Plans for Pier 40

[CBTwo]

That parking lot and those fields just happen to be serving a wide swath of community in which the Pier is located. They are there, they function, and they return dollars to HRPT. Sure they could use improvement, but all that could be phased in easily over a period of time.

$70 > $100 tickets to see a Circus in a theater is hardly a great solution to provide entertainment or amenities to the people that live in the surrounding community. And you wonder why the community doesn't want this frivolous PAC installation? Because it is schlocky commercialism.

You are getting tiresome in your flag waving multi-plex concept. The amphitheater is a nice concept but I would not compare it to the Spanish Steps in Rome.

Good idea (maybe maybe not.) Wrong location.

Put it on the Gansevoort property which will be empty in a few years.

[antinimby]

Wrong. It was turned over 9 years ago:
S. 7845
HUDSON RIVER PARK ACT
Approved and effective Sept. 8, 1998
Why am I not surprised you would use a technicality to use as your argument?

Maybe the pier is legally a "park" but it certainly does not look or function like one as it is right now.

Furthermore, let's just assume that it was a green, flowers everywhere, tree-filled, park right now.

It wouldn't be one after it becomes an athletic field and classrooms.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Un-freaking-believable.

What happens when antimatter and facts collide?

[antinimby]

Is what I said so erroneous or is it because it just doesn't agree with you?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Why can't you just accept thast you did not know that pier 40 is part of a park - LEGALLY - written into the NYS Constuitution.

Why do you think I told Londonlawyer it was not the same as South Street Seaport or Con Ed, that it was a park?

[antinimby]

And you're critizing my reading skills? Didn't I just finish saying this:
Maybe the pier is legally a "park" but it certainly does not look or function like one as it is right now.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
I didn't miss what you said. I ignored it.

Why should I respond to your opinions, when you can't seem to accept facts.

The fact that it is a park by law is not a technicality. And I wasn't making an argument. What the hell is the point? You don't listen to anything.

I was correcting your error by providing information.

[antinimby]

I never said I didn't accept the fact that it was legally a park.

You can try your nitpicking/legal definition tactics all you want, but the fact is that this pier neither looks nor acts like a park.

[ZippyTheChimp]

It is currently a pier serving as a parking lot, not a park. If turned over to be used as an athletic field, I wouldn't consider it to be any more of a park than the PAC.

Wrong. It was turned over 9 years ago:

S. 7845
HUDSON RIVER PARK ACT

Why am I not surprised you would use a technicality to use as your argument?First words out of your hole are sarcasm.

You are a fool, and not worth the effort. Good night.

[CBTwo]

Why do you park in a driveway and drive on a parkway?

There are ball fields in Central Park and they are considered part of the park, as well as the zoo. Parks aren't just flowers grass and trees. They just normally don't have movie theaters.

[antinimby]

First words out of your hole are sarcasm.
You are a fool, and not worth the effort. Good night.This type of insults is unwarranted and is totally unacceptable forum behavior for anyone, much less from a Moderator.

[pianoman11686]

Based on that "analysis" ^^^ a big box store would suffice -- it would bring in more people, generate more tax dollars.

Movie theaters are windowless boxes (except possibly for the lobby area).

Why turn over park space to such an enterprise?

Movie theaters have their place, but a pier on the waterfront is not where a movie theater needs to be located.

Lofter, if you have a problem with my "analysis," then go ahead and say so. But that doesn't change the fact that the "community" is not losing any parkspace WHATSOEVER if the PAC plan goes through. Furthermore, the very fact that big box stores have already been ruled out by the developer is proof that the community's concerns are being listened to and addressed. Ultimately though, the plan needs financing from somewhere.

That parking lot and those fields just happen to be serving a wide swath of community in which the Pier is located. They are there, they function, and they return dollars to HRPT. Sure they could use improvement, but all that could be phased in easily over a period of time.

Again with the same tired arguments about what the "community" needs. I thought we'd already been over this: just because a piece of land sits within a particular community's geographical boundaries doesn't mean only the immediate residents can use it. I won't even give examples from other areas of the city, as the point seems pretty self-evident to me.

Sidenote: the soccer fields currently require the users to pay? The PAC would make them free of charge.

$70 > $100 tickets to see a Circus in a theater is hardly a great solution to provide entertainment or amenities to the people that live in the surrounding community. And you wonder why the community doesn't want this frivolous PAC installation? Because it is schlocky commercialism.

Again with the "a Circus in a theater" belittling, schlocky commercialism to boot. Before you go on generalizing about what the plan is, and proposing nonsensical parallels with some suburban Big-Box-Mall-on-the-Hudson, you need to have a look at the facts of the plan again.

Good idea (maybe maybe not.) Wrong location.

Put it on the Gansevoort property which will be empty in a few years.

If everyone shared your point of view, NOTHING would get built anywhere. Why? Because no NIMBY wants anything built in their vicinity. I think that's why they're called "NIMBY's".

[lofter1]

Those who are proposing the insertion of movie theaters onto a waterfront pier should be the ones who need to justify their construction.

So far I've seen nothing -- no numbers, no studies, no links, no facts -- that show that movie theaters would in anyway supply the funding as described by the developers.

[Ninjahedge]

This type of insults is unwarranted and is totally unacceptable forum behavior for anyone, much less from a Moderator.

Is he acting as a moderator?

No. He is allowed to post just like the rest of us.

Now Anti, chill a bit. All he was doing was pointing out a flaw in your argument. Instead of slamming him, just admit that you were wrong on a part and adjust your position accordingly. You obviously did not know that the pier was legally parkland, so why not address that now!

Ask why, if it was, does it still sit there like some sort of waterfront storage yard? Or something!

Just back off the bickering! You should know that Zip pays more attension to the hardlnie facts in alot of his posts/arguments. Getting angry when he brings something up that does not sit well with your position will not get us anywhere.


Oh, as for Loft's comment about the BBS's, IT WAS SARCASM!!!! Does he have to suggest a Wal-Mart there to get the point across?

And CB2, your post about using the stores was a little weird. I hope it was humor, but still.... Also, any revenue earned by the parks department is put into the City Kitty, there is no guarantee that any of the money will ever come back again, so there is no real reason to try to turn good space into commercial revenue generators...

[alonzo-ny]

You obviously did not know that the pier was legally parkland, so why not address that now!



He did already. He clearly states and quotes that statement where he agrees it may legally a park but doesnt look or function like one, is that not clear?

[Ninjahedge]

He did already. He clearly states and quotes that statement where he agrees it may legally a park but doesnt look or function like one, is that not clear?

I meant in more than a drive by dismissal.

Please refrain from the rhetorical question at the end thing. It only serves to agitate Al..... :p

[alonzo-ny]

If a tree falls in a park on a pier and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

[CBTwo]

If trapeeze artists in a circus on a pier fall and no one is around to hear it do they make a sound?

[CBTwo]

Just a quick note to say today was a glorious day for the young athletes of New York to gather and compete.

Although my two sons don't use the athletic fields at Pier 40 I happened to run into a father of a nine year old daughter who was playing soccer at the Pier. I asked him how he liked the field and where did he live in the neighborhood. He answered the field was one of the best he has seen and he was there with his father in law who was enjoying the day as well, they lived on 97th and 3rd. The only complaint he had was that it was hard to get to unless you had a car. And if you had a car the parking was expensive. Hmmm?

So much for those that say the Pier is only a local community sports thing.

[CBTwo]

Volume 19 Issue 50 | April 27 - May 3, 2007

Under Cover

Faux pier brownstones
Responding to criticism that its Pier 40 Performing Arts Center plan was too “glitzy Las Vegas,” The Related Companies’ Steve Ross has completely revamped the design for the $626 million project. Tobi Bergman, president of Pier Park and Playground Association, got a glimpse of the new plans, which feature re-creations of brownstone facades, almost as a continuation of W. Houston St. onto the pier.

“It’s kind of like a faux New York to me,” Bergman said, “like they were trying to create a kitschy little New York street down the middle of the pier.” Sounds a little like Vegas’ New York New York theme park and casino, minus the replica skyscrapers. But the plan still includes all the same uses, such as a theater for Vegas-based Cirque du Soleil, four restaurants, a music club and more. “For me, it’s about content, not architecture,” said Bergman, who backs the competing People’s Pier youth sports mecca proposal.

Hundreds are expected at a public hearing on the two proposals on Thurs., May 3, at 7 p.m., in P.S. 41’s auditorium, 116 W. 11th St.

Could have fooled me, but where are there brownstones on West Houston Street? The brownstone era followed the main architectural style of the Village which tends to be Federal brick.

[pianoman11686]

Battle of Pier 40 Heats Up Over Big Developments

BY ELIOT BROWN - Special to the Sun

April 27, 2007

URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/53312

A showdown on the future of a West Side pier is set for next week, as community residents are pledging to turn out in force for a public hearing regarding two development proposals.

One of the city's largest developers wants to radically transform a large West Side pier that serves mostly as a parking garage and soccer fields into a giant hub of activity comprising an independent film theater, restaurants, retail shops, and a venue for the Cirque du Soleil.

A public hearing is scheduled for next week. Critics are vowing to fight against the proposal, which they have dubbed "Vegas on the Hudson."

Earlier this month, the Related Companies submitted its revised and final plan for the 14-acre pier: a more than $600 million proposal for Pier 40, just off West Houston Street, which would create a giant hub of activity along the mostly tranquil strip of parkland and bring a destination-entertainment complex to the mainly undeveloped side of the West Side Highway. Related is proposing to completely overhaul the pier with its planned complex, trumpeting the presence of recreational fields, open space, about 65,000 square feet of retail shops, and a farmer's market.

Seemingly in an attempt to leverage the popularity of two cultural institutions, the developer is pushing the presence of a year-round home for the Tribeca Film Festival and the colorful Cirque du Soleil within its plan.

The competing developer, the Camp Group, is proposing a more modest recreational and education facility that has attracted less attention.

Because the designs were first released late last year, community opposition has been tough and unified, with critics decrying the idea of a tourist hot-spot that would take the place of community recreation space and spread uncharacteristic development to the adjacent neighborhood.

"Clearly this is a regional tourist destination that would have little connection to the neighborhood and would solely be an attraction to tourists," the executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, Andrew Berman, said of Related's proposal. "If you have Vegas on the Hudson next door, the tendency will be to look to develop similar uses in the inland area — and that would be totally unacceptable."

Defenders of recreational space also have rallied against the proposal, saying tourists would detract from the character of the recreational facility and field that would have to be moved to what they say is a windy roof from the pier interior.

Related insists its development would better the facilities, adding recreational space and improving the field while giving much needed renovation to the pier.

Calling the development "uniquely New York," a spokeswoman for Related, Joanna Rose, said the project offers "vibrant community recreational uses with unparalleled access to the waterfront while presenting new cultural amenities desperately needed downtown, including a home for the TriBeCa Film Festival."

The pier currently holds a large yellow-brick, two-story building constructed in the 1960s, serving mostly as a parking lot and facility for soccer and other recreation in its open-air center.

The state- and city-managed Hudson River Park Trust owns the site. It issued a request for proposals from developers last year in an attempt to redevelop the onetime ocean liner terminal, ideally creating a revenue-generating facility that would help finance the park. The agency recognizes about $5 million a year in revenue from the site, a spokesman for the Hudson River Park Trust, Christopher Martin, said.

There are no assurances that any development would get built, as the Hudson River Park Trust could reject both proposals, and the City Council or Planning Commission could overturn zoning changes that would likely be required.

Mr. Martin said the proposals are being reviewed and that community input will play a role in the selection.

"We're certainly open to any kind of revenue that the pier can bring in, but we want it to be something that's amenable to the public," he said.

While community opposition has gathered around Related's proposal, the far more modest $145 million plan from the Camp Group has garnered significantly less attention. As it includes less revenue-generating services, such as recreational fields, a school, some retail and a marina, many in the community question the development company's ability to make any return on its investment while also offering adequate funding for the park trust.

A co-developer of the project, Jai Nanda, said the finances are indeed solid, especially supported by the inclusion of a day camp for children. "I know that the rumor is out there that we're not financially viable, but I think a lot of that is just perception," Mr. Nanda said. "People don't really realize that there's very strong and profitable businesses."

[pianoman11686]

"Clearly this is a regional tourist destination that would have little connection to the neighborhood and would solely be an attraction to tourists," the executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, Andrew Berman, said of Related's proposal. "If you have Vegas on the Hudson next door, the tendency will be to look to develop similar uses in the inland area — and that would be totally unacceptable."

Of course, how could I forget the importance of setting a precedent? That's exactly why the Upper East and West Sides are huge tourist havens.

I'm really disappointed in how this process is working out, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The developer puts out its first proposal which is glassy and modern, and the critics cry "Vegas!". The developer puts out a second proposal that's brick and retro, and the critics cry again, "Vegas!". I'm officially giving up hope.

[CBTwo]

The UES and the UWS are kind of like Manhattans answer to living in Brooklyn. They are bedroom communities. What tourists would go there except for the strip of museums that border the park?

If the developer has so much money (over 600 million) and the idea is so great and profitable, why don't they just ask HRPT if it is OK for them to build a new pier somewhere else along the Hudson River? Then they can build and configure their PAC pier to their own needs and not try to adapt a fallen down decrepit crappy garage and soccer field pier at the foot of Houston Street.

I haven't built a pier from scratch for a long time, but how much could a brand new pier cost, a 100 million give or take?

HRPT doesn't have a clue about what they are doing. They fall all over themselves trying to maintain what they have. They think some savior is going to come in and rescue them from their grandiose plans. Who is going to pay for all the additional "projects" that they think is what New York City residents need?

How about a toll for bikers using the bike path? That is something that's worth looking into.

[BenVader]

Help save the fields at Pier 40. Sign the petition at http://savethefields.org and show up at the public hearing on May 3rd

Thanks

[CBTwo]

I just noticed that the trapeeze school has opened on the roof of Pier 40. Talk about sharing a facility with those outside the community. Does it get any better?

[pianoman11686]

The UES and the UWS are kind of like Manhattans answer to living in Brooklyn. They are bedroom communities. What tourists would go there except for the strip of museums that border the park?

In case you aren't aware, Central Park is the city's number 2 tourist attraction (following Times Square). I believe the Met, the Guggenheim, and the Museum of Natural History are all also in the top 10, or close to it. By Berman's reasoning, the UES and UWS should have long ago become more touristized, with "similar developments in the inland area." It's just nonsense.

If the developer has so much money (over 600 million) and the idea is so great and profitable, why don't they just ask HRPT if it is OK for them to build a new pier somewhere else along the Hudson River? Then they can build and configure their PAC pier to their own needs and not try to adapt a fallen down decrepit crappy garage and soccer field pier at the foot of Houston Street.

It's been stated several times that this is the only location on the waterfront that is big enough to accommodate such an investment. Trying to find another area that is not only wide enough between two surrounding piers, as well as getting all the necessary approvals to do so, would doubtless be more time-consuming and costly.

And for the love of God, please stop making such a big deal about how great the current soccer fields are. The PAC proposal doesn't take away any public recreational space. End of story.

[ablarc]

God, this process is stupid.

[londonlawyer]

God, this process is stupid.

I agree. 15 years ago, this area was an utter dump. The same people who oppose Related's proposal probably opposed the construction of the new buildings which have contributed to this area's clean-up and revival. Related's proposal will only make this area better.

I am a life-long New Yorker but readily admit that New Yorkers can be whining morons who like to complain. This is demonstrated by absurd opposition to the Mayor's congestion charge plan.

[pianoman11686]

PIER PRE$$URE

By TOM TOPOUSIS

May 1, 2007 -- A plan to convert Pier 40 at Houston Street into a "People's Pier" with athletic fields and swimming pools is not financially feasible, a consultant hired by Hudson River Park Trust has concluded.

The report, compiled for the park's trustees and obtained by The Post, raises red flags about the proposal, calling into question the development team's financing for the $143 million project as well as its ability to pay the cash- strapped park adequate rent.

Bay Area Economics, a private consulting group, studied two competing proposals for Pier 40 and concluded that the People's Pier plan relies too heavily on unsecured public grants, lacks firm commitments from private commercial tenants and underestimates the cost of repairing the aging pier's pilings.

"These factors, in combination, pose substantial risk to [the trust] as the property owner," the report found.

Both proposals - the People's Pier and the competing plan, a performing-arts center anchored by Cirque du Soleil and the Tribeca Film Festival - go before a public hearing Thursday.

Developers behind the People's Pier called the findings "simply not true."

"Our feeling is that the report isn't getting all the facts right," said Jai Nanda of Urban Dove, a not-for-profit partner in the People's Pier project with The Camp Group, a firm that operates summer camps.


Marc Benerofe, of The Camp Group, insists the proposal only calls for $8 million in public grants but adds the project could go forward without the money.

And he said the People's Pier is less risky because it needs fewer zoning and environmental approvals.

The selection by the trust won't be the final say on the development. Either project will have to go through the city's exhaustive land-use review for final approval.

Both projects would be required to continue operating long-term parking for about 1,800 cars and would be required to set aside 300,000 square feet for public parks.

The $625 million performing-arts center, proposed by The Related Cos., would include a permanent home for Cirque du Soleil and a theater complex for the film festival as well as restaurants and stores.

Related's proposal would also include ball fields and a marina, but those fields would be relocated from their current location on the pier's lower level to a roof-top site, a move opposed by local sports groups.

Joanna Rose, a spokeswoman for Related, called the project "uniquely New York," although it's been dubbed by community opponents as "Las Vegas on the Hudson."

"It offers vibrant community recreational uses with unparalleled access to the waterfront while presenting new cultural amenities desperately needed downtown, including a home for the Tribeca Film Festival," Rose said.

tom.topousis@nypost.com

Copyright 2007 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

[CBTwo]

Other than the "while presenting new cultural amenities desperately needed downtown, including a home for the Tribeca Film Festival." I think it's a great idea. Like the Village desparately needs cultural amenitites such as and including the Tribeca Film Festival to make it lively.

It sure beats dedicating good roof top parking space to a trapeze school.

[londonlawyer]

PIER PRE$$URE

By TOM TOPOUSIS

May 1, 2007 -- A plan to convert Pier 40 at Houston Street into a "People's Pier" with athletic fields and swimming pools is not financially feasible, a consultant hired by Hudson River Park Trust has concluded.

The report, compiled for the park's trustees and obtained by The Post, raises red flags about the proposal, calling into question the development team's financing for the $143 million project as well as its ability to pay the cash- strapped park adequate rent.

Bay Area Economics, a private consulting group, studied two competing proposals for Pier 40 and concluded that the People's Pier plan relies too heavily on unsecured public grants, lacks firm commitments from private commercial tenants and underestimates the cost of repairing the aging pier's pilings.

"These factors, in combination, pose substantial risk to [the trust] as the property owner," the report found.

Both proposals - the People's Pier and the competing plan, a performing-arts center anchored by Cirque du Soleil and the Tribeca Film Festival - go before a public hearing Thursday.

Developers behind the People's Pier called the findings "simply not true."

"Our feeling is that the report isn't getting all the facts right," said Jai Nanda of Urban Dove, a not-for-profit partner in the People's Pier project with The Camp Group, a firm that operates summer camps.


Marc Benerofe, of The Camp Group, insists the proposal only calls for $8 million in public grants but adds the project could go forward without the money.

And he said the People's Pier is less risky because it needs fewer zoning and environmental approvals.

The selection by the trust won't be the final say on the development. Either project will have to go through the city's exhaustive land-use review for final approval.

Both projects would be required to continue operating long-term parking for about 1,800 cars and would be required to set aside 300,000 square feet for public parks.

The $625 million performing-arts center, proposed by The Related Cos., would include a permanent home for Cirque du Soleil and a theater complex for the film festival as well as restaurants and stores.

Related's proposal would also include ball fields and a marina, but those fields would be relocated from their current location on the pier's lower level to a roof-top site, a move opposed by local sports groups.

Joanna Rose, a spokeswoman for Related, called the project "uniquely New York," although it's been dubbed by community opponents as "Las Vegas on the Hudson."

"It offers vibrant community recreational uses with unparalleled access to the waterfront while presenting new cultural amenities desperately needed downtown, including a home for the Tribeca Film Festival," Rose said.

tom.topousis@nypost.com

Copyright 2007 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.


They call it "The People's Pier," but I guarantee that the camp won't be a free one that caters to poor kids from Harlem, the Bronx, etc. Rather, it will be a place where nannies will bring rich kids during the week before they go to the Hamptons for the weekend. So much for the proletariat.

[clubBR]

This is great news for the neighborhood. One of the better developments in planning

[CBTwo]

The Village fields and recreational facilities have always welcomed players from outside the immediate area (including Harlem and the Bronx,) one has only to go to the Carmine Street pool in the summer and realize that it's not a resident only facility. Below is a call to arms from the Downtown Little League, which happens to be in Tribeca, not Hudson Square.

Tonight at 7 PM at PS 41 there will be a vital meeting on the fate of the playing fields at Pier 40. The meeting will be at PS 41, 116 West 11th Street, just west of 6th Avenue. We ask every family with a child in the leagues to consider attending. Most people will find their own way to the meeting at PS 41. But to make it easier for families to be heard, a bus will be leaving the BPC Ballfields at 630 PM tonight. This bus will go to Pier 40, pick up families there, and take everyone to the meeting on West 11th Street.
The bus will also be available to take parents finishing the Math Night engagement at 745 PM. The bus will leave PS 89 at 745 PM, and go up to the meeting.
Because of the extraordinary crowds expected, the NYPD has told all groups that they will not allow buses to pick people up leaving the meeting, only drop them off. We therefore ask families to come home on their own schedules by subway or taxi.
Latest reports indicate that as many as 2000 people will be at PS 41. Because officials from the City and Hudson River Trust chose to book a school auditorium with a capacity of only about 400, many families will be in the cafeteria or the outdoor yard. We have been told that both the yard and cafeteria will be wired for sound so that you will be able to hear the developers and community leaders speaking. The Trust has asked us to ask families to be patient with the arrangements they have made for your participation.
Any person who wishes to speak may sign a speaker’s card when they enter PS 41. However, to do so you must arrive before 730 PM. Also, be advised that members of the general public will speak last, and probably not until 930 PM or so.
Thank you,
Downtown Little League

[pianoman11686]

Fight Brews Over Plans to Reinvent Hudson Pier

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/03/nyregion/03pier_lg.jpg
Under a proposal for Pier 40 on the Hudson River, a parking garage would become an entertainment center housing the Cirque du Soleil.

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: May 3, 2007

A Hudson River pier built for ocean liners but now used mainly as a parking garage would become home to a large entertainment complex with permanent sites for the Cirque du Soleil and the Tribeca Film Festival as part of a proposal that has encountered significant opposition in Greenwich Village.

The $626 million plan by the Related Companies to turn sleepy Pier 40 — now the site of the garage and a few sports fields — into a cultural complex attracting 2.7 million visitors annually has been derided by its opponents as “Las Vegas on the Hudson.”

In addition to a theater for the Cirque du Soleil and a 12-screen cinema, the plan for the pier calls for an 1,800-seat music hall, a 28,650-square-foot event space and a glass-enclosed winter garden, as well as shops, restaurants, more athletic fields and more than 2,000 parking spaces. The proposal originally included a 15,000-square-foot “beach club” modeled after the SoHo House, a members-only club in the meatpacking district, but that idea has been scrapped.

A public hearing on the proposed complex, called the Pier 40 Performing Arts Center, is scheduled for tonight. A coalition of Greenwich Village groups have vowed to quash the plan, setting up a potential showdown between residents of one of the city’s most activist neighborhoods and Related, one of the city’s most politically connected developers.

Opponents of the plan say a performing arts center would bring traffic congestion and pollution, clash with the scale of the neighborhood and relegate popular athletic fields to a windy area on the two-story pier building’s roof.

“I think every strata of the neighborhood is opposed to this: the old guard, who has sought to retain the area’s character, the newcomers who live in the new buildings, the sports leagues who want more recreation space,” said Andrew Berman, the executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. “There aren’t many things they all agree on, but this is one.”

But Joanna Rose, a spokeswoman for the Related Companies, said the plan would increase the amount of park space and could avoid creating traffic problems that would spill into the rest of the neighborhood.

“This plan could be a real win for New York and a true amenity to life downtown,” Ms. Rose said in a statement. “It increases the amount of space available for recreation by over 40 percent, while offering tremendous access to the waterfront, over five acres of passive open green spaces and vibrant cultural amenities, including a home for the Tribeca Film Festival.”

A competing consortium of developers has proposed a second plan, which would cost $145 million and would be known as the People’s Pier. The plan, which has drawn less community opposition, calls for building a high school, three swimming pools, shops and restaurants and additional space for parks and athletic fields.

The Hudson River Park Trust, the city-state agency that operates the park that surrounds Pier 40, said it must develop the pier to generate revenue for the upkeep of the five-mile park, which snakes along the Hudson from Chambers Street to 59th Street and is still under construction.

The park, chartered in 1998, was intended to be self-sustaining, with most of its revenue coming from activities on its piers. For example, the garage on Pier 40 brings the trust about $5 million annually. Each development proposal for Pier 40 would add several hundred parking spaces to the 1,800 already there.

“The question of that site for me is, How do we create a proposal that has economic viability, jobs and revenue for the rest of the park?” said Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, who appoints three members to the trust’s 13-member board of directors. “We have to have something that does not overwhelm the park and the neighborhood.”

Pier 40 was built in 1954 for the Holland America Line as a commercial shipping terminal, but that function was made obsolete by commercial air travel.

The 14-acre pier, at West Houston Street, was used for storage, offices and a bus depot before it was converted to a public parking garage. In 1999, a soccer field was built atop the pier building, and other sports fields and park space have since been added. A trapeze school established at the pier several years ago would be retained as part of both proposals.

Over the years, plans to build a hotel, apartments, a flower market and a branch of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum at the pier have been proposed and rejected.

In 2003, the park trust called for new development ideas, but eventually rejected proposals for museums, television and film studios and an aquarium. One of the proposals, a plan to put a “big box” retailer on the pier, led to particularly fierce opposition in the neighborhood.

“You have a lot of people who border the park with an interest in having something developed that is great, and is worthy of the New York City waterfront,” said Christopher W. Martin, vice president of the park trust.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[pianoman11686]

Other than the "while presenting new cultural amenities desperately needed downtown, including a home for the Tribeca Film Festival." I think it's a great idea. Like the Village desparately needs cultural amenitites such as and including the Tribeca Film Festival to make it lively.

It sure beats dedicating good roof top parking space to a trapeze school.

Your narrowly-focused worldview yet again proves its ignorance: the quote was referring to Downtown as a whole, not just the Village. If you've been following the developments for the new WTC, you'd realize that one of the main priorities for politicians and planners in rebuilding Lower Manhattan is to give it some much-needed new cultural outlets.

Stop trying to continuously paint this as just a Village project. And while you're at it, spare us the sarcasm, please.

[lofter1]

But the Tribeca Film Festival, while a nice little market for films, is hardly on the top of the list of things that require an input of public money.

[MidtownGuy]

The film festival is so decentralized. I think it would be great for them to actually have a home, like the festival in Venice has the Lido. It would have more of an identity, more glamour.

[lofter1]

Possibly a fine idea to "centralize" the Tribeca Film Festival (although it might be wise to find a spot within Tribeca) ^^^.

However even in Venice the Festival (http://www.whatsonwhen.com/events/~22158.jml) is not centralized:
Screenings take place in cinemas all over the city, but the centre of the action is the Lido area.

But the Lido in Venice is part of a hotel / convention center, and in an area that was built up before the Festival began in 1932.

Regarding Pier 40: Why would a water-front park be the BEST place to put a film festival venue -- which would occupy that space for all of 2 -3 weeks per year?

[CBTwo]

Personally I don't think either idea is so great if the dollars and time are considered. One is so overblown that I doubt that it will be a success, the other needs so much public funding that it wont succeed either.

OH! WOW! Tribeca film festival. That should be the reason that they should build a mega complex on the pier. Bobbie D will pay for the other 49 weeks when the attendance is less than packed for the twelve theaters?

My children are grown so I don't really care if the Pier is used for youth sports or performing chimps.

Let the public speak their mind tonight.

[CBTwo]

http://www.downtownexpress.com/inside_dt_logo.gif (http://www.downtownexpress.com/index.html)


downtownexpress.com


Volume 19 Issue 52 | May 11 -17, 2007

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_209/PIER40.gif
Related’s revisions to its plans includes more field space at the south end of Pier 40, left, and fewer traffic lane entrances.
1,500 swarm park meeting
By Lincoln Anderson

More than 1,500 parents, Little Leaguers and budding David Beckhams — plus a crew hauling a 14-foot-long Whitehall rowboat complete with a sail — mobbed P.S. 41 last Thursday evening for a public hearing on Pier 40’s future.

Most came to defend the pier’s sports fields from possibly being shut down for up to 18 months — and to voice their outrage at the idea of Little Leaguers being set out to sea on barges as an interim plan.

They came to keep their mecca for sports from becoming “a mall.”

The boaters said they want to the pier to remain a place where small watercraft can find safe harbor.

At the start, the scene was total chaos, as the young players wearing uniforms— many were bused up by Tribeca and Battery Park City youth programs — and parents flooded into the W. 11th St. school’s lobby.

“Get me some water! I’m losing my voice!” Maryann Monte, a Hudson River Park Trust staffer, shouted above the din as she struggled to get everyone to sign in.

Four hundred people packed the school’s auditorium, with another 400 each filling the cafeteria and schoolyard. Shortly after the meeting’s 7 p.m. start, though, hundreds more were still outside, with a line stretching down 11th St., onto Sixth Ave. and winding around the corner onto 10th St. It was decided just to open the schoolyard gate on Greenwich Ave. and let everybody in — an estimated 300 more — and waive the sign-in.

Police officers and firefighters kept watch so that the rooms didn’t swell to over capacity. Audio and TV links to the cafeteria and yard allowed people there to follow the action in the auditorium.

It was by far the largest turnout anyone could remember for such a public hearing Downtown.

Concern is at an all-time high over the Trust’s plan to redevelop the 14-acre W. Houston St. pier. An earlier effort to do so by the state-city authority crashed in 2003, after which the pier’s courtyard was carpeted with artificial grass for sports fields under an interim plan. The fields have since become a treasured community asset in a park-starved part of town, and are in nearly constant use by the local youth sports leagues.

Two teams are vying to redevelop the pier. The Related Companies has joined with Cirque du Soleil and the Tribeca Film Festival in a $626 million proposal called “Pier 40 Performing Arts Center,” or “PAC,” to transform the pier into a major entertainment destination. The other proposal, by Urban Dove and CampGroup, called “The People’s Pier,” would cost $145 million and add a summer day camp and a school to the pier, as well as courts for public high school basketball teams and others to use.

Hudson River Park is supposed to be self-sustaining. The Trust — which is building the 5-mile-long park — is seeking a private developer to increase the revenue from the pier, which is currently $5 million to $6 million annually from the parking operation. The developer would also pay for the costly repair of the former shipping pier, which badly needs a rehab.

The developers are required to preserve the pier’s 1,800 parking spaces and provide sports field space at least equal to that currently on the pier. The Trust’s board of directors will ultimately decide which plan would be chosen, after which a public environmental review and uniform land use review procedure would occur. No schedule is set for selection of a developer or the review process.

In general, however, there wasn’t much support among the crowd for either plan. But it was Related’s vision for the pier that came in for the most savaging.

After the development teams made brief presentations, audience members were allowed to comment. About 50 did, and — in their own ways — all expressed their extreme anxiety about the pier’s future. They ranged from kayakers to residents of the tony new Morton Square high-rise building across from Pier 40 to T-ball-playing tykes.

“We say no to interim fields,” Tom Ellett, president of Greenwich Village Little League, said. “We say no to removing our fields! We say no to rooftop fields only! We say no to baseball on barges!

“You are the Hudson River Park Trust. It says ‘park’ in your name. Do the right thing for the children and families of our community,” Ellett said, as applause resounded through the auditorium.

Local politicians also weighed in. Assemblymember Deborah Glick expressed a similar sentiment and received similar rousing cheers when she said: “I believe that what’s presented to us here reflects humongous development. We were promised a waterfront park with small nodes of development; they [the nodes] develop a lot of money now.”

Also commenting were Borough President Scott Stringer, State Senators Tom Duane and Martin Connor and Councilmember Alan Gerson. All emphasized the importance of preserving the pier’s playing fields .

“The People’s Pier” plan was not without its critics. Bob Russo, of Downtown United Soccer Club, decried the idea of charging for use of the pier’s field and athletic space — though the Urban Dove/CampGroup only would do this for some of the spaces.

“They’re not giving us more [athletic space],” Russo said angrily, “and they’re charging market rate for use.” Meanwhile, of the “PAC” plan, he said, “We are an afterthought. Putting our kids on the roof…. Our kids need to be put on center stage — not on backstage.”

One of the few voices in favor of Related, Peggy Lewis, executive director of biz kids, inc., and several young actors in her program, wore artistic masks to the hearing. The acting program has had a space on the pier since 2001, and Lewis feels the pier needs the kind of repairs that Related will bring.

Lewis wondered why Pier 40 must completely be consumed by sports — in short, why Bohemia has become, well, “Baseball City.”

“My concern is exclusivity of Pier 40 as a sports pier. Why? Why?” she asked with a perplexed look. “We are in New York City, one of the largest, most fantastic arts cities in the world.”

But baseball caps at the hearing far outnumbered long-nosed theatrical masks.


‘The People’s Pier’

Jai Nanda, founder and executive director of Urban Dove — a nonprofit group helping youth through sports and other programs — assured the audience that “The People’s Pier” plan would not disrupt use of the existing main field space.

“The courtyard ball field is a safe haven for thousands of kids,” Nanda said. “Our plan keeps the courtyard ball field open year-round.” The crowd exploded with applause.

Nanda — who grew up in the Village and attended P.S. 3 — said that as a youth he used to play on a dirt lot on Mercer St. that was eventually replaced by New York University’s Coles Sports Center. His own experience typifies Downtown’s lack of playing field space, he said, noting, “It was from this reality that ‘The People’s Pier’ was born.”

Nanda added “The People’s Pier” plan won’t increase auto traffic to the pier.

Nanda said they will invest $30 million in the pier’s infrastructure, including fixing up the pier’s substructure and deteriorated piles. They would start by fixing only the piles around the edge of the pier, however, and would shore up the pier’s center at a later date. Nanda explained they could take this approach because the load of the central courtyard is less than that on the pier’s perimeter, which supports the two-story “doughnut”-like pier shed.

He said they would seek $8 million from the city and state to erect a roof over the pier’s northern edge under which there would be basketball courts for Urban Dove’s Net Gain program for public high school basketball teams that lack courts. If they don’t get the funds, they would erect a bubble on an interim basis, he said. Nanda said they feel public monies are appropriate for this structure, since it will support public use.

Though some critics have called the Urban Dove/CampGroup plan “underfunded,” Nanda said “The People’s Pier” plan — because it is less expensive — is more feasible.

“Our low impact, less costly approach is less risky [than the Related plan],” Nanda stated. A CampGroup representative stressed that they have financed and repaid $1 billion in loans in running their about a dozen camps.

In an interview afterward, Nanda clarified that all the pier’s existing field space would be free of charge and would continue to be programmed by the Trust. However, there would be a sliding fee for use of the new fields on the pier’s south rooftop, three new pools and the basketball courts. Nonprofit groups would get a low rate, corporate leagues would get market rate and some groups would even get free use, Nanda said.

The day camp — charging $1,000 a week per camper — would only use the south fields and pools for 10 weeks in the summer. The pools would be 4-feet deep, two indoor and one outdoor, large enough for competitions, with aboveground aluminum-tank construction.

Nanda said their plan would increase the pier’s open space by about 30 percent to 40 percent. He added that after seeing the demand at the hearing for keeping the pier’s indoor soccer field, they are now trying to work with the Trust to figure out how to keep it as part of their plan.

Asked about their proposal to add a school to the pier, Nanda said they have met with both the city’s Department of Education and Bill Gates’s New Visions organization, and have been advised that a sports or marine school would be most appropriate.

Also at the hearing, the Urban Dove/CampGroup’s plan to add a pedestrian bridge over West St. to the pier drew approving applause from parents concerned with the safety of their children while crossing the highway.


The ‘PAC’ pier

Jeff Blau, president of The Related Companies, started off by telling the 1,500-plus audience members, “We recognize that any development must be sensitive to your concerns.” He saw many “affordable soccer” signs in the audience and said those were a vote for the Related plan.

Noting Pier 40 has “suffered from years of neglect,” Blau said, “The Trust, the city and the state want the pier rebuilt. For safety, we are willing to commit $35 million to repair the pier.”

After Related’s first design for the pier was panned by the community earlier this year as too “glitzy Las Vegas” and too tall, Related retooled its design. The new design generally keeps within the envelope of the existing pier shed, except for the addition of a 120-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil fly tower on the pier’s northwest corner.

Also, Houston St. would be extended onto the pier via a pedestrian promenade that would house galleries, restaurants and retail space behind facades evoking the Lower West Side’s industrial past.

Related has expanded the amount of outdoor space in its new proposal, representing a 40 percent increase over the pier’s existing outdoor and field space. Most of the pier’s courtyard would be filled in. The pier’s current courtyard ball fields, as well as the smaller rooftop ball field on the pier’s southeast corner, would be moved to the northern section of the pier’s roof. In addition, more athletic space — possibly for basketball or tennis — would be created on the southern part of the pier’s rooftop. The existing indoor soccer field would be kept.

Blau added that Related is willing to add bubbles or tensile structures over the rooftop sports fields.

“All for the safety and comfort or your athletes,” he said. All athletic space would be free, programmed by the Trust.

The pier’s current sports fields would be closed for “one season” of sports during the construction, Blau said, though this could be up to 18 months. He apparently was not referring to soccer, which has fall and summer seasons. Related is exploring using barges for Little League and youth soccer during the interim.

Also in the new Related plan, a 57,000-square-foot real grass lawn on the pier’s south side replaces what would have been an amphitheater in the first plan. A “passive picnic park” on the roof in the pier’s southeast quadrant would also have real grass. More green space would be created on the pier’s east side where traffic would no longer drive across the pier’s front, but only in or out on two access roads.

Auto traffic to and from Pier 40 could be mitigated by controlling the starting and ending times of the pier’s various entertainment events, Blau added.

In addition, Related has added new safety measures regarding auto traffic entering and exiting the pier. The two crossings of the Hudson River Park bike path have been reduced from nine lanes to six lanes. Their new plan calls for on-foot safety agents to be posted at certain times and for stoplights, as exist at other points on the bike path. Bollards would prevent cars from entering the bike path.

Speaking later, Joanna Rose, a Related spokesperson, emphasized that Related not only will fix up the pier, but that giving the complex a long-term lease for the pier would provide ongoing revenue to “support the park for future generations.”

She said Related, Tribeca Film Festival and Cirque du Soleil are confident they can pull off the mega-development. Rose noted Related is one of the nation’s top private developers, with $15 billion in existing developments and $9 billion worth of projects in the pipeline.

Rose clarified that the barges for Little League would be moored and stabilized, and that they are permitted on a temporary basis.


‘Neither is acceptable’

Speaking on Monday, Tobi Bergman, president of Pier Park and Playground Association, a group advocating increased youth athletic opportunities, said the community likes the pier as is.

Rooftop fields are too hot compared to the protected courtyard, plus would require 50-foot-tall fences to keep hardballs from flying down onto the Cirque and movie theater crowds, he said.

“It would only take one catastrophic injury before they say, No baseball on the pier,” Bergman said.

Also, windscreens would be needed for rooftop fields, otherwise “every double would turn into a home run,” he said.

More important, in Bergman’s opinion, is the pier’s comfort factor.

“Right now, parents drop off their kids at Pier 40 and they know it’s a safe place,” Bergman said. “It’s completely different if you’re dropping them off at an entertainment complex. It’s no longer a park atmosphere. Tens of thousands of people is not really where you want your kids playing ball.”

While Bergman said Related’s second design is “much better” than its first one, he added that “the content” — Cirque du Soleil, a movieplex, concert hall, four restaurants, retail, banquet hall and more — is still the problem.

“The content is they’ve got a venue for 10,000 people or more,” he said. “You could have more than 10,000 people sitting down on the pier at once.”

Bergman said even “The People’s Pier” plan, which he previously supported, is not good enough, though he thinks it’s closer to acceptable.

“Given what a precious resource Pier 40 is, it’s going to have to be better,” he said.

Lincoln@DowntrownExpress.com

[pianoman11686]

The version of the article CBTwo posted was missing a section. Here it is:

Andrew Berman, director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, warned of the Related plan’s broader ramifications.

“We’re very concerned about impact on the park and the neighborhood beyond the park,” Berman said. “We’ve seen a tremendous amount of development. I think we all know what our community needs — and I think we know what good development is.”

Good development, in this case, means no development. I expect both of these plans will be rejected in favor of the community's wishes.

[CBTwo]

What happens if HRPT has not enough dollars to support what they are "legally" responsible to create and maintain?

[CBTwo]

Went by Pier 40 lately and I see the trapeze school is up and running on the roof top. That should solve some of the HRPT's financial problems. Cheers to all for appropriate use of space and outreach programs.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Pier 40

In other Hudson River Park news, the C.B. 1 Waterfront Committee on May 21 passed a strong response to the redevelopment proposals for Pier 40. The resolution condemned both proposals as well as the large-scale R.F.P. process that produced them.

“The Related plan is too big and the Camp Group plan involves a private monopoly on public park land,” said committee member Mark Costello, who is also president of the Downtown Little League. “The process was flawed and the process was foisted on us.”

The committee also asked for a clearer outline of how much money it will cost to repair the aging pier and how much money the Trust needs the pier to generate annually in order to pay for park maintenance. Noreen Doyle, the Trust vice president, said that the cost of repairing the pier would depend on what the developer intended to put on the pier and on how long the repairs were expected to last. She said that the Related proposal — a high-impact mix of shops, theaters and restaurants — had budgeted about $35 million for pier repairs.

As for long-term revenue, Doyle said that the pier must generate no less than the $5 million per year it currently makes from the parking facility. She said that park maintenance, with 40 percent of the park built, currently costs $14 million per year. If what is built in the future costs roughly the same amount to maintain as what has already been built, that would put maintenance at $35 million per year, plus inflation, once the park is finished.

The C.B. 1 resolution also criticized Related’s plan to close the Pier 40 fields during construction, but subsequent to the meeting, the development firm announced it had changed its proposed construction phasing schedule to allow the pier’s equivalent field space to remain open during construction.


Skye@DowntownExpress.com

[CBTwo]

If anyone is interested in seeing the plans and renderings in real life they are exhibited in the lobby at Pier 40.

[bigkdc]

Both plans are on exhibit?

It seems that many residents in the hudson square area are proponents of the related proposal. I would assume this is because it will help property values and bring more retail to the area. Also, having related across the street may help in the fight against the proposed sanitation garage.

[lofter1]

I went by today and had a look at the architectural drawings -- both plans are on display (Related / Cirque de Soliel & CampGroup / "People's Park").

Her's some pics ...

CampGroup / "People's Park"

Aerial:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Peoples_01a.jpg

Ground Level:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Peoples_01b.jpg

Mezzanine Level:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Peoples_01c.jpg

Roof Level:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Peoples_01d.jpg

From the south:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Peoples_01e.jpg

From the northeast (as seen from across West Street):

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Peoples_01f.jpg

[lofter1]

Related / Cirque de Soleil

Main Entryway (seen from the end of Houston Street across West Street):

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Related_01a.jpg

Ground Level (note that the parking drop-off is inside the Pier, rather than outside and along West Street as in the CampGroup plan) -- the bisected scheme with a grand avenue down the middle to the water is a good idea:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Related_01b.jpg

Mezzanine Level (The purple area is all Cirque de Soleil):

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Related_01c.jpg

Roof Level (there is no way that the Cirque de Soleil theater -- and other performance spaces -- would not extend upward another floor or two):

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Related_01d.jpg

Viewed from the northeast (note that the NW corner of the pier is not shown -- this is the area where the CdS theater would rise to it's tallest height and where the plan also shows that the Trapeze School would be):

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Related_01e.jpg

Viewed from the south (the white area at the far edge is the CdS / Trapeze space):

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20River%20Park/Pier%2040/Pier40_Related_01f.jpg

[bigkdc]

Helpfer as always Lofter...saved me a trip!

Putting aside utility (which I understand is quite important), I like the Related plan more. I also think it adds a nice twist to the entire Hudson River Park development.

[CBTwo]

Seeing what dire straights the HRPT is in financially the Related plan just might be the saving grace for this park. Hopefully it's infusion of dollars will motivate others along the parkway.

I still don't get the trapeze school thing, where it came from and it's financial and cultural contribution to the overall plan. Miniature golf I can see. Trapeze school?

[unknown memory]

I still don't get the trapeze school thing, where it came from and it's financial and cultural contribution to the overall plan. Miniature golf I can see. Trapeze school?
*shrugs* I guess, it'll be good for those who do want to learn the tricks of the trade of being in a circus. Much like we get clown schools, martial arts, taekwondo, ballet, etc. It's an art for Cirque du Soleil. ^_^ Haha...

I definitely like the Cirque/Related plan. To me, NYC lacks a little in the fun department. I'm a Cirque fan to an extent. I love their music and shows. It'll be interesting to see what they would do if they did have a permanent home here in the city. NYC has a lot of parks already. *sighs* Sometimes, I even wish NYC did have an outdoor ferris wheel...much like Tokyo.

[pianoman11686]

More anti-development schlock from SoHo Politics (http://sohopolitics.blogspot.com/2007/06/pressure.html):

Pressure

Monday, June 11, 2007

When you've got multi-billion dollar companies looking to cash in on the newly discovered development mines Downtown, people start to see what they want to see - or, rather, what they are paid to see. Or, fail to see.

Two of the most objectionable projects that are currently in the process of being foisted up residents of Hudson Square and SoHo are Trump SoHo and the Related development of Pier 40. While the sell-out involving Trump SoHo is well known and currently in progress - with both the construction and the anticipated legal action against it -- few really have a feel for the complexity of the Pier 40 deal.

Thus far, the Hudson River Park Trust Board has not made any decision. At least, not publicly. The Advisory to the Trust, a group of community leaders, a mixture of representatives of the Elected Officials, and Community Board members from Boards 1, 2 and 4, -- has had numerous meetings and hosted a Town Hall style hearing which has all added up to a consensus. The two potential developers, Camp Group and the Related Companies proposal miss the mark for a number of reasons. Camp Group seems to be on shaky financial ground; and, Related seems to want to build something like an adult Disneyland to draw even more tourists Downtown.

The insanity of trying to draw more traffic through Manhattan streets to Pier 40 when congestion pricing is high on the Mayor's fast track list - seems maniacally absurd. Unless, of course, the $8 per day fee is really only about generating more money and not about reducing traffic or clearing the pollution.

The essentials from the Trust viewpoint is that Pier 40 needs repairs. Roughly 10 percent of the pilings holding up the pier need to be replaced or substantially repaired. Over time, the usable space on the pier has been reduced as a result of deterioration. While it's not going to fall into the river, repair work needs to start relatively soon. We are not into year 4 of the two recent rounds of RFP's and proposal reviews. The prior hearings resulted in much ado about nothing and the $30 million dollar hole in the previous community-approved plan, is once again raising its ugly head. The number repeatedly used by the Trust officials, when asked what it will cost to renovated the pier is $30 to $35 million dollars - plus.

This is where the two plans on the table - Camp Group and Related - start to part ways. Camp Group is fuzzy on the numbers for pier renovation and restoration. Related clearly has the money. Camp Group is clearly more community oriented (and certainly more kid-friendly). Related sings to the tune of Disneyland for adults. Or, as Andrew Bergman of Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP) calls it, "Vegas on the Hudson."

This plan involves an entertainment center with Cirque du Soleil, plus an 1800 seat concert hall, a 3500 seat banquet hall, 12 movie theaters, 5 large restaurants, and 40,000 square feet of retail. There is also provision for ballfields that initially replaced what is currently on the pier - but now maintains, in essence, what is there now.

Well, but, not exactly.

Instead of the $5 million dollar ballfield renovations that were completed less than 2 years ago - which the kids have just started to use - Related wants us to move them onto the roof and they can continue to play ball while the construction gets underway.

Now, have you ever tried to live in your apartment while renovation was going on? Have you ever lived next door to a construction site? Have you ever been downwind of the new building going up next door?

Well, picture hundreds of kids on the roof of a pier, or worse, on the same level, with the wind off the water and the dust and debris blowing in their faces as construction begins on a pier built with materials that were legal, from 50 years ago. You're right, "Not my kid." And, then, try to get them there among construction rigs and trucks.

A straw poll taken at the Advisory to the HRPT, a group which admittedly has only an advisory capacity in relation to the Trust decision - had no members in favor of either plan. Community Board #1 has come out against the plans. The community has rejected the Related plan with hundreds of families and kids appearing at the PS 141 hearing. The Related plan, especially with the attempt to keep the ballfields open during construction is merely putting lipstick on a pig.

But what is more of a concern for Downtown residents is the marginally subtle attempt to force-feed the residents. There is now a big push to get this deal done.

The belief of many activists is that this is Doctoroff's particular pig. Not only is he a member of the Trust Board, which is a concern, but some interesting "consultants" have recently come out of the closet to join the process.

Shep Messing and Jay Kriegel, both part of the 2012 Olympics effort which was killed, are now part of the Related team, reportedly with the help of and as a favor to Doctoroff - who may feel that he owes them as a result of the failed bid for the Olympics.

As an added push, Jim Capalino, a smart, folksy Village PR guy has been contacting people in the community to sing the praises of Related to those who are unaware of how good this will be for all of us.

But, just so everyone does not get too misty-eyed for Related, consider this.

Hudson Square and SoHo families have NO parks for their kids. We spent $5 Large on ballfields and have parking for cars that have practically nowhere else to go since development is quickly depleting garage space. And, don't kid yourself, once a contract is awarded, the changes will come fast and furious. Things that were promised will disappear as fast as that last Pringle's chip.

Whether a Conservancy is established, or there is an appeal for State and/or Federal funds, or there is an increase in income from parking and fees, or appeal is made to the Legislature to allow a bond issue - we need to keep Pier 40 for the ballfields that exist there now, parking that is there now and community passive space that will be there as the pier is reclaimed. As the Trust considered just after the previous round of plans failed, the Pier could be repaired over time and uses should be added as the structure and community review approves each new use.

This is not a site where the Community should be pressured to sell off another prized asset to a developer. No matter who stands to benefit from the deal.

Unless it is the community.

Posted by D. Clark MacPherson at 7:42 PM

[Derek2k3]

Some people just need to move. If ballfields and parking are so important to you, save yourself the energy and leave.

[bigkdc]

I know a fair # of residents near pier 40 that are big proponents of the related plan....not sure it is fair to represent the related plan as the anti-resident plan. maybe it is short sighted but the addition of more retail and some movie theaters while keeping the fields intact sounds like a good plan

[BrooklynRider]

This is neighborhood and city parkland and there is no need to "attract visitors" to anything more than the park. Related's plan should be moved to Coney Island.

[ASchwarz]

This project makes no economic sense in Coney Island, and your point ignores the fact that the Hudson River Park has mandated on-site revenue-generating venues and EVERYTHING is objectionable to West Village NIMBYs.

A few years back there were three viable proposals and the NIMBYs hated all three. The state agreed to trash all the proposals and the site sat idle for a couple years. Now there are two new, completely different proposals from the previous three, and surprise!!, the NIMBYs also hate these two new proposals.

The problem isn't with the proposals. The problem is with the grannies at the Community Board. There is NO revene-generating use that would be acceptable to NIMBYs. Time to dissolve the Community Boards.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I know a fair # of residents near pier 40 that are big proponents of the related plan....not sure it is fair to represent the related plan as the anti-resident plan. maybe it is short sighted but the addition of more retail and some movie theaters while keeping the fields intact sounds like a good plan

It's not a good idea to undermine your position on one issue, which involves added traffic into the area, by supporting something else that does the same thing, hoping that one cancels the other. You could wind up with both.

[bigkdc]

It's not a good idea to undermine your position on one issue, which involves added traffic into the area, by supporting something else that does the same thing, hoping that one cancels the other. You could wind up with both.

Generally I agree with you although the sanitation garage has many many issues beyond traffic. The sanitation garage would be more acceptable if a) they could determine a way to deal with the fuel issue (sounds like they have to a certain extent); b) reduce the # of CBs the garage supports (no reason why this neighborhood should bear the brunt for that large a chunk of the city) and c) they redesigned it in a more efficient manner (ie, no need for all of that parking for city employees).

Maybe I am slow but I don't see the vast traffic implications of the related plan for pier 40. Yes when there is a cirque du soleil event there will be more cars but I don't think a bunch of retail and restaurants will create huge traffic problems. Does South Street seaport have a traffic issue?

If we can get congestion pricing in the mix then hopefully we can solve some of the pier 40 traffic issue, if there is one.

[Derek2k3]

Pier 40 plans
Downtown Express
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_217/lettertotheeditor.html

To The Editor:
My strong desire in writing this letter is to make clear our family’s intense disapproval of The Related Companies’ Pier 40 redevelopment plans.

These proposals would ruin the feeling of a “small town” sports field. I grew up in the suburbs, so I was lucky to have many beautiful and well-kept playing fields for organized sports. The beauty of having Pier 40 is that it is not surrounded by blaring car horns, sirens, tourists, commercial sales or fear that your child will be taken.

Our son has played at Pier 40 since he was 4 years old. He is currently 9 and plays in the Greenwich Village Little League Junior Minors Division. At Pier 40, there is a strong sense of community and a genuine love of youth sports. We often stay after the games to play baseball with our kids on the rooftop field. We have never been charged money or kicked off the field if no one is using it.

This time spent playing sports with our children creates bonding and friendships. We want a healthy environment for our children. My son is constantly exposed to the insanity of our city. There are many places he can go to see a play, a movie, play video or arcade games and buy toys. The last thing we want is to come to our practices or games on Saturday and Sunday and be exposed to any of that. We want to be with families we know, in a quiet place and beautiful “green” space to play sports.

We don’t want either of the two proposals suggested for the pier. Please hear our plea to keep our pier a simple, beautiful field for families to gather and kids to play sports.

Krystn Wagenberg

[ASchwarz]

^
Krystn, PLEASE move your paranoid a-- back to the suburbs, where it belongs.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Well, i think both these plans suck, and I've lived in this city all my life.

This "back to the suburbs" crap is really getting old.

[ASchwarz]

^
Did you bother reading her letter?

"These proposals would ruin the feeling of a “small town” sports field."

She wants a small town, yet she lives in the middle of Manhattan. There are many quiet neighborhoods in the city away from the Manhattan maelstrom.

"I grew up in the suburbs, so I was lucky to have many beautiful and well-kept playing fields for organized sports."

She clearly wants the suburbs, where there is ample space for giant playing fields without competing uses.

"The beauty of having Pier 40 is that it is not surrounded by blaring car horns, sirens, tourists, commercial sales or fear that your child will be taken."

If she is so paranoid that her fellow New Yorkers are aiming to take her child, she needs to go to a gated community far from Manhattan.

"There are many places he can go to see a play, a movie, play video or arcade games and buy toys."

More selfish suburban crap. Besides the fact that she is lying (there are no West Village first run movie theaters or arcades, and while I'm not sure, I can't think of any West Village toy emporiums), the project isn't being built solely for her precious Junior; it is being built to benefit the city at large. Only a selfish person would oppose a project simply because she or her son would not derive a direct benefit.

There's a new playground under construction near my Brooklyn apartment. I guess I should try and block it because I have no children, and the neighborhood already has plenty of places to play.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Yes I read the letter.

My point wasn't what she said, but your dismissive if you don't like it get out.

She could just as well say to you, " Well, I DO live here, and you don't. Why don't you get your a.. back to Brooklyn."

Just as silly.

People who have a stake in the neighborhood should have at least as much right to an opinion as someone who does not, regardless of what that opinion is.

Wanting parks and playgrounds is not an a suburban-only ideal. The fact is that, unlike your Brooklyn neighborhood, there is a shortage of playgrounds and parks in an area that has one of the fastest growing residential populations.

There's a new playground under construction near my Brooklyn apartment. I guess I should try and block it because I have no children, and the neighborhood already has plenty of places to play.A poor example. If a city playground is being built, then the lot is already NYC parkland - as is pier 40.

The debate is not about what to do with development land.

[Derek2k3]

My problem is that Hudson River Park is not a group of individual community playgrounds. Because it is linear it's utilized by New Yorkers and tourists from all over the place.

Pier 40 is the largest pier and the goal should be to redevelop it to benefit the highest number of park goers. Not how can it solve the adjacent neighborhood's space problems.

I thought the Related proposal resolved both issues the best. The community gets their field while the typical stroller gets a destination. People like Krystn who expect to visit a linear park in Manhattan, not deal with kid-snatching outsiders, and expect to have facilities only used by familiar faces are cuckoo. This pier is too big and important to be a community playground.

[MidtownGuy]

^I agree with every word. Well said.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Just because a park is linear doesn't mean it's homogeneous.

With the battle at Gansevoort over the waste transfer station, pier 40 is the only non-linear section of the entire park.

Would you feel differently about Related if the pier was a stand-alone park?

[Derek2k3]

Just because a park is linear doesn't mean it's homogeneous.

Not at all, I just don't think its program should be dictated by the community next to it. It should aspire to just be a great park.

With the battle at Gansevoort over the waste transfer station, pier 40 is the only non-linear section of the entire park.

I'd think further reason to make it a destination.

Would you feel differently about Related if the pier was a stand-alone park?
Actually I would.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I'd think further reason to make it a destination.Why does it have to be a destination? Is this section of the city dead, and in need of density? Do we need something special to attract tourists here?

I think that it being the only non-linear section is all the reason for park use. I don't consider movie-goers park users.

Actually I would.A tenuous connection to Pier A and Pier 99 make all the difference? I just don't see it.

[eddhead]

But right now a valuable plot of highly desirable turf is being monopolized by a relatively small number of people. It is just not practical or reasonable to expect it to stay that way. Nor is it in the best interests of the rest of us.

On one hand I sympathize but on the other I don't think the nearby residents have a right to claim this land as there own. I also did not appreciate the comments about child stealing. That stuff happens in the 'burbs too.. in fact probably more so than in the big bad city

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Read through the thread.

The pier is already parkland. It is not a development parcel.

[lofter1]

It appears that cbtwo's meds are all out of whack tonight.

First aids baiting at the santitation garage thread and now ghetto baiting here.

Why is this allowed?

[ZippyTheChimp]

CBTwo's posts have been deleted, and he was advised that a further remark of that sort will get him banned.

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_222/wouldyheyrather.html

Would they rather be green than red?

By Josh Rogers

The color green has been at the center of many recent Hudson River Park debates — namely where to get the needed greenbacks to build the rest of the promised green space. But Henry Stern, a member of the park Trust’s board, splashed some red into the dispute last week, suggesting that some critics of the park’s plans are socialists.

Stern’s remark criticizing a community report that is critical of the Trust’s Pier 40 development plans, provoked a brief cold war (but no shoe banging) last week at the normally staid board meeting — a venue where people are often addressed as “Mr.” and “Ms.” A newcomer to the group and a member of Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s administration, Suzanne Mattei, sought détente, pointing out that the report from the Pier 40 Working Group backed capitalist ventures on the 14-acre pier at W. Houston St.

Indeed the report is not a call for workers of the park to unite, although it did oppose turning the pier over to a single “private developer whose principal motivation is profit” and knocked one plan because it “raises the specter of expensive pay-for-play and the use of park space for extremely profitable day camp uses.”

Selected quotes aside, the report recommends developing the pier incrementally with private developers, which the Working Group believes would generate more money for the park than either the plan to add theaters, restaurants and retail or the one to add private day camp and indoor field space to the existing public ball fields and parking currently on the pier.

The dustup began with Stern. “Some plans are conceived in a capitalist universe and some are prepared in a socialist universe,” he told Marc Ameruso, chairperson of the Trust’s Advisory Council, which set up the Working Group. Both the council and group are made up of representatives of the nearby community boards, local politicians and waterfront activists.

Stern said the group did not consider the financial difficulty of getting the park built and was not interested in finding a way to make the park self-sustaining, as is the intent of the 1998 law creating the park and the Trust.

“To act in complete disregard for the law will not get you very far,” he said. Stern, the Parks commissioner in the Giuliani and Koch administrations, went on to say the crowds of parents and children who turned up at a public hearing on the pier plans in May were focused on keeping the pier’s field space and were not thinking about the broader issues.

Speaking softly, Ameruso challenged Stern without a hint of anger in his voice. “At the public event, there was not a shred of socialism — it was democracy in action,” Ameruso said. “I would take offense to that. It’s not true.”

Stern backed off, saying he did not think the attendees at the hearing — estimated to be between 1,500 and 2,000 people — were socialists. After the board meeting last week, he said there was nothing explicitly leftwing in the report either, but he thought the subtext was “we don’t think this park should be self-sustaining.”

Adrian Benepe, the current Parks commissioner and also a Trust member, said it would not be fair if general money was used for Pier 40 because it would come out of funds to help parks all around the city. Joe Rose said it was “distressing” that the local group did not factor in the financial pressures on the pier. Rose, Stern and Benepe are mayoral appointees to the Hudson River Park Trust, a state-city public authority.

Julie Nadel, a board member and frequent Trust critic, said it was unfair for her colleagues to attack the Working Group when it was not given all of the financial information the Trust had about the Pier 40 plans. Later she said it appeared the Trust was trying to shift the park’s capital expenses to the pier when the pier is only supposed to generate some of the maintenance costs.

Currently, the pier’s parking garage nets close to $6 million to cover about 40 percent of the riverside park’s maintenance. The Trust has not revealed how much money either Related Companies, which proposes the entertainment-retail center, or Camp Group/Urban Camp, the developer of the camp plan, is offering in annual maintenance but members of the Working Group concluded it is not likely to be more than $5 million, the minimum amount the Trust asked for in its request for proposals.

“Our sense is neither one came in much above that,” said Arthur Schwartz, who wrote the Working Group report’s first draft and is chairperson of Community Board 2’s Waterfront Committee. “Why should they? Both are profit-making operations.”

Tobi Bergman, president of the Pier Park and Playground Association, which operates a youth program on the pier, said he is confident that neither developer offered more operating money than the Trust is currently getting.

No Trust board member disputed the Working Group’s conclusion on that point.

Schwartz said it is also not clear how much money is needed to fix the pier and how imminent the repairs are needed. “It’s always been a range — a real thorough study has never been done,” he said.

Noreen Doyle, the Trust’s executive vice president, said in a telephone interview, that between $20 million and $27 million will have to be spent within the next three years to fix the pier’s roof, piles and part of its façade and acknowledged there is a lot of uncertainty “because it’s not 100 percent black and white….

“If you get a bad surprise on the piles, that number [$4 million - $7 million for the piles] could just grow exponentially.” The Trust’s last complete inspection on the pier was in 2004, but Doyle said the Trust checks annually to make sure the system in place to slow pile deterioration is working.

Schwartz said if the Trust took his group’s incremental approach to private development, it would generate more money for the park and would be less disruptive than the two plans, which would draw more traffic. He said the pier is run “haphazardly” and the Trust should hire a business manager to maximize revenue.

For instance, when the Trust let C & K Properties run the parking up until a few years ago, Schwartz said the company’s owners invested in repairs even though it only had a five-year lease. The Trust subsequently took over the parking, but Schwartz said it could probably find an operator willing to pay for repairs if it offered a long-term lease.

“There are probably a lot of different options rather than giving away the whole pier,” Schwartz said.

Doyle said the Trust is working with Standard Parking on a month-to-month basis and does make short-term changes to increase revenue, but longer-term plans on the pier are on hold because the Trust’s board is focused on a permanent plan.

Most of the local elected officials signed on to the Working Group report except for City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, whose district includes the pier, and state Sen. Tom Duane. Quinn’s spokesperson did not explain her lack of support, but Duane said he agreed with the Working Group’s view but thought it was “prudent” not to vote for it.

Duane thinks he will have more influence with Spitzer and the governor’s future Trust appointees if he leaves his options open.

“One of those developers may be picked and if one is, I will work so the plan comes as close as it possibly can to the Working Group’s recommendation,” he said.

Schwartz, chairperson of the Working Group, said Duane’s position will be of no help. “You can’t say ‘I don’t support it, but I’ll argue for it,’ ” he said. Schwartz would rather work with the report’s supporters including U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, state Sen. Martin Connor, and even his chief political foe, Assemblymember Deborah Glick.

A decision on a pier developer will wait at least a month. Trip Dorkey, the Trust’s chairperson, said farewell to the Trust in May, but he was back running the meeting last week since Spitzer has not picked a successor. Connie Fishman, the Trust’s president, said things are a “bit delayed. Maybe we’ll pick up steam in September.”

Spitzer’s two automatic selections to the Trust, state Parks Commissioner Carol Ash and Dept. of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Pete Grannis, have skipped the last two Trust meetings. Mattei, who runs D.E.C.’s city office, was sitting in for Grannis last week.

Nadel, who was appointed to the Trust by Borough President Scott Stringer, hopes Mattei’s defense of the report is a sign things will change. “She is looking at it with an open and fresh eye and I find that very encouraging,” Nadel said.

And incidentally, Schwartz said Stern was wrong about the report, but right about one of its authors. Yes, Schwartz, a union attorney active in Democratic politics, leans far to the left.

“I am a socialist,” he said. “But the report doesn’t have anything to do with socialism.”

Josh@DowntownExpress.com

[CBTwo]

Thanks for the cut and paste Zip.

I have a simple question, "If the Hudson River Park can not afford to maintain what they have, how can they move forward and try to do future projects such as Gansevoort P. without sources that are not of a developmental nature?"

Perhaps other areas of the Park should be explored to generate funds for the good of the Park, including leasing land to the city for Sanitation purposes and parking violations holding ponds and maybe since city employees enjoy free parking perks, have them coagulate at one pier and bus them to their offices via shuttle bus.

[BrooklynRider]

The park is in existence and being built because of the persistence of activists. The politicians can always be relied on to make things rough.

[infoshare]

I have a simple question, "If the Hudson River Park can not afford to maintain what they have, how can they move forward and try to do future projects such as Gansevoort P. without sources that are not of a developmental nature?"


Some news about funding options (http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_230/millionairesmove.html) for rebuilding pier40.
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_230/millionairesmove.html

[bigkdc]

^^^if they can organize to raise $30MM for pier 40 from charitable donation s in a timely fashion, that would be really impressive.

I guess Friends of the Highline were able to raise a ton of money so you never know

[CBTwo]

Indeed the individuals just might raise the money to rescue Pier 40. Rich C. has been instrumental in getting support for GVLL and other organizations in the community, but my original question was regarding the rest of the HRP plans and how they would finance continuing expansion of facilities with a limited ability to raise funds for same.

It appears the Pier 40 fund raising has to do with only that venue, not the rest of the park. Correct me if I am wrong.

[BigMac]

Downtown Express
Volume 20, Issue 22 | October 12-18, 2007

Editorials

Trust should explore a new partnership

The Pier 40 Partnership is offering a new approach to maintaining and redeveloping Pier 40, the W. Houston St. pier that is of critical importance to the community.

Reflecting the reality of today’s Village, Tribeca and Chelsea, this new group’s 20 core members include very wealthy individuals in finance and dot.coms. Their children go to local schools — public and private — and play baseball and soccer on Pier 40.

Like most of their neighbors, the Partnership parents vehemently oppose The Related Companies’ $626 million proposal to redevelop the 14-acre Hudson pier into a Downtown entertainment destination, with Cirque du Soleil, swank restaurants and more. They can’t fathom the traffic this plan would bring to the neighborhood and park — an estimated 7,400 visitors per day, 2.7 million per year. Even the Hudson River Park Trust and Related acknowledge that there are problems with the traffic plan.

The Trust’s impetus in requesting private developers’ proposals for the pier is to have the developer fund the pier’s repair and ongoing maintenance. The Trust says the pier needs more than $20 million in work in the next three years. Related has offered to invest $35 million into Pier 40 — some of it for repairs but also to add reinforcement to support all the structures it would add to the pier.

Whether Related would even pay any more rent to the Trust than what the pier’s current parking operation generates — $5 million to $6 million annually — is unclear.

The Partnership would fund the pier’s renovation, too. They say they can raise $30 million. We hear they already have commitments of $12 million. If financial support at this level were indeed obtained for pier repair, it could change the Pier 40 equation and allow other more community-supported solutions to emerge.

These concerned parents want to protect the environment for their children that has evolved in the last few years at Pier 40 since the interim courtyard sports field was built. They don’t want the field moved to the roof, thousands of tourists or Las Vegas-style attractions.

The Trust should seriously investigate this opportunity — now — while these folks still have kids batting and booting balls on the pier.

Perhaps Deputy Mayor Doctoroff, the Trust board’s vice chairperson — with a history of financial dealings with Related C.E.O. Steve Ross — supports Related’s plan, but the community resoundingly does not. The Trust’s new chairperson, Diana Taylor, exudes a new openness, so we’re hopeful that community-minded solutions, like the Partnership’s, will be taken seriously. She said she will consider all options before making a decision.

But Taylor also told us it is a “big if” whether the Partnership can raise the money it claims it can and she is concerned about putting Pier 40 in jeopardy. A little skepticism about the Partnership’s fundraising capabilities is prudent, but the park’s long-term prospects would be in greater risk if the Trust pushed through a plan that is opposed by thousands of its users.

Private citizens mobilized to save a treasured community asset, the Partnership offers an intriguing alternative to the Pier 40 massive-development dilemma.

© 2007 Community Media, LLC

[CBTwo]

Pier 40 is used by more than just children of parents that live in the community. One has only to go over there late in the day or early in the morning and see it's used by adults from all over the city. It's a citywide jewel box opened for the enjoyment of many that don't have access to playing fields.

[projectsnyc]

perhaps this is something that a group like the Friends of Hudson River Park should do, assuming that they stake out positions independent of HRPT staff.

this just in www.sohopolitics.com

Apparently, Douglas Durst, the developer/head of Friends of Hudson River Park has seen fit to give Al Butzel his walking papers. Within the last six months or so, things have not been hunky-dory at FOHRP and there has been some gnashing of teeth at the community response to Butzel's particular charms.

There is no doubt that Al is one of the most knowledgeable people downtown when it comes to Waterfront issues. He has been liked and disliked by many an activist and bureaucrat but he did know his stuff.

However, a few public verbal fisticuffs have tarnished his usually charming patina, particularly at a recent Board #1 meeting where he and David Reck had "words."

What is being discussed in lieu of his present position as President is a "consulting" role.

[lofter1]

Your link is no good ^^^

[CBTwo]

The link is working now. There are a series of articles, the one mentioned above is one of them.

[ASchwarz]

Pier 40 is used by more than just children of parents that live in the community. One has only to go over there late in the day or early in the morning and see it's used by adults from all over the city. It's a citywide jewel box opened for the enjoyment of many that don't have access to playing fields.

That's great, and happily they will continue to enjoy Pier 40 under the Related proposal.

Since you apparently place a high value on "the enjoyment of many", I can only assume you will be working in support of the Related proposal, which will benefit far more people than the unworkable "People's Pavillion" or whatever the NIMBY do-nothing proposal is calling itself.

[ASchwarz]

That Downtown Express article is such crap. How on earth does this "newspaper" know whether the Village supports one proposal or the other? We all know that the usual group of people will oppose anything being built anywhere in the neighborhood. This group of activists might make up 5% of the neighborhood. What about the other 95%?

Also, why is it important what a few people in the immediate neighborhood think? This is the City of New York, not some tiny suburb. City projects should only be considered on the basis of overall city priorities, not based on the priorities of a few rich locals. If city projects were sited based only on neighborood preferences, nothing could ever be accomplished.

Why is it more important what the Village thinks about the Pier, as opposed to what Canarsie (for example) thinks about the pier? This is Manhattan, which is used by the city (and the region) as a whole. Some obscure corner of Staten Island should have some local input, but people who choose to live in the middle of a global crossroads cannot expect to have their parochial interests override the benefits to millions of residents and visitors.

[CBTwo]

If the use of the pier was only for the "immediate" neighborhood that would be a waste of open space. What would one consider the "immediate" neighborhood? Christopher to Spring, Varick to the river?

I'm not sure who all these other people who are using the pier for soccer and other sports are, but I am sure they are not from the "immediate" neighborhood. There just aren't that many people in the "immediate" neighborhood.

Plus although the pier is large, a million residents and visitors, let alone millions of residents and visitors using the facilities over the weekends would overtax the seven available toilets. Some of which are not working.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Why is it more important what the Village thinks about the Pier, as opposed to what Canarsie (for example) thinks about the pier? benefits to millions of residents and visitors.Because it is a park, not a site for commercial development.

Does the entire city get equal weight as to how the Canarsie Pier (for example) is developed?

No, it doesn't. Because, Canarsie Pier, like Pier 40, is a neighborhood park. It's no different than Brooklyn Bridge Park or any park in the city. The local community always gets a greater say.

[MidtownGuy]

There is a difference. Pier 40 is part of a larger park, and it is in Manhattan, the center of New York City. It isn't some local park like Canarsie Pier, out in the boonies. I think that's a bit out of line to compare it to Canarsie. Who cares what they do way out there. This is a high profile location, reasonably close to many other attractions. I don't think it's useful to lump it in with every other patch of grass or pier in the outer boroughs and try to persuade us it's no different when it obviously is.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I only mentioned Canarsie Pier because ASchwarz brought up Canarsie. I included Brooklyn Bridge Park as well.

Then principle is the same for all NYC parks. The city gets involved through the parks department and City Council, but only the particular CBs get are included.

When HRP was chartered, it was specifically noted that the state, city, and CB for each segment would decide the development.

[ASchwarz]

Because it is a park, not a site for commercial development.

Does the entire city get equal weight as to how the Canarsie Pier (for example) is developed?

No, it doesn't. Because, Canarsie Pier, like Pier 40, is a neighborhood park. It's no different than Brooklyn Bridge Park or any park in the city. The local community always gets a greater say.

Central Park, Hudson River Park, Brooklyn Bridge Park, Prospect Park, Flushing Meadows, etc. are not neighborhood parks, they are citywide parks. I live five miles from Prospect Park but use it almost every weekend.

The city as a whole should decide on a course of action for the major, citywide parks. Locals should not be able to thwart citywide needs. The Canarsie Pier is more of a neighborhood pier, and the locals should have more input. Nobody from Soho goes to Canarsie Pier.

More importantly, we are not talking about a park per se. We are talking about commerical development which funds the park.

[lofter1]

What part of this \/ regarding the HRP Charter isn't clear?



When HRP was chartered, it was specifically noted that the state, city, and CB for each segment would decide the development.

[ASchwarz]

What part of this \/ regarding the HRP Charter isn't clear?

If it's true, it should be modified to simply read city and state. Local CBs should not have equal weight on a citywide resource.

[lofter1]

Seems a few folks want to re-write all sorts of provisions included in the well negotiated and legally binding HRP Charter (dredging, infill, Gansevoort Penisnula, Pier 40, CB input, Trash sites, etc. etc.).

If folks are serious about this rather than just griping they'd be best to hire some expensive lawyers and get busy lobbying because such proposed changes will be hard fought.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Central Park, Hudson River Park, Brooklyn Bridge Park, Prospect Park, Flushing Meadows, etc. are not neighborhood parks, they are citywide parks. I live five miles from Prospect Park but use it almost every weekend..What parks you go to has nothing to do with what I said.

When changes are proposed to ANY NYC park, it is presented to the CB(s) in which the park is located. ANY park. That's what happened at Brooklyn Bridge Park. Pier 40 is no different. What is specific in the HRP charter is that each CB would have a say in the segment of the park that is within its district, rather than all the CBs acting collectively. Even if that were eliminated, the other CBs throughout the city would still not get a vote.

The vote, BTW, is strictly advisory. Look what happened at Washington Square. The neighborhood rejected the renovation plans, and the city ignored them.

The voice that you, and all NYC residents, have is through the City Council, which has the final say.

[CBTwo]

Pier 40 is hardly on the same scale as Central Park, Prospect Park or Flushing Meadows. It can't even fit two full sized baseball fields inside the "doughnut". And why should that particular section of the park be the major financial source for the rest of the park?

It's a small scale "neighborhood" park (large for that neighborhood) that happens to entertain a lot of people from out of the "neighborhood."

[ASchwarz]

Pier 40 is hardly on the same scale as Central Park, Prospect Park or Flushing Meadows. It can't even fit two full sized baseball fields inside the "doughnut". And why should that particular section of the park be the major financial source for the rest of the park?

It's a small scale "neighborhood" park (large for that neighborhood) that happens to entertain a lot of people from out of the "neighborhood."

Pier 40 is part of Hudson River Park, which is one of the biggest and most popular parks in Manhattan.

It it the furthest thing from a typical neighborhood playground/park.

[CBTwo]

Just because a park is linear doesn't mean it's homogeneous.

With the battle at Gansevoort over the waste transfer station, pier 40 is the only non-linear section of the entire park.

Would you feel differently about Related if the pier was a stand-alone park?

As Zip noted above I am confused about comparing totally different park experiences.

I never did a square footage calculation of HRP vs other large parks in the city. Perhaps some of the other members here on this blog have. But at the same time it is difficult to equate a contiguous linear experience with a park such as those mentioned earlier. What is the linear footage of the bridle paths at Central Park versus the jogging paths of the HRP? We need figures here to compare apples to ipods.

[ASchwarz]

Hudson River Park is 550 acres, which makes it the second largest park in Manhattan.

http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/HRPT/park.htm

For comparison, Prospect Park is 585 acres and Central Park is 843 acres.

[CBTwo]

Thanks for the figures ASchwarz.

Now my next question is what is the percentage of those major parks dedicated to bike and running pathways relative to the green (passive) and/or active recreational space not assigned to biking or running paths? One would probably see that HRP is basically a very long bike and running path.

[CBTwo]

Here's an interesting twist on Pier 40.

Pier 40 garbage trucks smell sweet to some By Josh Rogers
If you think community activists would be leading the opposition to a plan to put garbage trucks in a waterfront park, guess again. Some of them have begun to float the idea of moving trucks to Pier 40 to drive off a proposed entertainment center to be built near the pier’s playing fields.
“Sports uses can live with sanitation if it is done properly,” said Tobi Bergman, who runs youth programs on Pier 40 as the head of Pier, Park and Playground.
“There is no advantage to having [other] activity on the waterfront,” said Bergman, also a member of Community Board 2. “The waterfront should be for recreation. Sixty trucks are better than 1,000 cars coming to an entertainment complex.”
Bergman, like others who look favorably on the idea, said it needs further study. He said the plan could solve several problems. The Dept. of Sanitation is moving forward with its plan to build a 140-foot garage for three Sanitation Districts on a UPS-owned lot at Spring and Washington Sts. The garage tower has strong community opposition, although probably not as much as the Related Companies’ Pier 40 plan for a Cirque du Soleil theater, a music hall, a multiplex cinema, restaurants, a banquet hall and retail shops. Related would retain the field space and car parking on the pier.
Pier 40 sanitation idea
*Move the sanitation trucks that have to come off Gansevoort Peninsula as part of a lawsuit settlement to Pier 40, rather than the city’s preferred location on a UPS parking lot at Spring and Washington Sts.

*Use some of the hundreds of millions of dollars the city plans to invest in the Spring St. garage to repair Pier 40 and secure its long-term future. The Spring St. lot could be developed residentially, adding to the city tax rolls.

*Community leaders who have spoken favorably about this plan say the sanitation trucks would be less disruptive to Pier 40 sports activities than the Related Companies’ plan to build an entertainment center.

*The idea would require a change to state law, as would the city’s plan to build a marine transfer station for garbage on Gansevoort.


The 15-acre Houston St. pier needs an estimated $25-$30 million in repairs and the Hudson River Park Trust, a state-city public authority, is anxious to find a developer to secure the pier’s as well as the park’s long-term future. Much of the pier building is vacant and would need a large investment to open. In an interview in the spring, Connie Fishman, the Trust’s president, estimated it would cost about $80-$100 per square foot to bring about 175,000 square feet of space on the pier up to code — as much as $17.5 million, according to the estimate. During his regular report to the Trust’s board last week, Marc Ameruso, a Community Board 1 member and the chairperson of the Hudson River Park’s Advisory Council, said the sanitation idea is worth exploring. When he said the Sanitation Dept. was planning to invest $400 million in new Dow