of the city moving things along. Down at 14th Street the Dept of Sanitation was supposed to vacate and give up the Ganesvoort Peninsula to the park. They've been shaving off pieces of the DOS property and increasing public space, but the city just doesn't meet its obligations. I hope they move forward and evict both of these tenants. An unobstructed waterfront park is the end goal. Move these folks up to pier 96.

May 31st, 2006, 10:35 AM
Belfast Telegraph
May 31, 2006

Sand and the city: New York dreams of its own beach

By David Usborne

The heavy weight of summer has fallen abruptly upon Manhattan, but its residents can at least grasp for one consolation: they are on an island surrounded by water. And yet, just as quickly, they will remember that nowhere along its 32 miles of shoreline is anything that could reasonably be described as a beach.

There are a few spots that invite hardy souls at least to roll up their trouser legs for a paddle. Stuyvesant Cove on the East River at 20th Street sounds promising but the patch of sand, punctuated with rocks and concrete, is large enough for just two beach chairs. For a day of sun and surf, the only option on Manhattan is to leave it. You must make your way to Coney Island in Brooklyn or the dunes of Jersey Shore.

But it is a shortcoming that may be overcome.In time for the start of the swimming season, state officials are considering building the isle's first bona fide public beach on a promentory jutting into the Hudson near the newly fashionable meat-packing district.

It is a project that may be years in the making; there are regulatory obstacles and the site is occupied by a whiffy rubbish collection depot. Then there is the Hudson's reputation as a cesspool of pollution.

But the fact that it is being proposed is a testament to the success of efforts since the 1970s to restore the Hudson's water quality. Its waters are teeming again with striped bass. Even seahorses have returned to New York's harbour.

While the water may not have the turquoise allure of the Caribbean, it is nowadays considered fit for swimming. Several groups dedicated to protecting the river and increasing public access to it have expressed enthusiasm for the beach.

"I'll swim in the Hudson now," Carter Craft, the director of the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, commented. "It's safe if you know what you're doing." For several years, the Manhattan Island Foundation has organised a fundraising swim around Manhattan. This year's is set for 24 June.

Moreover, a beach would be the final jewel in the Hudson River Park, a sliver of recreational spaces, lawns and cycle paths that is nearing completion along Manhattan's West Side. It will be the biggest park in New York after Central Park.

The proposal, put together by the state-funded Hudson River Estuary Programme, calls for the demolition of the rubbish depot and the building of a sand lido along the northern side of the promentory. It would be fringed by a lawn linked to Hudson River Park.

Officials admit that a city regulation that forbids public swimming in areas less than 500 feet from overflow pipes from Manhattan's drainage system must be rescinded before the beach can be built. Moreover, when storms hit, effluence from those pipes can carry raw sewage into the river. The solution would simply be to close the beach when large rainfalls occur.

© 2006 Independent News and Media (NI)

May 31st, 2006, 06:47 PM
^ Great proposal, but how will they handle the crowds? Gates with an occupancy limit? Advance-issue passes? Bouncers?

October 6th, 2006, 04:26 PM
Walked by the Chelsea section under construction yesterday, the cranes were hard at work on the unique piers, more plants were delivered and ready to be planted, and new artwork has been installed at the north end, anyone else see it? Chairs fused into polygonal table, in one. In the other, the chairs extend to supprt a ceiling. Pretty neat. I also noted that the trees planted nearby have had their leaves blown off already by the helicopters right next door. Anyway, this section of the park is getting close.

October 13th, 2006, 06:39 PM
On the Chelsea waterfront:
A new park is growing

Villager photo by Jefferson Siegel

On Oct. 4, Ellen and Allan Wexler, Chelsea residents since 1978, spent the whole day overseeing installation
of their public art sculpture “Two Too Large Tables” at 29th St. in Hudson River Park.
Made of two 16-foot-square planes — one 7 feet tall, the other 30 inches tall — supported by chairs and built
of ipe wood and stainless steel — the two pieces serve as a shade pavilion and community table.
“Because it surrounds you, you feel as if everyone’s connected,” said Allan, who was looking a bit frustrated,
above, after learning he’d have to return the next day because the installation was going slower than expected.

thevillager.com (http://www.thevillager.com/villager_180/onthechelseawaterfront.html)
By Josh Rogers and Albert Amateau
Volume 76, Number 21
October 11 - 17, 2006

Chelsea’s waterfront is slated to get three public piers within the next few months, and long-term plans include a merry-go-round, gardens and a park for skateboard stunts.

The Hudson River Park Trust, a state-city authority, is building the 5-mile-long Hudson River Park from Battery Park to W. 59th St. A $400 million project, it has been hailed as the “Central Park of the 21st century.”

The park’s first segment, along the Greenwich Village waterfront, opened three years ago.

Work is now progressing in various sections of Segments 5 and 6 of the project, covering Chelsea and part of Hell’s Kitchen.

The park section from 26th to 29th Sts. — costing $18 million — is tentatively set to open before the end of the year. Further north, Pier 84 (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6833&highlight=hudson+river+park) at W. 44th St., a new public-use pier, will have a ribbon cutting on Oct. 17, with a gala neighborhood party set for Sat. Oct. 21 from noon to 4 p.m.

Also now under construction, the section from Chelsea Piers to W. 25th St. — dubbed Chelsea Cove — will cost $62 million to complete and is expected to open at the end of 2009.

Within Chelsea Cove, Pier 64 (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2975&highlight=hudson+river+park) at W. 24th St. is being built and could be open to the public as early as this spring. Pier 64 will be almost 700 feet long and provide views as far north as the George Washington Bridge.

Villager photo by Jefferson Siegel
A model showing how Piers 62, 63 and 64 between 22nd and 24th Sts. are being
redeveloped and landscaped as part of the Hudson River Park’s Chelsea segment.

Pile driving for new concrete supports for Pier 64 cannot proceed beyond Nov. 1 to avoid disturbing the winter habitat of year-old striped bass. But the work is expected to be completed before the beginning of the winter moratorium. Work on a new deck on top of the new pier pilings is to begin before the end of the year.

Work has also begun on creating an open public space on Pier 63 at W. 23rd St., where Basketball City moved off the pier roof last month, taking down its bubble-top roof. The Police Department’s Mounted Unit, which occupies the first level of Pier 63, is scheduled to move to temporary quarters on Pier 76 at W. 35th St. across from the Javits Convention Center by the end of this year.

A brand-new Pier 66 at W. 26th St. is nearing completion and will feature a boathouse and a public art water wheel at the end. A park maintenance building is under construction near 26th St.

Connie Fishman, the Trust’s president, outlined plans for the park’s Chelsea sections at the agency’s board of directors meeting on Sept. 28. Fishman noted that near 26th St. will be a sculpture garden with artist Meg Webster’s large boulder pieces of varying sizes of up to 15 feet tall.

Adrian Benepe, a Trust board member and the city’s Parks Department commissioner, said that the sculptures will be a good size for bouldering, or small-scale rock climbing — an activity, which he said, was becoming popular in city parks.

“It might be nice to have as impromptu recreation,” he said, adding visitors will try to climb the bigger rocks even if that’s not the intent.

Fishman said there will be a flower-filled garden designed by landscape architect Lynden Miller near Pier 62 at W. 22nd St. Fishman thought the garden would serve as a meeting spot for people going to Chelsea Piers or Pier 62, which will have a carousel and boat docking area. Pier 62 will also have a skateboard park similar to the one in the park’s Tribeca section, which is also now under construction.

In between the sculpture and flower gardens will be a lawn that will slope down toward the center.

“It’s our version — although it’s not as big — of the Great Lawn,” said Fishman. There could be small concerts and dancing on the lawn, the Trust’s president noted.

Fishman said the fee for the carousel will “probably be something modest like Central Park or Prospect Park.” It will have 32 moving horses or some other characters (one board member jokingly suggested bobbing mayors) and four stationary figures.

Because Pier 64 will have a slight upward incline — the end will be slightly higher than at the shore — and is strategically placed at a bend in Manhattan’s shoreline, it will have excellent northern views beyond the city’s car tow pound, Fishman said.

Yvonne Morrow, a retired Penn South resident, became well versed in the decades-long struggle to build parks on the Hudson River waterfront while working as an aide to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. She was among a group of a half-dozen Chelsea park activists seated in the audience who faithfully attend the Trust’s bimonthly board meetings to hear all the latest updates on the park’s progress.

Speaking after the meeting, Morrow approvingly said the Trust’s plan will attract crowds to the waterfront because it makes good use of the space being vacated by Basketball City and others. Her only regret is that none of the Pier 64 shed will return when the pier is rebuilt.

“It really opens it up there,” Morrow said of the Trust’s design for the section. “I’m big on shade. I would have kept half of the shed.” The pier shed was torn down earlier this year at the urging of Chelsea Waterfront Park Association activists.

During the meeting, Franz Leichter, who represented Chelsea in the State Senate and sits on the Trust’s board, said now that the Chelsea park is underway it’s a good reason to renew the fight to get Chelsea Piers to take down its electronic billboard.

“It’s an awful sign that Chelsea Piers has that will be looming over this, and every effort should be made to have them take it down,” said Leichter, who co-wrote the 1998 state legislation creating the Hudson River Park.

Henry Stern, a fellow board member and the Parks commissioner under Mayors Giuliani and Koch, added, “That sign is an embarrassment. We would not allow a sign like this in a New York City park…. You wouldn’t allow a sign like this in front of a bodega.”

Chelsea Piers, the recreation complex co-owned by Roland Betts, a college friend of President Bush, has a long-term lease with the Trust, and Fishman said her understanding was the sign issue was “over and done with.” But she told the Trust board she would research the issue after Leichter suggested a resolution urging Chelsea Piers to take it down.

Also in the park’s Chelsea section, further in the future is the renovation of Pier 57 at W. 15th St., a former M.T.A. bus depot, into a large banquet hall with retail and a public-use component. The pier earned the nickname “Little Guantanamo on the Hudson” when police held protesters arrested during the 2004 Republican National Convention there.

© 2006 Community Media, LLC

October 13th, 2006, 07:09 PM
Chelsea Waterside Park ...

http://www.fohrp.org/fohrp2.php?screen=CHmain (http://www.fohrp.org/fohrp2.php?screen=CHmain)




October 19th, 2006, 08:22 PM
Wow! That looks sweet. I can't wait.
When the trees mature it'll be magnificent.

October 19th, 2006, 08:44 PM
I just love the idea of having a ribbon of green encircling the island of Manhattan, along with all those recreational piers. I only hope that they're all put to good use and are sustainable in the long term.

December 1st, 2006, 10:38 AM
Chelsea Cove to feature lawn, stone field, carousel


Above: A sketch of the “Great Lawn” at Chelsea Cove.

thevillager.com (http://www.thevillager.com/villager_187/chelseacovetofeaturelawn.html)
By Albert Amateau
Volume 76, Number 27
November 29 - December 5, 2006

Landscape architects working on the Chelsea segment of the 5-mile-long Hudson River Park made a detailed presentation earlier this month of plans for the Chelsea Cove section.

The cove, currently under construction, includes the shoreside Pier 63 and the upland area bounded by two finger piers — Pier 62 on the south and Pier 64 on the north. The plans, by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, shown at a Nov. 8 event sponsored by Friends of Hudson River Park, include a central large “lawn bowl” sloping down from the shoreside Pier 63 and sloping up to plantings along the bikeway walkway.

Part of the grass of the “lawn bowl” will actually be built on top of Pier 63. Where Pier 63 meets the shore there will be openings cut, allowing parkgoers to see and hear the Hudson River splashing against the shoreline.

A garden with seating, tables and winding paths will lead to the lawn and to Pier 62, which will include a skateboarding and inline skating area, a carousel and an open plaza at the end of the pier.

On the north side of the cove, a small meadow with tall standing stones will lead to Pier 64, which will feature a mall with trees that flower in spring.

Matt Urbanski, the Van Valkenburgh associate who made the illustrated presentation at the McBurney YMCA on W. 14th St. on Nov. 8, noted that the design has been evolving since 2002 when a preliminary plan was submitted to the Hudson River Park Trust.

“It has improved with community consultation,” he said.

Chelsea activists, including Robert Trentlyon, a founder of Chelsea Waterside Park Association, and Ed Kirkland, a Chelsea preservation advocate, hailed the plans for the cove.

© 2006 Community Media, LLC

December 1st, 2006, 08:50 PM
The plans, by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, shown at a Nov. 8 event sponsored by Friends of Hudson River Park, include a central large “lawn bowl” sloping down from the shoreside Pier 63 and sloping up to plantings along the bikeway walkway

This is an interesting idea, although they better devise a good drainage system at the middle, unless they don't mind having a swamp after every rainstorm.

December 3rd, 2006, 07:45 PM
^ Civil engineer will work it out.

December 3rd, 2006, 07:53 PM
I hope so. Only reason I brought it up was because my campus has a bunch of open grass spaces, and they are all invariably turned into swamps after rain. The drainage system flat out sucks.

December 3rd, 2006, 07:57 PM
Lotsa rain this November in the Carolinas.

December 3rd, 2006, 08:40 PM
^ Civil engineer will work it out.

Much as they have done at various spots in Central Park

Unfortunately they come with what are now permanent little perimeter fences -- ugly, I hate 'em -- they're everywhere, to the point that somehow they've become nearly invisible :confused:

December 6th, 2006, 09:45 PM
These photos were taken near 26th street in Hudson River Park. At the far end of one of the new piers (see photo) there is a water-wheel; it turns along with the river current. On the north end of the park are public sculptures (see photo) called "two too large tables": in addition to being works of art; I think they can also be used for public seating.

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/381/img0024xz3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3239/img0008zq3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

December 6th, 2006, 10:18 PM
Is the big fence there ^^^ down now?

(so you can get inside and along the river's edge?)

December 7th, 2006, 09:33 PM
Is the big fence there ^^^ down now?

(so you can get inside and along the river's edge?)

No the tall fence is still up. One section of the fence is falling over on the far north section, so I was able to walk in to take some photos.:D

December 7th, 2006, 10:23 PM
nice ...

(my kind of wny-er :cool: )

December 9th, 2006, 09:42 AM
Opening Ceremony for the Pier 66 section of Hudson River Park is Monday December 11 at 11 AM ...

Join us! (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/index.html#)

Monday, Dec 11 at 11am for the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for

Hudson River Park's Chelsea North Section

on Pier 66 at West 26th St.


http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/development/art/BUTTONPier66bh.jpg (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/HRPT/bids.htm)

Pier 66 Boating Facility RFP (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/HRPT/bids.htm)

December 9th, 2006, 10:42 AM
Opening Ceremony for the Pier 66 section of Hudson River Park is Monday December 11 at 11 AM ...

Of all the new piers-in-the-park this design is my personal favorite. I am only postulating here, but the likely respondents for this RFP (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/development/Pier66BoathouseRFP.htm) would be Chelsea Piers, Witkoff, the DTBH and perhaps the folks from pier 63 (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134283&postcount=3) (frying pan). This will be one great public amenity: who ever wins (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/pdfs/rfps/Pier66RFP.pdf) the RFP:D

March 27th, 2007, 11:17 AM
Construction moving along at the northern end of Segment 5.

Pier 62 has been completely demolished. They'll be a carousel on the pier, and the skate park will be returned next to the lawn in front of pier 63. The NYPD mounted unit has relocated to the southern end of the tow pier, so demolition has begun on pier 63.
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/9976/hrp09cwa8.th.jpg (http://img254.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp09cwa8.jpg)

The area between the W24 driveway entrance for cabs and pier 61 is now a construction zone.
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5163/hrp10clo1.th.jpg (http://img254.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp10clo1.jpg)

Pier 64 is ready for decking.
http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/4618/hrp11col5.th.jpg (http://img465.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp11col5.jpg) http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/4474/hrp12ckv1.th.jpg (http://img105.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp12ckv1.jpg)

From pier 66 in the half completed Segment 6. The WTC will pop out about the Chelsea piers.
http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/6996/hrp13cqo2.th.jpg (http://img465.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp13cqo2.jpg)

Pier 66
http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/4120/hrp14cgs0.th.jpg (http://img465.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp14cgs0.jpg) http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/316/hrp15cev0.th.jpg (http://img465.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp15cev0.jpg)

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5503/hrp01uc9.th.jpg (http://img251.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp01uc9.jpg)

March 27th, 2007, 11:29 AM
From your vantage points at Pier 66 it looks as though the gates to the actual pier continue to be locked :mad:

Since Pier 66 is completed and Pataki cut the ribbon at an opening ceremony in December I don't understand why it isn't accessible to the public :confused: :( :mad: :confused:

March 27th, 2007, 03:29 PM
Yes, it's still locked. So is the float bridge.

April 3rd, 2007, 11:39 PM




April 4th, 2007, 12:21 AM








^That looks cool, but Chelsea Piers is a hideous blight on this park. I know it's used by people, but couldn't they have done better than this:
It blocks all sight of the river (and all light) for a very long distance and looks absolutely frightful. Something should be done.

April 4th, 2007, 12:27 AM






^Now if someone could promptly remove this junky eyesore from festering here and build the PAC proposal, ASAP!!

June 3rd, 2007, 08:34 PM
We went to pier 66 today to try and find out what's up with the Frying Pan. It's summer and not open!!!!???? what is going on ? will it open soon?

June 3rd, 2007, 08:55 PM
Frying Pan moves to Pier 66;
reopening date uncertain

April 9, 2007

The Lightship "Frying Pan (http://fryingpan.com/)" this morning moved to Pier 66 from its longtime Pier 63 home on the Hudson River and "hopefully" will reopen this summer.

A call this afternoon to the Frying Pan elicited the news that there are issues with the utilities and a few other things to take care of before the Frying Pan can start serving drinks again.

The historic 1929 floating lighthouse sank next to an old oyster cannery in the Chesapeake Bay, but was restored and moved to Manhattan's Pier 63 in 1989.


The Frying Pan Still Adrift in a Sea of Red Tape

May 22, 2007

Photo: Melissa Hom

It's safe to say the Frying Pan isn't opening on Pier 66 anytime soon.

Last winter we reported that the Frying Pan (http://nymag.com/listings/bar/frying_pan/) had lost its lease and was moving three blocks uptown. The little party boat that could has indeed made the move to Pier 66 at 26th Street, and though at one point it was set to open June 1, a call to Angela Krevy, wife of owner Steve, reveals that lease negotiations with the Hudson River Park Trust are taking longer than expected. “You can't fight City Hall,” Krevy quipped, “And you can’t speed it up, either.” But is this more than simply a matter of red tape?

When asked which points were holding up the agreement, Mrs. Krevy said, “Everything! It’s a tough lease.” No entertainment can be booked or opening date fixed until the deal is sealed, after which they’ll need to find a way to electrify the pier. So is there a chance the Pan, which is currently gated, will lose its precious party perch? Krevy assured us, “We're not going anywhere. They’re going to have to drag us out of there.” With a tugboat, of course.

June 4th, 2007, 08:20 PM

These buildings are so beautiful !

Variations on a theme.

Why can't New York rise to this level more often?

June 9th, 2007, 04:19 PM
It looks a little lonely there on 66a. But Pier 66 itself is pleasant.

July 9th, 2007, 07:45 AM
July 9, 2007

West Side Heliport Must Go, Park Advocacy Group Says

Dima Gavrysh for The New York Times

A proposal would move the heliport about two blocks north.


An influential advocacy group is pressuring city and state officials to banish sightseeing helicopters like the one that crashed into the Hudson River on Saturday from the West Side of Manhattan because, it says, they disrupt the calm of the riverfront park with their constant din and odors.

“All one has to do is be in the park today to experience the horrendous noise and jet fumes of helicopters coming and going,” said Albert K. Butzel, the president of the Friends of Hudson River Park, which is threatening to sue to force a shutdown of the West 30th Street Heliport.

The group was formed to support the park’s overseer, the Hudson River Park Trust, and it has never sued the trust. But Mr. Butzel said it would unless the trust put a stop to the sightseeing flights that take off from the heliport.

Mr. Butzel says that his group believes that the entire operation, the only commercial heliport on the West Side, violates the act that created the Hudson River Park, but that the group would accept a shutdown of the excursions until the trust can move the heliport to another location.

To head off a decision in court, city and state officials are scrambling to move the heliport from its longtime base at the west end of 30th Street. They have drawn up plans for a new heliport two blocks north at Pier 72 that would accommodate helicopter flights for business and emergency purposes, but not the pleasure trips that account for most of the heliport’s traffic in the summer, according to state documents.

But that site, like the heliport’s current location, is also inside the boundaries of the park, and therein lies the nub of a dispute that has involved Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Joseph L. Bruno, the majority leader of the State Senate.

The trouble started in late May when a disgruntled helicopter operator, Michael Roth, sued the Hudson River Park Trust and the heliport operator. Mr. Roth has had a long-running dispute with the operator, Air Pegasus, and asked a federal court in Manhattan to shut the site down.

The Friends of Hudson River Park agrees with Mr. Roth that the heliport is not legal, and is preparing its own lawsuit against the trust, Mr. Butzel said. He said his group is not satisfied by the promise to move the heliport, which handles as many as 100 takeoffs and landings a day.

“You just get one helicopter after another zooming up the West Side,” he said. “We’d be very happy if the heliport went away altogether.”

Mr. Butzel voiced his complaints before Saturday’s accident, which involved a sightseeing flight run by Liberty Helicopters, the biggest operator of tourist excursions from the heliport. The helicopter plunged into the river, but the pilot and seven passengers were unhurt.

At the least, Mr. Butzel said, his group wants the heliport moved away from the park, which extends from West 59th Street to Battery Place, and banned from accommodating pleasure trips. Those were two conditions included in the Hudson River Park Act when it was written in 1998, he said.

Then, the heliport was operating much as it is now, run by a company controlled by Alvin Trenk and his family. The Trenks’ lease expired in 2001, and since then, the trust has renewed it on a month-by-month basis.

Mr. Butzel and other opponents of the heliport contend that those renewals violated the act, making the heliport an illegal operation for the last six years. But a spokesman for the trust, Christopher Martin, said last week that the existing heliport had been grandfathered under the park act.

In a letter to Mr. Butzel in late May, Connie Fishman, the president of the trust, wrote that the site of the “new nontourism/nonrecreational heliport” would be where Pier 72 jutted into the river near 32nd Street. The pier would need to be rebuilt or replaced by a floating platform to accommodate a heliport.

The trust has provided no timetable for the creation of a new heliport, leaving Mr. Butzel doubting that the park will be more peaceful anytime soon without a court order. “It’s apparent that unless we do something, people just sort of hang around and do what they want,” he said.

Mr. Butzel said he had no doubt that a judge would rule that the current heliport must stop allowing sightseeing flights. He said he was less certain that a judge would order a complete shutdown of the heliport, because Mayor Bloomberg has argued that the city’s corporate executives need it.

A spokesman for the mayor, John Gallagher, said last week that the city’s Economic Development Corporation was working with the trust to draw up a contract “that would transition the heliport to a location allowed” by the park act. “Until that occurs, the city believes it is important to find a compromise that avoids an interruption in corporate flights at the current location,” Mr. Gallagher said.

But avoiding a complete shutdown may require legislative intervention in Albany. That’s where Mr. Bruno came in.

In mid-June, the Senate Rules Committee, led by Mr. Bruno, the state’s most powerful Republican, introduced a bill that would amend the park act to allow the heliport to continue operating. The bill, which did not move out of the committee, would authorize the continued use of the heliport for charters, sightseeing and emergency purposes until a new heliport was built.

It would also require the trust to put the contract for operating the West 30th Street Heliport up for competitive bids for the first time in more than two decades.

The proposed legislation was the idea of the operators of Liberty Helicopters, which runs sightseeing tours and charters from the heliport, said Tom Yessman, the company’s chief executive. Mr. Yessman referred to the bill as “our legislation” and said that Mr. Bruno “basically tried to fix the problem” by introducing the bill to amend the park act.

“The threat that the heliport might actually be shut down by court decree should motivate the Legislature and the governor to act,” said Randy Mastro, a Manhattan lawyer and former deputy mayor who is advising Liberty Helicopters. “If they don’t address this, the courts will, and the courts are being asked to shut down the heliport altogether.”

The bill was introduced in the Senate Rules Committee just two weeks before Mr. Bruno got caught in a flap over his travels between Albany and Manhattan on state helicopters. Mr. Bruno has denied making improper use of the helicopters, saying that he needed the protection provided by State Police escorts.

Mark Hansen, a spokesman for Mr. Bruno, said that Mr. Bruno had “no particular interest” in preserving the West 30th Street Heliport, which he and other officials, including Gov. Eliot Spitzer, use.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

July 26th, 2007, 12:09 PM
With a few hours to kill, which are the best parts of Hudson River Park for a stroll, a coffee and a view?

July 26th, 2007, 02:00 PM
North Cove in BPC or the Boat Basin area on the Upper West Side.

July 26th, 2007, 02:37 PM
^Neither are in Hudson River Park, though I concur.

Either piers 45/46 or pier 84 would suit nicely.

Pier 45 has a small concession stand (not to mention the West Village nearby); you can take your coffee out to the pier for sweeping views and moveable seats. There are ample benches and moveable seats along the walkway too. For a stroll, this area has the longest stretch of landscaped waterfront in the park at this stage of construction. I'd choose this area, if I had to pick.

Pier 84, adjacent to the Circle Line, has a somewhat larger concession equipped with a bar and adjacent seating. That pier itself has interesting water features and entirely different views. You can make it to pier 66 and its waterwheel from either area if you have a few hours to kill.


January 12th, 2008, 12:16 PM
Hudson River Park: A name that works

The name Hudson River Park has always been just fine with everybody. It perfectly describes and locates the 5-mile-long Lower West Side waterfront park between Chambers and W. 59th Sts.

But on Monday The New York Sun reported that Governor Eliot Spitzer in his State of the State address on Wednesday will propose renaming the park after George Pataki, who was governor for the 12 years before Spitzer.

In 1998 Pataki signed legislation authorizing the creation of the Hudson River Park, along with the Hudson River Park Trust, the state-city authority that is building and operating it. Pataki then held up his end of the deal, funneling millions of state dollars to the project, ensuring that the park has gotten built up to this point.

Certainly, Pataki was a strong supporter of the Hudson River Park and ended his tenure with some other impressive environmental accomplishments, such as acquiring tracts of Upstate land and protecting endangered forests and lakes.

But the Sun noted that Democrat Spitzer’s renaming proposal is a total surprise, “an unexpected, gracious gift to a Republican who has begun to fade from the public eye.” The move, the article notes, signals “an awareness by the embattled governor of the urgent need to retool his image.”

Clearly, Spitzer has endured a horrendous first year as governor, highlighted — or, rather, lowlighted — by the ongoing Troopergate scandal, in which Spitzer cronies tried to bring down Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno.

No doubt, renaming Hudson River Park as Pataki Park is Spitzer’s extending an olive branch to Bruno. Yes, the two definitely should patch things up so that Albany functions again and Spitzer can accomplish his agenda.

Yet none of the Trust’s board or staff or the local elected officials whose districts include the park were notified of the renaming idea, which shows that Spitzer still has to learn about working with people and building consensus.

Without detracting from Pataki’s impressive contributions to Hudson River Park — should the park, in fact, be renamed? The New York City Parks Department’s own policy for renaming parks for people is to wait at least until after the person is deceased.

Manhattan’s largest parks are not named after people or politicians: Central Park, Riverside Park, East River Park, Battery Park. Tompkins Square — named after Daniel Tompkins, who was a governor, congressman and vice president — is an exception.

No one we’ve spoken to feels that whether Hudson River Park is renamed Pataki Park would make one wit’s difference in terms of how much funding it gets from Albany — as if Republicans would begrudge the park money just because it wasn’t named after Pataki. Indeed, calling it Pataki Park might actually decrease its funding.

More to the point, a formal name change would apparently need a change of the Hudson River Park Act. Assemblymember Deborah Glick says she wouldn’t support such a change, meaning Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver likely would follow suit.

Furthermore, opening up the park act for an amendment risks other amendments being inserted at this sensitive time that could harm the park — such as an amendment to allow a marine waste transfer station on Gansevoort Peninsula or one to allow a 50-year lease at Pier 40, which is what Related would love for its Cirque du Soleil proposal.

A polling of local park activists shows some strongly oppose the renaming, while others would support it, though less than enthusiastically.

Perhaps part of the park can be renamed — Pataki Promenade, Pataki Pier and Pataki Point all have a nice ring — or some Upstate land the governor saved.

Parks — and their names — are important to local community members. More so than with most parks, Hudson River Park from its start has been a real community effort, from its initial brainstorming to its design and ongoing critical development concerns, such as Pier 40 and Gansevoort.

On Tuesday, we heard Spitzer may have pulled the Pataki Park renaming item from his speech, because, it’s said, the former governor would not be in attendance. (Maybe that’s because Spitzer, at his inaugural speech last year, said state government had “slept like Rip Van Winkle” the previous decade.) Yet, that leaves the possibility that Spitzer still intends to propose renaming the park at a later point. We think that would be a mistake. That the Trust itself declined comment and referred our questions to the Governor’s Office was telling about the confusion going on here.

We’re heartened to see Spitzer take an interest in Hudson River Park. Yet — without any disrespect for Pataki’s efforts on behalf of the park — we think the name Hudson River Park is perfection itself. It defines the park, it says where it is and it refers to a wondrous natural feature that has been here for eons — a river that is the very reason why New York City exists — and is more important than any single one of us, including ex-governors.

Copyright The Villager Volume 77 / Number 32 Jan. 9 - 15, 2008

January 12th, 2008, 02:45 PM
NO ^

I'd sooner it were called Potato Head Park :cool:

Choose a Cove or an Lawn to honor him, but not the whole park.

January 14th, 2008, 12:00 AM

Downtown Express file photo by Elisabeth Robert

A helicopter hovering between New Jersey and Battery Park City in 2005. B.P.C. residents say the excessive air traffic still exists and some have joined a lawsuit to stop tourist uses in Hudson River Park.

Downtown groups look to chop down helicopters

By Albert Amateau

Friends of Hudson River Park and other waterfront advocates went to court on Dec. 11 to close down the W. 30th St. Heliport saying the noisy copter pad is illegal and should have been kicked out of Hudson River Park years ago.

The State Supreme Court suit, joined by Chelsea, Hell’s Kitchen and Lower Manhattan community groups and individuals, names as defendants the Hudson River Park Trust, the authority building the 5-mile-long riverfront park; Air Pegasus Heliport, Inc., which leases the heliport from the Trust; and Liberty Helicopters, Inc., which operates flights as a subtenant of Pegasus.

“The noise is frequent and intrusive and often intolerable. It is also the result of the illegal operations of the 30th St. Heliport,” said Albert K. Butzel, outgoing president of the Friends group, in an affidavit filed with the suit. “As flights come and go, particularly the tourist flights, they often move north and south along the park at low levels, making it difficult for those in the park and those living adjacent [to the park] to enjoy the quiet of the out-of-doors or even in their homes,” Butzel said.

The heliport operates 24 hours a day with as many as 100 daily flights, about 70 percent of them sightseeing, according to the suit. Noise measurements taken on the Hudson River Park bike path adjacent to the heliport ranged between 76 and 98 decibels, with an average of 89 decibels, compared to the 55 decibel level that the federal Environmental Protection Agency identifies as the maximum outdoor level. Readings 150 feet south of the heliport in a Hudson River Park seating area showed a noise level between 60 and 89 decibels, and at Pier 66 at W. 26th St. readings ranged between 61 and 74 decibels.

The Hudson River Park Act of 1998, which created the Trust, permits a heliport in the park, but only as a non-tourist/non-recreation heliport for commercial and emergency transportation. The act also prohibits any heliport being located east — on the land side — of the Hudson River shoreline bulkhead. The heliport is on the east side of the bulkhead.

The suit notes that the park’s 1998 environmental impact statement stated that any heliport within the park would have to be west of the bulkhead line — and that no sightseeing helicopter service could be anywhere in the park.

John Dellaportas of the West Street Coalition said he and his group joined the suit because his Battery Park City neighborhood has been besieged with helicopter noise since 9/11.

“We believe Battery Park City gets the most traffic because these helicopters tend to congregate to get an extended view of the so-called ‘ground zero’ World Trade Center site,” he said. Dellaportas recalls three hovering choppers waking him up at 6 a.m. last summer.

In 2004, a kite flyer from Taiwan who was invited Downtown by the World Financial Center was forced to bring his kites down for helicopter safety, an indication of how “upside down and turned around” officials have become, Dellaportas added.

“This is essentially over park space and they’re treating it as an airport,” he said. He hopes the lawsuit is a “push for the Trust to do the right thing and respect the law.”

Air Pegasus has been operating the W. 30th St. Heliport under lease for more than 30 years, first under the Port Authority, then the New York State Department of Transportation and after 1998 “grandfathered” under the Trust because Air Pegasus had the lease before the Trust was created. But the grandfathered lease expired in 2001.

A holdover provision allows automatic month-to-month renewal but only if Air Pegasus has a five-year contract renewal. There has been no new contract, and the suit notes that the Park Act requires the Trust to take steps to eliminate any illegal use, like the heliport, from the park. “Yet the Trust has done nothing to eliminate [the heliport],” the suit charges.

Butzel’s affidavit implies that James Ortenzio, chairperson of the Hudson River Park Trust from 1999 to 2003, was responsible for the Trust continuing the month-to-month arrangement with Air Pegasus. In November of this past year, the affidavit notes, Ortenzio pleaded guilty to tax evasion related to $80,000 paid to him by Air Pegasus for consulting services to settle a dispute between Pegasus and another helicopter operator in 2004.

“While these services were rendered after Mr. Ortenzio was chairman of the Trust, we believe that throughout the period that he was chairman he had a close relationship with Alvin Trenk and his family, who own and operate Air Pegasus,” Butzel said. “Moreover, as far as we are aware, the board of the Trust has never taken up, at least in public, the issue of the legality of the Air Pegasus lease.”

Last May, Butzel, on behalf of the Friends of Hudson River Park, sent a letter to the Trust noting that the continued operation of the W. 30th St. Heliport was illegal and urged the Trust to close down the heliport.

Connie Fishman, president of the Trust, noted in a reply dated May 23 that the park’s environmental impact statement suggested two legal sites for the heliport, one on Pier 72, which is two blocks north of 30th St., and the other on Pier 76, across from the Javits Convention Center — each one a finger pier that could accommodate a heliport west of the bulkhead line.

Fishman said at the time that the city’s Economic Development Corporation and the Trust were developing a request for proposals for a new heliport — with no sightseeing flights — on Pier 72. But no request for proposals has been issued yet. Moreover, a State Senate resolution introduced last June would have amended the Hudson River Park Act to allow the heliport to continue with sightseeing and commercial flights until an alternative heliport is operating at Pier 72 or at another location approved by the Trust. But the Albany resolution went nowhere.

Nevertheless, a spokesperson for Air Pegasus said on Dec. 28 that the “clear intent of the act envisions continuity of the existing [30th St. Heliport] until a suitable alternative is found and operational.” Air Pegasus added that an active heliport is a benefit to New York City and the Hudson River Park.

Chris Martin, spokesperson for the Trust, said the authority could not comment on pending litigation.

However, the lawsuit says that eliminating the heliport has become urgent since December 2006, when a stretch of the Hudson River Park between W. 26th and 29th Sts. opened just south of the “noise and poisonous fumes” of the heliport.

Moreover, Pier 66 Maritime — the popular neighborhood “town dock” on the railroad barge formerly moored at Pier 63 — is scheduled to open as a recreation site moored by the old railroad float bridge off W. 26 St. in the spring of 2008. The deafening helicopter noise would threaten the operation of the Pier 66 Maritime enterprise, the suit says.

Daniel Alterman, the lawyer for the Friends, said the lawsuit is seeking a temporary injunction compelling the Trust to serve Air Pegasus with an immediate notice terminating the month-to-month lease and barring any lease renewal.

Alterman was the lawyer for the Friends’ lawsuit regarding the Department of Sanitation’s use of the Gansevoort Peninsula, another Hudson River Park site, between Gansevoort and Little W. 12th Sts. The settlement called for D.O.S. to remove its trucks and salt pile from the peninsula by 2012 or be liable to increased rent payments to the Trust.

In addition to the Friends, Save West Street and Dellaportas, other plaintiffs in the heliport suit include the Chelsea Waterside Park Association and Robert S. Trentlyon, a founder of the association; Hell’s Kitchen Neighborhood Association, covering the Midtown West waterfront; Pier 66 Maritime and John Krevey, owner and operator of the facility; and Andrew Berman, a W. 47th St. resident and a member of the Hell’s Kitchen group. Berman is perhaps best known as executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, but as a plaintiff in this case he is not wearing that hat.

With reporting by Josh Rogers


January 14th, 2008, 10:39 AM
Because the Villiage idiots won't allow it.

These buildings are so beautiful !

Variations on a theme.

Why can't New York rise to this level more often?

January 14th, 2008, 11:32 AM
They are in the Village, so that's not correct, just insulting.

January 20th, 2008, 05:55 AM
On the Waterfront, Sound, Fury and a Lawsuit

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/20/nyregion/copt600.jpg Dima Gavrysh for The New York Times
Smelly and hazardous? Or a boon to the city? Fans and foes of a heliport disagree.


Published: January 20, 2008

TIME was, the West 30th Street Heliport was of a piece with the industrial Hudson waterfront: a gritty three-block strip of tarmac that emitted a vacuum-cleaner roar at all hours. But since the creation of Hudson River Park in 1998, Chelsea residents have been complaining about the heliport, which sits within the park next to a jogging path and just north of a promenade.

Critics have called the 52-year-old landing space noisy, smelly and dangerous, singling out the diesel fumes of the helicopter engines and the buffeting wind stirred by the rotors.

“It’s just such a disruption to enjoyment of the park,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. “It feels unhealthy and unsafe.”

On Dec. 13, the advocacy group Friends of Hudson River Park, along with other community groups, filed suit in State Supreme Court in Manhattan asking that the heliport be closed. The defendants are the heliport; a tour operator known as Liberty Helicopter; and the Hudson River Park Trust, which oversees the park and is the heliport’s landlord.

The lawsuit, which refers to the heliport’s “excruciating noise and poisonous fumes,” argues that the facility is operated illegally in light of the 1998 law that created the park. That law, said Daniel Alterman, a lawyer for Friends of Hudson River Park, prohibits use of the heliport for tourist flights and requires that it be elsewhere in the park.

A representative of the Park Trust declined to comment on the matter, and the heliport operator did not return two telephone messages. But defenders of the heliport, which provides landing space for executives, tourists and public officials, have long said it is an essential element of the city infrastructure.

The strip, a narrow space stenciled with a grid of white circles, has been used since 1956, and according to city figures, it accommodates about 100 flights a day. Last year, the city considered, but never acted on, a plan to build a replacement on a pier at West 33rd Street.

Randy Mastro, a lawyer who represents Liberty Helicopter, said he hoped the lawsuit would prompt the city and state to redouble their efforts to save the heliport.

“This litigation has the potential to have dire consequences for the future of the heliport,” Mr. Mastro said. “It should motivate those who care about the heliport’s future operations to take action.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

February 25th, 2008, 05:52 AM

A rendering by Air Pegasus showing how the heliport operator would relocate its landing pads at W. 30th St. to barges 100 feet out into the Hudson River.

Heliport floats barge idea, but critics not onboard

By Albert Amateau

In response to a lawsuit by Friends of Hudson River Park demanding that the W. 30th St. Heliport get off parkland on the Hudson River shoreline, Air Pegasus, the heliport operator, has offered to move its helicopter operation to a pair of barges moored about 100 feet west of the shoreline.

The move is proposed by Alvin Trenk, Air Pegasus chairman, as a temporary solution to the issue raised last December in the lawsuit against the Hudson River Park Trust and the heliport operator that the continued operation of the choppers violates state legislation that prohibits a heliport on park property east of the bulkhead, or shoreline.

The barges, which could be up and running in six to 12 months, would operate until the Hudson River Park Trust, the city-state agency in charge of the 5-mile-long riverfront park, finds a new legal site for a heliport through a request for proposals. Among the potential new legal heliport sites is one at the end of Pier 76, which serves as the city auto tow pound opposite the Javits Convention Center at 35th St.

Neighbors and park advocates have long complained that the heliport is too noisy and polluting for a park location, in addition to being illegal on the park property. But the Bloomberg administration has often said that another Manhattan heliport in addition to the Port Authority Heliport on the East River off Wall St. is necessary for business and emergency flights. The West Side Heliport also pays the Trust about $1 million a year for the state permit at 30th St., according to Stefan Freedman, spokesperson for Air Pegasus.

“This is a win-win-win proposal for the park, the city and the vital transportation need,” said Freedman. The barges, connected to the shore at 30th St. by ramps, would be installed entirely at Trenk’s expense, about $2 million. The temporary heliport on barges would accommodate business and emergency flights.

“We’d be willing to discuss the issue of tourism flights with the Friends and the Hudson River Park Trust,” said Freedman.

But Albert Butzel, who was president of the Friends last year when the suit was filed, said any provision near the park for sightseeing helicopter flights would be unacceptable. According to Air Pegasus, sightseeing flights account for 50 percent of the 30th St. Heliport activity, with the other 50 percent being business travel, news media and emergency service.

Daniel Alterman, attorney for the Friends in the suit, responded to the suggestion to move flights to barges by saying, “The park should be free of helicopters as soon as possible. This suggestion is just the result of my clients’ suing Air Pegasus. ”

The lawsuit, filed Dec. 11 by Friends along with park advocates from Lower Manhattan to the Village, Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen, names the Trust and Liberty Helicopters — a subtenant of Air Pegasus — in addition to Air Pegasus.

Christopher Martin, Trust vice president for public affairs, declined to comment on the Air Pegasus proposal. He said the Trust’s response to the lawsuit would be filed soon.

The Hudson River Park Act of 1998, which created the park and the Trust, permits a heliport in the park, but only as a non-tourist/non-recreation heliport for commercial and emergency transportation. The act also prohibits any heliport being located east — on the land side — of the Hudson River shoreline bulkhead. The heliport is currently on the east side of the bulkhead.

The suit notes that the park’s 1998 environmental impact statement stated that any heliport within the park would have to be west of the bulkhead line — and that no sightseeing helicopter service could be anywhere in the park.

Air Pegasus has been operating the W. 30th St. Heliport under lease for more than 30 years, first under the Port Authority, then under the New York State Department of Transportation and after 1998 “grandfathered” under the Trust, because Air Pegasus had the lease before the Trust was created. But the grandfathered lease expired in 2001.

A holdover provision allows automatic month-to-month renewal but only if Air Pegasus has a five-year contract renewal. There has been no new contract, and the suit notes that the park act requires the Trust to take steps to eliminate any illegal use, like the heliport, from the park.

Copyright 2008 The Villager.

February 25th, 2008, 11:21 PM
Thanks, but no thanks.

February 26th, 2008, 12:04 AM
I'd take that over breathing in the fumes of jet fuel exhaust any day. Anyone who has ever walked by the heliport, recognizes this as an improvement.

February 26th, 2008, 12:26 AM
It's described by Pegasus as a temporary solution, but after up to a year to erect, just how long is temporary. Ten years? Twenty? Rendering even shows the park segment complete. 100 ft is not very far from the bulkhead. A city block is 250 ft.

They should find a permanent solution now.

February 26th, 2008, 02:23 PM
The permanent solution should include an immediate cessation of all tourist flights. They are illegal in that location, regardless of the placement of the heliport. That will cut the noise and air pollution issue in half. Then the parties can all get together and try to come up with a sensible solution for the remaining, legal flights.

February 26th, 2008, 09:45 PM
hey, i live in westchester and vist the city pretty often, but wondered how long the hudson river park really is? I was interested in biking from the Upper West Side down to BPC, and wondered, if that is possible without traveling on the side of the freeway or something suicide like that. if anyone knows,please help me out.

February 27th, 2008, 05:14 AM
There appears to be a green cycle lane all the way from Henry Hudson Bridge to Battery Park.

I have walked quite a lot of it and the areas most dangerous would appear to be where traffic is entering the riverside close to the Ferry Ports and Parking Areas.

New York Cyling map below.


Optimus Prime
February 27th, 2008, 11:47 AM
I know you can at least go from the Battery to the GW Bridge without any major issues. There is one small portion from 125th to around 137th where you have to ride "in traffic" on 12th Avenue, but that area is fairly desolate except for Fairway traffic. North of the GW I'm not sure about the state of the path because I haven't been up there, but I think it is supposed to continue up to Hudson Bridge as brianac suggests.

February 27th, 2008, 02:43 PM
hey, i live in westchester and vist the city pretty often, but wondered how long the hudson river park really is? I was interested in biking from the Upper West Side down to BPC, and wondered, if that is possible without traveling on the side of the freeway or something suicide like that. if anyone knows,please help me out.

It's very long. I've biked from Battery Park to the George Washington Bridge (at 188th street). There is a single break somewhere along the line, where you have to bike along the streets for 10 or 20 blocks. I can't remember exactly where or for how long, but it seems to me it's above the upper west side (if you mean 72-90-something street). And it's not bad as the traffic isn't bad up there. I believe it's uninterrupted all the way from BPC to UPW.

February 27th, 2008, 05:09 PM
Reiterating what was said, it is fairly easy to get from the bridge to the HRP bike path. Last time I did it you needed to go under the highway and pick up the street around the 130's. The highway is right on the river there.

nyc.gov bike map (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/bike/mapfront.pdf)

nycbikemaps.com manhattan bike map (http://www.nycbikemaps.com/maps/manhattan-bike-map/)

February 27th, 2008, 05:31 PM
I've bicycled several times from BPC to across the GW Bridge and back. It is a spectacular journey. (It was even more so before 9/11.) From BPC to 125th Street, it is a continuous path. The traffic problems there are from bicycles and roller bladers, not from cars. On a weekend, the downtown stretches of the bike path come to resemble Times Square. There, slow down and take in the scene. Heading northbound, at 125th Street you have two choices. You can basically continue along the riverfront all the way to the base of the bridge, but then you will need to carry your bicycle up a steep stairwell near the little red lighthouse in order to get up to Riverside Drive, from which you can access the bicycle entrance to the GWB. Or if you don't want to have to dismount, as noted above, at 125th Street, you can get off the river by taking a right and then another right up a very steep but short street which joins with Riverside Drive, which is lightly trafficked and which again takes you right to the GWB after a very pleasant cycle. A third way is to cut through Riverside Park to Riverside Drive in the 70s or so, which then allows you to bicycle past Grant's Tomb and Riverside Cathedral. A lot of options, all of them great.

February 28th, 2008, 04:21 AM
Riverside Park at 91st Street

North from 79th Street Boat Basin


South from 79th Street Boat Basin

Sunday at 72nd Street

Where traffic crosses cycle lane around 40th Street


Peter Quennell
February 28th, 2008, 11:20 AM
We look onto the bike path from across the Hudson, and I walk it now and then, looking for shots for the blog.

Several small points I'd add to BPCs excellent description above.

There is work at the south end of Riverside Park (60th Street and above) and pedestrians are having to use the bike path. Bikers really zoom along that section. Just please dont hit anyone (at least not me!).

There is work above the 79th Street Marina to widen the walkway out over the river. This may slow you short-term but will speed you long-term..

There is work around 125th Street on the new pier across from the Fairway store. Same point as immediately above.

February 29th, 2008, 09:28 PM
thanx everyone, im planning to take a ride from top to bottom so that really helped me, but probably no time soon, around april

April 9th, 2008, 08:20 AM
See posting here


April 23rd, 2008, 06:28 AM
Pier 25

Widely considered to be Hudson River Park's "anchor in the south,"

Pier 25, located between Franklin and North Moore Streets, is being completely reconstructed. The pier, which presently extends less than 400 feet into the Hudson largely due to disrepair, has long served as a site for youth programs, volleyball, miniature golf, and other activities. The pier also has supported a snack bar, and served as a mooring site for the M/V Yankee, a privately-owned boat.


The future Pier 25 will extend for 1,000 feet into the river, becoming the longest pier in Hudson River Park. The enhanced pier will feature a much improved mini golf area, an exciting children's playground, and beach volleyball courts. A large lawn area at the western end will allow visitors to enjoy the incredible views, and a dock and mooring area will be located on the southern side of the pier. Historic boats also will be located here. Nearby, park users will experience a brand new skate park.

Daily Activities

*The following information was last updated on January 24, 2008.

The Pier 25 construction plan consists of the sequenced removal and demolition of the existing pier and bulkhead elements, followed by construction of a new Pier 25 and pile supported structure, to feature approximately 3.5 acres of recreational space.
Bulkhead reconstruction will be performed in several areas, accompanied by the fabrication and installation of floating docks with gangways and ramps.
Final completion is scheduled for October 2008.

© 2007 Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center/LMDC

April 30th, 2008, 08:33 AM
Pier 62

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4971/pier6201csm4.th.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6201csm4.jpg) http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/8044/pier6202cgx0.th.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6202cgx0.jpg) http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6619/pier6203ccu0.th.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6203ccu0.jpg)

May 20th, 2008, 10:27 PM
hi, i have heard about some type of pier that is comng on the west side in Harlem, that would close the Hudson River Park "gap". Is this true, if so, how far along is the project and does anyone know when it will be completed. Also, i've walked over this neighborhood before, but i've also heard of a neighborhood, ViVa developing, can anyone explain that with words or photos as well.


May 29th, 2008, 04:19 PM
May 29, 2008, 3:46 pm

A New TriBeCa Addition to Hudson River Park

By Andrew Tangel (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/author/atangel/)

New Yorkers and visitors to the city will have more space for outdoor recreation along the western edge of TriBeCa by early July, the Hudson River Park Trust (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/) announced today. The area along the Hudson, from Pier 40 to Pier 26, would be the latest slice of Manhattan waterfront added to Hudson River Park, a 10-year-old project that has brought green space, boat houses, jogging and bike paths and other amenities to a once-dilapidated five-mile stretch from Battery Park to West 59th Street.

The northern part of the park in the TriBeCa area, set to be completed around the Fourth of July, will include a boardwalk, landscaping and basketball and tennis courts. The entire TriBeCa section, to be completed within two years, is set to include a playground, practice recreation field, miniature golf course, beach volleyball courts, a skate park, a dog run, a cafe and an estuary research center.

The Hudson River Park Trust, the state authority created in 1998 to oversee the park, announced the progress today at a news conference on Pier 84, at West 44th Street and the West Side Highway.

Diana L. Taylor, the trust’s chairwoman (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/organization/message.asp), told reporters the park was 40 percent complete since the trust was created 10 years ago by the Hudson River Park Act.

Construction began in 1999, and approximately $340 million in city, state and federal money later, the park has 10 new piers and more than two miles of park area. Ms. Taylor said the park is on track to be 80 percent complete by 2010.

“We’ve done a lot, as you can see, over the years, but there is so much more to do, and we are well under way with the next stage of construction,” Ms. Taylor said.

The park is undergoing $170 million in construction now, and projects worth $110 million are expected to begin in coming months. (The TriBeCa section is financed with part of $70 million from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for rebuilding New York after the 9/11 attack.)

The park operates on a roughly $14 million annual budget generated from rent, parking and concessions sales. Once the park is completed, the Trust estimates it will need to generate $20 million to operate and maintain the park annually. Ms. Taylor said the Trust will depend on revenue generated from the development of Piers 40 and 57, which together offer roughly about 1.5 million square feet of space.

The Hudson River Park sprang forth after the Westway superhighway proposal failed in the late 1980s. The 550-acre park is Manhattan’s second-largest park, after Central Park, according to the Trust. The park, as Douglas Martin of The Times wrote in February 1998 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E5D81F3CF935A25751C0A96E9582 60), “represents the culmination of a long, costly struggle to transform the West Side waterfront after the demise of shipping.”

The completion of the remaining 20 percent of the park depends on the outcomes of disputes involving a proposed recycling station (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/nyregion/20transfer.html) near Gansevoort Street and a heliport (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/nyregion/13heliport.html) inside the park’s boundaries.


Copyright 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

May 29th, 2008, 07:46 PM
Last week I noticed some wooden walkways being created in the new Tribeca section and greenery going in:

I was amazed at how quickly the first trees in the Village section are maturing, it's beginning to feel more like a park:

The Benniest
May 29th, 2008, 08:02 PM
Wow...that will be nice when they finish those wooden walkways and get all the greenery planted. Also, when did they start planting those trees by the park? It looks beautiful!

Of course, that may be due to the beautiful weather New York has been having lately. What are we getting over here in Iowa? RAIN!

May 29th, 2008, 09:49 PM
I was talking to one of the landscape workers today. He was trying to keep like 5,000 potted plants watered.

May 29th, 2008, 09:59 PM
Yikes, they dry out so fast in this weather. I did see lots of them all around, waiting to be transplanted.

May 30th, 2008, 02:41 PM
The other segment moving right along is north of Chelsea piers - plants being planted there too - and the large pier 64 is covered in large styrofoam slabs in sort of a terraced arrangement. Anyone know how those are used?

June 3rd, 2008, 12:46 AM
In the park in the Village.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/2548/hrp09qi8.th.jpg (http://img91.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp09qi8.jpg) http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6632/hrp10lp1.th.jpg (http://img91.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp10lp1.jpg) http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/50/hrp11kb3.th.jpg (http://img91.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp11kb3.jpg) http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/8199/hrp05nu5.th.jpg (http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp05nu5.jpg) http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/7431/hrp06mz3.th.jpg (http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp06mz3.jpg)

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/7964/hrp17ck5.th.jpg (http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp17ck5.jpg) http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7019/hrp02uj0.th.jpg (http://img340.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp02uj0.jpg) http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1349/hrp03mb2.th.jpg (http://img340.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp03mb2.jpg) http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/2168/hrp08ov1.th.jpg (http://img48.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp08ov1.jpg) http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/60/hrp04nk9.th.jpg (http://img48.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp04nk9.jpg)

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/8696/hrp12km1.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp12km1.jpg) http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3769/hrp16hr5.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp16hr5.jpg) http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7876/hrp13tx5.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp13tx5.jpg) http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1120/hrp14po0.th.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp14po0.jpg) http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5274/hrp15td2.th.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp15td2.jpg)

A sea of roses at the Sanitation garage.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/6059/hrp07sz8.th.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp07sz8.jpg)

June 3rd, 2008, 01:32 AM
Wow Zippy, just gorgeous!

June 3rd, 2008, 04:32 AM
Wonderful set of photographs Zippy.

June 3rd, 2008, 06:46 AM

The Benniest
June 4th, 2008, 06:54 PM
Wonderful photos Zippy. I'm loving the plants and landscaping. :rolleyes: However, I can not imagine watering that many plants at once ... props to him!

June 4th, 2008, 10:22 PM
They actually have subterranean drip lines that wind around and through all the plantings all along the park -- so after they're planted each individual plant gets an adequate amount of water without wasteful irrigation.

June 17th, 2008, 04:40 PM
Walking along the bike path of the Tribeca Section yesterday I saw they are erecting these metal sculptures. There are at least two.

It's taken with a camera phone, sorry for the quality.

June 18th, 2008, 10:42 PM
Pier 62 skate park
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/2443/pier6204cka5.th.jpg (http://img260.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6204cka5.jpg) http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/7311/pier6205cyk8.th.jpg (http://img260.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6205cyk8.jpg)

June 20th, 2008, 05:31 PM
This park is probably the greatest public work in the last 20 years. It is a fascinating project to follow. The results in each open section have been magnificent.

Oh, an let's note that the success here is ENTIRELY due to NIMBY's.

June 21st, 2008, 05:59 AM
Tourist Helicopter Rides Are Set to Be Phased Out

By PATRICK McGEEHAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/patrick_mcgeehan/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: June 21, 2008

The uproar over the noisy comings and goings of sightseeing helicopters along the West Side of Manhattan has finally led to a plan to eliminate them.

Air Pegasus, the operator of the heliport at the west end of 30th Street, has agreed to start phasing out tourist flights next year and to stop them altogether in 2010, according to a draft of an agreement that needs the approval of a State Supreme Court justice.

The agreement would allow the heliport to continue handling corporate, emergency and government helicopters through the end of 2012.

By then, city and state officials hope to have chosen a new location along the West Side for the heliport, which sits within the boundaries of the Hudson River Park.

The agreement would settle a lawsuit filed last year by the Friends of Hudson River Park, a group that raises money to support the park.

The group sued Air Pegasus and the Hudson River Park Trust, a state authority, contending that the existence of the heliport on the land side of the park violated the law that created the park.

Liberty Helicopters, a tour operator that is the biggest user of the heliport, was also a defendant.

Under the agreement, the number of sightseeing flights would be capped at 25,000 for the year that ends on May 31, 2009, then to 12,500 over the next 10 months, then halted completely. The nontourist flights would also be limited, to 16,250 per year, according to the agreement.

Air Pegasus also agreed to erect barriers to reduce the noise and fumes emanating from the heliport and to move the takeoffs and landings of tourist flights onto a barge in the river. The operator said it would try to proceed with a plan it floated last year to relocate the entire heliport onto barges adjacent to its current location until a new, permanent site for the heliport is chosen.

“We would rather the heliport wasn’t there at all,” said A. J. Pietrantone, executive director of Friends of Hudson River Park. But, he added, the agreement “is probably the best we can get, given that there is not an alternative heliport.”

A spokesman for the trust declined to comment about the proposal to move the existing operation onto barges.

Diana Taylor, the chairwoman of the trust’s board of directors, said in a statement: “With this mutually beneficial settlement of a very thorny and complicated issue, I believe this is truly a case of being handed lemons and making lemonade. We preserve the most essential business, governmental and emergency needs for a West Side heliport while turning the facility itself into a friendlier neighbor to the park.”

Air Pegasus is owned by Alvin S. Trenk and his family. Mr. Trenk also owns a minority stake in Liberty, according to Stefan Friedman, an Air Pegasus spokesman.

“This agreement recognizes the importance of having an aesthetically pleasing park along the Hudson River,” Mr. Trenk said in a statement, “while also ensuring that those engaging in commerce continue to have access to a West Side heliport, which is crucial to the economic vitality of New York and for the government agencies which protect its citizens.”

The Trenks are also involved with FirstFlight, a company based upstate that has been chosen by the city’s Economic Development Corporation to operate the Downtown Manhattan Heliport, one of the two other heliports in Manhattan. Operators of two sightseeing helicopter companies have appealed to city officials to reconsider granting FirstFlight control of the downtown heliport because they do not want the Trenks to be their landlord.


Copyright 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

June 25th, 2008, 09:49 AM
There is no reason that this project cannot be well designed and function in tandem with the surrounding park ...

Meatpacking District Will Take Out the Garbage

CURBED (http://curbed.com/archives/2008/06/25/meatpacking_district_will_take_out_the_garbage.php )
June 25, 2008


To everyone who thinks the Meatpacking District is filled with trash: You
don't know how right you are! Late yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg and the
State Legislature finally reached an agreement to build a marine waste
transfer station on the Gansevoort Peninsula, a 1.4-acre piece of land
that juts out into the Hudson at the end of Gansevoort Street. This is all
part of the mayor's plan to make each borough responsible for its own
garbage, and this particular battle has been raging for over three years
(here's an early Villager story (http://www.thevillager.com/villager_88/gansevoortrecyclingplan.html) on the subject, and the picture at right
comes from another oldie (http://www.thevillager.com/villager_177/neighborselecteds.html)). The Hudson Square garbage garage (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/03/08/18_stories_garbage_view_in_hudson_square.php) is another
controversial piece of this puzzle, but the Gansevoort waste station is
particularly charming because it will sit in the new Hudson River Park.
But don't worry, the agreement calls for the bike and pedestrian pathways
adjacent to the transfer station site to remain open during construction.
Yummy! The plan still needs state approval, so the McNallys and von
Furstenbergs of the neighborhood still have time to cut the appropriate
checks and get this off the table.

· Deal to Build Waste Station in Manhattan (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/nyregion/25transfer.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin) [NYT]
· CurbedWire: Brooklyn Bridge Gets Crazy Lights, MePa Gets Trash (http://curbed.com/archives/2008/05/21/curbedwire_brooklyn_bridge_gets_crazy_lights_mepa_ gets_trash.php) [Curbed]


Deal to Build Waste Station in Manhattan

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/nyregion/25transfer.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin)
June 25, 2008

ALBANY — Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the State Legislature reached an agreement late Tuesday to build a waste-transfer station in Manhattan, allowing a major piece of the mayor’s environmental agenda to move forward.

Plans for the station have been in the works for three and a half years. But the project’s slow progress has frustrated the mayor and his ambitious efforts to overhaul the way the city processes solid waste by moving more of it by barge and making each borough responsible for handling its own garbage.

The city needs the state’s approval to build the plant, which would occupy a 1.4-acre peninsula near Gansevoort Street, in the meatpacking district, because the land is part of the Hudson River Park that was established jointly by the city and the state.

To ease opposition to the plant, the agreement, sketched out in a bill that was introduced to the Legislature late on Tuesday, includes a memorandum of understanding with the governor, the mayor and leaders of both houses of the Legislature that would set aside money for new parkland along the river.

The agreement also calls for the bike and pedestrian pathway adjacent to the transfer station site to remain open during construction.

“As with many compromises, probably not everybody is happy,” said Assemblyman Robert K. Sweeney, a Suffolk County Democrat who chairs the Assembly Committee on Environmental Conservation. “But it makes provisions for significant parks projects, and that’s important.”

But Assemblywoman Deborah J. Glick, a Democrat who represents the district where the plant would be built, said it would devour precious parkland in an area in need of more green space.

“The mayor has clearly made a decision that nobody else can have a good idea but him,” said Ms. Glick, who had supported an alternative site for a transfer station, on West 36th Street.

The mayor’s office had no comment on the agreement because the Legislature had not yet passed the bill.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

June 30th, 2008, 12:40 PM
Photos taken last week.

About half (Pier 40 to Laight St) of segment three looks ready to open.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6/hrp16cte4.th.jpg (http://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp16cte4.jpg) http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6926/hrp17cco7.th.jpg (http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp17cco7.jpg) http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6227/hrp18cqg3.th.jpg (http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp18cqg3.jpg)

Laight St. In the southern half, piers 25 and 26 have been completely rebuilt, but major construction work remains.
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3036/hrp19clw6.th.jpg (http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp19clw6.jpg)

The Benniest
June 30th, 2008, 12:45 PM
Fantastic! :D I love that first picture. What a view! :cool:

Thanks for the pics Zippy.

June 30th, 2008, 04:42 PM
I've heard that the northern segment of the Tribeca section will open the week of July 7 ...

July 2nd, 2008, 10:45 AM
and the large pier 64 is covered in large styrofoam slabs in sort of a terraced arrangement. Anyone know how those are used?If I'd known I would've asked. I think they are insulation under the planting areas. The pier bottom is exposed to the elements.

Pier 64 and the section to the north connecting to segment 6 (piers 66 and 66A) will open by the end of the year. Piers 62 and 63 will remain closed.

Pier 64
http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/5152/pier6402cvl6.th.jpg (http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6402cvl6.jpg) http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/9430/pier6403czy9.th.jpg (http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6403czy9.jpg) http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/2026/pier6404czh6.th.jpg (http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6404czh6.jpg) http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/4382/pier6405cfw9.th.jpg (http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6405cfw9.jpg)

Pier 63 behind a pile of bricks. The park's granite pavers are recycled originals that came across the Atlantic as ship ballast.
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/8118/pier6410cju7.th.jpg (http://img65.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6410cju7.jpg)

Pier 66A railroad float bridge.
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2677/pier6406cvi2.th.jpg (http://img110.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6406cvi2.jpg) http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/7144/pier6407cqh6.th.jpg (http://img110.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6407cqh6.jpg) http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9494/pier6408ckk0.th.jpg (http://img65.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6408ckk0.jpg) http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/999/pier6409cjl0.th.jpg (http://img65.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6409cjl0.jpg)

The lightship Frying Pan (http://www.fryingpan.com/), that stood guard at its namesake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frying_Pan_Shoals) off the aptly named Cape Fear NC, found its way to New York and pier 63. A lease at a new home on pier 66A has been worked out, and it will open soon.

July 2nd, 2008, 06:14 PM
Despite efforts to save it (http://www.thevillager.com/villager_244/waterfrontactivist.html), the Gansevoort firehouse is being demolished.

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/7613/gansevoort01ccu9.th.jpg (http://img379.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gansevoort01ccu9.jpg)

July 3rd, 2008, 11:13 PM
Sad ^ and a bad mistake.

July 5th, 2008, 03:59 PM
Gonna have to bring my bike over on the ferry and check out the improvements. Was there a month a ago and looked good at that point.

July 6th, 2008, 10:46 PM
A good friend of mine was the battalion chief working out of this fireboat station and invited me over for lunch about five years ago. Other than the quaint look of the station on the outside, the interior is totally trashed from years of being exposed to the weather and neglected by the city. The adjoining pier was falling in on itself and should have been condemned. Actually I believe it was.

Regarding the following statement "The board also recommended that the Trust consider adaptive reuse of the old firehouse by turning it into “a maritime or firefighting museum or educational facility.” There already is an underfunded firefighting museum located on Spring Street and a South Street Seaport museum which I guess is about the maritime history of New York. Neither one addresses the history of "aquatic" firefighting due to lack of financial resources.

There is a retired fireboat named the "Harvey" and I believe it's being refurbished. When it will be available for events, I don't know.

August 11th, 2008, 10:04 AM
Pier 45

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8789/hrp20hf8.th.jpg (http://img175.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hrp20hf8.jpg)

August 11th, 2008, 08:25 PM
I always wonder, how do people lay in the sun where there's no water to cool off?
My number one complaint about HRP: there is a serious lack of water features to wet oneself. Why? The few that exist are for the kiddies. There are 2 sprinklers on the pier near Christopher St., but other than that I can't think of many...you're laying next to a gazillion gallons of water and yet all you can do is just sit there and sweat.:confused: I usually last about 15 minutes.

August 12th, 2008, 06:20 PM
New Hoboken ferry tower looks good.

August 13th, 2008, 08:54 AM
New Hoboken ferry tower looks good.

Except at night when they light it up like some cheap carnival attraction.

I like it in the day, looks stately, vintage and it fits, but at night there are just too many bordwalk-like lights all over it brightly proclaiming it to be Lackawanna....


August 13th, 2008, 08:57 AM
The one thing I cannot understand is why they're not making any riverside restaurants.

August 13th, 2008, 10:16 AM
New Hoboken ferry tower looks good.

It is not a ferry tower, but a replica of the Hoboken Terminal clock tower that was torn down in the 1950s.

August 13th, 2008, 10:55 AM
I always wonder, how do people lay in the sun where there's no water to cool off?It's why I prefer the beach.

They could easily fix this.

August 13th, 2008, 06:35 PM
It is not a ferry tower, but a replica of the Hoboken Terminal clock tower that was torn down in the 1950s.
The land area on which the Hoboken Terminal and Yard Complex is located has a long history as a transportation terminal. The Terminal was built on manmade land with ferry slips over the water.

The Terminal Complex officially opened in February 1907, although prior to that time (i.e, during the 1800s) ferry service had been available. Designed for the Lackawanna Railroad, the Hoboken Terminal was an innovative facility that integrated ferry, rail, trolley, and foot traffic.

The design combined the Railroad Terminal and Ferry Terminal into one main building.


August 13th, 2008, 09:26 PM
Plantings have started to go in at Pier 64 just north of Chelsea Piers ...






pier 64

August 13th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Seen from up high at Chelsea Piers ...









pier 64

August 13th, 2008, 09:35 PM
The Skate Park on Pier 64 ...









pier 64

August 13th, 2008, 11:24 PM
Looks fantastic.

August 14th, 2008, 08:04 AM

September 1st, 2008, 04:37 PM
Pier 66A. Frying Pan

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/8222/fryingpan01vy4.th.jpg (http://img384.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fryingpan01vy4.jpg) http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/5948/fryingpan09rn3.th.jpg (http://img384.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fryingpan09rn3.jpg) http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/4286/fryingpan02cl7.th.jpg (http://img398.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fryingpan02cl7.jpg) http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/5862/fryingpan03no2.th.jpg (http://img398.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fryingpan03no2.jpg)

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/590/fryingpan04qq7.th.jpg (http://img398.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fryingpan04qq7.jpg) http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/7656/fryingpan05xh6.th.jpg (http://img398.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fryingpan05xh6.jpg) http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/7835/fryingpan06wx7.th.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fryingpan06wx7.jpg) http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8161/fryingpan07fh1.th.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fryingpan07fh1.jpg) http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4784/fryingpan08ce5.th.jpg (http://img128.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fryingpan08ce5.jpg)

September 1st, 2008, 09:49 PM
Hey, the parks turning out great. Does anyone know when the 125th street section of the park will be opened? They have planted greenery and shrubbery long ago, and yet still no change? Any answers would be helpful. And another; what is the most northern section of the park. Let's say I'm on 145th street where would i have to go to hop on the park or runway that would ultimately lead to lower manhattan?

September 25th, 2008, 08:08 PM
September 25, 2008, 3:14 pm

Does Seeing Green Lead to Seeing Greenbacks?

By Tina Kelley (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/author/tkelley/)

The Bow Notch Bridge at Hudson River Park. (Photo: Friends of Hudson River Park)

It takes a park to raise property values.

That is the conclusion reached in a report issued on Thursday by the Friends of Hudson River Park (http://www.fohrp.org/), which showed that the $75 million the public invested in a section of the park in Greenwich Village sprouted into an additional $200 million in property values in a two-block area from 2002 to 2005. The study was conducted by the Regional Plan Association (http://www.rpa.org/)and with the support of the Real Estate Board of New York (http://www.rebny.com/)and funded by the J. M. Kaplan Fund (http://www.jmkfund.org/).

The study found that about a fifth of the value of properties within two blocks of the Greenwich Village section of the park can be attributed to the park, and that real estate prices near the park began to rise only when its construction began in 1997. And the park had a significant effect on nearby condo sales, as their prices increased by 80 percent once the Greenwich Village section of the park was completed in 2003.

In announcing the report, Douglas Durst (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/douglas_durst/index.html), co-chairman of Friends of Hudson River Park and co-president of the Durst Organization, said, “We not only want to maintain that impact for the benefit of the park, but determine how best to use it to sustain the quality of the park in the long run.” To that end, the Friends of Hudson River Park called for the city to establish a Hudson River Park Business Improvement District to help make sure that the quality of the park is maintained.

To be sure, it makes sense that a park that received so much support from the real estate industry has a positive effect on the gold standard of realty: property values.

Brad Lander, director of the Pratt Center for Community Development (http://www.prattcenter.net/), said other aspects of public improvements must be considered as well:

Rising property values are fantastic if you happen to own property, but they’re a problem if you’re a renter, and if there’s pressure on you to get out, with vacancy decontrol of your unit.
And higher property values often mean lower levels of diversity, especially on the West Side, where young gay, lesbian and transgender residents may be getting pushed out, he added.

And what if gentle readers are a bit suspicious at first blush of public investment that has such a direct benefit to the pockets of individual property owners?

“I don’t think the purpose of a park is increased property values,” said Ingrid Gould Ellen, co-director of the Furman Center (http://furmancenter.nyu.edu/), a research center affiliated with New York University devoted to the public policy aspects of real estate, land use and housing development. The city benefits from increased property tax revenues, and people other than close neighbors surely benefit from the park, she said.

“You’re not picking up those benefits when you’re looking at these studies of bordering properties,” she said. “In a sense, there’s sort of an understatement.” Urban planners use property tax values to gauge the impact of public improvements because they’re objective, readily available, and show how much people are now willing to pay to live in a neighborhood, she explained.

It all leads one to wonder, what kind of impact has Central Park had on the city’s property values?

“You’d really need a before and after; that’s the issue,” Professor Gould Ellen said. “You could do a study that showed that proximity to the park is associated with higher property values, but you don’t know what it was beforehand.”

But on the micro level, her group has shown that proximity to particular kinds of green space, even those under an acre, can benefit homeowners at closing time. The Furman Center’s study (http://furmancenter.nyu.edu/publications/documents/TheEffectofCommunityGardenscombined.pdf) [pdf] on community gardens shows how property values grew markedly after neighbors started growing flowers and vegetables on vacant lots. The center has also gathered evidence (http://furmancenter.nyu.edu/publications/documents/ImpactofLowIncomeHousingcombined.pdf) [pdf] that subsidized housing helps increase property values in neighborhoods.


Copyright 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

September 25th, 2008, 08:21 PM
Updated On 09/25/08 at 05:58PM
Values up since Hudson River Park plan announced

http://s3.amazonaws.com/trd_three/images/51076/hudson_river_park_articlebox.jpg (http://ny.therealdeal.com/assets/51076)
Hudson River Park

Home values in Greenwich Village have increased 300 percent since the Hudson River Park plan was announced in 1990, according to a study released today by the not-for-profit group Friends of Hudson River Park. That is 100 percent more than the overall increase in Manhattan for the 18-year period. The Greenwich Village section of the park was completed in 2003, and between 2002 and 2005, home values rose 55 percent and the average sales price rose 135 percent, the study said. Friends of Hudson River Park is now recommending the creation of a Business Improvement District for the park, which spans from Battery Park City to Clinton, to create three commercial districts, including the redevelopment of Pier 40, which would generate funding for the park's maintenance and operating costs. TRD

September 28th, 2008, 04:46 PM
Hey, the parks turning out great. Does anyone know when the 125th street section of the park will be opened? They have planted greenery and shrubbery long ago, and yet still no change? Any answers would be helpful. And another; what is the most northern section of the park. Let's say I'm on 145th street where would i have to go to hop on the park or runway that would ultimately lead to lower manhattan?

HRP is not going that far up. It stops around 61st Street. From there, it segues into Riverside Park South followed by Riverside Park.

October 2nd, 2008, 10:29 PM
It's called a bunch of different things, but there is continuous riverfront parkland (very narrow at some points, around or atop a sewage plant at another) all the way from Battery Park to the little red lighthouse underneath the GW Bridge (and possibly northwards, but that is far as I've gone).

October 4th, 2008, 02:53 AM
Pier 40 plan sinks again; Trust seeks longer lease

By Lincoln Anderson

A rendering of the most-recent version of a plan for Pier 40 by CampGroup/Urban Dove, working with the Pier 40 Partnership, which the Hudson River Park Trust finally rejected last week.

For the second time in five years, the Hudson River Park Trust’s efforts to find a private developer to renovate and operate Pier 40 have gone down to a watery grave.

At the state-city park authority’s bimonthly board of directors meeting last Thursday, Diana Taylor, the Trust’s board chairperson, and other Trust members made it clear they felt the latest $430 million plan for the pier by CampGroup/Urban Dove — working in conjunction with the Pier 40 Partnership — would not work financially.

The Trust’s next step on the supersized, 15-acre structure at W. Houston St., they agreed, would be to lobby to change the Hudson River Park Act to allow a longer-term lease for the pier — presumably of 49 years, rather than the currently permitted 30 years — to make it more attractive to potential developers and tenants alike.

It didn’t appear that the Trust’s board formally voted to close the latest Pier 40 request-for-proposals, or R.F.P., process. But Taylor, speaking immediately after the meeting, confirmed to The Villager that the CampGroup plan had been scuttled and the current process officially closed.

The Trust chairperson said her focus is now to try to lengthen the pier’s permitted lease term. However, she indicated she was concerned that “they” — referring to local state legislators and possibly also to park advocates — would work to insert restrictions into any Pier 40 amendment to the park act.

Taylor said she was sure the state Legislature “will extract its pound flesh,” and “might restrict uses” on the pier in return for changing the lease term. But she warned, “If there’s too many restrictions, we’ll be back at square one again.”

Asked if she expected The Related Companies would, at a future point, dust off its failed Cirque du Soleil mega-entertainment plan and make another play for Pier 40 — assuming, hypothetically, the lease term does get extended — Taylor replied she couldn’t say.

“I’m not going to speculate if some [version of the plan by] Related can come back,” she said.

Due to the R.F.P. process’s confidential nature, the Trust’s financial analyses of the proposals have never been made public. But Taylor assured the latest plan didn’t pass muster when the Trust crunched the numbers.

“It didn’t even come close,” she said.

Neither did the previous plans submitted separately by the CampGroup/Urban Dove and the Pier 40 Partnership, before the Trust asked the two groups to work together this spring, she said.

The pier needs uses that generate more revenue, Taylor stressed, and therein lies the dilemma.

“The problem is people in the neighborhood don’t want anything on the pier,” she said, adding she understands that point of view. “The problem is that someone has to pay for it. Nobody would be happier than me if someone from the community said, ‘Here’s a check for $100 million. Do what you want with it.’ ”

Five years ago, the Trust scrapped its first R.F.P. process for Pier 40 after proposals featuring the world’s largest oceanarium, a big-box hardware store and FedEx waterborne delivery service tanked with both the community and the Trust.

This second time around, only two viable proposals were submitted after the Trust issued a new R.F.P. two years ago: The Related Companies plan, featuring Cirque du Soleil and other entertainment uses, and CampGroup/Urban Dove’s “The People’s Pier” plan, featuring a day camp, a school and increased sports facilities. Related, however, couldn’t makes its plan’s financials work within the Pier 40 R.F.P.’s 30-year lease requirement, asking for a 49-year lease instead, and, as a result, was disqualified by the Trust this March.

At that point, Taylor asked CampGroup/Urban Dove to work jointly on a new plan with the Pier 40 Partnership, a local, ad-hoc parents group that formed a year ago to protect the pier and its sprawling courtyard ball field from megadevelopment.

This latest plan seemed to gain significant momentum in June when the city’s School Construction Authority expressed interest in developing three high schools on Pier 40. Last week, The Villager reported that a space in the plan was also being earmarked for a potential future home for the new, private Greenwich Village High School.

The plan’s other revenue-generating components included continuation of the pier’s current parking operation for about 2,000 cars — though compressed into a smaller space by using lifts — a fairly major event space, CampGroup’s eight-week summer day camp and some small-scale retail. In addition, a nonprofit Pier 40 conservancy — a key idea from the Pier 40 Partnership — was also part of the concept.

But the Trust board members made it clear last Thursday that they lacked confidence in this latest offering. At the same time, as they rejected the plan and effectively closed the R.F.P., several of them expressed serious concern about the pier’s dilapidated state. At a public hearing on the latest plan earlier this month, Paul Travis, a consultant with Washington Square Partners working on the CampGroup/Urban Dove/Partnership proposal, said the pier needs about $25 million to $30 million worth of repairs for its roof and metal support piles. Last week, however, Connie Fishman, the Trust’s president — or head of its paid staff — said it would cost closer to $40 million to $50 million to fix the pier’s most severely deteriorated piles.

In her report to the board before its vote, Fishman pointed out the main flaws the staff had identified in the latest plan after it was recently submitted to the authority for review: “Lack of equity,” “low returns on private investment,” “lack of rent security” and “weakness in some of the revenue projections” would translate into a “substantial risk” that the proposal wouldn’t float, Fishman said.

A key component in the latest Pier 40 plan — the School Construction Authority — Fishman noted, would have preferred a longer lease.

“The S.C.A. has an issue that the development of their portion of the pier is very expensive given the term of the lease they would get,” she said.

Chairperson Taylor said, while it wasn’t financially feasible under the latest plan, in general, “putting a school on the pier is a very good idea.”

A letter by former state Senator Franz Leichter, who was traveling, was read into the record, in which the Trust board member and co-author of the park act called for closing the Pier 40 R.F.P. Leichter suggested lengthening the term of the pier’s lease, as he noted was done at another Hudson River Park pier, Pier 57 at W. 16th.

Larry Goldberg, a Trust board member, said he was “very frustrated by how this process has gone. We cannot play with proposals forever,” he stressed.

Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe, also on the Trust board, recalled he previously supported Related’s plan because he felt it would generate sufficient revenue. He said he backs lengthening Pier 40’s lease term.

The Pier 40 Partnership last year pledged it could raise $30 million for the pier from the community. But Benepe said that was wishful thinking. Private fundraising for the High Line park — which he called a “sexy, new park” — has pulled in even less than that, only $25 million, in five years, he pointed out.

Plus, Benepe noted, referring to the current financial markets meltdown, “People that have a lot of money might be out of a job. You can’t just hold a bake sale.” Pier 40’s plans, he said, have to be “a little bit more practical and not so pie in the sky.”

Former Parks Commissioner Henry Stern, a mayoral appointee to the board, threw out the meeting’s most unusual idea, asking, “What would happen if we just allowed nature to take its course,” and let Pier 40, as he put it, “return to the sea?”

“The park would be out $6 million in [annual] revenue,” Taylor retorted. Most of that sum comes from the pier’s parking operation. The 5-mile-long park is supposed to be financially self-supporting, and revenue from Pier 40, as well as from Chelsea Piers, is a key part of that equation.

Taylor closed the meeting by saying that over the next few days, she would sit down with the staff and “map out what our alternatives are. … Under any circumstances, I do not think there is an option for the pier that does not involve a lease extension,” she said.

Rich Caccappolo, a leading member of the Pier 40 Partnership, released a statement, saying: “We are disappointed that ‘The People’s Pier’ working with Washington Square Partners was unable to submit a proposal deemed financially viable by the Trust. While we respect the tremendous effort that CampGroup, Urban Dove and W.S.P. have put into this proposal, this result further demonstrates our position, expressed at the turn of the year, that a standard approach to development is not going to solve this complex equation.

“We were not going to disrupt their efforts or disregard the Trust’s request that we work with ‘The People’s Pier’ team,” Caccappolo continued. “But we still stand by our initial thoughts and the HR&A study we delivered in January that showed that a traditional, for-profit, private developer approach was not going to work. We still pledge our efforts to work with the Trust and to work with the neighborhood and to create a conservancy that can iteratively repair and improve the facility.

“It should be noted that ‘The People’s Pier’ effort has achieved many things which will allow the process to continue moving forward,” Caccappolo said.

“They documented and received agreement that a seismic upgrade [for the pier] was not required, and they have identified the condition of the pilings and the cost of repairing them. Most important, working with us and other groups in the community, a great deal of progress has been made in refining and gaining consensus on appropriate uses for this community resource — playing fields and other recreational uses, schools, parking, pertinent retail and perhaps an event space. All of these outcomes are important building blocks in developing the ultimate use of this valuable and unique community resource. We remain as committed as ever to assisting H.R.P.T. as it continues to review viable options for Pier 40.”

Jai Nanda, Urban Dove’s executive director, said he agreed with the Trust’s thinking on the lease issue.

“A 49-year lease is better,” he said. “The problem with our plan was that in not having a lease extension, it was making it harder to give the School Construction Authority answers. But the financial model we have does work at 30 years,” he maintained.

Asked if she would support amending the park act to allow a longer-term lease for Pier 40, Assemblymember Deborah Glick said it would really depend on the pier’s use. She noted that the lease extension legislated for Pier 57 several years ago during its failed first R.F.P. process was done so the pier — which has a unique, floating-caisson foundation — could qualify for historic preservation funds.

“If it’s about enabling a megadevelopment, that is not in the interest of the community or consistent with park uses — that’s a problem,” Glick said of allowing a longer lease. “A school is one issue. Once you change the terms, they’re changed. They have to be use-sensitive,” she stressed.

Tobi Bergman, president of Pier Park & Playground Association, which runs youth baseball programs on Pier 40, and Arthur Schwartz, chairperson of Community Board 2’s Waterfront Committee, both backed what they called an “incremental approach” to repairing and redeveloping the pier.

“Let the School Construction Authority build out its part of the pier,” Bergman said. The Trust can then fix the pier’s piles bit by bit, starting with the most badly corroded ones, he added.

As for extending the lease term, Bergman said, “They shouldn’t change the lease until they know what the plan is — or unless restrictions are put in. The number-one restriction is the courtyard ball field has to stay. I think the other restrictions would have to deal with limiting commercial impact on the park and the bike path. I think you’re starting to get close if you say, ‘The pier must include a school and must include the courtyard field.’ ”

On further thought, Bergman said a new R.F.P. would be a bad idea. He suggested the Trust partner with a nonprofit developer, with whom it would restore and redevelop the pier, while the Trust would continue to operate the pier. Issuing another R.F.P. and asking for a lease extension would just lead to more losing fights with the community, “and we’re going to end up, five years later, with nothing again,” he said.

Echoing Glick and Bergman, Schwartz said he could support a lease extension for Pier 40 if it was for the right things.

“It has to be use-specific,” he said. “I would support it for a school, a museum or some other youth not-for-profit.”

In addition to an incremental fix-up for Pier 40, Schwartz said another idea that could help a Pier 40 plan to float is to amend the park legislation to allow the Trust bonding authority so it could borrow money.

On Tuesday, the Marino Organization, the P.R. company the Trust is now using, released the following statement by Taylor: “After six years and two separate requests for proposals, we are still unable to designate a developer for the reuse of Pier 40, despite the hard work of the Trust, the developers, elected officials, the Hudson River Park Advisory Council and the community.

“While the process generated some good ideas — even some that are universally supported, such as the inclusion of schools — neither of the proposals [by CampGroup/Urban Dove or Pier 40 Partnership] meets all of the criteria that were established by the Trust.

“In the near future, we will begin discussions with our finance committee, board members, elected officials and community representatives to re-examine baseline criteria and consider our course of action.

“As we complete the complex task of transforming the decaying waterfront into a great recreational facility enjoyed by millions of people from around the city and the world, we will continue to try to implement a development strategy for Pier 40 that meets our objectives of ensuring the structural integrity of the pier, maintaining consistency with the Hudson River Park Act and generating sufficient revenue to maintain and operate Hudson River Park well into the future.”

Meanwhile, as it closes one unsuccessful R.F.P. process, the Trust is taking a stab at a second R.F.P. for Pier 57, with responses due this month.

According to a source, respondents include Vornado, Related Companies and Durst/C & K Properties. Unlike Pier 40 — for which the park act requires space equivalent to 50 percent of the pier’s footprint to be open and for public use — Pier 57 has no such requirement; it is also a much smaller pier.

Asked if Related’s Pier 40 Cirque du Soleil plan could be switched over to Pier 57, Taylor said no, since it “wouldn’t fit.”


October 4th, 2008, 03:54 AM
G'day Merry.

Pier 40 has its own thread HERE (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2900)

October 6th, 2008, 09:06 PM
Took a quick jog down the park today, took a couple of low quality pix with the phone... figured I'd just post them.


October 16th, 2008, 05:16 AM
Nice photographs nykid17.

October 16th, 2008, 05:18 AM
Then and Now

From Wasteland to Parkland Along the Hudson

Before and after photographs click HERE (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/nyregion/16thennow.html?ref=nyregion)

By DAVID W. DUNLAP (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/david_w_dunlap/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: October 15, 2008

It’s not that New York doesn’t know what to do with its waterfront. It’s simply that almost everything it has done, until recently, was hostile to public use.

These two photographs, separated by 30 years, illustrate the transition of the Hudson River shoreline from a declining maritime port to a dismal traffic corridor to a blank-faced institutional backwater to a slender — but welcome — bit of parkland.

The first picture, taken in 1978 for Paul Goldberger (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/paul_goldberger/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s “The City Observed: New York,” was intended to show the Starrett-Lehigh Building (http://www.starrett-lehighbuilding.com/home.html), a loft and warehouse structure filling the block between 12th and 11th Avenues, and 26th and 27th Streets.

The “Lehigh” in Starrett-Lehigh was the Lehigh Valley Railroad. During the heyday of the port, freight cars were floated across the Hudson from New Jersey and guided over short bridges onto tracks that reached into open-air railyards and riverside terminals like Starrett-Lehigh. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Freight Station, the low building in front of Starrett-Lehigh in the 1978 photo, operated that way. Just south of the B. & O. station was the Republic Carloading and Distributing Company terminal.

Starrett-Lehigh still stands robustly in 2008, but all those window shades in its southern facade testify to its transformation into an office and studio building. Martha Stewart (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/martha_stewart/index.html?inline=nyt-per) Omnimedia — not exactly the embodiment of industrial grit — is probably its best-known tenant today.

The Republic terminal was replaced in 1988 by the Manhattan Vehicle Maintenance Facility of the United States Postal Service, the building with the big red stripe in the 2008 photograph. The Sanitation Department’s Manhattan Borough Repair Shop took the place of the B. & O. in 1994.

Overshadowing the riverfront in the 1978 view is the decrepit West Side Highway viaduct, which was being dismantled. Like the Central Artery in Boston and the Embarcadero in San Francisco, the West Side Highway represented the nadir of waterfront planning.

It was to have been replaced by the Westway, an Interstate highway that would have tunneled through landfill, but the project was killed in 1985 by strong and persistent opposition.

What has emerged in its place is the Hudson River Park, a narrow necklace of piers, lawns, gardens, artwork, concession stands and athletic fields, stretching along an esplanade and bike path from the Battery to 59th Street. Construction has been going on since 1999, so it seems sometimes that the change is indiscernible. Until you look at a pair of photos like these.


Copyright 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

October 16th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Pier 62 area

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/572/pier6206cie5.th.jpg (http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6206cie5.jpg) http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1710/pier6207chm9.th.jpg (http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6207chm9.jpg) http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/6412/pier6208cax9.th.jpg (http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6208cax9.jpg) http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9013/pier6209czy2.th.jpg (http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6209czy2.jpg)

Pier 63

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/2827/pier6301cwz2.th.jpg (http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6301cwz2.jpg)

Pier 64

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6403/pier6411ctl4.th.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6411ctl4.jpg) http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/374/pier6412cog5.th.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6412cog5.jpg) http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3607/pier6413cof2.th.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6413cof2.jpg)

Connection to Pier 66

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/5179/pier6414chf1.th.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pier6414chf1.jpg)

October 19th, 2008, 04:57 AM
Volume 78 / Number 20 - October 15 - 21, 2008
West and East Village, Chelsea, Soho, Noho, Little Italy, Chinatown and Lower East Side, Since 1933


The design layout for the planned carousel at Pier 62, which includes 33 wooden figures, many native to the Hudson River Valley.

Hudson River Park carousel gets go-ahead to go round in Chelsea

By Heather Murray

Green turtles, horseshoe crabs, a peregrine falcon, a black bear cub and even a butterfly-covered unicorn will soon make their home in Chelsea as part of a new carousel to be constructed on Pier 62 at the west end of 23rd St.

The Hudson River Park Trust signed off on a nearly half-million-dollar contract at its Sept. 25 board meeting for Ohio-based company Carousel Works to build and install a 36-foot-diameter carousel with 33 wooden figures and a wheelchair-accessible oyster chariot.

While the carousel itself will cost $482,477, Connie Fishman, the Trust’s president, noted that the contract for the carousel building still needs to be awarded, which she expects to happen in December at an estimated cost of about $2 million. The target date for the carousel and building completion is March 2010.

The carousel concept came from architectural designs of Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates. But the unusual cast of carousel characters was the board’s idea.

“We knew we didn’t want a traditional horse merry-go-round,” Fishman said.

The board worked in conjunction with the state Department of Environmental Conservation to choose animals that are native to the Hudson River Valley.

Carousel Works already offers its customers more than 140 animals, insects and reptiles to choose from, in addition to the traditional horses, but many of the Trust’s and D.E.C.’s requests for the carousel are new for the company and will be custom-made.

Carousel Works has seahorses and harbor seals in stock, but not cormorants, crawfish, beavers, toads, Atlantic sturgeon, green turtles, bluebirds, striped bass, blackfish, mallard and black ducks — and certainly not a butterfly unicorn. That creature grew into being out of the Trust’s original desire to include a monarch butterfly on the carousel. Fishman said she was told that designing the butterfly would prove difficult.

“So we put a unicorn in there — everyone wanted one fanciful thing — and covered it with butterflies,” she said.

Carousel Works was chosen from a shortlist of six carousel manufacturers and has already produced other well-known carousels in the five boroughs, including an insect-themed one at the Bronx Zoo in 2005 and a traditional horse carousel for Willowbrook Park in Staten Island in 1999.

At the meeting, Trust board member Henry Stern called the carousel “an enormous bargain,” before factoring in the cost of the building. He said he has heard of carousel prices coming in at up to 10 times what the one at Pier will cost.

Stern asked whether the Trust would consider looking for donors to sponsor each of the carousel animals, which was done successfully with the Battery Park Conservancy, where the animals “go for $100,000 a piece,” he said. “It’s a unique giving opportunity.” The Battery Park carousel is planned to open next fall.

Just north of Chelsea Piers, Pier 62 was formerly used for roller-skating for the piers and has always been more activity-driven than neighboring piers in the park’s new Chelsea Cove section.

Other plans for Pier 62 include a skateboarding and inline-skating area, and an open plaza at the pier’s end.

“I think it’s very good and very educational — and why not?” said Robert Trentlyon, founder and president of Chelsea Waterfront Park Association, of the carousel concept.

He questioned whether there would be a fee to ride on the carousel, noting there had been discussion of that years ago.

“The carousel in Central Park has a modest fee,” he noted. “I think it’s something everyone can afford.”

Fishman agreed that most carousels require a small fee, but noted that Pier 62’s wouldn’t be any more than Central Park’s, which costs $2, according to the park’s Web site.


© 2008 Community Media, LLC

February 7th, 2009, 07:58 PM
Pier 64 today...


February 20th, 2009, 10:05 PM

A rendering of The Durst Organization and C & K Properties proposal for Pier 57.

Film fests, park, marinas are floated for Pier 57

By Albert Amateau

West Side neighbors and waterfront activists had mostly good things to say last week about the three competing proposals for developing Pier 57 at a public forum co-sponsored by Community Board 4 and the Hudson River Park Trust.

This is the second time around for redeveloping the Hudson River pier at 15th St. The earlier proposal by the Witkoff Group/Cipriani Organization fell apart in 2007.

“We’re getting it done right this time,” Connie Fishman, president of the Trust, the state/city agency building and operating the 5-mile-long riverfront park between the Battery and 59th St., said at the Feb. 12 meeting in Chelsea.

The consensus at the forum was that the new shortlisted proposals submitted by The Durst Organization and C & K Properties, The Related Companies and Youngwoo & Associates were less grandiose than the earlier plans and were more appropriate for the park setting and the adjacent neighborhoods.

Representatives of the three developers emphasized their projects’ public space and rooftop parks. They highlighted their plans’ cultural uses, their commitments to small business and community uses and the lack of major venues that would attract more than 1,000 people at a time to an event.

“The community has done a wonderful job,” said John Stackhouse, a Chelsea resident who recalled that he used to dive off the pier as a youngster. Pam Wolfe, a member of the Chelsea Waterside Park Association, said the efforts of the Trust and the Trust’s Community Advisory Pier 57 Working Group were “impressive.”

But Marcy Benstock, director of the New York City Clean Air Campaign and a longtime critic of the Trust, denounced plans for the pier and for any building over the river.

She contended that none of the plans for Pier 57 could be financed without taxpayers’ dollars, none were “truly water dependent” and “none would survive the next big hurricane.”

Benstock, the leader 20 years ago in the successful effort to defeat the proposed $4 billion Westway landfill project along the Hudson on the grounds that it would endanger the survival of striped bass, called for opening the Chelsea pier to the sky and the sun.

“It’s not too late to save the marine environment,” Benstock said.


An illustration of the Youngwoo & Associates Pier 57 proposal.

Pier 57, built in 1952 after the original burned in 1947, floats on three huge caissons, empty concrete boxes that have been used to park vehicles. The pier formerly served as a city bus garage and was used as a holding pen for protesters arrested during the Republican National Convention in 2004.

Pier 57 is one of the park’s few piers intended for commercial uses whose revenues will help pay for the entire park’s operation and maintenance. The Trust’s request for proposals called for “park and water enhancing uses along with public space in addition to a public walkway around the pier perimeter.”

Representatives of the three prospective developers acknowledged that the current economic troubles would complicate realization of the projects, but said they were confident in their ability to deliver.

The Youngwoo project, with the least parking space (150 cars) and the lowest estimated cost ($191 million) might be characterized as “Pier 57 Light.”

Gregory Carney, a principal partner along with architect Young Woo, the development company’s founder, said, “We wanted an authentic local New York City destination…bringing the neighborhood into the waterfront and connecting to its history. Keep it simple, but a bold design — not a mall.”

Youngwoo’s plan for the pier rooftop calls for a 2-acre, passive, public open space of about 83,000 square feet, with the Tribeca Film Festival providing programs mostly open to the public and free, with some private events and concessions.


A rendering of part of The Related Companies’ plan for Pier 57.

The film festival would lease a 10,000-square-foot rooftop amphitheater and would establish a permanent outdoor venue for the festival and other cultural programs.

An entertainment/restaurant/retail area would occupy 30,000 square feet on the roof of the pier’s head house.

Youngwoo’s proposal calls for a single public “street” with a pedestrians-only entrance from 15th St., with a ramp up to the second story and two grand staircases to the rooftop.

Philips de Pury & Co., a Chelsea gallery, would conduct a Contemporary Culture Center with about 90,000 square feet, with galleries, cafes, music performance space and an art library.

On the second floor, the Youngwoo plan calls for about 150 small shops occupying shipping containers, where craftspersons could fabricate their products early in the day and sell them during the high-traffic evening hours.

An Underwater Discovery Center would occupy the western caisson of 30,000 square feet, serving as an education center or an entertainment venue or both.

The sides of the pier would have small seasonal slips for kayaks and other small craft.

The Durst/C & K Properties proposal, put forth by Ben Korman of C & K and the architect Stan Eckstut, has the nonprofit Project for Public Spaces as an adviser for open space, and the participation of The Children’s Museum of Manhattan, which would occupy 58,000 square feet on the two-story pier.

“We anticipate that the Children’s Museum would have a presence on all the public levels of the pier,” Korman said.

The Durst/C & K project, with an estimated $330 million budget, calls for an exterior roof garden with an amphitheater with a total of 23,000 square feet of public space. About 43,000 square feet of rooftop space would be for commercial leases.

The exterior public space at grade, including the perimeter walkway, would total 56,358 square feet. Interior public space would include markets, fairs, exhibits and performances that could take place at different times. The Durst/C & K project would have a live music-and-restaurant venue of 56,000 square feet and an events space of about 32,000 square feet.

The Durst/C & K plan calls for parking for about 200 cars in the caissons, with tunneling connecting the caissons. But Korman said the tunneling was included as a possibility and could be dropped. The single vehicle entrance would be as it is now on 15th St.

On the pier’s north side, Durst/C & K calls for a marina with slips for more than 70 small private vessels and a historic vessel. On the south side, the project envisions docking for a water taxi landing, visiting tall ships, excursion boats, fishing boats and historic vessels. Durst owns New York Water Taxi.

The Related Companies project, put forth by Anthony Fioravanti, boasts the services of Field Operations, the landscape architect firm engaged on the High Line park project, designing a 3-acre rooftop park.

The Related Companies project, with an estimated $353 million budget, would have parking for 520 cars in the caissons, employing elevators in an automated system that would eliminate running motors in the parking area.

Among the major uses would be film theaters with a total of 63,000 square feet of space. A food marketplace covering 53,000 square feet and other retail, restaurants and cafes covering about 31,000 square feet are also in the mix. The Sundance Film Festival has expressed an interest in a role in the film theaters, and Florent Morellet, who ran Florent restaurant for many years in the Gansevoort Market, has expressed an interest in the Related Companies project, Kenneth Himmel, a Related partner, told the meeting.

Himmel emphasized Related Companies’ experience in multiuse projects, including the Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle.

The Related project includes a 91-slip marina on the north and south sides of the pier for large and small vessels, including space for historic ships and a kayak launch and possibly a ferry slip. Renderings of the project show a floating dock that extends north and south at the west end of the pier and would serve to calm the waters of the north and south marinas.

Related’s rooftop park envisions about 48,000 square feet of public space, a pool deck and cafe, an 8,000-square-foot events space and a shared deck of 33,000 square feet that would have private programmed events 40 percent of the time, public programmed events 40 percent of the time and unprogrammed public use the rest of the time.

Parking was a concern at the forum last week.

“I don’t understand the need for private vehicles on the pier,” said Sam Keghlian, a lifelong Chelsea resident.

Makrand Bhoot, a Community Board 2 member, wanted assurance that any project would be environmentally sustainable. Mary Habstritt, preservation chairperson of the Roebling Chapter of the Society for Industrial Archeology, called for provisions for berthing historic ships.

A.J. Pietrantone, executive director of Friends of Hudson River Park, a community-based advocate for the riverfront park, said the Friends would not comment on the proposals at this time. Douglas Durst, co-chairperson of the Friends, is president of one of the proposed developers, and John Doswell, of the Friends’ Working Waterfront Committee, is associated with the Durst/C & K proposal. Moreover, James Capalino, a member of the Friends’ board of directors, is associated with the Related Companies’ plan.

In addition to the two-hour forum last week, the record for public comment will be open until April 14. The Trust will be meeting with its Community Advisory Group’s Pier 57 Working Group, as well as the sponsors of the three plans, before it makes a final selection sometime in the spring. The winning plan will undergo an environmental impact study and the city’s uniform land use review procedure, known as ULURP, which takes up to 18 months.


March 4th, 2009, 10:15 PM
Re. Pier 57 proposals, do any of the designs proposed retain any part of the existing structure? I would somewhat doubt that they do, but I'm more than ready to be told otherwise. The old port building there is a deco/modernist masterpiece, IMO. Would be VERY happy to see any developer/architect form his proposal around the existing facade...

March 4th, 2009, 11:33 PM
Pier 57 doesn't have landmark protection, but it's on the national and state register of historic places; so the development could qualify for tax credits.

From the Request For Proposals issued Oct 2008:

D e v e l o p m e n t G o a l s a n d L i m i t a t i o n s

• Respecting the historic pier structure.

L e a s e C o n s i d e r a t i o n s

Consistent with the Hudson River Park Act as amended, the Trust is offering a Master Lease for the Pier 57 real property and improvements. Pursuant to the Act, the Trust may offer a lease term of up to 49 years if needed to qualify the project for federal historic tax credits.

R e v i e w a n d A p p r o v a l s P r o c e s s

Respondents should be aware that the Pier 57 Community Working Group of the Hudson River Park Trust Advisory Council (which includes representation from Community Board No. 4 and elected officials), has prepared the following statement with respect to desired uses at Pier 57:

B. Preserving and enhancing the historic fabric and character of the pier and linking it to the history of this waterfront are important. This implies retaining and restoring such distinctive features as the handsome Art Deco façades at the east and west ends and the burtoning frames and cargo doors on the water sides of the structure.

March 4th, 2009, 11:59 PM
The Pier 57 proposals in detail:

Durst Organization (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/pdfs/construction/Pier57Dev2008/PROPDurst_vol1_11.13.08.pdf)

Related Companies (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/pdfs/construction/Pier57Dev2008/PROPRelated_11.13.08.pdf)

Youngwoo & Associates (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/pdfs/construction/Pier57Dev2008/PROPYoungWoo_01.28.09.pdf)

March 5th, 2009, 09:48 PM
Durst- good

Youngwoo- OK

Related- As usual, bad

Great- None

March 6th, 2009, 12:06 AM
I think I prefer the Durst proposal. Related is ok.

The third proposal is a non-starter. Hundreds of craftsmen?? Completely unrealistic and proposed by small-time guys who can't raise the money.

March 6th, 2009, 12:31 AM
Thanks, Zippy. The Durst one, insofar as it doesn't supply renderings and uses fairly vague language about "respecting the existing massing," etc., seemed the vaguest to me. Don't mean to sound like a milquetoast, but neither Related nor Youngwoo seemed terrible... Am fairly optimistic about this project -- it could be quite the asset in an area with so many new projects.

March 7th, 2009, 11:37 PM



April 1st, 2009, 12:43 AM
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/th_03312009050.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/?action=view&current=03312009050.jpg)

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/th_03312009051.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/?action=view&current=03312009051.jpg)

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/th_03312009052.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/?action=view&current=03312009052.jpg)

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/th_03312009053.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/?action=view&current=03312009053.jpg)

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/th_03312009055.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/?action=view&current=03312009055.jpg)

April 1st, 2009, 12:44 AM
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/th_03312009056.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/?action=view&current=03312009056.jpg)

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/th_03312009057.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/?action=view&current=03312009057.jpg)

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/th_03312009058.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/?action=view&current=03312009058.jpg)

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/th_03312009059.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/?action=view&current=03312009059.jpg)

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/th_03312009060.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/?action=view&current=03312009060.jpg)

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/th_03312009061.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/nyc%203-31-2009/?action=view&current=03312009061.jpg)

May 22nd, 2009, 10:56 PM
I was walking in the park Thursday and, just south of Christopher Street, a gap is beginning to appear between the stone bulkhead and the sidewalk. It is easily an inch or more. It isn't the disintegration of the calk/sealant as that is still in place (and adhered to the granite paving stones). This seems like a problem that can only get worse.

Has anyone else noticed it?

May 22nd, 2009, 11:02 PM
YES!!! It's separating (on and off) like that from Leroy St.
going north :eek:

May 27th, 2009, 10:41 AM
It's like the edge of a bathtub -- needs on-going maintenance. That section is now ~ 10 years on from compoletion.

May 27th, 2009, 10:48 AM
What about the end of Pier 84? It was roped off not too long after it opened and has been closed ever since. There were cracks in the concrete there highlighted by spraypaint. Planks were ripped up but nothing at all has happened in quite a while.

November 13th, 2009, 06:47 AM
On the waterfront: Much progress, many challenges

By Noreen Doyle

A soccer team ran sprints and practiced on Pier 40 at W. Houston St., above.
The pier’s huge courtyard artificial-turf field has made it a local sports mecca.
But Pier 40 needs millions of dollars in repairs, and the Hudson River Park Trust
also wants the pier to produce more revenue to help fund the entire park.

Sometimes hard things look easy, and sometimes they look exactly as hard as they are. As we endeavor to implement the full vision of Hudson River Park promised by the park act, the Hudson River Park Trust faces these two realities every day.

For more than a decade now, the Trust has been opening completed sections of the park at a regular pace. As of today, we have completed eight public park piers, plus the Intrepid Museum’s Pier 86, which is also available for visitors to enjoy at no cost. How much we can build at any point depends on the amount of new funding available through the state, city or federal government. It’s a big challenge for the staff in our small design department to ready plans for bidding and construction when they don’t know how much money will be available in the coming year, but they do it very successfully.

In 2010, we will be opening the Chelsea Cove section of the park, just north of Chelsea Piers. This gorgeous, green, 9-acre gem will include a carousel, skate park, landscape sculpture and sunning lawns. In Tribeca, we’ll also open Pier 25, the “fun” pier, with its mini-golf course, beach volleyball courts, playground and more. We will also begin construction on the last of four public boathouses for kayaking and other non-motorized boating on Pier 26.

Several years ago, I was talking to one of our construction managers, who observed that he had expected park construction to be easy compared with building a tower in Manhattan. He was surprised to discover that it’s actually very challenging, in large measure because of the lack of utilities and other infrastructure along the water’s edge. Over the years, the Trust’s design staff has devoted hundreds of hours to working with Con Edison alone, trying to identify the sources of old gas and power lines scattered throughout the property, justifying shutting them down, and creating and installing new lines in the right areas to power the lights and other utilities needed to operate the park.

Also challenging is Hudson River Park’s long, linear layout. With only one real operations center at Pier 40, gardeners, maintenance workers, security officers, educational and public programs staff must all move north and south along the park for a distance of 5 miles. The traveling itself is easy, but a lot of logistical planning goes into our operations to make these trips as efficient as possible, and of course to ensure the whole park receives proper care.

As the park grows, the hardest part will be ensuring that we have an adequate revenue stream to care for everything. As provided by the Hudson River Park Act, funds needed to pay our staff and take care of the park are generated by a combination of rental payments, sponsorships, donations and fees. We have been entirely self-sufficient in our 11-year history.

This past year brought good news in a couple of areas on this front. First, we were able to renegotiate a lease with Circle Line/World Yacht that significantly increases the amount of rental income while also freeing the bulkhead from car parking, enabling future park construction in that area. Community Board 4 was strongly supportive of this win-win solution for everyone.

Also, after months of review by our board, the Community Working Group and Advisory Council, the Trust conditionally designated the Youngwoo team to redevelop Pier 57 at W. 17th St. The winning proposal enjoyed the local community’s support and will also generate significant new revenue for the park. Prior to any construction, the Trust must negotiate business terms and conduct a full environmental review process.

Of all of our tasks, the hardest job by far is figuring out what to do with Pier 40. This is for a variety of reasons: history, geography, legal constraints, deteriorated condition and the pier’s sheer size (15 acres).

After two failed attempts to find a master developer for the whole pier, the Trust is now pausing to reconsider our options. As reported recently in The Villager, several members of our board of directors and staff have been meeting with community representatives, parking experts, financial consultants and others willing to help us explore options. We must figure out a way to secure tens of millions of dollars in the short term in order to prevent closure of the roof and other areas of the pier, plus even more to fix the piles that support the pier. And in order to have a realistic chance at getting this done within the next several years, we must do this in a way that the community finds acceptable on balance.

This will no doubt require some trade-offs on everyone’s part, including the Trust’s. Eliminating the ball fields is not, and never was, an option. Unfortunately, given the scale of the needed repairs, the individual small stores and restaurants that much of the community supports won’t on their own be able to bring the pier back to good condition, let alone generate additional income to help support the rest of the park. (Currently, Pier 40 generates approximately 40 percent of the funds for the park’s overall operations; the rest of the income-generating piers are all located in Chelsea and Clinton.)

As we conduct these discussions, we hope the community will be willing to join us in testing new ideas and re-examining old assumptions with the goal of coming up with a solution we can all support. There is good evidence to believe that if we work together, we can solve this problem. The beautiful park that already exists is a testament to this kind of teamwork.