Pier 40 - Hudson River Park [Archive] - Page 2

pianoman11686

April 27th, 2007, 01:02 PM

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

April 27th, 2007, 02:32 PM

"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

April 27th, 2007, 06:24 PM

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

April 28th, 2007, 11:30 AM

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

April 28th, 2007, 06:27 PM

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

April 29th, 2007, 09:54 PM

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

April 29th, 2007, 10:28 PM

God, this process is stupid.

londonlawyer

April 29th, 2007, 10:38 PM

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

May 1st, 2007, 02:05 PM

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

May 2nd, 2007, 10:33 PM

londonlawyer

May 2nd, 2007, 11:56 PM

clubBR

May 3rd, 2007, 12:30 AM

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

CBTwo

May 3rd, 2007, 02:49 PM

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

May 3rd, 2007, 05:01 PM

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

May 3rd, 2007, 05:04 PM

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

May 3rd, 2007, 07:43 PM

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

May 3rd, 2007, 07:59 PM

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

May 3rd, 2007, 08:25 PM

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

May 3rd, 2007, 10:29 PM

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

May 11th, 2007, 11:31 AM

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

May 11th, 2007, 01:16 PM

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

May 17th, 2007, 12:15 PM

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

CBTwo

May 30th, 2007, 06:47 PM

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

June 1st, 2007, 10:21 PM

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

June 2nd, 2007, 09:24 AM

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

bigkdc

June 2nd, 2007, 10:11 AM

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

June 2nd, 2007, 10:52 PM

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

June 2nd, 2007, 11:05 PM

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

June 3rd, 2007, 08:56 AM

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

June 4th, 2007, 08:36 PM

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

June 5th, 2007, 10:41 AM

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

June 16th, 2007, 06:00 PM

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

June 16th, 2007, 06:13 PM

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

bigkdc

June 18th, 2007, 11:24 AM

BrooklynRider

June 18th, 2007, 02:14 PM

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

June 18th, 2007, 02:20 PM

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

June 18th, 2007, 02:31 PM

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

June 18th, 2007, 04:37 PM

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

July 10th, 2007, 09:36 AM

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

July 10th, 2007, 09:40 AM

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

ZippyTheChimp

July 10th, 2007, 09:46 AM

^
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

July 10th, 2007, 10:16 AM

^
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

July 10th, 2007, 10:34 AM

^
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

July 10th, 2007, 11:16 AM

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

July 10th, 2007, 11:21 AM

^I agree with every word. Well said.

ZippyTheChimp

July 10th, 2007, 11:31 AM

Derek2k3

July 10th, 2007, 12:12 PM

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

July 10th, 2007, 12:47 PM

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

July 10th, 2007, 01:05 PM

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

July 10th, 2007, 01:07 PM

^
Read through the thread.

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

lofter1

July 14th, 2007, 02:23 AM

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

July 14th, 2007, 06:11 AM

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

ZippyTheChimp

August 10th, 2007, 09:11 AM

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

August 13th, 2007, 07:49 PM

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

August 14th, 2007, 10:07 PM

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

October 6th, 2007, 09:34 PM

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

October 8th, 2007, 08:43 AM

^^^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

October 10th, 2007, 06:09 PM

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

October 12th, 2007, 01:16 PM

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

October 12th, 2007, 09:58 PM

projectsnyc

October 14th, 2007, 09:24 AM

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

October 14th, 2007, 10:26 AM

Your link is no good ^^^

CBTwo

October 16th, 2007, 09:10 PM

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

ASchwarz

October 16th, 2007, 11:55 PM

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

October 17th, 2007, 12:00 AM

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

October 17th, 2007, 06:35 PM

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

October 17th, 2007, 07:29 PM

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

October 17th, 2007, 09:40 PM

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

October 17th, 2007, 10:03 PM

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

October 18th, 2007, 11:35 AM

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

October 18th, 2007, 11:53 AM

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

October 18th, 2007, 12:05 PM

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

October 18th, 2007, 12:19 PM

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

October 18th, 2007, 01:08 PM

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

October 18th, 2007, 01:53 PM

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

October 18th, 2007, 02:14 PM

CBTwo

October 18th, 2007, 07:48 PM

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

October 19th, 2007, 07:07 PM

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

October 20th, 2007, 09:48 PM

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

December 8th, 2007, 12:12 AM

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 Downtown facilities and that money could go to the park, Diana Taylor, the Trust’s chairperson, appeared to be keenly interested in the idea as she started nodding her head in agreement repeatedly.
Taylor did not return a call for comment.
Julie Nadel, a member of the Trust’s board and C.B. 1, said the subject did not come up when the Trust board went into executive session Thursday, but she thinks it is worth considering.
“I think it’s an extremely interesting idea,” she said. “It could solve a lot of problems.”
The 1998 state law that created the Hudson River Park forbids municipal uses on Pier 40, but Nadel said the law would not be a “deal-breaker.” Nadel cut her political teeth working for Assemblymember Dick Gottfried — who later co-wrote the park act — and she said if there is a consensus in the community and among Downtown assemblymembers, it would not be hard to amend the law.
That consensus, if possible, will take some time. Assemblymember Deborah Glick, whose district includes Hudson Square, Tribeca and the Village, said last week that the Pier 40 sanitation idea is an old notion that unfortunately has resurfaced.
“I don’t think it’s a great idea,” Glick said in an interview with Community Media L.L.C. editors. “I have spent more time looking at Related, which is a dreadful idea — which everybody is clear on is a dreadful idea — and I suspect that if there was a little more floating of the garbage truck idea on Pier 40, people would be just as disturbed.”
Glick, who is fighting the city’s plan to build a sanitation marine transfer station on the park’s Gansevoort Peninsula, said Spring St. is an appropriate place for one or perhaps two sanitation districts. She and others who oppose the Gansevoort marine transfer station and a three-district garage on Spring St., have suggested alternatives in Clinton.
The Sanitation Dept. currently parks trucks on Gansevoort, but the city has to move them as part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed by Friends of Hudson River Park. The city has just begun the approval process to move them to the new garage to be built on the UPS lot on Spring St. The Gansevoort transfer station, which will include a recycling education center, will not require truck parking, but like Pier 40 garbage trucks, it would also violate the Hudson River Park law.
Glick said she would be willing to talk to the city and the Trust about the broader sanitation and park-money needs and ideas, but so far the city has not been an “honest broker.” She said when she presented Sanitation officials with a report recommending the Pier 76 tow pound as a marine transfer alternative, one took a few seconds to thumb through the report and declare it would cost $400 million to build.
Glick also wants to see the recommendation of the Pier 40 Partnership, a high-powered group of parents who have told the Trust it can raise between $10-$30 million to pay for the Pier 40 repairs in order to block the Related plan.
The Trust’s Taylor has given the Partnership a Dec. 15 deadline to come up with its own Pier 40 plan. The Trust is also considering a plan by Urban Dove/CampGroup to maintain the fields and open indoor recreation and camp space to provide at least $5 million in annual revenue to the Trust.
The Trust has raised financial questions about CampGroup’s plan and it is not clear how seriously the group is being considered. Taylor and another Trust board member, Carol Ash, the state Parks commissioner, have both told Downtown Express that they think the Partnership should also talk to Related about a compromise plan and did not mention the camp proposal.
Related executives and Trust staff leaders acknowledged in the spring that Related’s traffic plan needed to be changed, and the Trust has not said there have been any adjustments since then. Joanna Rose, Related’s spokesperson, said the firm has met with the Partnership and has made unspecified changes to its plan as a result.
“Related remains excited to bring high performance ball fields and over 10 acres of waterfront open space to Pier 40 while ensuring its future viability with critical infrastructure investments,” she wrote in a statement to Downtown Express. “We are pleased with the progress we have made working with the Pier 40 Partnership which has already resulted in improvements that will make a more responsive project for the community.”
The Partnership’s Rich Caccappolo, who helped start iVillage Inc. and is also president of the Greenwich Village Little League, declined to comment for this article.
Bergman said in addition to overrunning the park with traffic, the Related and Spring St. sanitation plans would slow the residential growth of Hudson Square and create pressure to transform the neighborhood into a hotel-entertainment center.
Richard Forte, director of real estate operations for Eugene M. Grant & Co., which owns the St. John’s building across the street from Pier 40, told Downtown Express several weeks ago that if the Related plan is approved, he would be inclined to build a 300,000-square foot hotel tower on the building, but if it is not, the Grant firm would be more likely to build condominiums.
UPS had been considering developing some of its lot residentially, but when the city made an eminent domain threat, UPS entered into talks to retain parking in the city’s proposed sanitation garage, according to UPS.
The Trust hopes to pick a Pier 40 group in January, but Bergman said with so much happening in the neighborhood, the Trust and city should take the time to consider whether or not sanitation on the pier is the best solution.
“Hudson Square has been off the beaten track until now, but what happens there is going to have a huge impact on Soho, the Village and Tribeca, and there shouldn’t be a rush into it,” he said. “It’s never too late to do something that’s right.”
Josh@DowntownExpress.com

bigkdc

December 8th, 2007, 08:42 AM

Yes I saw that - very interesting. It does seem to solve a lot of problems.

If the city can fund the renovation of the pier as part of placing the garbage trucks there that is a big win. That being said, I don't think Related is going to give up that easily. In the related vision, would cirque du soleil run 365 days/year?

As I have mentioned before, the spring st garage as currently planned is insanity to me given how valuable that piece of land is.

When you look at which plan does the most for the collective value in the area and surrounding neighborhoods, the trucks on pier 40 option has to compare fairly well (assuming they develop the spring st site with some sort of residential).

projectsnyc

December 8th, 2007, 09:37 AM

I'm looking at a chart prepared for DSNY for Block 675 (vehicle trips in and out on a peak day). It shows that out of the 236 movements in a typical day for CD2, all but 11 trips take place at the same time that kids are in school or in bed. Generally there is even less traffic on the weekends.

DSNY has over $300MM to spend on building downtown district garage facilities. At least we can keep Pier 40 afloat (and Related afar) by investing this public money in infrastructure that everyone can use.

CBTwo

December 9th, 2007, 06:28 PM

But at the same time if it needs a legislation change to allow DSNY vehicles on Pier 40, wouldn't it be easier to just allow them to stay on the Gannsevort Pennisula and rehabilitate that site?

lofter1

December 9th, 2007, 11:04 PM

A very good point ^

But by letting the game play out the way it is now (Neighborhoods screaming: "Put the trucks on Pier 40!" <> "No, leave them on Gansevoort!") the City and DOS have succeeded in pitting neighborhoods against each other (when the legal and correct thing to do would have been to move the trucks to the lots south of Hudson Yards -- as was previously discussed and agreed to).

And meanwhile the City moves ahead with plans for garage, etc. on the Spring Street site.

pianoman11686

December 9th, 2007, 11:42 PM

Am I missing something here? These people are actually pushing to have a waste transfer station instead of Related's Pier 40 plan?

ASchwarz

December 9th, 2007, 11:43 PM

LOL, at least the NIMBYs are honest and admit their only interest is in keeping out ANYTHING positive, and blocking all outsiders from Manhattan, even if it means garbage trucks, stench and danger 24/7.

For a typical West Village NIMBY, even speeding diesel trucks full of stinking garbage are considered better than theatres and cinemas!

Of course, these busybody losers once again miss the point. The purpose of Pier 40 is to find REVENUE for the remainder of the Hudson River Park. The Related proposal funds the park. None of their brilliant alternatives have ever been considerable revenue-generating enterprises.

ASchwarz

December 9th, 2007, 11:45 PM

Am I missing something here? These people are actually pushing to have a waste transfer station instead of Related's Pier 40 plan?

Nope. They are completely serious.

I bet you they would take a nuclear waste storage site secured by rent-a-cops over theatres and art-house cinemas. They really are that insane. To them, ANYTHING is better than "development" which is defined as any private, revenue-generating use.

pianoman11686

December 10th, 2007, 12:06 AM

I remember thinking this anti-development fight was ludicrous months ago; now, I'm just baffled by it.

I actually think this could qualify as grounds for insanity. Some people need to reevaluate their priorities.

bigkdc

December 10th, 2007, 12:31 AM

A few things:

- idea is for a garbage truck garage on pier 40; not a transfer station
- those in the hudson square community are thinking their choice is between a) a truck garage on spring st and the related plan for pier 40 and b) a truck garage at pier 40 and most likely some sort of residential development on spring. Plan b is preferable to some as it takes the garage across the highway and not smack in the middle of the neighborhood and it allows for a prime piece of real estate (the ups site) to be used for a more value creating purpose

I don't think preferring plan b is all that insane.

ASchwarz

December 10th, 2007, 01:18 AM

^
"Plan B" (not really a plan, just some guy's idea) is insane and unworkable, as Pier 40 is exclusively reserved for revenue-generating uses to fund Hudson River Park in perpetuity.

Now it's true that you could tear up the Hudson River Park Act and start over, but this would be pretty foolish. And there's still no way that truck garages are going to be allowed in the middle of the park.

investordude

December 10th, 2007, 01:31 AM

What is the objection to it> Tickets for cirque du soleil are expensive and most of the time its couples who go. I could see people objecting to a nightclub, but this is just ridiculous - they are worried a bunch of couples, few of who will be in their rowdy early twenties given the ticket prices, will do what exactly?

The garbage trucks would almost certainly be more noisy than the theater.

bigkdc

December 10th, 2007, 07:55 AM

Actually I live in the area and I know of many folks who are in favor of the related plan (vs the old people's plan) but are infuriated about the truck garage on spring. If given the choice they would put the garage on the pier (ie, they are more against the garage than they are for the related plan). If we were to assume the garage is going to be on spring no matter what, then there are many folks who support the related plan.

Does anyone have an example of a waterfront development that would be a good comp for this? Is it the south street seaport or is it meant to be higher end?

ZippyTheChimp

December 10th, 2007, 09:00 AM

^
If people are opposed to the Related Plan, they favor the pier be developed as park. As pure development, there is nothing wrong with Related's proposal.

So they're left explaining garbage trucks as a park asset. Good luck with that.

Fortunately, the scope of this ridiculous idea goes beyond a narrow group of people who would do ANYTHING to keep the garage off the UPS site.

Good luck changing the law.

projectsnyc

December 11th, 2007, 07:32 AM

The major problem with Related was that they tried to get the pier on the cheap, supposedly offering only the minimum of $5MM in annual rent that HRPT was getting now from the parking concession. I've heard of studies showing that at least $10-12MM is possible by updating the parking lay-out.

Assuming that DSNY invests $50-$100MM to rebuild the Pier infrastructure for garage and office purposes, this will mesh well with HRPT using the pier as their operational headquarters (and requiring 100,000 sf for similar purposes).
Using the northern head house makes the storage of these vehicles relatively transparent for park users. As I pointed out in an earlier post, entrance and egress is generally not in conflict with after-school and pre-bedtime hours.

Finally, assuming some sort of Marine Transfer Station somewhere (Gansevoort Peninsula, Pier 76 or Block 675 by rail) it would be best to keep the DSNY trucks on Route 9A instead of city streets.

CBTwo

December 11th, 2007, 04:08 PM

Strangely enough garbage trucks can be an asset to the park if that generates an annual revenue source. One thing for certain is that the city is not going out of business soon (unlike the possibility of a private developer's tenants) and if the revenue generated by parking those trucks add to the general fund, along with the Pier 40 parking garage revenues, and helps fill the coffers of HRPT, I would say yes it is a plus for the Hudson River Park Trust.

Perhaps not the best solution, but one that lowers the impact on the neighborhood.

Again it's an alternate solution, not a final solution.

BigMac

December 17th, 2007, 12:42 PM

Downtown Express
December 14-20

Honing Pier 40 plans as deadline nears

By Josh Rogers

There are new details about all three plans for Pier 40’s future.

The Pier 40 Partnership, the newest group to enter the picture, will propose stacking cars in the existing garage to increase parking revenue on the 14-acre Houston St. pier, which has Downtown’s largest playing fields. The Partnership is made up of local parents who are raising money for the pier. The group is likely to propose several recommendations made at a recent meeting of block associations to discuss the pier — indoor recreation space, a school or an arts center, according to the Partnership’s Rich Caccappolo.

CampGroup and Urban Dove, which submitted their “People’s Pier” plan to the Hudson River Park Trust a year ago, are no longer planning to charge non-profit organizations for the pier’s roof field, and this field may now be expanded from 110 feet to 130 feet wide. The firms are considering a small bridge to separate pedestrians from traffic. They have also provided additional financing documents to the Hudson River Park Trust in response to Trust concerns about the plan’s viability, and would add an additional $8 million to repair the pier.

Related Companies has made relatively minor changes to their plan, according to Partnership members who met with the developer four times. The firm refused to consider eliminating any of five revenue-generating components of their plan – a Cirque du Soleil theater, a movie theater, banquet hall, concert hall or retail shops. Related did say they would add ivy wind protection to the pier’s proposed roof fields and remove a large sign at the front of the pier, according to the Partnership. Related, like the other plans, would retain the pier’s parking facilities.

“We tried very hard to get Related to understand why the community opposed their plan and what we wanted changed,” said the Partnership’s Fred Wilson. “They just couldn’t do it. It’s not that they didn’t want to — it’s just the financial burdens of a $625 million plan.”

In separate telephone interviews, Caccappolo and the Partnership’s Craig Balsam gave similar accounts of their talks with Related.

Joanna Rose, Related’s spokesperson, did not confirm or deny the Partnership’s assertions. She did say Related made unspecified changes as a result of the meetings in a prepared statement last week. She said the Trust hopes to meet more with the Partnership, other local groups and the Trust, in a subsequent statement Wednesday.

“We look forward to continued conversations with the Pier 40 Working Group, Pier 40 Partnership, H.R.P.T. and the community to secure Pier 40’s long-term future and ensure it remains a spectacular sports location for the city’s families with larger, high performance fields,” Rose wrote.

In the spring, Trust staff said there were traffic problems with both the Related and People’s plan, and a Related executive acknowledged their traffic plan needed to be changed. Partnership members said Related did not mention any traffic changes, nor did Rose in her statements.

Jai Nanda, founder and executive director of Urban Dove, said his team is now considering a pedestrian bridge or other safety improvements. They have already added landscaping and reduced the size of the car turnaround in front of the pier, which Nanda thought will also have some safety benefits. His team’s plan includes adding day camp and indoor recreation space to the pier’s parking and field space.

The Partnership is likely to suggest indoor recreation too, although the group has not decided how much time would be free to local groups and how much would be for paid adult leagues. Wilson said they worked on their own plan because of widespread concern that CampGroup/Urban Dove did not have the money to proceed.

“We have picked up on a lot of skepticism on the Trust’s staff, its board and community groups about the viability of the People’s Pier plan,” he said.

Wilson said he likes the People plan and he thinks the Partnership would be willing to help them if the Trust thought a combined effort was the best solution.

Nanda and Mark Benerofe of CampGroup said they had productive meetings with the Partnership and are open to entering into a formal agreement with them if the details can be worked out. “It makes sense, but how would it work,” Nanda said.

In response to Trust concerns raised in the spring, the People team submitted documents showing they could raise “well in excess of the $160 million” needed to build its plan, Nanda said. CampGroup submitted documents showing it had $20 million of equity for the plan and Urban Dove had an additional $5 million. Nanda said he felt the group satisfied all of the Trust’s financial questions at a meeting about a month ago.

“They asked pointed questions so it did seem like they were still considering us,” he said.

The Partnership’s plan was due Sat., Dec. 15 but Caccappolo said they expect to get the entire weekend to finish it and plan to submit it on Mon., Dec. 17. The group has hired HR&A Advisors, an economic consulting firm that worked on the High Line park plan.

The Trust board hopes to make a decision by the end of January. Related had seemed like the favored plan for quite some time, but two sources who speak often with the Trust decision makers said it now seems like the public authority is cooling to the plan.

Caccappolo said the Partnership, which includes some wealthy members, would be able to cover short-term financial “holes” needed to repair the pier until the revenue plans were fully in place. The group wants to give the Trust a low-impact plan to continue the sports uses, rather than run the pier itself, he added.

Members are still crunching the numbers, Caccappolo said, and they are not sure if an art center would generate enough money or if the city would be willing to pay some of the pier’s repair costs to build a school.

The Partnership formed this year after community uproar over the Related plan, dubbed “Vegas on the Hudson” by critics. About 1,500 people showed up to a Trust meeting on the plans in the spring. Parents and children from Battery Park City and Tribeca took buses to the Village meeting, which also drew parents from all over Downtown.

Assemblymember Deborah Glick said she had concerns about private individuals raising money to influence plans for a public park, but given the alternatives and the Partnership’s civic mindedness, the group may be the best option.

“If I can work with private folks who want to keep public space for public use rather than sell it off to a developer, which is public space for private use,” Glick said, “I don’t really have the same problems.”

Josh@DowntownExpress.com

© 2007 Community Media, LLC

ASchwarz

December 17th, 2007, 01:33 PM

Gee, that article wasn't too biased.

Do The Villager and Downtown Express actually exist as independent entities, or are they just mouthpieces for a few cranky NIMBY types?

They recycle the same garbage week after week, with choice quotes from the same three people.

bigkdc

December 21st, 2007, 07:48 AM

Every newspaper is biased but they do seem to be more obvious about it. Actually the Brooklyn Eagle does a pretty good job at being balanced on the issues but they still have an editorial slant.

Has anyone heard if the car garage will have to keep the same pricing or will they be allowed to raise the prices once the development is done?

BigMac

December 21st, 2007, 10:15 AM

Downtown Express
December 21, 2007

Pier 40 group says non-profit operator is the only answer

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_241/pier4o.gif
CampGroup and Urban Dove is now considering adding a pedestrian bridge to make it safer to get to the pier.

By Josh Rogers
With reporting by Sebastian Kahnert

Creating a non-profit conservancy with access to tax-free bonds is the only feasible way to save the Pier 40 fields from big developers, a new report concludes.

The Pier 40 Partnership study, released Dec. 19, estimates the pier is in need of at least $125 million worth of repairs — a figure far higher than the $30 million estimate of the Hudson River Park Trust or of the two development teams bidding to redevelop the pier.

One of the bidders, Related Companies, also unveiled traffic and other changes to its $625 million plan for an entertainment center Wednesday, although it did not eliminate any of the major uses that have raised community objections.

Chris McGinnis, a member of the Partnership, a high-powered parents group, said he pressed their engineering consultants to find possible Trust cost exaggerations, but he found just the opposite — that the pier’s repair needs were much higher than he feared.

“I said you have to tone it down, don’t accept the Trust’s assumptions,” McGinnis said at a Pier 40 Working Group meeting Wednesday morning. “They said the Trust is right. They’re telling you the truth. The pier needs an overhaul.”

Trust officials had previously warned that their estimates of the pier’s needs were based on engineering surveys done a few years ago and the actual costs could change. The two estimates are also not necessarily in complete contradiction since the Trust’s estimate is for repairs needed within the next three years, and the Partnership acknowledges that some of the repairs may not have to be done right away, or at all.

The report was prepared by HR&A Advisors, an economic consulting firm, which worked with Langan Engineering, Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects and Denis Molner Design, a parking consultant.

The Partnership’s $280 million plan (which the group prefers to call a study even though members occasionally slip and use the p-word) includes keeping the playing fields as is, expanding the park walkways and green space, increasing the parking to 2,800 spaces, adding a public school or university facility and an arts center with small, for-profit galleries.

Daniel Fuchs, an HR&A analyst, said the Dept. of Education is “very enthusiastic” about a 100,000-square-foot school, and that both New York University and the New School University have expressed interest in as much as 300,000 square feet.

A D.O.E. spokesperson said the city does not comment on school sites that may be under consideration, and N.Y.U. declined to comment. But Caroline Oyama, the New School’s spokesperson, confirmed that “we’ve had discussions and we are interested.”

The Partnership, which includes millionaire members, has said previously that it could raise as much as $30 million to fix the pier and the report says a Pier 40 conservancy would need $30 million in private donations. The bulk of the needed money, $206 million, would come from tax-exempt financing that would be done through the city. The Trust, which was created out of the old Hudson River Park Conservancy, is legally prevented from issuing bonds. The rest of the $280 million — $8.5 million in equity and $34 million in taxable loans — would come from a private developer interested in either the arts center or additional university space.

The group estimates it will cost about $130 million to build out the pier space once it is stabilized. Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, which is currently building a recreation center in Tribeca, said the fit-out costs sounded too low. “I think you are looking at $100 a square foot,” he said. [$130 million] seems low.”

After the meeting, McGinnis referred questions on the Partnership report to his fellow member, Rich Caccappolo, who declined to comment Wednesday.

The Partnership estimates it will generate $24.5 million in gross revenue, with the most being $13 million from parking for an expanded 2,800 spaces, $4.8 million in rent for the non-school uses, and $4 million for the school. A source with one of the competing proposals suggested the parking revenue estimates — which are over double the current parking revenue — seemed to be too high. The Partnership estimates the conservancy would have $15.3 million a year in net operating income to pay off its debt after paying $4.2 million a year to operate the pier, and $5 million a year to the Trust to meet the agency’s minimum rent requirement.

The Partnership argues that a private developer interested in the whole pier needs a 15 percent return on a risky investment in a decaying pier. McGinnis, without naming the developing teams, said Related overcompensated for the risks with too many large revenue sources and Urban Dove and CampGroup is underestimating the pier’s cost needs.

Jai Nanda, Urban Dove’s founder, said the Partnership’s numbers sound way off. “If all of those numbers are correct, we’d have to go back and look at our financials…The Dept. of Buildings will judge it. Nobody knows for sure, but we’ve backed it up with some pretty good evidence from engineers.”

He said the Partnership’s pile repair estimate of $51 million sounds to be extremely high, particularly since Related only plans to spend $35 million to make the pier stable enough to withstand the weight of large entertainment venues, restaurants, retail and 2,800 parking spaces. Nanda and the Partnership agree that $43.5 million for a “seismic upgrade” to secure the pier in for an earthquake or other disaster may not be necessary. The Partnership, which acknowledges using cautious estimates, says repairing the roof could cost $21.5 million and the deck and fender repairs would be $8 million.

Urban Dove is a non-profit and Nanda said he spoke to the Partnership, the Trust and attorneys about using tax-free bonds. He thinks it’s a good last resort idea that Urban Dove could do if the skeptics prove to be right.

“People think we can’t do it. Well, give us a chance and if it turns out we can’t do it, then go another way,” Nanda said.

He said he’s confident his group can raise the $160 million needed to implement their plan to add day camps and indoor recreation to the pier’s existing uses. He said CampGroup and Urban Dove have provided the Trust with financial documents proving their case. If the Trust picks them on Jan. 31, the targeted selection date, Nanda said they would have six months to finalize the lease and if the effort failed, tax-free bonds could be pursued then.

Related acknowledged its own financial uncertainties Wednesday in a presentation to the Working Group, made up of members of Downtown community boards, waterfront advocates, and representatives of local elected officials. When one member asked Related’s Anthony Fioravanti, if the firm was committed to going forward with its current plan with a 30-year lease, Fioravanti said they were still not sure.

The Hudson River Park Act forbids leases longer than 30 years and Assemblymember Deborah Glick, whose district includes the pier, said in an interview several weeks ago, that she would do everything she could to block a change to the state law that would allow Related to get a 50-year lease.

Arthur Schwartz, chairperson of the Working Group, noted that a year after Related submitted its proposal, it does not have a plan that can comply with the law, yet the Partnership was able to put together what appears to be a credible plan in just five weeks.

He did acknowledge Related “improved the traffic flow issue,” but he and others at the meeting focused on the fact that the firm did not eliminate any of their revenue generators and was still looking to draw roughly 2.7 million visits to the pier a year.

Related did make several changes in line with what their plan’s critics asked for and they were more substantial than the “cosmetic” changes that Partnership members, who had met with Related, described in interviews last week.

Related increased the amount of interior space for community groups and art galleries by 440 percent (it identified many local groups it could accommodate); increased exterior community use space by 28 percent; increased parking space by 23 percent; while reducing the Cirque du Soleil space by 16 percent, the retail space by 17 percent and the restaurants’ space by 37 percent.

The amount of field space would increase by 82,500 square feet under the plan. In response to community concerns about Little League players being overwhelmed by the entertainment crowds, Related has separated the uses more. They have moved the entertainment lobbies mostly to the second floor and their presence on the first floor has been reduced substantially. Youth league players would have several ground floor entrances to the roof top fields and if parents wanted, these could be made much more secure than the current situation where any stranger can easily get up to the fields without being noticed, said Jay Kriegel, a Related executive.

Related proposes using the pier’s existing fenders to surround the field and grow ivy to protect it from the wind. Fioravanti, said they are open to using any number of materials the community may favor instead of ivy including metal or fabrics.

Related has changed its plan to extend Houston St. into the pier by allowing car traffic and relieve the pedestrian-car competition that was in its original proposal. Under one option, Related could move the street extension to the south allowing the roof top fields to expand more. The firm is also considering replacing the 3,000-seat music hall with a museum to reduce the nighttime crowds.

Kreigel, a Soho resident, said by knocking down the south end wall of the pier, it will open up great waterfront views of the Statue of Liberty and allow for plant life to make an industrial-looking parking garage look like it’s part of the park.

Before the Partnership formed a few months ago, the Working Group and the local community boards recommended the Trust reject both plans and start again. Schwartz said the group has to meet more and look closely at the three proposals before coming to a new decision. But he said in his view, Related did not change its plan nearly enough and that it will be hard to evaluate the Urban Dove plan unless the Trust turns over its financial statements. He said if both plans are rejected, the Trust would be free to adopt the Partnership’s approach, which Schwartz thinks is financially sound.

Connie Fishman, the Trust’s president, attended the Working Group meeting Wednesday and declined to comment on the plans. She did ask the Partnership a few questions including whether the Trust would be charged rent for its pier offices (no) and whether the group knew that a school was not “as of right” in the park as they asserted in their report.

“It doesn’t mean you can’t do it, just that you have to go through some process” to get it approved, she said.

The Partnership hopes to have its lengthy report in a downloadble form for the public soon and the Trust may soon post the latest changes to the two development plans on its site.

© 2007 Community Media, LLC

pianoman11686

December 21st, 2007, 09:29 PM

This will be whittled down to an afterthought.

lofter1

December 21st, 2007, 10:00 PM

The bridge as drawn looks too low for a West Side Hiway crossing.

Derek2k3

December 22nd, 2007, 12:06 AM

Endless discussions as construction prices rise.
Does anything exceptional and not overly drawn out ever come from community involvement.

lofter1

December 22nd, 2007, 08:57 AM

Yes ^

Hudson River Park, for one.

MidtownGuy

December 26th, 2007, 07:24 PM

I would like to see more pedestrian bridges leading over the highway into the park. I would also like to see cars banned from Chelsea Piers, they should have to drop those people off on the other side, at the entrance to a new ped bridge. The cars and driveways totally break up the biking,running,etc. and one of these days some children will be killed in an accident. Maybe then the city will say enough is enough with all of those cars driving right up to the facility.
It is so STUPID the way it is set up. You're on your bike or blades and you have to stop to let a car enter/exit the driveways in the park so it can go right up to the doors of the CP facility. WHY?:confused::mad:

antinimby

January 22nd, 2008, 06:39 AM

Related revises its plan for Pier 40 in Greenwich Village

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1200955852_relatedpier3.jpg

21-JAN-08 (http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments/news.cr?noteid=21882)

The Related Cos. have submitted a revised proposal for the redevelopment of Pier 40 on the Hudson River.

In a letter January 7 to Noreen Doyle of the Hudson River Trust, Jeff Blau, the president of Related, wrote that Related has "significantly increased the size of the current sports fields, as well as the supporting amenities by 58 percent, with a comparable decrease of retail and restaurant uses," adding that "There is an increase to existing soccer/baseball fields, and an additional 85,000 square feet of basketball courts as requested by the community - representing 2 acres of completely new sports fields and court space over current usage."

"In addition, there will be an expanded, broad, inviting open-air promenade, outdoor markets and a great new dog run," the letter continued, noting that the proposal, "responding to community concerns regarding nighttime activity and alcohol-focused venues," has now eliminated a night club and a private beach club and that "the current plan reflects an 18 percent reduction in size of the Cirque du Soleil program, a 57 % reduction in restaurants and a 21 % reduction in retail space."

"A great indoor/outdoor sustainably produced food market," its submission stated, "will provide an attractive new local amenity - New York City is not home to a significant local and organic market, with permanent seasonal produce, regionally sourced farm products, cheese-mongers, purveyors and butchers - in the tradition of London's Borough Hall Market and San Francisco's Ferry Building Market."

The new Related proposal will have 544,950 square feet of public space as compared to 425,030 in its November, 2006 proposal. It will increase community interior use space from 16,650 square feet to 73,550 and the number of parking spaces from 1,858 to 2,286. It will also reduce the restaurant square footage from 57,760 to 36,850.

The 15-acre pier was built in 1964 for the Holland American Line and Related's new submission notes that "Today, it presents the waterfront and the Hudson River Park with four 800' facades that act as barriers to the waterfront and inhibit the mission of the Park itself - to engage the river."

"We have advised the Trust and the community, we are prepared to reduce the scale of activities further by replacing the Music Hall, eliminating an 1,800-seat night-time live theater venue, to be replaced by an appropriate non-profit primarily day-time usage, such as a museum that would be compatible and complement the family and youth activities that go on during the day on the sports fields."

Another proposal, known as the People's Pier, by Urban Cove and CampGroup Inc., would build a high school, three swimming pools and additional space for parks and athletic fields at an estimated cost of about $145 million. The People's Pier proposal has a construction budget of about $160 million including $31 million for infrastructure, pile and substructure work and it requires no public subsidies.

A third proposal has been made by the Pier 40 Partnership. The Pier 40 Partnership plan calls the creation of a non-profit conservancy for the pier that would pay the trust an annual rent of $5 million. The plan would visually open the pier along West Street, widen a walkway around the pier, create a "Green Room" at its southwest corner for events that would contribute about $2 million annually, increase the number of parking spaces on the pier from 2,150 to 2,800, and create a 100,000-square-foot educational component and a 238,000-square-foot Visual Arts Market.

The Hudson River Park Trust maintains it must develop the pier to create revenue for the upkeep of the five-mile park, which was chartered in 1998 and is still under construction.

On January 16, a Community Board 2 committee recommended that the Hudson River Park Trust board vote down both Related's proposal and the Camp Group plan and the board is expected to make a decision by the end of this month.

Copyright © 1994-2008 CITY REALTY.COM INC.

lofter1

January 22nd, 2008, 01:41 PM

Clear evidence ^ why community input is necessary in NYC for projects like this ...

Related Companies obviously submitted an initial plan which completely overstated the need for various commercial ventures on the pier (while at the same time offering insufficient open space / community uses). Related has now presented a vastly different program which maximizes services deemed necessary by folks in the community -- and apparently will still generate the needed profits.

pianoman11686

January 23rd, 2008, 08:44 PM

It'd be a shame if they still don't get the approval after providing a staggering amount of public space and amenities.

NYatKNIGHT

January 24th, 2008, 10:38 AM

Is it a staggering amount? After all, this is a public park.

ZippyTheChimp

January 24th, 2008, 10:44 AM

Aren't you staggered?

I am. But that might be lingering effects of the NFC championship.

bigkdc

January 26th, 2008, 09:30 AM

Related seems to have presented a plan that is both fiscally responsible and good for the community. Hopefully it comes through....Only thing I did not like was the elimination of the private beach club - that sounded like fun

lofter1

January 26th, 2008, 11:45 AM

It appears that a new THIRD plan might have the inside edge at Pier 40 ...

Molto Mario Would Like Less Vegas in His Hudson, Please

CURBED (http://curbed.com/archives/2008/01/25/molto_mario_would_like_less_vegas_in_his_hudson_pl ease.php)
January 25, 2008
by Joey

http://curbed.com/uploads/2008_1_pier40batali.jpg

The Hudson River Park Trust's vote on the future of Pier 40 is set for next
week, and this is where it stands: The Related Companies' previously-favored
Vegas on the Hudson looks dead (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/12/14/vegas_on_the_hudson_may_be_dead_in_the_water.php) and the People's Pier proposal is a long-shot
at best (flashy renderings (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/12/21/pier_40_now_with_safer_street_crossing.php) aside). This leaves the Pier 40 Partnership (http://pier40partnership.org/) — a
group of wealthy and well-connected parents who want to preserve the
pier's athletic facilities while updating and modernizing the facilities — as the
new front runner. But the group isn't resting on its laurels. On Sunday, they'll
hold a Rally For The Park at the pier, which will "send a strong community
signal to the Trust that a low-impact development, with park-friendly
activities, will secure a better neighborhood for all New Yorkers than the
construction of a mega-entertainment complex," per the press release.
Because speeches are boring, there will also be raffles, live music and free
hot chocolate! Not to mention appearances by "neighborhood celebrities
including famed chef Mario Batali." Looks like we shouldn't expect a new
Batali joint to open in Murdochville (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/12/03/yardsmania_is_relateds_murdochville_inevitable.php ) anytime soon.

· Pier 40, Now With Safer Street Crossing! (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/12/21/pier_40_now_with_safer_street_crossing.php) [Curbed]
· Vegas on the Hudson May Be Dead in the Water (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/12/14/vegas_on_the_hudson_may_be_dead_in_the_water.php) [Curbed]
· Vegas on the Hudson Vote Delayed, Again (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/10/19/vegas_on_the_hudson_vote_delayed_again.php) [Curbed]

lofter1

January 26th, 2008, 12:29 PM

Some images from the Pier 40 Partnership STUDY [pdf] (http://assets.drop.io/download/479b63ba/e9fa8bd7bbd38aec4d99217abd67d6e034c12474/3e0bdc40-9b07-012a-272c-00127994f632/1995a3f0-9b09-012a-aac2-fbf18bb87866/finaldocument_allpages.pdf) ...

***

lofter1

January 26th, 2008, 12:35 PM

It seems crazy to me that the entire northwest corner up top is left for a parking lot ...

But perhaps that is the only way to fit in the number of parking spaces required when some playing fields are kept down low.

And it seems there should be some "passive" recreational / lawn area up top -- not only "playing fields" -- just so foks can hang out and enjoy the views / sights from high up.

Pier 40 is about the only opportunity for an elevated vista area in the entire stretch of Hudson River Park.

brianac

January 30th, 2008, 03:28 AM

Village Wants to Keep Its Fields as They Are

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/30/nyregion/30pier_600.jpg Hiroko Masuike for The New York Times
The playing fields within Pier 40, at Houston Street. The site “builds a sense of community,” one resident says.

By CHARLES V. BAGLI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/charles_v_bagli/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: January 30, 2008

Mellora Ansbro plays soccer for the Gotham girls’ team on the huge green fields within Pier 40, where city noises and river winds seem as remote as the Holland America Line ships that once pulled up alongside.

On Sunday she was among the hundreds of ballplayers, teenagers, parents and elected officials from Greenwich Village who rallied at the two-story, 800-foot-square pier at the foot of West Houston Street to block a proposal to build what opponents call “Las Vegas on the Hudson.”

The plan, by the Related Companies, includes a $600 million entertainment complex anchored by a permanent home for Cirque du Soleil and the Tribeca Film Festival (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tribeca_film_festival_nyc/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), which are expected to draw a total of 2.7 million visitors a year to the area.

Rather than eliminate the fields, Related proposes to move them to the roof of the pier, shore up its crumbling pilings and provide at least $5 million a year in rent. Opponents fear that the visitors who would flock to the site would disrupt the neighborhood and diminish the feel of the playing fields as a local resource.

“We love Pier 40,” said Mellora, 14. “We need the fields,” added her mother, Bonnie Ansbro. “It builds a sense of community. We don’t want these kids to travel all over the city to play.”

A group of Internet entrepreneurs, lawyers and business executives whose children play soccer and baseball on the fields have formed the Pier 40 Partnership and have developed a counterproposal for a nonprofit group, modeled on the Central Park Conservancy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_park_conservancy/index.html?inline=nyt-org), to rehabilitate the pier, preserve the playing fields and pay rent. They promise to raise $30 million in private donations to preserve Pier 40, which is part of the five-mile-long Hudson River Park.

“Keep the park a park,” said Rich Caccappolo, president of the partnership, whose members include Craig Balsam, a founder of Razor & Tie Entertainment; Chris McGinnis, a real estate developer; and Fred Wilson, a venture capitalist. “It’s not a circus, a performing arts center, or a huge destination that’ll draw 1,000 cars.”

Some executives who favor Related’s plan say the community group, which they refer to as the Merry Band of Millionaires, has offered an impractical proposal that cannot raise the money necessary to fix the pier.

The Hudson River Park Trust, a joint city and state organization whose board was appointed by the mayor and governor to oversee and own the park, is scheduled to vote on the Related proposal on Thursday, as well as a second plan from another private developer that is given little chance of success. The partnership plan is not formally under consideration. Although there is widespread opposition to the Related plan, it is unclear whether the park trust will make a final decision that day.

To avoid a deadlock, some officials are hoping for a compromise between Related, the community and the partnership. Diana Taylor, chairwoman of the park trust, contends that a decision must be made soon because the pier needs repair, which could cost $280 million.

“Any developer has to work with the community and the realities of the financial markets,” Ms. Taylor said. “We all want open space, but we need to figure out some way to pay for it.”

Pier 40 is at the heart of a battle over big development as well as a debate about the role of private developers and public property in an era of diminishing resources, when politicians are reluctant to raise taxes for amenities like parks. Related’s supporters say theirs is the only viable way to raise the money necessary to preserve the pier and the playing fields.

“Our plan offers over 50 percent more sports activity on far superior, modern fields, plus a wide range of community, cultural and arts amenities,” said Joanna Rose, a spokeswoman for Related. “It also ensures a reliable source of income for the entire Hudson River Park.”

Opponents like State Senator Thomas K. Duane (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/thomas_k_duane/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Assemblywoman Deborah J. Glick (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/deborah_j_glick/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who represent the area, say “a mega-entertainment destination” that enriches a private developer in a public park is the wrong course to follow. “Those venues already exist in Manhattan,” Ms. Glick said. “What we don’t have is park space.”

Under 1998 legislation, Pier 40 is one of three spots along Hudson River Park, which stretches from the Battery to 59th Street, where commercial development is allowed to generate revenue for park maintenance.

Pier 40 was built in 1964 for the Holland America Line, but it did not last long as a cargo pier. An electrified system that protected the pilings from rust was shut down during the fiscal crisis in the 1970s. Today, 40 percent of the piles are estimated to be crumbling, and the building needs a new roof.

The pier’s interior courtyard was used as a truck terminal before it was converted several years ago to playing fields.

Still, parking on the first and second levels of the building, as well as the roof, generates about $6 million a year, or 40 percent of the park’s operating revenue.

The Hudson River Park Trust solicited proposals to redevelop the pier in 2003, but a viable plan failed to emerge. It tried again in 2006, which brought the present proposal from Related and that of the second developer, CampGroup, which would create private camps and recreational facilities.

In response to criticism, Related recently trimmed the size of its entertainment complex to about one million square feet, added nine basketball courts and more community space and offered a museum instead of an 1,800-seat music hall. Its plans call for a farmers’ market and a 1.5-acre open space on the south side of the pier.

Related says it needs a lease as long as the 49-year arrangement given to the Chelsea Piers sports complex, which is also within the park. The park legislation allows only 30-year leases.

The partnership, which raised $120,000 for a feasibility study by Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, a development consultant, proposes retaining the fields and creating rental space for artists, galleries and a school. The New School (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/new_school_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and New York University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/new_york_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) have expressed interest. A nonprofit organization would not need the kind of return on investment sought by private companies, typically 15 percent, and could borrow money at lower interest rates, the partnership maintains.

Under the partnership proposal, a nonprofit entity would issue tax-free bonds, which would be repaid from the rental and parking revenue. But given the recent difficulty in financing new garages at Yankee Stadium, Related and some park trust executives say the partnership is being overly optimistic about the stability of that revenue source.

Without a compromise, the development effort could come to a standstill. Assemblywoman Glick and Senator Duane have vowed to block any changes to the 1998 park legislation that would enable the trust to give Related the 49-year lease it seeks.

Gary L. Ginsberg, an executive vice president of the News Corporation and a participant in the partnership, said the group was not a bunch of “doe-eyed, anti-development individuals” from the Village.

“We all recognize that the pier needs to be rehabilitated in a major way,” he said. “Related’s plan would maintain the same acreage of ball fields, but transform the piers into an entertainment complex. It would be like putting Central Park’s ball fields on stilts over retail stores and theaters. We want the pier to be consistent with the surrounding park.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

bigkdc

March 12th, 2008, 06:20 AM

THEATER KIDS GET THE HOOK AMID PIER 40 PERILS
By TOM TOPOUSIS

March 11, 2008 -- A theater program for kids at Hudson River Park's Pier 40 has been ordered to evacuate most of its space because of falling concrete inside the aging structure, which is quickly deteriorating while developers and community activists battle over its future.
Peggy Lewis, who operates Biz Kids, a performance-arts program that has about 100 youngsters enrolled over the course of a year, was told that she had to move out of her theater immediately following an inspection by engineers for the park.

"I've been saying for five years this building is crumbling," said Lewis, who has rented space at Pier 40 since 2001. "A chunk of concrete fell three years ago and broke through my piano."

Chris Martin, a spokesman for the park trust, said Lewis is so far the only tenant who has had to leave a space because of the growing structural problems at Pier 40. But he warned that wear and tear at the pier will only grow worse.

Engineers recently determined that the pier, built in the early 1960s as a freight terminal, would need more than $120 million in repairs just to keep it standing, as river pilings erode and concrete begins to peel from rusting steel.

Clarknt67

March 13th, 2008, 05:26 PM

The bridge as drawn looks too low for a West Side Hiway crossing.

You're right. Gosh I hope someone else notices that before an 18-wheeler crashes right into it! LOL!

brianac

March 28th, 2008, 04:10 AM

Related Companies Loses Pier 40 Bid

By PETER KIEFER
Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 27, 2008 posted 4:01 pm EDT

It has been a rough week for the Related Company (http://www2.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Related).
A day after losing out to rival developer Tishman Speyer in the bidding process to develop the westside Hudson Rail Yards, the Hudson River Park Trust (http://www2.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Hudson+River+Park+Trust) is now saying that the Related Companies' proposal for Pier 40 is no longer "feasible" due to Related's demand for a lease of more than 30 years. The Hudson River Park Trust's request for proposals for the two-story, 800- square-foot pier stipulated that the lease would only last 30 years.

Today, the chair of The Hudson River Park Trust, Diana Taylor, issued this statement: "The Related proposal is still not feasible within the prescribed 30-year term and for that reason is not currently being pursued."

Related's plan called for moving the pier's sporting fields to the roof of the pier and proposed developing a $600 million entertainment complex, which would have been anchored by a permanent base for Cirque du Soleil and the Tribeca Film Festival.

"It is not that their plan doesn't work, it just doesn't work if they don't get a longer lease," Ms. Taylor said in an interview today. "With a project where you have $120 million invested before it is revenue producing it takes a little longer to earn your revenue back."

Ms. Taylor said that she approved of Related's proposal and said the Hudson River Park Trust tried to come up with a compromise.

"I would have loved to offer a longer lease but that is not within our power. It is up to the state legislature and we have been told in no uncertain terms that it is not happening," she said.

By contrast, both the Chelsea Piers and Pier 57 — another waterfront development plan that has unraveled in recent months — were able to get waivers from the state legislature to extend their leases.

The Camp group, a consortium that organizes day camps and offered up the only counterproposal, is now the sole contender. Ms. Taylor said that recent structural problems at the Pier are forcing the board to move forward with the Camp group's bid despite the board's feeling that the bid "did not demonstrate the experience, revenue, or fiscal soundness needed for board approval."

Ms. Taylor is giving the Camp group 90 days to work with the non-profit group Pier 40 Partnership, which has pledged to raise $30 million in private donations, and come back to the board with an updated proposal.

According to Ms. Taylor's statement, the decision against pursuing Related's bid leaves the board with one alternative.

"Camp Group should work with the Pier 40 Partnership on the basis of the concept that they have now informally agreed upon and come back to the Trust in 90 days with a viable proposal that meets all of the criteria outlined above as stated in the original RFP," she said. "Trust staff will give them the details of what must be accomplished and the deliverables that are required in order for the board to approve the proposal."

A Related spokesperson was not available for comment.

Copyright 2008 The New York Sun.

lofter1

March 28th, 2008, 08:42 AM

Cirque appears out as Pier 40 rivals talk partnership

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_256/PIER.gif

“The People’s Pier” proposal by CampGroup/Urban Dove, above, is similar in appearance and use
to the Pier 40 Partnership’s proposal. Both proposals retain the pier’s existing central courtyard field.

Downtown Express (http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_256/cirqueappears.html)
By Lincoln Anderson
MARCH 28 - April 3, 2008

With another benchmark date in the Pier 40 redevelopment process occurring this week, the Hudson River Park Trust appears to have radically changed its thinking on the critical Lower West Side pier.

The Trust — the state-city authority building and operating the 5-mile waterfront park — is now encouraging a partnership between the Pier 40 Partnership (P40P) and CampGroup/Urban Dove, and asking that this new team submit a new proposal for the W. Houston St. pier.

Meanwhile, it appears The Related Companies may be folding its circus tent for its hotly opposed plan for a Cirque du Soleil entertainment megacomplex on the pier, since Related cannot get a long-term, 49-year lease, which is the only way it is willing to proceed.

At the end of January, tension had peaked over Pier 40’s redevelopment as the Trust’s board of directors was set to vote on a plan for the 14-acre pier. The community was gripped with anxiety that the Trust’s board would pick Related. But Diana Taylor, the Trust board’s chairperson — saying all three plans for the pier were flawed — announced the Trust would put off the vote until at least its next meeting, on March 27, to allow time for the proposals to be improved. She said the approved plan would have to comply with the law, thus ruling out a 49-year lease. She encouraged the groups to talk with each other about combining private and tax-exempt financing.

In recent weeks, the Trust has apparently been pushing for the Partnership and CampGroup/Urban Dove to team up.

At Community Board 2’s full board meeting last Thursday night, Arthur Schwartz, chairperson of the community board’s Waterfront Committee, announced the new merger in a “late breaking news” attachment on his committee report: “Pier 40 Partnership and CampGroup/Urban Dove have agreed to work together and submit a joint proposal to the Trust that would include both a public school and a New School expansion (and a camp and the Urban Dove basketball facility). It is unlikely that any action will be taken by the Trust board until May.”

Indeed, Pier 40 observers note there’s no mention of a vote concerning the pier on the agenda for the Trust’s Thurs., March 27, meeting.

“It’s not on the agenda and I haven’t heard anything else,” Julie Nadel, a Trust board member who has been highly critical of Trust leadership, said on Tuesday. Of the new purported partnership the Trust is said to be pushing, Nadel, said, “I know nothing about it. It must all be being done in the back room, at least not in the presence of this board member.”

In the past, Trust officials have said “The People’s Pier” — the name of the CampGroup/Urban Dove plan — is not financially viable. Yet, Schwartz said, the Trust now wants CampGroup/Urban Dove to partner with the Pier 40 Partnership because the former team would bring “$35 million” guaranteed to the plan, easing the Trust’s concerns about the Partnership plan’s viability.

Taylor has been skeptical that the Partnership could get tax-exempt financing tied to parking revenues in an ever tightening bond market.

At the Board 2 meeting, Schwartz perfunctorily sketched out a flow chart for Downtown Express showing how the various nonprofit and for-profit entities in the plans would interrelate and operate beneath a nonprofit Pier 40 conservancy that would, in turn, function beneath the Trust.

The two plans share much in common. A central feature of both the CampGroup/Urban Dove and P40P plans is that they each preserve the pier’s central courtyard “donut.” Blanketed with FieldTurf artificial grass, this courtyard is fiercely guarded by the many local parents whose children participate in soccer and baseball leagues that use the pier. In addition, both CampGroup/Urban Dove and P40P have made creating school space on Pier 40 a key part of their plans. Finally, both proposals are relatively low impact and not geared toward making huge profits from the pier. CampGroup/Urban Dove’s proposal is mildly for-profit, while P40P’s plan is nonprofit.

Connie Fishman, the Trust’s president, sent a letter to City Council Speaker Christine Quinn Feb. 26 saying the two plans were “somewhat comparable” and that the Trust gave CampGroup/Urban Dove permission to turn its confidential financial documents over to the Partnership. Fishman also said Related did not think it could do the project with a 30-year lease even if it got tax exempt financing.

Related’s Cirque-and-Tribeca Film Festival plan is opposed by many Downtowners because it would annually draw 2.5 million visitors to Pier 40. Also, raising red flags for local soccer moms and dads, Related would move the 3.2-acre courtyard field up to the pier’s windblown roof.

Speaking last Friday, Rich Caccappolo, a leading P40P member and president of the Greenwich Village Little League, was careful not to “get ahead” of the Trust in terms of announcing any sort of partnership between P40P and CampGroup/Urban Dove.

“That’s way, way too early to say that,” he said. “The Trust indicated that possibility — that CampGroup/Urban Dove and the Partnership would somehow be merged. But there’s nothing definite. We still feel the conservancy approach is the way to go. The Trust seems to be encouraging of further exploring the development of the pier under the stewardship of a nonprofit organization — and that CampGroup and Urban Dove would somehow be a part of that.

“Related’s out,” Caccappolo stated. “We all know Related’s out because they said they can’t do it with a 30-year lease. I think Diana Taylor really was hoping that Related could be given the designation, and — unfortunately, in her mind — that’s not possible. She just thought Related was the best choice. And I think, without Related, the Trust has renewed interest in CampGroup.”

Following the Trust’s postponement of its vote at its January meeting, a meeting between P40P and Related was convened at which Stephen Ross, Related’s C.E.O., reportedly said without an amendment to the Hudson River Park Act to allow a 49-year lease, they were dropping out. All the local politicians have stated their opposition to amending the park act for a 49-year lease.

Speaking on Tuesday, Joanna Rose, Related’s spokesperson, said, “We’re not saying anything on the record. There’s nothing to say — I guess we’re declining comment.” On whether the Trust has moved on and left Related behind, and is now focusing on pushing together P40P and CampGroup/Urban Dove, Rose said, “I don’t know what they’re up to….

“We’ve always maintained that we need a 49-year lease. … There’s nothing new to say.”

Following the meeting with Related were a series of meetings between P40P and CampGroup/Urban Dove. The first was attended by Trust officials. Schwartz, who is also chairperson of the Pier 40 Working Group, said he knows the new partnership is a reality, “because I was at all the meetings.” But Caccappolo stressed they have to now first report back to the Trust about what was discussed at the meetings.

Caccappolo said he likes the Benerofes of CampGroup and feels that Jai Nanda, head of Urban Dove, “does good work for our community, our city.”

However, Caccappolo and the Partnership feel strongly that their Pier 40 conservancy, not CampGroup, must be the entity in charge on the pier. Because CampGroup is a for-profit entity, having it run the pier would clash with the idea of a nonprofit conservancy raising money from the community. The Partnership has pledged to raise $30 million from the community for Pier 40. But people wouldn’t want to give donations to a for-profit business, Cacccappolo stressed.

Urban Dove is a non-profit and Nanda has said previously the People’s Pier group would be open to tax exempt financing.

Tobi Bergman, president of Pier Park & Playground, a youth sports-advocacy group based on Pier 40, agreed with Caccappolo.

“For me, I can’t see it working with the conservancy underneath the CampGroup,” Bergman said.

Nanda, who grew up in the Village, said on Tuesday, “We’re definitely exploring how we create the best possible Pier 40. And the Trust has been supportive of that.”

Nanda said bringing together the two proposals would benefit all parties.

“I think the more stakeholders you can get the better,” he said. “I think that there’s financial strength, community strength, usage strength, networking and who you know, political connections and things like that.”

Asked who would be top dog at Pier 40 — a nonprofit conservancy as envisioned by P40P, or CampGroup/Urban Dove, Nanda said, “There’s no deal in place. I think the Trust has some responsibility on their part to do some things on their end. We’re going to need their support, we can’t be banging heads with them,” he added, declining to be more specific.

“We have no issue with the conservancy model at Pier 40,” Nanda stated. “From the first time hearing about it, we had no problem with it. I think we heard about it first from the Partnership.”

The Pier 40 proposals by Related and CampGroup/Urban Dove were responses to a request for proposals, or R.F.P., issued by the Trust. P40P’s community-initiated proposal came about only within the last half year as a direct counterproposal to Related’s megaplan.

Interestingly, Nanda said, while CampGroup/Urban Dove has submitted paperwork for a 30-year lease, “We’re going to push very hard for a 49-year lease.” However, he added, “If you can’t work with the 30, I don’t think you’re in the running anymore.”

Finally, Nanda dismissed concerns that a CampGroup eight-to-10-week day camp at Pier 40, charging $1,000 a week per child, would cut into the same pool served by Manhattan Youth’s day camp in Tribeca run by Bob Townley.

“There’s lots of kids to go around,” Nanda said. “There’s going to be even more kids with the residential boom Downtown.”

Townley said a camp won’t work as the pier’s economic engine. “A camp can’t support Pier 40,” he said. “You just have to look at Chelsea Piers to see that.”

Townley said his camp’s 250 slots are mostly filled in the summer and he does not turn many children away. He said since CampGroup would charge over twice as much as the Downtown Day Camp, he thinks it will compete more with higher priced sports camps than with his program. “It’s five years away,” he added. “I’m not overly concerned about that.”

A component of the CampGroup/Urban Dove plan is to build a shed on the pier’s southern rooftop to house basketball courts for Urban Dove. A 10-year-old nonprofit group, Urban Dove serves 1,000 city public school students, including 450 who are on basketball teams whose schools lack basketball courts. Urban Dove provides sports, as well as college-prep and life-skills courses, to help at-risk youth realize their potential.

The CampGroup/Urban Dove plan also includes 65,000 square feet of small, boutique-sized retail, such as sports stores or “marina”-related uses, according to Nanda. On the other hand, the P40P proposal includes space for a 240,000-square-foot Visual Arts Market.

Schwartz said his understanding is that P40P would be the lead on the pier.

“The two groups agreed that Camp-Group is willing to be a tenant and that they’re willing to collaborate on a conservancy model,” he said. “How that works remains to be worked out.”

Schwartz added that the Trust has retained a consultant, National Development Corporation, which assists government and agencies in putting together proposals that are eligible for bonds. Tax-exempt bonding is a cornerstone of the Partnership plan.

Schwartz said more details on the CampGroup/Urban Dove-and-P40P partnership will emerge in the next few weeks.

“The Trust wants all the T’s crossed and I’s dotted,” he said. “It won’t happen by this Thursday [at the Trust’s board meeting], but I think it can be accomplished by the next meeting on May 29.

“It’s a development that, if it works out, means we’re not going to have to deal with Related,” added Schwartz. “There’s a light at the end of the tunnel that you can see here that makes everybody happy.”

With reporting by Josh Rogers

© 2008 Community Media, LLC

pianoman11686

April 1st, 2008, 07:57 PM

What a disaster. The community "wins." Again.

lofter1

April 1st, 2008, 08:31 PM

Related shot themselves in the foot. The Community didn't make the rule about the maximum length of the lease, the NY State Legislature did that years ago. Related knew the rules going in, but failed to come up with a plan that worked within the scope of the law.

pianoman11686

April 1st, 2008, 08:39 PM

Yet somehow, Pier 57 and Chelsea Piers both got waivers to extend their leases.

I think it's naive to label this as a simple "failure to play by the rules". There was undoubtedly behind-the-scenes string-pulling by powerful local residents. Related's plan was dead upon arrival.

lofter1

April 1st, 2008, 09:20 PM

Or so the existence of the "waiver' is claimed by the author of the Sun article -- but is there any real truth to that?

When did the NY State Legislature vote for such a waiver?

pianoman11686

April 1st, 2008, 09:56 PM

So major newspapers just print lies now?

From a previous post from the New York Times (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=212550&postcount=384):

Related says it needs a lease as long as the 49-year arrangement given to the Chelsea Piers sports complex, which is also within the park. The park legislation allows only 30-year leases.

...

Without a compromise, the development effort could come to a standstill. Assemblywoman Glick and Senator Duane have vowed to block any changes to the 1998 park legislation that would enable the trust to give Related the 49-year lease it seeks.

Like I said, a disaster. Especially considering the HRPT already put out an RFP in 2003 and failed to attract any serious bids. Clearly, something needs to be changed to make it more feasible. And from what I've read, it's perfectly legal for the trust to make variances when it's economically necessary.

A final little tidbit:

A group of Internet entrepreneurs, lawyers and business executives whose children play soccer and baseball on the fields have formed the Pier 40 Partnership and have developed a counterproposal for a nonprofit group, modeled on the Central Park Conservancy, to rehabilitate the pier, preserve the playing fields and pay rent. They promise to raise $30 million in private donations to preserve Pier 40, which is part of the five-mile-long Hudson River Park.

“Keep the park a park,” said Rich Caccappolo, president of the partnership, whose members include Craig Balsam, a founder of Razor & Tie Entertainment; Chris McGinnis, a real estate developer; and Fred Wilson, a venture capitalist. “It’s not a circus, a performing arts center, or a huge destination that’ll draw 1,000 cars.”

Some executives who favor Related’s plan say the community group, which they refer to as the Merry Band of Millionaires, has offered an impractical proposal that cannot raise the money necessary to fix the pier.

Yes, I'm sure the "Merry Band of Millionaires" had absolutely no influence on Glick and Duane "vowing to block any changes" that allow for a 49-year lease. Give me a break.

ZippyTheChimp

April 1st, 2008, 10:30 PM

So major newspapers just print lies now?

Maybe yes, maybe no. But they often distort by omission.

From NY Times:
Related says it needs a lease as long as the 49-year arrangement given to the Chelsea Piers sports complex, which is also within the park. The park legislation allows only 30-year leases.
Chelsea Piers signed a 20 year lease with NY State in 1994. A year later, the lease was amended to a 49 year term, with 10 year renewal options.

The NYS Hudson River Park Act was enacted into law in 1998.

:)

lofter1

April 1st, 2008, 10:30 PM

Well as you probably know the NY State Legislature has not gotten much business done lately. And the Dems / Reps in Albany don't play too well together. So I find it less than believable that this waiver is a done deal.

I googled and found no indication that any waiver has been enacted regarding the law mandating the 30-year lease. The only mention of such a waiver is in the Sun article. And there is no quote or attribution in that article for the claim of a waiver.

From the Downtown Express article:

All the local politicians have stated their opposition to amending the park act for a 49-year lease ...

... Interestingly, Nanda said, while CampGroup/Urban Dove has submitted paperwork for a 30-year lease, “We’re going to push very hard for a 49-year lease.” However, he added, “If you can’t work with the 30, I don’t think you’re in the running anymore.”

lofter1

June 30th, 2008, 08:29 AM

City interested, Pier 40 school may make the grade

Downtown Express (http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_269/cityinterested.html)
By Lincoln Anderson
June 27 - July 3, 2008

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_269/pier.gif
A School Construction Authority schematic

of Pier 40 with a possible school location.
(NOTE: West Street at bottom of photo.)

Giving a major boost to a plan to keep Pier 40 afloat as a community-friendly, low-impact part of Hudson River Park, the New York City School Construction Authority wants to build up to three high schools on the sprawling W. Houston St. pier.

On June 2, Sharon Greenberger, S.C.A. president and C.E.O., wrote to Noreen Doyle, Hudson River Park Trust vice president, “to confirm the S.C.A.’s interest in the potential development of a new public high school facility on Pier 40.”

“Pier 40’s location, size and unique location within the Hudson River Park make it a strong candidate for new public school development, and one that we would like to explore with the Hudson River Park Trust in further detail,” Greenberger wrote.

The news was announced two weeks ago by Chris McGinnis — a member of the Pier 40 Partnership and the coordinator of the Greenwich Village Little League’s Majors A Division — at the league’s end-of-season awards, held on Pier 40.

McGinnis said the Partnership didn’t go public with the announcement until it received clearance from S.C.A.

“Based on preliminary assessment of the existing conditions and opportunities at Pier 40,” Greenberger wrote Doyle, “we believe that an approximately 1,650-seat high school facility, containing approximately 210,000 gross square feet, and an open recreational space could be developed on the north side of the pier. …[A] high school facility could be accommodated in portions of the main and second levels of the existing structure (approximately 6,000 and 80,000 square feet, respectively), and construction of two new additional floors with a footprint of approximately 75,000 square feet above. This would also allow for the provision of open-air recreation space on the second level, adjoining the proposed new construction. …”

Included along with S.C.A.’s formal expression-of-interest letter were diagrams of how the planned school facilities would fit into three floors on the pier’s northern side; different-colored areas depict classrooms, a library, a cafeteria, gym space, science labs and so on.

Greenberger, in her letter, states S.C.A. would be willing to take less than 210,000 square feet on the pier and “explore alternative configurations.” Yet, she said, S.C.A. requires a minimum of 150,000 square feet “in order to meet the needs of two small high school organizations.”

Although Greenberger’s letter doesn’t say anything about developing three schools on the pier, McGinnis said the Partnership’s understanding is that the number would be three. More to the point, the Partnership would like one of these three to be a middle school — which would serve students graduating from P.S. 3 and P.S. 41 — since the Village area has a pressing need for a new middle school, he said.

Based on the number of seats stated in the letter, each high school would have 550 students, according to McGinnis.

For three months, the Pier 40 Partnership — an ad-hoc group of local parents with children in the youth sports leagues using Pier 40’s fields — has been working with Urban Dove/Camp Group to produce a new redevelopment plan for Pier 40. The Trust gave them a deadline of the end of this month. The combined team hopes the Trust’s directors will then pick their proposal at the end of next month at the Trust’s scheduled board meeting.

Both Urban Dove/Camp Group and the Partnership originally had called for school space in their separate proposals for Pier 40. Bob Kerrey, The New School’s president, earlier had expressed strong interest in the education space in the Partnership’s plan.

As well as S.C.A., the Partnership had also been talking to New Visions, a group with the power to create new charter schools.

Richard Dattner, architect for Urban Dove/Camp Group, is now checking to make sure S.C.A.’s plan to add a structure atop Pier 40 works within the park’s guidelines.

The fact that S.C.A. is interested in space on the 15-acre pier is nothing short of a home run for the Little League-loving Partnership members. The group’s goal always has been to preserve the pier’s ball fields for their kids, while keeping The Related Companies from developing the pier with a Cirque du Soleil/Tribeca Film Festival complex. The Trust disqualified Related’s application in March after Related couldn’t make its financials work within the Hudson River Park Act’s 30-year lease restriction for the pier.

When he heard the news of S.C.A.’s interest, McGinnis said, “I was doing the wave — and so was the rest of the Pier 40 Partnership. We were very happy. It’s huge.”

“The S.C.A. is part of the city,” McGinnis said. “Its bond rating is double ‘A’. The city is known to pay its bills. The S.C.A. is like having someone with a Good Housekeeping Seal of approval. And the fact that they want this much square footage. …”

The Partnership and Urban Dove/Camp Group have been meeting three times a week since March 27. McGinnis assured that Urban Dove/CampGroup is heading the combined redevelopment proposal.

“They have the lead and we’re partnering with them,” he said. “It was their proposal, and we’re just trying to factor in.”

Urban Dove/CampGroup responded to the request for proposals, or R.F.P., for Pier 40 that the Trust issued a year and a half ago.

The Partnership members recently signed the confidentiality agreement required of the R.F.P. respondents. As a result, McGinnis said he couldn’t reveal much about the proposal that will be presented to the Trust at the end of this month. (On the other hand, McGinnis said the Partnership could make public S.C.A.’s expression-of-interest letter since S.C.A. gave the Partnership clearance.)

Next Wed., July 2, the Pier 40 Working Group will receive the first public presentation of the new plan, at 25 Broadway, 21st floor, at 9:30 a.m. A public hearing also has been set for Wed., July 16.

McGinnis said the Pier 40 proposal will include 80,000 square feet on the pier for the Trust’s administrative offices, vehicles and the like, plus 600,000 square feet for parking. The idea is to use stackers to minimize the space needed for parking.

“Operation of the pier’s existing ball fields will basically be the same as now,” he said, “but some details are being worked out.

The Partnership’s original plan included space for a “visual arts market,” offering low-rent, artists’ studios. Asked if that was still part of the plan, McGinnis indicated it wasn’t, saying only, “They [Urban Dove/Camp Group] are the lead.”

He did say, however, that one of the Partnership’s main ideas — a Pier 40 conservancy that would raise millions of dollars to repair the pier — was still part of the concept.

“That kind of merged in,” he said of the conservancy scheme. “Details of that one are being worked out now.”

The crumbling steel-and-concrete former shipping pier needs an estimated $120 million in repairs to its roof and its support pilings — which the designated development team would be required to fund, as well as paying for the pier’s ongoing maintenance over the course of a lease of at least 30 years.

The Department of Education and Trust both said nothing is set regarding schools on Pier 40 and that the R.F.P. process is still ongoing.

“We’re still doing evaluation of the R.F.P.’s,” said Chris Martin, the Trust’s spokesperson. “The fact that they’ve approved it will go into consideration,” he said of S.C.A.’s stated interest in the pier. Everything will be examined when the final plan is submitted at this month’s end, he said.

Margie Feinberg, a D.O.E. spokesperson, said the department must defer to the Trust on building schools on Pier 40.

“There is a letter of intent,” she said. “It’s a park. We cannot build in a park — period. Only the Hudson River Park can decide what can be built there. We said we’d like to sit down and discuss it; it’s a vacant site.”

Brad Hoylman, Community Board 2 chairperson, said, “By locating school space on the pier, we kill two birds with one stone. One, Pier 40 will be maximized for public — not commercial — uses. And, two, much-needed classroom space is created in our neighborhood, giving kids a better classroom experience, and parents more options.”

As for The New School and arts market, Arthur Schwartz, Pier 40 Working Group chairperson, said they’re both now part of a proposal by developer Douglas Durst for Pier 57, at W. 16th St. Schwartz said S.C.A. wants so much space on Pier 40, there’s no room left there for The New School, while both an arts market with galleries and The New School’s Parsons arts school are natural fits at Pier 57, near the Chelsea arts scene. Schwartz said he knows of no other proposals of Pier 57, for which the Trust soon plans to issue an R.F.P.

© 2008 Community Media, LLC

MidtownGuy

June 30th, 2008, 10:25 AM

I know we need schools but I just think it isn't the right place.

Sadly I've stopped hoping for this pier to become anything the general public will be attracted to. The locals just want facilities for their children. Period. Anything that would bring even 2 more adults or cars to the area has been opposed. Pier 40 will remain a big hulking eyesore.

ablarc

July 6th, 2008, 02:37 PM

It is so STUPID the way it is set up. You're on your bike or blades and you have to stop to let a car enter/exit the driveways in the park so it can go right up to the doors of the CP facility. WHY?:confused::mad:
So all those exercise freaks don't have to walk so far?

NYC4Life

July 7th, 2008, 12:56 PM

From: Chelsea Now

With city schools, Pier 40 plan may make the grade

By Lincoln Anderson

Giving a major boost to a plan to keep Pier 40 afloat as a community-friendly, low-impact part of Hudson River Park, the New York City School Construction Authority wants to build up to three high schools on the sprawling W. Houston St. pier.

On June 2, Sharon Greenberger, S.C.A. president and C.E.O., wrote to Noreen Doyle, Hudson River Park Trust vice president, “to confirm the S.C.A.’s interest in the potential development of a new public high school facility on Pier 40.”

“Pier 40’s location, size and unique location within the Hudson River Park make it a strong candidate for new public school development, and one that we would like to explore with the Hudson River Park Trust in further detail,” Greenberger wrote.

The news was announced three weeks ago by Chris McGinnis — a member of the Pier 40 Partnership and the coordinator of the Greenwich Village Little League’s Majors A Division — at the league’s end-of-season awards, held on Pier 40.

McGinnis said the Partnership didn’t go public with the announcement until it received clearance from S.C.A.

“Based on preliminary assessment of the existing conditions and opportunities at Pier 40,” Greenberger wrote Doyle, “we believe that an approximately 1,650-seat high school facility, containing approximately 210,000 gross square feet, and an open recreational space could be developed on the north side of the pier. …[A] high school facility could be accommodated in portions of the main and second levels of the existing structure (approximately 6,000 and 80,000 square feet, respectively), and construction of two new additional floors with a footprint of approximately 75,000 square feet above. This would also allow for the provision of open-air recreation space on the second level, adjoining the proposed new construction. …”

Included along with S.C.A.’s formal expression-of-interest letter were diagrams of how the planned school facilities would fit into three floors on the pier’s northern side; different-colored areas depict classrooms, a library, a cafeteria, gym space, science labs and so on.

Greenberger, in her letter, states S.C.A. would be willing to take less than 210,000 square feet on the pier and “explore alternative configurations.” Yet, she said, S.C.A. requires a minimum of 150,000 square feet “in order to meet the needs of two small high school organizations.”

Although Greenberger’s letter doesn’t say anything about developing three schools on the pier, McGinnis said the Partnership’s understanding is that the number would be three. More to the point, the Partnership would like one of these three to be a middle school — which would serve students graduating from P.S. 3 and P.S. 41 — since the Village area has a pressing need for a new middle school, he said.

Based on the number of seats stated in the letter, each high school would have 550 students, according to McGinnis.

For three months, the Pier 40 Partnership — an ad-hoc group of local parents with children in the youth sports leagues using Pier 40’s fields — has been working with Urban Dove/Camp Group to produce a new redevelopment plan for Pier 40. The Trust gave them a deadline of the end of this month. The combined team hopes the Trust’s directors will then pick their proposal at the end of next month at the Trust’s scheduled board meeting.

Both Urban Dove/Camp Group and the Partnership originally had called for school space in their separate proposals for Pier 40. Bob Kerrey, The New School’s president, earlier had expressed strong interest in the education space in the Partnership’s plan.

As well as S.C.A., the Partnership had also been talking to New Visions, a group with the power to create new charter schools.

Richard Dattner, architect for Urban Dove/Camp Group, is now checking to make sure S.C.A.’s plan to add a structure atop Pier 40 works within the park’s guidelines.

The fact that S.C.A. is interested in space on the 15-acre pier is nothing short of a home run for the Little League-loving Partnership members. The group’s goal always has been to preserve the pier’s ball fields for their kids, while keeping The Related Companies from mega-developing the pier with a Cirque du Soleil/Tribeca Film Festival complex. The Trust disqualified Related’s application in March after Related couldn’t make its financials work within the Hudson River Park Act’s 30-year lease restriction for the pier.

When he heard the news of S.C.A.’s interest, McGinnis said, “I was doing the wave — and so was the rest of the Pier 40 Partnership. We were very happy. It’s huge.”

Many of the Partnership’s leading members are financial investors and businesspersons, so they understand the significance of having a Bloomberg administration agency potentially onboard.

“The S.C.A. is part of the city,” McGinnis said. “Its bond rating is double ‘A’. The city is known to pay its bills. The S.C.A. is like having someone with a Good Housekeeping Seal of approval. And the fact that they want this much square footage. …”

The Partnership and Urban Dove/Camp Group have been meeting three times a week since March 27. McGinnis assured that Urban Dove/CampGroup is heading the combined redevelopment proposal.
“They have the lead and we’re partnering with them,” he said. “It was their proposal, and we’re just trying to factor in.”

Urban Dove/CampGroup responded to the request for proposals, or R.F.P., for Pier 40 that the Trust issued a year and a half ago.

The Partnership members recently signed the confidentiality agreement required of the R.F.P. respondents. As a result, McGinnis said he couldn’t reveal much about the proposal that will be presented to the Trust at the end of this month. (On the other hand, McGinnis said the Partnership could make public S.C.A.’s expression-of-interest letter since S.C.A. gave the Partnership clearance.)

On July 2, the Pier 40 Working Group received the first public presentation of the new plan. A public hearing also has been set for Wed., July 16.
McGinnis said the Pier 40 proposal will include 80,000 square feet on the pier for the Trust’s administrative offices, vehicles and the like, plus 600,000 square feet for parking. The idea is to use stackers to minimize the space needed for parking.

“Operation of the pier’s existing ball fields will basically be the same as now,” he said, “but some details are being worked out.”

The Partnership’s original plan included space for a “visual arts market,” offering low-rent, artists’ studios. Asked if that was still part of the plan, McGinnis indicated it wasn’t, saying only, “They [Urban Dove/Camp Group] are the lead.”

He did say, however, that one of the Partnership’s main ideas — a Pier 40 conservancy that would raise millions of dollars to repair the pier — was still part of the concept.

“That kind of merged in,” he said of the conservancy scheme. “Details of that one are being worked out now.”

The crumbling steel-and-concrete former shipping pier needs an estimated $120 million in repairs to its roof and its support pilings — which the designated development team would be required to fund, as well as paying for the pier’s ongoing maintenance over the course of a lease of at least 30 years.

Jai Nanda, founder and director of Urban Dove — a nonprofit organization helping New York City public school students to excel through sports activities and education — confirmed that the arts market is out.

“The arts market was never part of our plan,” he stated. “So, I think what we’re going to submit to the Trust is going to closely resemble our original plan.”

Urban Dove/Camp Group’s initial plan included about 60,000 square feet for boutique-size retail stores, such as for sporting goods, in keeping with Pier 40’s athletic-use theme.

“The retail space being turned into an arts market — we experimented with that and it didn’t seem to be a viable option,” Nanda said. A pricey summer day camp, to be run by CampGroup, is also part of the proposal.
He confirmed that a Pier 40 conservancy is a component of their idea.

As for S.C.A.’s interest in the pier, Nanda said he was “very excited.”
Yet, while acknowledging that the Trust wants an R.F.P respondent to lead the proposal, he downplayed any hierarchy.

“As far as being the lead, we consider ourselves partners,” Nanda said, “and what we submit will reflect that.

“We’re feeling very good about it,” he said of the team effort with the Partnership. “We’ve made a lot of progress.”

The Department of Education and Trust both said nothing is set regarding schools on Pier 40 and that the R.F.P. process is still ongoing.

“We’re still doing evaluation of the R.F.P.’s,” said Chris Martin, the Trust’s spokesperson. “The fact that they’ve approved it will go into consideration,” he said of S.C.A.’s stated interest in the pier. Everything will be examined when the final plan is submitted at this month’s end, he said.

Margie Feinberg, a D.O.E. spokesperson, said the department must defer to the Trust on building schools on Pier 40.

“There is a letter of intent,” she said. “It’s a park. We cannot build in a park — period. Only the Hudson River Park can decide what can be built there. We said we’d like to sit down and discuss it; it’s a vacant site.”
Whereas high schools are not zoned, middle schools are, Feinberg said, meaning, if there was a middle school on Pier 40, local kids would be given preference.

Brad Hoylman, Community Board 2 chairperson, said, “By locating school space on the pier, we kill two birds with one stone. One, Pier 40 will be maximized for public — not commercial — uses. And, two, much-needed classroom space is created in our neighborhood, giving kids a better classroom experience, and parents more options.”

Another site parents and education advocates are eyeing for a middle school is the state-owned building at 75 Morton St., currently housing state agencies, but which the state is hoping to sell.

Lisa Willner, a spokesperson for the Empire State Development Corporation, said she could not answer questions about whether the building would be sold without restrictions to a private developer or sold specifically for use as a school.

“The invitation to bid [an R.F.P.] on 75 Morton St. has not yet been released,” Willner said. “Until the invitation to bid has been finalized, we cannot answer your questions.”

D.O.E.’s Feinberg said, “Any vacant space is always attractive,” but said she couldn’t comment more about 75 Morton St., and noted the state plans to issue an R.F.P. for it.

As for The New School and arts market, Arthur Schwartz, Pier 40 Working Group chairperson, said they’re both now part of a proposal by developer Douglas Durst for Pier 57, at W. 16th St. Schwartz said S.C.A. wants so much space on Pier 40, there’s no room left there for The New School, while both an arts market with galleries and The New School’s Parsons arts school are natural fits at Pier 57, near the Chelsea arts scene.

lofter1

July 14th, 2008, 08:15 PM

Pier 40 plan shown; Event space makes some waves

THE VILLAGER (http://thevillager.com/villager_271/pier40.html)
By Lincoln Anderson
July 9 - 15, 2008

The Pier 40 Working Group got its first glimpse of the new proposal for Pier 40 last Wednesday morning.

After its board meeting at the end of March, the Hudson River Park Trust told the Pier 40 Partnership and Urban Dove/CampGroup to merge their separate redevelopment plans for the pier, and gave them 90 days to produce a final design. What was shown last Wednesday is the result.

As first reported last month in The Villager, the latest proposal includes three public high schools to be located on the W. Houston St. pier’s northern side. In addition, there would be 75,000 square feet of as-yet-unspecified retail space on the ground floor on the pier’s southern side. The plan also calls for a 50,000-square-foot event space on the ground floor at the pier’s southwest corner. Six hundred thousand square feet of the 15-acre pier would be devoted to public open space and athletic fields. The latest scheme also includes 2,400 parking spots for cars, which would be squeezed into a smaller space than the parking that is currently on the pier by using parking stackers.

Under the plan, the high schools, to be built by the School Construction Authority, would be on two floors and would each be 50,000 square feet with 500 students apiece. Each would have a separate entrance and central stairway core.

On the roof above the schools would be eight gyms, which would service the schools and also be available for public use. Urban Dove, not S.C.A., would fund construction of the gyms, which would also be used by Urban Dove’s after-school basketball programs.

There would be two swimming pools, one indoors and one outdoors.

Chris McGinnis, a Pier 40 Partnership member, said he believed the meeting went well.

“I think I felt that people understood that we’re trying hard to come up with a reasonable solution,” he said. “It felt like this was a good start — it wasn’t perfect by any means.”

One element that didn’t go over well, though, was the presence of a marina in the plan. Due to the negative feedback, it was decided to drop the marina.

A marina is “not critical” to the plan’s success, financial or otherwise, McGinnis said, adding marinas also have associated costs.

Arthur Schwartz, the Working Group’s chairperson, also was pleased with the plan and the presentation, noting there was applause afterwards.

“I was very happy with what I saw,” he said. “I think we’re a good amount of the way there. I would say the number one reaction in my mind is still ‘We beat Related! We beat Related!’ And number two is that what we’re getting is pretty much in line with what we wanted all along.”

At the end of March, the Trust’s chairperson, Diana Taylor, announced The Related Companies’ proposed megaplan for the pier, featuring two Cirque du Soleil theaters and projected to attract more than 2 million annual visitors, was out of the running because its financials couldn’t work within the 30-year lease mandated by the Hudson River Park Act.

However, Schwartz added that concerns were also raised at the meeting, such as about the event space, “whether it would create additional car traffic across the bike path.” As for the marina, Schwartz said the community has never supported one for the south side of Pier 40, feeling it would block the pier’s best view.

Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, a nonprofit group that runs children’s sports programs and a summer camp, was among those at the meeting who voiced questions about the plan. Speaking afterward, Townley stressed that he’s not panning the whole plan by any means.

“I think it has some real pluses,” he said. “Compared to the Related plan, this plan looks great.”

Yet, Townley added that it’s not clear how the schools, the local Little Leagues and soccer league and programs like Manhattan Youth will all be able to share the pier’s field space. Townley also said he’d like to see more community space included in the plan, given that municipal bonds and other public monies will fund the pier’s redevelopment and maintenance.

Finally, he said he has worries connected with the event space, given that, under the proposed design, a road will actually extend onto the pier to drop revelers off right at the event space. The road will also pass by the retail stores, he noted.

“I’m not against the event space,” Townley said. “I think they need it to make it happen. But I definitely don’t like the road on the pier. I’m curious to see what people in the Village say. I said, ‘Put up railroad crossings [where the bike path and road onto the pier intersect],’” he added. “If it saves one person’s life, it’s worth it.”

As for community space, Schwartz noted there has been discussion of using one of the gyms as a drop-in center for the gay and lesbian youth who hang out on the Christopher St. Pier.

In what one member of the development team later called “a major emotional SNAFU,” a dog run included in the plan’s previous versions was inadvertently left out of the design presented last week.

Regarding when the Trust’s board will vote on the plan, Schwartz predicted it won’t be at its scheduled meeting at the end of this month, unless it’s as a conditional designation. He said his hope is that C.B. 2 would first have the chance to hold a large public forum on the plan in September, after which the Trust would then vote at the end of that month.

Chris Martin, the Trust’s spokesperson, said, “I’m not sure if there’s going to be a vote this month.”

The next public presentation of the new Pier 40 plan will be at C.B. 2’s Waterfront Committee meeting on Wed., July 16, at 7:30 p.m., at the Tony Dapolito Recreation Center, 3 Clarkson St., at Seventh Ave. South, third floor.

© 2008 Community Media, LLC

Derek2k3

July 14th, 2008, 08:36 PM

Lucky I gave up hope on this bore a long time ago. Great for the community, irrelevent to 90% of the city. How ludicrous would it sound to build 3 high schools in Central Park. If the trust didn't shoot itself in the foot maybe they could build a pier of equal size that actually attracts people to the waterfront.

NYatKNIGHT

July 15th, 2008, 10:39 AM

I disagree that a public park could ever be handed over to a private company, but I'm even more discouraged that it's given over to three high schools which I will never set foot in.

lofter1

July 15th, 2008, 01:35 PM

This plan makes for some interesting mathematics, which isn't fully addressed in the article:

The Pier totals 15 Acres ...

1 Acre (http://ghostseekers.com/conversions.htm) = 43,560 square feet

x 15 Acres = 653,400 sf TOTAL space
Add up the following:

... 75,000 square feet of as-yet-unspecified retail space on the ground floor on the pier’s southern side ...

plus ...

... 50,000-square-foot event space on the ground floor at the pier’s southwest corner ...

plus ...

... Six hundred thousand square feet (600,000 sf) of the 15-acre pier would be devoted to public open space and athletic fields.

then add in the school area, which totals 150,000 sf ...

... the high schools, to be built by the School Construction Authority, would be on two floors and would each be 50,000 square feet ...

That gives you this:

653,400 sf - (75,000 sf + 50,000 sf + 600,000 sf + 150,000 sf) =

653,400 sf - 875,000 sf =

-221,600 sf of unaccounted for space.

Not sure how they plan to equalize that ...

:confused:

Hoping the development groups will have visuals at the CB2 presentationon July 16.

lofter1

July 15th, 2008, 01:38 PM

... given over to three high schools which I will never set foot in.

You could always become a substitute teacher ;)

Plus the schools only account for 1/4 - 1/3 of the pier space.

Between playfields, open space and retail areas there will be plenty of area for non-school activites and thereby peir / park space open to just about anyone (unless one has some sort of restraining order which says you can't get within 500 feet of a school ... :cool:)

NYatKNIGHT

July 15th, 2008, 02:03 PM

I didn't read closely enough to find out why there are three High Schools and not just one big one. I'm assuming there will be one library, one cafeteria, etc...Will they play each other in sports? Who's the home team? Or is it overflow of some main campus?

NYC4Life

July 18th, 2008, 01:15 PM

Downtown Express

Support for Pier 40’s latest idea, but event space makes waves

By Lincoln Anderson

The Pier 40 Working Group got its first glimpse of the new proposal for Pier 40 last Wednesday morning.

After its board meeting at the end of March, the Hudson River Park Trust told the Pier 40 Partnership and Urban Dove/CampGroup to merge their separate redevelopment plans for the pier, and gave them 90 days to produce a final design. What was shown last Wednesday is the result.

The latest proposal includes three public high schools to be located on the W. Houston St. pier’s northern side. In addition, there would be 75,000 square feet of as-yet-unspecified retail space on the ground floor on the pier’s southern side. The plan also calls for a 50,000-square-foot event space on the ground floor at the pier’s southwest corner. Six hundred thousand square feet of the 15-acre pier would be devoted to public open space and athletic fields. The latest scheme also includes 2,400 parking spots for cars, which would be squeezed into a smaller space than the parking that is currently on the pier by using parking stackers.

Under the plan, the high schools, to be built by the School Construction Authority, would be on two floors and would each be 50,000 square feet with 500 students apiece. Each would have a separate entrance and central stairway core.

On the roof above the schools would be eight gyms, which would service the schools and also be available for public use. Urban Dove, not S.C.A., would fund construction of the gyms, which would also be used by Urban Dove’s after-school basketball programs.

There would be two swimming pools, one indoors and one outdoors.
Chris McGinnis, a Pier 40 Partnership member, said he believed the meeting went well.

“I think I felt that people understood that we’re trying hard to come up with a reasonable solution,” he said. “It felt like this was a good start — it wasn’t perfect by any means.”

One element that didn’t go over well, though, was the presence of a marina in the plan. Due to the negative feedback, it was decided to drop the marina.

A marina is “not critical” to the plan’s success, financial or otherwise, McGinnis said, adding marinas also have associated costs.

Arthur Schwartz, the Working Group’s chairperson, also was pleased with the plan and the presentation, noting there was applause afterwards.
“I was very happy with what I saw,” he said. “I think we’re a good amount of the way there. I would say the number one reaction in my mind is still ‘We beat Related! We beat Related!’ And number two is that what we’re getting is pretty much in line with what we wanted all along.”

At the end of March, the Trust’s chairperson, Diana Taylor, announced The Related Companies’ proposed entertainment center for the pier, featuring two Cirque du Soleil theaters and projected to attract more than 2 million annual visitors, was out of the running because its financials couldn’t work within the 30-year lease mandated by the Hudson River Park Act.

However, Schwartz added that concerns were also raised at the meeting, such as about the event space, “whether it would create additional car traffic across the bike path.” As for the marina, Schwartz said the community has never supported one for the south side of Pier 40, feeling it would block the pier’s best view.

Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, a nonprofit group that runs children’s sports programs and a summer camp, was among those at the meeting who voiced questions about the plan. Speaking afterward, Townley stressed that he’s not panning the whole plan by any means.

“I think it has some real pluses,” he said. “Compared to the Related plan, this plan looks great.”

Yet, Townley added that it’s not clear how the schools, the local Little Leagues and soccer league and programs like Manhattan Youth will all be able to share the pier’s field space. Townley also said he’d like to see more community space included in the plan, given that municipal bonds and other public monies will fund the pier’s redevelopment and maintenance. Finally, he said he has worries connected with the event space, given that, under the proposed design, a road will actually extend onto the pier to drop revelers off right at the event space. The road will also pass by the retail stores, he noted.

“I’m not against the event space,” Townley said. “I think they need it to make it happen. But I definitely don’t like the road on the pier. I’m curious to see what people in the Village say. I said, ‘Put up railroad crossings [where the bike path and road onto the pier intersect],’” he added. “If it saves one person’s life, it’s worth it.”

As for community space, Schwartz noted there has been discussion of using one of the gyms as a drop-in center for the gay and lesbian youth who hang out on the Christopher St. Pier.

In what one member of the development team later called “a major emotional SNAFU,” a dog run included in the plan’s previous versions was inadvertently left out of the design presented last week.

Regarding when the Trust’s board will vote on the plan, Schwartz predicted it won’t be at its scheduled meeting at the end of this month, unless it’s as a conditional designation. He said his hope is that C.B. 2 would first have the chance to hold a large public forum on the plan in September, after which the Trust would then vote at the end of that month.

Chris Martin, the Trust’s spokesperson, said, “I’m not sure if there’s going to be a vote this month.”

The next public presentation of the new Pier 40 plan will be at C.B. 2’s Waterfront Committee meeting on Wed., July 16, at 7:30 p.m., at the Tony Dapolito Recreation Center, 3 Clarkson St., at Seventh Ave. South, third floor.

BrooklynRider

July 20th, 2008, 09:56 PM

I'm encouraged by the commitment to maintain the parking garage. I've always thought all along that we need as many cars as possible crossing into an urban park to underscore the urban edge of danger environment. This seems especially exciting with the proposal of three new schools. It will afford these HRP students equal opportunies to be hit by vehicle trafffic, just like the poor kids in the Bronx.

NYC4Life

July 22nd, 2008, 12:48 PM

NY1

Developers Propose Turning Pier 40 Into Recreation Complex

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/images/live/145/288128.jpg

July 22, 2008

A team of developers has unveiled a new plan to develop Manhattan's Pier 40 into a massive recreation center.

According to the New York Post, the $430 million proposal calls for athletic fields, rooftop gyms, swimming pools, three public high schools, and a hall for parties and other events.

The plan was delivered to the Hudson Park Trust last week with suggestions from a community group that opposed the original plan for the pier – a performing arts center, including an area for Cirque du Soleil.

The proposal would keep two large soccer fields at the center of the 14-acre complex, something that had concerned community groups that have used the fields for soccer and baseball tournaments.

The proposal still faces months of questions, and, if approved, would take another 12 to 18 months to get started.

lofter1

July 22nd, 2008, 01:00 PM

PLANNERS FLOAT NEW PIER IDEA

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07222008/photos/new0d.jpg
'BANK' JOB: A team of developers recently presented
this new rendering of the Pier 40 project, sans
Cirque du Soleil, to the Hudson River Park Trust.

NY POST (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07222008/news/regionalnews/planners_float_new_pier_idea_120942.htm)
By TOM TOPOUSIS
July 22, 2008

Vegas on the Hudson has given way to the Rec Center on the River.

With Cirque du Soleil out of the picture at Pier 40, a team of developers has unveiled a $430 million proposal to build athletic fields, rooftop gyms, swimming pools, three public high schools and a hall for corporate parties and other events on top of the massive pier.

A key feature of the plan is the preservation of two large soccer fields at the center of the 14-acre complex - "the hole in the doughnut," as architects call it - where the fields are shielded from harbor winds by a two-story structure that rings the facility.

The preservation of the fields was a primary concern of community groups that have hosted soccer and baseball leagues there the last four years.

"This is a terrific structure. Our goal has been to save what's terrific and change what's not terrific," said architect Richard Dattner.

The revised plan, delivered to the Hudson Park Trust last week, was developed with input from the Pier 40 Partnership, a community group that opposed a $625 million plan for a performing-arts center, derisively dubbed "Vegas on the Hudson," that was to include Cirque du Soleil.

The new proposal, delivered to the Hudson River Park Trust last week, must now stand up to months of scrutiny, including questions about the group's ability to pay for it.

Park officials have been struggling to come up with a development plan for the pier, one of two in the park designated by state law to be used for commercial purposes in order to generate funding to operate and maintain Hudson River Park.

"It's not our utopian view of the park. But that's because we're restrained by park rules to have commercial development on the pier," said Chris McGinnis, a neighborhood resident who helps run soccer programs for kids at Pier 40.

The new Pier 40 would continue to offer public parking, which is a key source of revenue for the park. But the plan would squeeze 2,400 cars into a smaller space within the pier's structures by using stackers.

Hudson River Park Trust Vice President Noreen Doyle said that if the proposal is approved, it could take 12 to 18 months before the project can get started due to environmental and land-use reviews.

"This is a long process," she warned.

Copyright 2008 NYP Holdings, Inc.

Ninjahedge

July 22nd, 2008, 01:24 PM

But BR!!!

How will they bribe city officials if they have no parking spots to give them??!?

I mean, is 2,400 spots too much to ask?

Seriously though, I have no problem with them going for a few hundred for various staffers, delivery stuff and whatnot, but this is a NYC park/school/pier. There is NO NEED for parking on it! If FedEx wants more parking, let THEM build it into their own building rather than renting possible public space!

Who uses it now, anyway?

lofter1

July 22nd, 2008, 03:11 PM

Lots of dwontown residents (myself NOT included) use Pier 40 for parking -- and have done so for years (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE3DE123CF93AA25757C0A96E9582 60) (even before the park came into existence).

NY State Law mandates that the Pier have a large commercial component and to serve the community's needs.

From day one, even though Pier 40 wa included in the HRP, this pier was carved out to include different and wider uses than are found in the surrounding park.

If you take away parking and other revenue generating opportunities at Pier 40 then how does it get paid for?

Besides, I think NYC high school kids are smart enough to figure out how to cross the street and avoid traffic. And drivers can figure out how to stop for pedestrians.

The only death in this vicinity was due to a drunken driver on the bikepath (http://www.thevillager.com/villager_188%20/drunkdriveronhudsonpark.html) late one night back in December '06. Not sure there's been any daytime incidents with parkers / peds on Pier 40 in the past.

Sky walks / pedestrian bridges that cross above the WSH / bikepaths and connect Pier 40 with the big St. John's building and / or the nieghborhood to the east should be included in any plan for schools on the Pier.

antinimby

July 22nd, 2008, 07:08 PM

I can't imagine anything more of a waste than to use prime waterfront space for parking cars.

Naturally, this city today would do exactly just that, too.

brianac

September 30th, 2008, 07:35 PM

September 30. 2008 6:01PM

Pier 40’s plans collapse

Long-sought plan for 14-acre site fails to pass muster.

Theresa Agovino (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/personalia?ID=123)

The last ditch effort to find a developer for Pier 40 has failed, leaving the future of the crumbling structure, which provides a significant portion of the Hudson River Park’s budget, unclear.

Last March, after a proposal by The Related Cos. was shelved because of differences over lease terms, the Hudson River Park Trust gave two other groups 90 days to come up with a joint proposal for the 14-acre site.

Even after deadline extensions, however, the groups have failed to produce a proposal that meet all the criteria established by the Hudson River Park Trust. The problems with the proposal weren’t clear, although in earlier interviews, trust Chairwoman Diana Taylor said she was worried that the proposal might not be able to generate enough revenue to cover any bonds that were sold to finance the project. The proposal included putting a school and a camp on the site.

Last week, the Hudson River Park Trust board met, and while it didn’t formally vote on the proposal, it was clear from the conversation that the new plan didn’t have support. The trust has been trying to find a developer for the pier for six years and has issued two separate requests for proposals.

In a statement, Ms. Taylor said the trust would begin discussion with its board, elected officials and community representatives to reexamine the criteria and consider its options. She declined to comment beyond the statement.

The organizations that developed the proposal are a group of concerned parents known as the Pier 40 Partnership and a joint venture between nonprofit Urban Dove and camp operator CampGroup. None of the parties returned calls.

Ms. Taylor had previously said she might consider asking legislators in Albany to change the lease on the pier so it could be extended to 49 years, as Related requested. Currently, it is a 30-year lease. However, there was enormous community opposition to Related’s plan because it moved the ball fields in the structure. It was also unclear if Related was still interested in the developing the site.

Finding a developer is crucial for the pier because it is in serious disrepair, which jeopardizes the revenues it generates from the offices, sports facilities and parking garage housed there. Earlier this year, two of the nonprofit tenants which lease space there were forced to vacate parts of their offices because of the building’s structural problems. Parts of the parking garage were also closed.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080930/FREE/809309960/1072

© 2008 Crain Communications, Inc.

Stroika

September 30th, 2008, 11:13 PM

^^ More brilliance on the part of the mega-rich hedge-fund managers who have trashed the American economy ^^

Their selfish desire to rope off the city's biggest pier, effectively putting it out of the use of most of the city so as to give their kids the kind of massive soccer complex worthy of Franklin Lakes or Darien, has now resulted in ... dead proposals.

Next time they should think twice before torpedoing Related's proposal that would have created a potentially fantastic entertainment zone but -- Lordy, Lordy -- would have resulted in increased pedestrian traffic and noise. God forbid that should occur in Downtown Manhattan. Here's hoping another developer can put together a realistic proposal that benefits the entire city before the pier falls into the water.

Derek2k3

September 30th, 2008, 11:53 PM

Related's proposal probably would have been sued to death.
I wonder how much money has already been wasted...

Merry

October 2nd, 2009, 06:04 AM

Would condos or London Eye float on Pier 40?

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_336/eyeonlondon.jpg

A Ferris wheel like the London Eye is reportedly being talked about for Pier 40,
although the rumor has been denied by some.

By Lincoln Anderson

A new ad hoc committee on Pier 40 has been formed at the Hudson River Park Trust to come up with ideas to renovate and redevelop the critical but crumbling 14-acre pier.

Two prior request-for-proposals, or R.F.P., processes that sought developers to fix up and program the Lower West Side pier have sunk like stones.

The most pressing concern about the two-story Pier 40, at W. Houston St., is its roof, which needs $20 million in repairs. Also calling for an overhaul are the pier’s rusting support piles.

The 5-mile-long Hudson River Park is supposed to be financially self-supporting, and Pier 40 is a big part of that equation: Parking — currently Pier 40’s main commercial use — brings in about $7.5 million gross ($5.5 million net) in rent for the Trust, or about 40 percent of the park’s annual operating budget. Parking on the pier is staunchly defended by a strong local constituency of car owners.

With improvements, the parking could probably bring in several million dollars more in annual revenue. However, as the pier’s roof deteriorates, sections of the parking are being progressively closed off, not only putting the pier at risk, but reducing the pier’s revenue.

In order for the pier to be renovated, significantly more money is needed, which means bringing in at least one more commercial use — hence the committee’s search.

The ad hoc Pier 40 committee includes four Trust board members — Pam Frederick and Lawrence B. Goldberg, who are appointees of Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer; Paul Ullman, a gubernatorial appointee; and Joe Rose, the city’s former Planning commissioner — as well as Connie Fishman and Noreen Doyle, the Trust’s president and vice president, respectively.

Roughly one day each week, the committee has been meeting with different stakeholders and possible interested development groups. At this point, Ullman and Frederick are the two most active members and the ones doing the outreach and most consistently attending the meetings.

The idea is for the committee to be open to hearing all ideas and not rule out any possibilities — including modifying the Hudson River Park Act, if necessary, to allow certain kinds of uses currently not permitted.

However, that’s not to say the committee is looking to explore ideas that megadevelop the pier: Ullman, for one, got involved with the Trust over his opposition to The Related Companies’ “Las Vegas on the Hudson” plan, which was in the second R.F.P. round and would have featured a Cirque du Soleil and movie theaters for the Tribeca Film Festival. Ullman, who lives in the Village, and Frederick, a Tribeca resident, both have young children that play in local sports leagues that use Pier 40’s playing fields.

Broad Range of ideas

Some ideas that have reportedly been raised, so far, are generally in the nonglamorous, low-impact mold: a warehouse facility for paper products for local restaurants; and a telecom hotel to house Internet data centers and Web servers. The latter, though, was determined to be too heavy for the pier.

At the other end of the spectrum, another group — with past ties to Hudson River Park — is said to have mentioned a plan to bring a giant Ferris wheel to Pier 40, along the lines of the London Eye, London’s top tourist attraction.

However, Ben Korman of C&K Properties, which used to run the parking on Pier 40, denied any involvement in the scheme.

“I really know literally nothing about that idea,” he said. “That has nothing to do with me. … I heard that there is a group that is exploring something along those lines — but I think they’re looking at alternative sites all over the city; I didn’t hear anything about the Hudson waterfront.

“I don’t think this is something that would work at Pier 40,” Korman said of a hypothetical “Lower West Side Eye.” “No matter what, it will be controversial wherever it goes — but it is a success in London and, I think, it is in Paris, too.”

Still another idea that has been floating around is for residential use on Pier 40 — specifically for a small number of very high-end condos or co-ops. For residential use to be allowed on Pier 40, however, the park act would have to be changed.

Interest has dwindled

Particularly before the recession, developers had been expressing interest in Pier 40. Fairway’s owners were said to have been eyeing the pier for a supermarket, though the Trust doesn’t back big-box stores on the pier. Another pitch was for a 200,000-square-foot aquarium, which is small, relatively speaking, compared to Coney Island Aquarium.

Although it was hoped the city would be interested in putting public schools on Pier 40, and there was support for this idea from the Trust, word now has it that the School Construction Authority recently said it had serious reservations about the idea: Having students cross a highway was reportedly an issue, plus because of the real estate dive, spaces on land are now more affordable, making the pier less attractive.

In addition, after the two failed R.F.P.’s, the Trust is now said to be considering crafting its own a master development plan for the pier, and then contracting out the job to different developers or groups.

Open-ended process

Fishman, the Trust’s president, said of the committee’s efforts, “The idea is to cast as wide a net for research as possible — to reach into the corners...a broader section of conversation. They’re trying to be open-minded.”

Fishman said she didn’t feel the committee had the objective of trying to change the park’s legislation without first having a clear idea of what should be done at the pier.

In the past, she said, discussion about the pier was “geared to the R.F.P. responses,” adding that, while those two R.F.P. processes didn’t pan out, they were educational. “We know a lot of stuff from what happened before,” she said.

As for how long the ad hoc Pier 40 committee will continue its work, Fishman responded that, as of now, the process is open-ended.

“There’s no determined schedule,” she said.

She confirmed there had been ongoing interest in the W. Houston St. pier — from “national to international” groups — but that “it kind of dried up when the economy went on the skids. ... And because the economy is so bad, this is a good time to do research,” she noted.

Asked if the Trust itself will design a master plan for Pier 40’s development, or issue a third R.F.P. for developers, Fishman indicated it’s yet to be determined, replying, “Don’t know enough yet.”

Stymied on stimulus

Doyle, the Trust’s V.P., gave Downtown Express an update on the state-city park authority’s efforts to get federal stimulus funds for Pier 40. She said staff members for Council Speaker Christine Quinn helped identify a grant application they thought might possibly work — under transportation-related uses. In the end, though, the Trust didn’t apply for the grant, given that the application would have been a major effort to do, and since it was a stretch to shoehorn Pier 40 into the transportation category.

“We would have been going up against port authorities, like Los Angeles and Boston,” Doyle noted.

The Trust made some earlier applications for stimulus funds, but these haven’t netted anything yet, Doyle said, adding that competition for these monies is fierce.

“We’re now looking at ‘green’ ideas,” she said of Pier 40. “If it’s ‘green,’ maybe that will make it attractive to get a grant.”

Doyle agreed with Fishman that now is a time to get ideas on Pier 40.

“With economic disarray — it’s a time for creative thinking,” she said. Borrowing from Eastern wisdom, she noted, “The Chinese symbol for ‘opportunity’ is ‘chaos.’”

1990 report recalled

Arthur Schwartz, head of the Hudson River Park Advisory Council and also of the recently reconstituted Pier 40 Working Group, said residential use on Pier 40 would never fly.

“That will create huge opposition,” he told Downtown Express. “That was a proposal for Pier 40 back in the late 1980s or early ’90s,” he said, recalling there was a report on it.

Currently the president of New York Water Taxi, Tom Fox was a member of the West Side Waterfront Panel, which created that 1990 report. He still has a copy of it, kept among what he called his “70 boxes” of Hudson River Park-related material in his office out in Red Hook, Brooklyn.

Called “A Vision for the Hudson River Waterfront Park,” the document essentially laid out the “bare bones” of what would one day become the Hudson River Park, Fox recalled.

Indeed, the part of the report on the park’s Greenwich Village section did offer a proposal for housing at Pier 40 — though Fox personally did not support that concept, preferring recreational use. The so-called “highest density option” called for 1,500 residential units on the pier, with the structure rising 85 feet high in some areas.

“I don’t think it makes any sense at all,” Fox said of having people living on the pier, calling it “privatizing of the river.”

“People don’t want people playing in their front yard,” he explained. “If you have an office building, hotel or residential, you don’t want people playing on your front lawn. The waterfront is precious and should be kept for the public.”

Recreation not profitable

On the other hand, Fox said of Pier 40’s current focus on sports uses, “The problem with recreation is it’s not a big moneymaker.”

Of Pier 40’s other main use, he added, “You can’t underestimate the demand for parking.”

Fox — who from 1992-’95 was president of the Hudson River Park Conservancy, the Trust’s predecessor — and the Friends of Hudson River Park, of which Fox is a board member, are still pushing their plan for a business improvement district-like body to raise funds for the park. The BID would assess a small annual tax on property owners bordering the park between Chambers and W. 59th Sts.

Despite the rough reception the Friends of the High Line received for its proposed High Line Improvement District, which led to that park group shelving the idea, Fox is still bullish on a Hudson River Park funding district.

“It’s moving along,” Fox said. “We’re meeting with the property owners, elected officials. Slow and steady wins the race.”

Tobi Bergman, president of P3, a nonprofit group based on Pier 40 that runs baseball clinics and promotes sports uses of the waterfront, said he agrees with the idea of looking into the viability of any and all uses for Pier 40. The focus right now should be to brainstorm and investigate all options, he said, and to avoid knee-jerk condemnations of possible concepts before all their pros and cons have been fully assessed.

‘Avoid entertainment’

Bergman, for one, said residential might be a use that could work, since it brings in money for the pier but with a relatively low impact in terms of people going to and from the pier, when compared with entertainment uses, such as a London Eye-type Ferris wheel, movie theaters or restaurants, for example. And some people might not mind having ball fields on one side of their homes, if they have “spectacular views” of the river on the other side, he added.

“What I think would create opposition no matter what is high-intensity use that brings a lot of people crossing the bike path,” Bergman said. “I think an entertainment- and a tourism-based approach to the pier is problematic.”

Bergman said he didn’t see why residential use of part of the pier is any more a privatization of the space than some of the commercial uses currently leasing space on the pier, such as a sign-making company on its second floor.

Also, to address Pier 40’s immediate problem — its roof — Bergman recommended that the Trust stop building out new sections of the park, and instead redirect those funds to fixing the pier’s roof.

“They have to drop the idea that they can’t put money into Pier 40,” Bergman said of the Trust. “The pier is deteriorating, which is also reducing the revenue the pier is providing for the park. That’s the first priority — fix that roof.”

‘EXPAND THE GOOD STUFF’

Under the park act, space equivalent to 50 percent of Pier 40’s footprint must be open, public-use space — which can include active recreation, like sports — while the rest of the pier can be developed commercially. Bergman and local parents would like to see the pier’s sports uses actually increase, if feasible.

“The challenge is how is it possible to keep the good stuff — and expand the good stuff?” he said. “That’s not easy.”

A London Eye, on the other hand, would change the neighborhood, Bergman said, bringing with it things local families and youth sports leagues that use the pier don’t want, like “boat rides, restaurants and clubs,” he noted.

One thing is for sure: Whatever does happen at Pier 40, it won’t be done overnight. With all the reviews, vetting and approvals that are needed, after a plan is decided on, it could take a few years to be put into effect.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_336/wouldcondos.html

Derek2k3

October 2nd, 2009, 09:00 AM

Broad Range of ideas

Some ideas that have reportedly been raised, so far, are generally in the nonglamorous, low-impact mold: a warehouse facility for paper products for local restaurants; and a telecom hotel to house Internet data centers and Web servers. The latter, though, was determined to be too heavy for the pier.
This is suppose to be a part of the park right- and I thought the housing to be built in Brooklyn Bridge Park was bad. At least they're not situated in prime areas of park, like along the water.

‘Avoid entertainment’

Bergman, for one, said residential might be a use that could work, since it brings in money for the pier but with a relatively low impact in terms of people going to and from the pier, when compared with entertainment uses, such as a London Eye-type Ferris wheel, movie theaters or restaurants, for example. And some people might not mind having ball fields on one side of their homes, if they have “spectacular views” of the river on the other side, he added.

“What I think would create opposition no matter what is high-intensity use that brings a lot of people crossing the bike path,” Bergman said. “I think an entertainment- and a tourism-based approach to the pier is problematic.”

So the goal is to keep the most outsiders out, so this can remain a more private place for their kids and their cars.

Also, to address Pier 40’s immediate problem — its roof — Bergman recommended that the Trust stop building out new sections of the park, and instead redirect those funds to fixing the pier’s roof.

These people are a bit selfish. At least New Yorkers use these new sections.
The fact that the city can't build and maintain it's own parks irks me and we wouldn't be getting into these soul selling discussions.

Merry

March 19th, 2010, 06:13 AM

Advocate floats Greenmarket idea for Pier 40

By Lincoln Anderson

A new idea for the Lower West Side waterfront could soon be taking root, namely, a Greenmarket for the massive, 14-acre Pier 40 at W. Houston St. The concept emerged from two polls of West Village residents conducted by the weekly WestView newspaper asking what uses for the pier they favored most. George Capsis, the paper’s publisher, said his “Green Pier” involves transforming Pier 40 into “the world’s largest green pier.”

For starters, though, the idea is to have a Greenmarket inside the pier’s courtyard, on its northern, or sunny, side. Eventually, he said, if it proves successful, the Greenmarket could expand around all four sides of the artificial-turf-covered, courtyard sports field, and also possibly set up on the loading dock ringing the field, as well. In winter, the vendors could move inside the pier shed.

“If it all fills out, it will be the largest green pier in the United States,” he boasted.

Asked about the youth sports leagues that currently use the sprawling sports field so heavily, Capsis downplayed any negative impact the Greenmarket might have on them — though he couldn’t resist taking a dig at what he termed the “private school kids” that dominate the pier.

“The soccer dads, all of these private schools that now own the pier during the day, they’re very nervous that the plan will erode their use of the pier,” he said. “They feel that it’s going to invade their turf. When you think about it, you have a handful of people on the field — [but] you have thousands of people in the West Village. These facilities have to be shared. I think they’ll freak out, I think they’ll resist it,” he predicted.

Capsis said even if Pier 40 becomes the world’s largest green pier, “The soccer kids will still be there, be assured.”

The Greenmarket, Capsis explained, would have a trial period, and if nobody came during the first year, then the idea would likely be scrapped. He has convinced Arthur Schwartz, chairperson of Community Board 2’s Waterfront Committee, that it’s an idea worth trying.

Schwartz has put “Greenmarket at Pier 40?” on the agenda of his Mon., March 22, committee meeting, at Village Community School, 272 W. 10th St., starting at 7 p.m. Schwartz, a labor attorney who is listed on WestView’s masthead as the paper’s “Community Editor,” said he genuinely thinks the “Green Pier” proposal could work.

The meeting will feature a report on a tour of the pier that Michael Hurwitz, director of the city’s Greenmarket program, planned to take on Wed., Mar. 17, with Capsis; Schwartz; Noreen Doyle, the vice president of the Hudson River Park Trust; and Paul Ullman, a Trust board member who has been helping lead the effort to find compatible, low-impact, revenue-generating uses for the pier.

Schwartz said he envisioned Pier 40 becoming a modern-day incarnation of the old Gansevoort Market that used to be on Gansevoort Peninsula until the mid-20th century, a place where one could buy not only produce, but fresh fish, too. Schwartz said having a Greenmarket would create a new “use group” on Pier 40 (beyond sports leagues, which don’t really produce revenue), which could help attract other commercial tenants, increasing the pier’s cash-generating capacity.

“It’s a low-cost version of what YoungWoo’s doing at Pier 57,” he said, “with lots of booths and little artisans, like a permanent street fair.” Schwartz said he imagines the Greenmarket being open weeknights and weekends. “There isn’t any other immediate plan for any other use there,” Schwartz said, “so why not try something?”

Pier 40 is literally crumbling and needs millions of dollars in repairs. Two past efforts by the Trust to find developers to overhaul the structure have failed, due to staunch community opposition and the fact that the pier’s lease isn’t long term, making it financially unattractive.

Meanwhile, Pat Shields — a member of the Bedford Downing Block Association — is floating a counterproposal for a Pier 40 stadium (to be home to “a modest and traditional, English Premier League-style Major League Soccer franchise.” The stadium, as Shields — a former Division III soccer player at Kenyon — puts it in his written pitch, “would be available at times to the public.”

To develop this sports edifice, he says, all that’s needed is to find “a group of U.S. and international luxury box lessees, raise $150 million from them, assist pier development, and attract M.L.S. ownership, with neighborhood and political priorities in place.”

The pier, Shields says, could feature “live M.L.S. matches or giant HD screenings of Champions League and other international cups.” There would be fields on two levels, plus two trams traversing a giant arch overhead— “It could be our London Eye-type attraction,” Shields muses. “And this isn’t the riverside, oversized Jets stadium project,” he adds.

Although their plans are wildly divergent, Capsis and Shields do share one thing in common, having long used the long-term parking at Pier 40 — though Shields recently sold his car.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_360/advocatefloats.html

Ninjahedge

March 19th, 2010, 07:38 AM

"Soccer Dads?"

What a prick. That pier is used by so many it is not funny. Booking time is difficult, and any spare area in a corner is usually used by random people coming in and using an unused soccer goal for a mini-game in the corner.

The double irony is the fact that he seems to be downplaying the "private school" kids, when most of the families in the West Village are just that!

They need more green space that is ACTUALLY GREEN, not label it green and put stores on it.

Merry

September 16th, 2010, 06:15 AM

Friends of Hudson River Park eye fundraising

Shifting the group's mission to fundraising role comes as the West Side esplanade faces a $10 million deficit over the next five years; lack of income from Piers 40 and 57 causes problems.

By Theresa Agovino

(http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100915/REAL_ESTATE/100919906#)
As the Hudson River Park faces a $10 million deficit over the next five years, the advocacy group that has watched over the park's creation is working to refocus its mission to fundraising for the West Side esplanade.

Friends of the Hudson River Park was established in 1999 as a watchdog group to ensure the money committed by the city and state for the park was received and used properly. It also provided support for the agency responsible for building the park, the Hudson River Park Trust.

The Trust is responsible for managing the park and oversees the redevelopment its assets, including Piers 40 and 57, in order to generate revenues to fund the park's ongoing operation. However, for myriad reasons the redevelopment of both piers has been delayed for years, depriving the park of desperately needed revenue and leaving the trust with a potentially large hole in its budget.

“It was time for us to step back and see where we were really needed,” said A.J. Pietrantone, the Friends' executive director. He said moving into fundraising makes sense, given the Trust's financial problems.

“Our board is very interested in the idea,” said Connie Fishman, president of the Trust, which has a board made up of political appointees.

“Our board was not selected for their fundraising capabilities,” Ms. Fishman said.

Over the summer, a task force was formed with board members from each organization to delve into Friends taking on an expanded mission. The task force will present its ideas to both boards later this month.

If both boards agree that it is a good idea, they will spend the remainder of the year defining the relationship and working out specifics.

When new sections of the park open in October, it will be 80% complete. Ms. Fishman said it was difficult to say when the park will be fully completed because so many elements that would allow the project to be finished are out of the Trust's hands. For example, a sanitation facility and heliport must be moved before the park's construction will be done. Eventually it will run for five miles from Battery Place to West 59th Street.

Earlier this year, the Trust selected Youngwoo & Associated to redevelop Pier 57, a decrepit structure at the end of West 15th Street. Youngwoo's proposal includes a new home for the Phillips de Pury & Co. auction house, as well as space for art galleries and a concert venue. The company's appointment came after another plan for the pier fell apart last year.

However, Ms. Fishman estimates it will be at least five years before the Youngwoo plan begins to generate revenue.

Meanwhile, three attempts to find a developer for Pier 40 have failed and the effort to find another one is on hold.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100915/REAL_ESTATE/100919906#

ZippyTheChimp

September 16th, 2010, 10:33 AM

Hard to believe that pier 40 is almost as big as the WTC site.

The two biggest 'landmasses' remain undeveloped - Pier 40 and Gansevoort. The only expansive piece that's done is Chelsea Cove.

lofter1

September 16th, 2010, 12:06 PM

Friends of Hudson River Park eye fundraising

As the Hudson River Park faces a $10 million deficit over the next five years, the advocacy group that has watched over the park's creation is working to refocus its mission to fundraising for the West Side esplanade.

... Over the summer, a task force was formed with board members from each organization to delve into Friends taking on an expanded mission. The task force will present its ideas to both boards later this month.

... a sanitation facility and heliport must be moved before the park's construction will be done.

That sanitation facility is on the Gansevoort Peninsula, where Spectra Energy has proposed land fall for a new 30" natural gas line running from NJ under the Hudson River into Manhattan.

... the new gas pipeline (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2010/08/06/jersey_city_meatpacking_district_have_a_bad_case_o f_gas.php) proposed by Spectra Energy of Houston to run through JC (http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerseycity/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1280990421292470.xml&coll=3), then across the river and into Manhattan via the Gansevoort Peninsula?

As now proposed the pipe line would come out of the water at the SW corner of the GP, run ~ 3' underground for the full length of the peninsula (where a "beach" is proposed as part of the future HRP segment there) and then cross under the West Side Hiway. But Spectra must also consider alternative sites for the pipe line, and a stretch of Hudson River waterfront from Gansevoort south towards Pier 40 are shown on the Spectra map (http://douglascarlucci.typepad.com/.a/6a010536a223b2970c01310fb38bf9970c-500wi).

Word is that the Friends of HRP are in discussions with Spectra about the gas pipe line plans. No doubt this pipe line would generate some funding for the Park.

No details of the proposed deal between Spectra <> FOHRP have yet been released.

CB 2 is holding a public meeting (http://www.nyc.gov/html/mancb2/html/calendar/calendar.shtml) on the matter of the pipe line on October 5:

Upcoming meetings:

1. 10/5 – Environment, Public Safety, Public Health – 6:30 PM - (location to be determined)

Presentation regarding a new proposed gas pipeline from New Jersey to Gansevoort Market.

... Spectra Energy has proposed the installation of the new gas pipeline ...

> Big detailed MAP of the proposed pipeine location in relation to Hoboken Avenue and the 18th Street route to the Hudson (http://media.nj.com/hudsoncountynow_impact/photo/spectra-pipeline-jersey-city-newportjpg-427ca530367c8e6b.jpg)

Merry

May 4th, 2012, 07:10 AM

Will Residential Save Pier 40 From Atlantis-Future?

by Dave Hogarty

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/untitled-1785-Edit.jpg
[Pier 40, with a random 30-story building placed on it]

The board of the Hudson River Park Trust is taking all suggestions to save the park from bankruptcy and it may mean that residential housing and a hotel are destined for Pier 40. Right now, the park's finances and physical structures are battling it out to see who can sink to the most perilous condition. Contributions from the city and state towards the park's capital budget have been sinking, while costs keep rising. The projected cost of repairing Pier 40's crumbling roof and corroded steel pilings is $100 million, according to The Villager (http://www.thevillager.com/?p=4249), and the park is restricted from taking on debt.

A number of sports groups that use Pier 40 commissioned a study to explore ways out of the perilous situation, and the most profitable in terms of rent revenue generation was a mix of residential housing and a hotel. The development would be 15-30 stories and approximately 600,000 square feet of space, while keeping 70% of the area of Pier 40 open for public use. The state legislature would have to approve changes to Hudson River Park's charter to allow private development along the waterfront.

Residential Could Save Pier 40, Study Finds (http://www.thevillager.com/?p=4249) [TheVillager]

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/03/will_residential_save_pier_40_from_atlantisfuture. php

Ninjahedge

May 4th, 2012, 08:50 AM

It's simple. Turn that end strip along the water into rental/hotel space and leave the rest as athletic fields. The view is still great, and if you can afford to tweak the parks so they do not look like usage of old industrial space you might actually attract some visitors that would like a hotel space a bit different than the others....

Maybe...

Derek2k3

May 4th, 2012, 12:26 PM

I'd be disappointed if they actually prefer a 30-story residential tower on the water rather than building kinds of venues that New Yorkers who are outside the Village and who don't play soccer could enjoy.

I have a problem that their goal really seems to be keeping their community soccer field going and keeping visitor attendance to a minimum . I hope the city does not chip in a dime towards this because no soccer field/parking garage in any other neighborhood would receive such funding.

Shame that the biggest piece of the park with the biggest opportunity will probably continue to serve so few.

Merry

June 1st, 2012, 11:00 PM

Hudson River Park hits headwinds downtown

Some in community voice opposition to plans by the nonprofit overseeing the five-mile greenway to bring more commercial development to generate badly needed revenue.

By Ken M. Christensen

With just three weeks left in the current legislative session in Albany, the trust charged with operating and maintaining the five-mile long Hudson River Park on Manhattan's West Side got bad news Thursday night. At a public forum designed to help drum up support for further commercial development in the park, residents were at best skeptical.

More than 200 people attended the meeting, in the historic St. Paul's Chapel on lower Broadway, to hear the Hudson River Park Trust's pitch. The trust unveiled the results of its recent study, which showed that building apartments and hotel rooms on Pier 40, at the foot of West Houston Street, would provide a high-revenue, low-traffic solution to the park's financial woes. That argument, however, failed to win over many community members.

"People are fed up in the Village with high buildings going up," said Dave Poster, who has lived in the West Village for nearly half of his 74 years. On the other hand, he went on to note that if commercial development is "the only way, then you have no options."

Several speakers, however, argued that alternatives do indeed exist. Among those making that point was State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose support is seen as key to the trust's efforts to persuade the legislature to change a 1998 state law that created the park and which forbids a range of lucrative uses of park property.

"They presented this as the silver bullet," she said. Instead Ms. Glick argued, the city as well as local businesses should chip in to pay for the bills since they have benefited from the park. One way to do that, she suggested, would be to create a Park Improvement District that would be able to tap property taxes on developments sprouting up near the park.

As for the city's future contributions, she pointed out that the Department of Education uses the ball fields on Pier 40.
"Ask them how much the city is providing for that," she said.

Madelyn Wils, the trust's CEO, said Thursday night's meeting was "further proof of the abiding love New Yorkers have for Hudson River Park," but that a creative solution is needed.

"We need imaginative thinking and cooperation to increase revenue in the park so that we can maintain it in the future," she said on Friday. "Time is of the essence."

One thing that is not in dispute is the scale of the park's financial needs. For openers, the trust is not only $200 million short of what it needs to complete the five-mile greenway, it also needs over $100 million just to repair decaying piles under Pier 40. The pier, which is located in Ms. Glick's district and is currently home to a parking garage and playing fields, has the biggest potential to bring in revenue. The trust estimates that with changes taken into account in the study, the pier could generate up to 40% of the park's needed revenue in 2022, as opposed to just 6% currently.

But that also requires changing the 1998 law to extend the 30-year lease limit to attract tenants willing to invest in new facilities and to vary the types of businesses allowed.

In one important sign of progress, Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, who helped draft the law 14 years ago, recently came out in favor of the changes after reviewing the Trust's new study.

He also lauded the Trust's accomplishments to date, saying: "The area that we were afraid would develop into a wall of towers is now grass and trees and benches."

His endorsement, however, drew hisses from attendees, some of whom oppose changes in the law for fear they would open the door to fracking upstate by permitting a natural gas pipeline to be built under the park. At the beginning of the evening, someone draped a long brown painted banner over the second floor balcony that said, "Keep your fracking pipeline."

If legislation isn't passed soon, proponents will have to wait until January to propose it again.

"I hope we can show to people that we are not changing what they love about the park," Mr. Gottfried said.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120601/REAL_ESTATE/120609986#ixzz1wbK7hnbs

Merry

June 21st, 2012, 06:31 AM

Bill to save Pier 40 fails

Legislators couldn't agree on terms that would generate revenue to rebuild the park's aging infrastructure.

By Theresa Agovino

Legislation to bolster the quickly deteriorating finances of the nonprofit that runs the Hudson River Park has failed amid disagreements on how to solve the group's money troubles.

"It is clear at this point there is not enough support to pass a bill that does what needs to be done," said Assemblyman Richard Gottfried.

The state legislative session is slated to end Thursday.

The park's bank account is quickly dwindling in the wake of two successive years of budget deficits. Without a cash infusion, the five-mile park will exhaust its reserve fund in less than three years.

To reverse the trend, the trust sought new legislation to make Pier 40, the park's main commercial asset, more attractive to potential developers by expanding the uses allowed there, as well as the lease term. Two previous attempts to develop the pier have failed. Recently, the trust's president, Madelyn Wils, said Pier 40 might have to close by 2014 (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120506/REAL_ESTATE/305069980) unless there is a cash infusion.

Meanwhile, roughly $118 million is needed just to make basic repairs to Pier 40, a nearly 15-acre expanse with ball fields and a 775,000-square-foot building with offices, sports facilities and a parking garage.

The trust has raised the idea of allowing residential units and a hotel to be constructed on the pier—two uses forbidden under the law that created the trust. Leaders also hoped the pier's lease term would be extended beyond 30 years. A study commissioned by the trust suggested that an 87-year lease term for its existing space at the end of West Houston Street would be ideal.

However, the proposed bill was a watered down version of what the trust thought would make sense for the Pier. It didn't allow for either residential or hotel development, nor did it definitely lengthen the lease term.

Previously, Assemblywoman Deborah Glick voiced doubts about the legislation, saying she thought the effort was moving too quickly. She wasn't convinced that Pier 40's lease term needed to be changed or that its uses had to be expanded. Her support is crucial because she represents the Greenwich Village district.

However, Ms. Glick said that the legislation would have given the trust $15 million in emergency aid. It also would have received about $7 million from fees on water taxis.
"I think it was a fair deal," she said. "I don't know why [the Pier] walked away."

In a statement, Ms. Wils said, “Our continued goal is to create more flexibility in the act to provide the park with a stronger financial foundation while delivering the most amount of park space possible to the community.”

If a special session of the legislature is called in December, there is a chance the bill could be revisited. Otherwise, legislators will go back to the drawing board next year.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120620/REAL_ESTATE/120619857#ixzz1yQFq0h2O

Stroika

June 22nd, 2012, 02:57 AM

What a mess. I'm shocked by the "community" types that think this massive pier should be their private parking lot and soccer field. This is a huge structure with potential to not only provide the park with needed revenue but also offer a range of amenities to people from all over the city and beyond, rather than serving as the youth-soccer preserve of a handful of neighbors. Seems like it should be a fairly straightforward, uncontroversial solution to develop Pier 40 for commercial uses, as has been planned all along... no?

Merry

July 19th, 2012, 06:52 AM

Pier Pressure

Hudson River Park restrictions upheld at Pier 40.

by Alex Ulam

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/image/Pier40.jpg
Courtesy Hudson River Park Trust

Proposed changes to the state law that restricts development within Hudson River Park have failed to get traction in Albany, leaving a big question mark over the future of one of the city’s most significant parks.

Facing overwhelming maintenance and repair costs that are burning through its reserve fund, the Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT) the quasi-governmental agency that runs the park, had sent a controversial proposal to Albany seeking to change the Hudson River Park Act to remove some of the development restrictions, most notably the one against residential development.

The Trust’s proposal included a study for Pier 40 with potential redevelopment scenarios by SHoP Architects that included residential towers and a luxury hotel. The most significant threat to park finances is the 15-acre Pier 40, the largest pier in Manhattan, which suffers from rusting pilings and a leaking roof that is in the midst of an $8.8 million emergency repair job. HRPT officials estimate that it will cost about $120 million just to fix Pier 40.

“If we don’t get the state law changed, eventually we will have to start shutting down sections of Pier 40,” HRPT president Madelyn Wils said.

Some in Albany supported HRPT’s proposal, such as State Assemblymember Richard Gottfried, who introduced a bill to change the Hudson River Park Act in the assembly session that ended June 21. Gottfried says the proposed legislation was a compromise that did not go far enough because it did not include the complete menu of development scenarios.

“Until about three months ago, I was fully committed to the language that I helped to write in the Hudson River Park Act 14 years ago that prohibited residential development within the park,” Gottfried said. “It has now become clear to me that of all the possible uses that you might put on Pier 40 and Pier 76, housing has about the lowest traffic impact with the highest level of reliable revenue.”

HRPT’s proposal faced opposition from some community activists and legislators. “The Trust is misrepresenting the degree of the crisis. The immediate needs of Pier 40 and Pier 54 are not beyond the ability of the city and state to address,” said New York State Assemblymember Deborah Glick.

Wils says that with the current rate of capital maintenance costs, HRPT will run out of money by the end of 2015.

http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6167

Ninjahedge

July 19th, 2012, 09:13 AM

It is a shame, but at the same time it is a relatively small facility used by a small portion of lucky people that get access to it through their clubs and such.

Playing soccer and softball there was a treat, but I could see (even ~8 years ago when I played) the deterioration. They have let it go too far w/o consistent SUFFICIENT maintenance and we are now seeing the emergency repair work starting.

Although I really like what they have done with the other piers, is it worth it to do the same for this? Would it be cheaper/easier to try and find some other parcel of land in need of demolition/reclamation in the city or have we completely run out?

Partial demo and repair of P40 might be a lot cheaper than saving that aging hulk. Repairing a space is great, so long as you have the money to keep the area staffed, supervised, maintained and cleaned. Without that.......

*shrug*

scumonkey

July 19th, 2012, 01:16 PM

might catch hell for saying this but...

I see the pier as an eyesore that only a few people in the area can actually use (i've never gained access)- and the proposals all seem tailored to keep it that way.
unless they plan on changing something drastically (food courts or some such that we can ALL enjoy), let it fall into the river.

Gottfried is also a moron, whose positions I find dubious at best.

ZippyTheChimp

July 19th, 2012, 01:47 PM

It is a shame, but at the same time it is a relatively small facility15 acres is pretty big for Manhattan.

Although I really like what they have done with the other piers, is it worth it to do the same for this?Since the beginning, pier 40 was unlike the piers already developed. 50% of the area was earmarked for commercial development, as a revenue source for the park. It's more like pier 57.

These should have been developed first, to put revenue generation in place. After starts and stops for years, pier 57 is finally going through land review.

And the DSNY isn't going to get off Ganesvoort, which may present other opportunities for revenue, until the garage facility on Spring St is complete.

Ninjahedge

July 19th, 2012, 03:56 PM

So the thing is it needs to be altered to be viable. It can't just be fixed and kept as is.

I am with Scum on this in that it IS very private, and until recently, the area was kind of industrial and isolated (the strip made all the difference, although the vent house "park" (HT) was a nice place to sit for lunch at times...).

And I know you say 15 acres is big... but not when it is broken up into a bunch of smaller areas, or overlapping baseball fields.

There is no easy solution, and definitely not one that everyone will accept.

lofter1

July 19th, 2012, 10:29 PM

And the DSNY isn't going to get off Ganesvoort, which may present other opportunities for revenue, until the garage facility on Spring St is complete.

The framework for the DOS Garage is halfway up. The thing is HUGE.

Merry

August 4th, 2012, 12:55 AM

Trust Considering Shuttering Money Pit Pier 40

by Dave Hogarty

Pier 40 (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/explore-the-park/locations/pier-40) at Houston Street is turning into a waterfront money pit for the Hudson River Park, and the trust that controls the entire park is thinking of shutting it down—its playing fields, the parking, everything, all or in parts—to staunch the fiscal drain the pier poses to the entire park. "If it was my decision right now, I would completely cut [Pier 40] off and say ‘Not one more dime goes into that pier, period," said park board chair Diana Taylor at a recent public meeting and reported in The Tribeca Trib (http://tribecatrib.com/news/2012/august/1324_agency-is-thinking-the-unthinkable-phased-shutdown-of-popular-pier-40.html). The problem is that Pier 40 is deteriorating—its pilings need shoring up, concrete is crumbling so badly that large sections of parking areas have been cordoned off—and repairs are expected to cost tens of millions of dollars, which would drain the Hudson River Park Trust of all its resources (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/20/pier_40_closer_to_underwaterfinancially_literally. php).

Over the last few years a number of proposals have been floated to shore up the pier's fiscal and physical condition, including a transformation into a circus-like Vegas on the Hudson (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2007/04/27/pier_40_update_vegas_on_the_hudson_sounds_just_rig ht.php), the construction of a Major League Soccer stadium (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/04/04/pier_40_is_goal_for_mls.php), and even developing a 30-story residential tower (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/03/will_residential_save_pier_40_from_atlantisfuture. php) at the site. Despite the many schemes, nothing has come to pass, and now park trust members are considering the phased shutdown of the Pier to make necessary repairs to keep important community amenities like the playing fields open while limiting the financial damage the pier is doing to the rest of the park.

Thinking the Unthinkable: Phased Shut Down of Pier 40 (http://tribecatrib.com/news/2012/august/1324_agency-is-thinking-the-unthinkable-phased-shutdown-of-popular-pier-40.html) [TribecaTrib]
Pier 40 (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/explore-the-park/locations/pier-40) [HudsonRiverPark]

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/08/03/trust_considering_shuttering_money_pit_pier_40.php #more

lofter1

August 4th, 2012, 12:50 PM

HR Park Trust would have to get an OK from NYS Legislature to shut down what's offered in this part of the park. The Trust assumed the responsibility to maintain the pier, and if they aren't up to that then it would seem the Trust should readjust priorities and actions so that the agreed-to mission can be fulfilled.

londonlawyer

August 5th, 2012, 01:41 PM

The building at Pier 40 is such an eyesore, as is the huge pile of crap across the street. (I've heard that St. John's owns that.) It would be great to see them both razed.

lofter1

August 5th, 2012, 02:45 PM

St. John's Center building at 550 Washington Street stands little chance of being razed . It's one of the largest buildings in NYC, covering ~ 250,000 sf / per floor (~5 acres), and would be really expensive to tear down, seeing as how it's really robustly built (and houses huge steel for rail road tracks, serving as the southern terminus for the original High Line).

The building has a website: http://550washingtonnyc.com/home.html

It currently houses huge production studios: St. John's Center Studios (http://www.sjcstudios.com/)

It's constructed so that something big could rise on top (PHOTOS (http://www.sjcstudios.com/roof_top.html))

There have been various proposals to enlarge the building (which holds 300,000 sf of unused air rights (http://therealdeal.com/blog/2007/11/04/hotel-could-rise-atop-st-john-s-building/)) including hotel or condos (http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_234/stjohns.html) and, at one time, new studios for CBS Television. More at my 2007 post in this thread (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2900&page=8&p=143252&viewfull=1#post143252).

londonlawyer

August 5th, 2012, 03:38 PM

Thanks, Lofter. I vaguely remember posts about additions to 550 Washington. It needs windows and a new facade. It looks so horrible.

Ninjahedge

August 6th, 2012, 10:39 AM

Loft, they were thinking of making a huge studio on top of it about 8-10 years back. I forget which company I was working for, but we were doing a feasibility study on it for just that.

I wonder if they are thinking of it again....

Merry

September 21st, 2012, 07:50 AM

City Plans Competition to Help Fix Pier 40 and Downtown Waterfront

By Jill Colvin

http://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/photo/2012/04/1335810799.jpg/image400x600.jpg

MANHATTAN — The city is looking for new ways to fix the crumbling Pier 40 and repair rotting pilings along the Lower Manhattan shoreline — offering nearly $100,000 in prize money for the winning bids.

The city’s Economic Development Corporation plans to launch a new construction competition called "Change the Course," asking entrants to come up with new ideas to shore up the city's decaying waterfront, which is the focus of several major redevelopment bids.

“New York City Economic Development Corporation is seeking proposals for innovative and cost-saving solutions for completing marine construction projects in New York City,” the city wrote in a notice to potential bidders released Wednesday.

Water quality in New York harbor has improved dramatically over the past 20 years. But one of the unintended consequences has been the resurgence of tiny micro-organisms called marine borers, who munch on submerged wood, including the pilings that support structures like piers.

The hungry creatures have wreaked havoc on many of the city's underwater structures, causing dozens of piers to collapse (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/nyregion/cleaner-new-york-harbor-brings-pests-that-plague-park-projects.html?pagewanted=all) — threatening the city with millions of dollars in repairs.

The city has tried several tricks to try to make the pilings less tasty, including treating them with chemicals, wrapping them in plastic, and encasing them in concrete (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/nyregion/cleaner-new-york-harbor-brings-pests-that-plague-park-projects.html?pagewanted=all) — but the ideas either haven't worked or have proven extremely expensive — leaving many piers in disarray.

According to the full request released Thursday, the competition asks engineers and construction companies to come up with new, innovative ideas to keep the borers at bay.

Companies have been asked to focus on two areas: the structures between the old Fulton Fish Market at the South Street Seaport, Pier 35 in Lower Manhattan and the Hudson River Park’s Pier 40. Both the Sea Port at Pier 40 are being eyed for potential development in the coming years (http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120309/downtown/south-street-seaports-pier-17-be-gutted-under-new-plan), and finding cheaper ways to improve supporting infrastructure would give them a boost.
A 2009 engineering report found that Pier 40 was in "poor condition," with many of its support piles exhibiting "severe" corrosion, limiting the weight that it can bear.

Similar damage was reported at the pilings supporting the old Fulton Fish Market at the South Street Seaport, which exhibited "widespread advanced defects including heavy marine borer and fungal rot deterioration," a 2010 engineering report found.

The borers also threaten other waterfront treasures across the city, including the East River's Andrew Haswell Green Park (http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20100222/upper-east-side/upper-east-side-riverfront-park-gets-final-green-light), which the city recently estimated would require $15 million in repairs to keep from crumbling into the river.

EDC spokesman Ben Branham said the goal of the contest was to brainstorm new ideas for maintaining and building waterfront infrastructure along the city's 565 miles of shorefront.

"In an era of limited resources, this innovative competition is aimed at uncovering new methodologies and techniques for addressing the challenges associated with our aging infrastructure, helping ensuring the long-term sustainability of and access to city's incredible waterfront," he said.

According to the request, contest submissions will be screened by an advisory committee and the EDC, which will decide whether or not to move forward with the competition. If the city gives the green light, finalists will be given the chance to compete for prizes, including $50,000 for first place, $25,000 for second and $15,000 for third, awarded based on factors including potential money saved and feasibility.

Submissions for the first phase of the competition are due Nov. 16.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120919/greenwich-village/city-moves-ahead-with-plans-develop-pier-40-downtown-waterfront#ixzz276VYNXeP

Merry

December 17th, 2012, 04:43 AM

Sinking Pier 40: Durst Leaves Hudson River Park Amid Mutiny Over Its Future

By Matt Chaban

https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2011_tribeca_pier40_aerialbody.jpg?w=600&h=433 (http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2011_tribeca_pier40_aerialbody.jpg)
Adrift. (HRP Trust)

Even before Hurricane Sandy buried it under more than a dozen feet of water, Hudson River Park was struggling to stay afloat.

The past decade had seen substantial progress on the long-planned park, made possible by the demolition of the old West Side Highway (which provided some of the initial funding) and the realization New Yorkers actually wanted to return to the waterfront (which provided the drive). By last year, more than 70 percent of the park had been completed, including many of the piers, transformed from places of work into ones for play, and the generous esplanade connecting them all, running from the Battery all the way up to Riverside Park.

But the grass is not always greener in a new park. Like so many other open spaces created in recent years (http://observer.com/term/libertarian-parks/), Hudson River Park receives limited public funding. Instead, it is expected to generate its own revenue through not only fundraising but also development within the bounds of the park, everything from floating restaurants to parking garages. Everything from rock climbers at Chelsea Piers to the tourists taking Circle Line cruises contributes in its own way.

At one time, Pier 40 was the park’s biggest single source of funds, but increasingly, it has become a drag on the park, and a dispute over its future has led to the departure of one of its biggest backers.

Built in 1958 (http://thevillager.com/villager_274/cementingpier40.html) as an air marine terminal for the Holland America Line, Pier 40 is actually one of the younger protrusions from the park, and also the biggest, at 14 acres. But unlike its predecessors, Pier 40 has not been substantially rebuilt to accommodate its new uses, chiefly as a parking garage but also as a popular downtown ballfield (one of the few) as well as being home to a few harbor cruisers (Affairs Afloat and the Hornblower), a dog run, a kayaking company and a trapeze school. The parking alone brought in $5 million a year.

That was before the pier began to crumble. There has been growing concern over the piles holding up the pier, which have only been intermittently repaired over the years, and part of the roof has begun to collapse, closing one of the three ball fields. The Hudson River Park Trust, which runs the parks, pegs the cost of fixing the pier at $125 million, at least $80 million for just the piles. This is money the trust argues it can hardly afford to spend, and it wants to foster some new type of development, most likely housing, to help offset the cost.

Pier 40, located between Spring and LeRoy streets in the Village, has gone from a buoy to a concrete boot dragging the park down.

But Douglas Durst, chairman of Friends of Hudson River Park, a booster group affiliated with the trust, believes the cost of preserving the peer has been greatly exaggerated, and he has been pushing his own plans for the (http://observer.com/2012/08/douglas-durt-wants-to-put-lofts-for-techies-and-galleries-in-pier-40-to-keep-it-afloat/)pier for months now, to shore up the piles and then adaptively reuse the structure, adding offices for tech firms to the mix of parking and sports, providing fresh funds and space for a booming Silicon Alley downtown. He has also proposed gallery space.

Mr. Durst even went so far as to pay for a study of the costs of repairing the piles, which was revealed this week (http://www.thevillager.com/?p=8979) in The Villager, where the developer pegs the cost at only $30 million, or as much as $44 million if money is spent to raise the ball fields, which he believes should be the case following Hurricane Sandy. (Ironically, his study was completed just four days before the storm hit, and Mr. Durst had been poised to present it to the local community board on October 29, the day Sandy made landfall in New York.)

Without support for his plan either at the trust or Friends of Hudson River Park, late last week, Mr. Durst left the group, stepping down as chairman. Already his name has been scrubbed from the Friends’ sit (http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/about-us/fohrp/board-of-directors)e, as has that Ben Korman, a vice-chair who also stepped down. Mr. Korman used to run the parking operation on the pier and supported Mr. Durst’s plan.

“There was a difference of opinion of the direction that the park should go in,” Jordan Barowitz, a spokesman for Mr. Durst, told The Observer on Friday. “Douglas is still deeply committed to the park, but given his difference of opinion from the leadership of the park, it became impractical for him to continue with the trust and with Friends.”

Jason Sadrian, a Friends board member and managing director at private equity outfit Warburg Pincus, was named acting chairman in the wake of Mr. Durst’s departure, a promotion already reflected online.
https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/8144982283_9ab26dc511_z.jpg?w=600&h=450 (http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/8144982283_9ab26dc511_z.jpg)
Pier 40, flooded during Sandy. (HRPT/Flickr)

Mr. Durst believed that his expertise in matters of development was being ignored, and he had openly questioned the desire to build housing on the pier, which he told The Villager “doesn’t work.” Part of the problem, Mr. Durst argued, was that additional development would add to the cost of shoring up the piers—the more built up top, the more that must go down below to hold it up. He wanted the trust to spend money now to protect it, but other board members insisted there was no funds for such work.

“If it was up to me, not one more dime goes into Pier 40,” Diana Taylor declared at a recent board meeting (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/08/03/trust_considering_shuttering_money_pit_pier_40.php ). “Period.”

One person close to the situation said this amounted to “a pissing match” between Mr. Durst and Madelyn Wils, who was appointed president and CEO of the trust in July 2011. “He’s taking his ball and going home,” said the source.

In a statement, Ms. Wils and Friends executive director A.J. Pietrantone said: “The Friends of Hudson River Park and the Hudson River Park Trust are extremely grateful for the many contributions of Douglas Durst and the Durst Organization to Hudson River Park His philanthropy and advocacy for the waterfront and this distinct New York City amenity have had a profound effect on the quality of life for countless New Yorkers.”

Mr. Barowitz said that Mr. Durst, who has not only provided his time to the Friends group but also his money as its biggest donor, would still continue to advocate for the park as a private citizen. Mr. Korman, who could not be reached by The Observer, will attempt the same, as he told Capital New York, which also reported the split.

“With the recent organizational changes made to the Friends, and my growing discomfort with regards to the Trust’s management, I felt that my advocacy would be more effective outside the Friends framework,” Mr. Korman wrote in an email.

Losing two well-to-do backers seems like it could cause a serious blow to the park at a time that it is already desperate for funding, but another Friends board member said it should not have a material impact on the day-to-day operations of the Trust.

In many ways, this is a debate about the nature of how parks get built, maintained and funded in the city. New York has seen a number of public-private parks pop up in the past decade, from Brooklyn Bridge Park to the High Line. The city or state will help pay to build these grand edifices, but unlike Central Park or Prospect Park before them, the city takes little role in the new parks ongoing upkeep. Instead the parks are left to fend for themselves.

(Granted, most ever major open space from Central Park to Bryant Park now has some sort of conservancy, friends group or business improvement district that helps pay a good chunk of the costs for running it, ever since the city began divesting itself of this responsibility in the bankrupt 1970s.)

The argument over who should pay what is playing itself out here, as well. Mr. Durst and Mr. Korman believed the park should front the money to fix Pier 40, and then bring in new tenants to help cover those costs and add to the maintenance kitty going forward. But the bulk of the park’s leadership insists it cannot pay for these fixes up front, and instead wants a private developer to come in and cover them.

In the past, there has been flirtations with everything from building schools here to an outpost for Circ de Soleil, all of which have been defeated for one reason or another, most usually through public outcry. Earlier this year the MLS had even considered it as a possible site for a soccer stadium, but transportation and crowding concerns from the surrounding community quickly stymied that idea.

Among the options the trust would like to see on the table is housing development, currently forbidden by the Hudson River Park Act of 1998, and SHoP Architects was even hired to make a compelling case for such a model earlier this year. The trust insists it is agnostic on which approach would be most suitable, and while housing would probably be the most lucrative—this is housing on the Hudson River waterfront, after all—locals tend to hate residential development, particularly on waterfront plots within public parkland.

The trust has been working for the past year with lawmakers in Albany to try and revise the park act to allow for more types of development. Beyond restricting housing, the legislation limits leases to 29 years, which is seen as too short a time frame to attract a developer who would shoulder the costs of fixing up the pier as part of a larger development package.

But this may be the least of the park’s problems at the moment. It remains without power six weeks after the Sandy storm surge washed over much of the park, including totally flooding Pier 40. “Most of our plants are O.K.,” Ms. Wils said during a panel at a post-Sandy conference hosted by the Municipal Art Socity and Columbia on Thursday. “They’re made to survive underwater, well not underwater, but they can put up with some flooding. I think we lost only five trees and a few plants.”

“The buildings, however, did not fare quite as well,” she said. “We’re still without power, because we are on our own grid, and we’ve had to work on our own to restore that.”
Meanwhile, there is some positive development news, as Pier 57, a cultural and shopping hub also long in the works at 15th Street, won approval from the local community board (http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20121206/chelsea/pier-57s-retail-heavy-redevelopment-plan-gets-ok-from-community-board) earlier this month. It will offer activities and access to the pier, as well as desperately needed funds to the park.

Whether something similar will get built at Pier 40, especially before the structure should deteriorate beyond repair, remains to be seen.

“Despite these and other challenges, including the recent impact of Superstorm Sandy, the Friends and the Trust remain wholly committed to working together to secure resources for the Park and sustaining its future,” Ms. Wils and Mr. Pietrantone concluded their statement.

“Now with Douglas out of the way, the trust can start to work cohesively on fixing this pier,” said the park source. The trust just has to convince Albany, and its angry neighbors, of the same thing.

http://observer.com/2012/12/sinking-pier-40-durst-leaves-hudson-river-park-amid-mutiny-over-its-future/?show=all

Merry

January 11th, 2013, 01:47 AM

Douglas Durst Floats Plan for Tech Offices and Galleries to Save Pier 40

By Matt Chaban

Development Concept for Pier 40 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/119712541/Pier-40-Concept-Presentation)

https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/picture-10.png?w=600&h=270
Play ball, write some code, sip a cappuccino. (Dattner Architects)

https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/picture-11.png?w=300&h=173
Let’s take this plan for a spin. (Dattner Architects)

Last month, Douglas Durst walked away from the Friends of Hudson River Park advocacy group over a disagreement with the trust that runs the Manhattan watefront park (http://observer.com/2012/12/sinking-pier-40-durst-leaves-hudson-river-park-amid-mutiny-over-its-future/). The key dispute had been over what to do with Pier 40, the libertarian park (http://observer.com/2012/12/parks-and-wreck-the-fight-for-pier-40-and-the-myth-of-public-parks/)‘s former cash cow that has become a drain as its pilings deteriorate and the parking garage cum ball fields ever so slowly sinks into the river.

The trust believes that housing should be among the options considered for shoring up the pier’s finances, and by extension its pilings, a move that would likely require a major overhaul of the pier. Meanwhile, Mr. Durst insists housing is undesirable and unnecessarily expensive, and the better option is to keep the pier largely as is, adaptively reusing the space to more efficiently house the roughly 1,400 cars that park on the pier, freeing up room to create commercial space, likely occupied by tech firms, art galleries and other decidely downtown tenants.

Last night, Mr. Durst presented his plan at a public meeting, where it was warmly if cautiously received. The plans were prepared by Dattner Architects, a response of sorts to similar schematics for housing (http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6167)drawn up by SHoP Architects for the Trust. They show tight little stacks of cars, cubicles, lawns and ballfields, a scheme that is not markedly different from what is there already, just with a few things moved around to make room for the offices. (The Observer could not attend the meeting but was provided with a copy of the proposal along with Mr. Durst’s remarks.)

“We think this concept is compelling because the space available at Pier 40 for office use is exactly what is in greatest demand today by the fastest growing sector of New York’s Economy,” Mr. Durst told the audience. “Tech firms want large floor plates, high ceilings, large windows and unconventional and interesting space.”

The plan calls for consolidating parking in the middle of the ground floor, using car stackers, which would eliminate the need for parking at the edges of the building and on the upper floors. The plan would also boost the number of spaces to 2,000, increasing income as a result. Even with more cars, this move frees up the perimeter of the ground floor and the entire mezzanine level for some 415,000 square feet of office space and an additional 99,000 square feet of retail—an impressive spread about as big as a mid-size office tower.

The middle of the mezzanine level would still be occupied by two large ball fields while the entire roof would be turned into public open space. Currently half of it is given over to parking, with a mix of fields on top, but now, there could be vibrant plantings and six different tennis and basketball courts along the roof.

“Our concept is a relatively simple way to preserve the current uses of the pier and also provide the additional revenue to help the entire park,” Mr. Durst said.

Another benefit, he argues, is that it will be easier to get changes to the act governing the park’s operations to allow for commercial development than for residential. The whole reason the pier has any money making uses, rather than just being public open space like the rest of Hudson River Park, is that when the park was first created, it was mandated that its ongoing operations be funded by the park, rather than the city or state, and three piers were set aside for development, this being one of them.

The Durst proposal projects a net annual profit for the park of $10 million a year, almost twice what the pier has historically made for the park.

Mr. Durst stressed that he and Ben Korman, a fellow board member who could not attend the meeting but also supports the plan, were offering this as a proposal for the public, not for themselves. “We are presenting this concept today as interested citizens who care about Hudson River Park and its future, not as developers interested in building out this project,” Mr. Durst said.

David Gruber, chair of Community Board 2, said the room was packed and many were genuinely interested in the idea, if still non-committal. “I don’t have a horse in this race, housing or no housing, but what I liked about this reuse is, the idea of housing on the pier after Sandy—I don’t know if anyone’s thinking of that anymore,” Mr. Gruber said.

Mr. Gruber said that it was important to have options for the community to consider, including housing, and the board would be convening a forum in February to debate them all.

“What I do know is, we’ve tried big box stores and Circ de Soleil, we’ve tried everything, and people are tired of waiting,” Mr. Gruber said. “There’s a real sense in the community that something has to happen and people just want to make sure they do the right thing.”

http://observer.com/2013/01/douglas-durst-floats-plan-for-tech-offices-and-galleries-to-save-pier-40/

Ninjahedge

January 11th, 2013, 09:11 AM

Main problem with turning it into a living space is that your requirements go way up for safety and viability (as well as services).

It is one thing to have aparking lot/athletic field on a pier that might fail, but people living/sleeping makes it more likely to have someone there when something happens.

I was not aware anyone was hurt at the pier failures in Hoboken (walkway), but if that was a condo "on the water"........ (and those piers failed).

ladder12

January 12th, 2013, 11:22 AM

Main problem with NOT turning it into a living space is that so much money would be lost to the developers. They won't live there so why worry about pier failures? If safety was a concern, the"Park Your Car in Your Living Room" building at 24th and 11th would never have gotten approval from CB4, DOB etc over objections of the Fire Department. That place is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Derek2k3

January 30th, 2013, 06:51 PM

Cant believe these selfish Village hypocrites would prefer 600 units of luxury housing to keep their beloved soccer fields over an entertainment use that would attract a broader audience of the city. Yes, I understand that congestion might be an issue, but the streets in this area are among the most deserted in Manhattan and a bus line can easily run from the pier to the 1 train. Some well-off parents obviously have kids playing on these fields.

WSJ
Sports Groups Aim at Pier 40

NY REAL ESTATE COMMERCIAL
January 29, 2013, 11:40 p.m. ET

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578272163960769192.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

Merry

March 2nd, 2013, 02:39 AM

At a Pier 40 Forum, One Plan Emerges as the Public Favorite

by Hana Alberts

It was standing room only—not at some hit Broadway show, but at last night's community board meeting on the future of Pier 40 (http://ny.curbed.com/tags/pier-40). A couple hundred people packed into a room at Saatchi & Saatchi, just blocks from the plot of land in question, which juts out into the Hudson River near the westernmost ends of Clarkson and West Houston streets. Currently surrounded by a parking lot and home to playing fields used and beloved by local sports leagues (see photo, above right), it's completely rundown—requiring new stairwells, repairs to the sanitary system and the roof, and running on generators since the electricity doesn't work—and losing the Hudson River Park Trust $2 million a year, according to executive director Madelyn Wils. Oh, and it's also sinking into the river.

Two groups, the Durst Organization, led by former Friends of the Hudson River Park chairman Douglas Durst, and the Pier 40 Champions (http://pier40champions.org/), presented competing visions for the land; the former advocates adding retail and commercial space to keep the pier financially sustainable; the latter would rather build two residential towers along the river, which would bankroll their goal to keep the pier exclusively devoted to recreation. Based on applause levels and general attendee murmuring, it was easy to determine which plan emerged victorious—even though Community Board 2 chair David Gruber emphasized throughout the forum that this is just the first of a series, and that neither plan is ready to or is even permitted (according to various city planning rules and park restrictions) to be executed right away.

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/pier40-durst-plan-thumb.jpg (http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/pier40-durst-plan.jpg)
[Renderings by Dattner Architects.]

Guided by a philosophy of "adaptive reuse," Durst plans to keep the structure on the pier virtually as is, renovating it to create three tiers. The first level would be a parking garage, which is what takes up the perimeter of the existing playing fields, with space for retail and other revenue-generating outlets facing east, towards the park's esplanade and the Hudson River Greenway. The mezzanine level would house the playing fields, surrounded by offices (see above, with the office windows to the right of the steps down to the fields). A rooftop area would allow extra recreational space, the Durst team said.

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/pier40-durst-facade-thumb.jpg (http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/pier40-durst-facade.jpg)
[Renderings by Dattner Architects.]

Dotted throughout the audience were square lime-green buttons emblazoned with "Save Pier 40." It was unclear to whom the button-wearers had allegiance (since presumably both parties are trying to save the thing) until the Pier 40 Champions headed to the podium to take their turn. Headed by Tobi Bergman, the group is made up of eight sports leagues; their main agenda is securing well-maintained playing fields for guaranteed use, well, forever. In plain terms, the organization opposes the hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail and office space put forth by the Durst Organization, fearing a repeat of one of the many past failed proposals for the pier, which aimed to lure big-box stores and entertainment venues as tenants. Instead, the Pier 40 Champions want to renovate the fields, move them to the ground level, and add more fields where there are currently parking spaces now. Here's the catch: to finance the whole thing, they want to amend the Hudson River Park act to allow residential development along the riverfront, set back from the pier in the uplands (see rendering below).

Constructing the two buildings with units for rental and purchase pictured would finance the work on the pier, which would also include an effort to make the waterfront accessible to Hudson River Park-goers by connecting the existing esplanade with a ground-level walkway that goes around the pier, in effect opening up a new riverside swath to the public that's previously been dangerous or off-limits. "We don't want cars there," Bergman said. "We want park there!" Then: "That's what I'm talking about right there," muttered a gentleman in the audience wearing a soccer jersey (and flanked by the rest of his team) during the Pier 40 Champions presentation. "What I want to know is, what's the fastest plan? When we're going to get our fields back."

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/Pier40Champions_ResTowers2-thumb.jpg (http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/Pier40Champions_ResTowers2.jpg)
[Rendering of the two residential buildings Pier 40 Champions wants to build on the pier's uplands to finance the rest of the renovations.]

So will commercial and office space or residential units ultimately keep Pier 40 in the black? The WSJ this morning sheds some light: one study recently found (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/03/01/online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478304578332600813173948.html) that the Pier 40 Champions' will likely be more profitable than Durst's. But at the entrance to the community board meeting, there were advocates urging attendees to sign a petition that would prevent residential development near the pier, and the Village Independent Democrats penned a resolution (http://www.villagedemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/VID-Resolution-Opposing-Residential-Construction-on-Pier-40-2-21-13.pdf) with the same sentiment. Despite that corner of opposition, the Pier 40 Champions' plan (see another rendering of the fields and a jogging track below) got the most applause, with whistles and hoots coming from the sports league members, which turned out in full force. Though the friendly debate was both packed and passionate, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said it best when he explained what comes next in some introductory remarks: "Le's make sure this is not the last meeting." So onto the next forum we go.

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/NY-CD551_PIER_G_20130129195721-thumb.jpg (http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/NY-CD551_PIER_G_20130129195721.jpg)
[Rendering by WXY Architects on behalf of the Pier 40 Champions.]

Durst Organization (http://www.durst.org/) and Pier 40 Champions (http://pier40champions.org/) [Official sites]
Durst's Plan for Park's Pier 40 Faulted in Study (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/03/01/online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478304578332600813173948.html) [WSJ]

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/03/01/at_a_pier_40_forum_one_plan_emerges_as_the_public_ favorite.php#more

lofter1

March 4th, 2013, 11:19 AM

The residential towers proposal for the uplands east of Pier 40 does not seem to adequately address any number of issues, including the now-apparent flood problem. Add to that access to the buildings; note that the renders show NO vehicles, just a park-y front yard, despite the fact that the Pier will accommodate 2,000 long term parking slots and all sorts of vehicles will need to access the residential towers. The claim that there is plenty of room in that upland area to build is questionable. And don't even get me started about shifting parkland to development, and the precedent that will set.

infoshare

March 4th, 2013, 02:55 PM

And another thing, while we're at it, regarding year-round usage....

I recall parking my car on that pier years ago, and walking the length of the upper section at least 3 times a week: the outdoor areas are cold & windy (extra cold/windy being on the river) for about 8 months out of the year - the whole place needs to be enclosed so year round use will be viable.

Here is an idea borrowed from Houuston TX; a Bucky ball - http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=xAXu1VY1ofI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxAXu1VY1ofI

Merry

March 27th, 2013, 08:48 AM

Pier Support

Schemes by Dattner and WXY compete to save Manhattan's Pier 40.

by Aaron Seward

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/image/pier_40_schemes_04.jpg
WXY's plan includes space for two residential towers along the Hudson River Park. Courtesy WXY

Since May 2012, when the Hudson River Park Trust began seeking suggestions for how to save the deteriorating Pier 40, two competing proposals have come to the fore: one backed by The Durst Organization and designed by Dattner Architects, the other designed by WXY Architecture + Urban Design and backed by the Pier, Park and Playground Association (PPPA), a non-profit that represents seven youth sports leagues and promotes the construction of new ball fields in lower Manhattan.

Originally designed as a passenger ship terminal, the pier is now a revenue generator for Hudson River Park. Home to a commercial parking garage, two athletic fields, and the offices of the Hudson River Park Trust, the pier has raised, on average, $6 million annually from parking fees and has been responsible for 40 percent of the park’s funding. Years of delayed maintenance, however, have severely compromised the pier’s structure. Many of its piles are corroding and the roof has degenerated to the point that several sections of the parking garage have had to be shut down. As a result, the pier is loosing operating revenue.

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/pier_40_schemes_01.jpg (http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/pier_40_schemes_01.jpg)

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/pier_40_schemes_08.jpg (http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/pier_40_schemes_08.jpg)

Schematic diagram of Dattner's Plan (left) and WXY's plan (right). [Click to enlarge.].
Courtesy Dattner; WXY

In order to pay for the estimated $30 million it will take to replace the roof, not to mention the cost of repairing the 13 miles of rusting steel piles, the pier needs a new source of income. The two proposals, which are seeking to garner the interest of developers who will see them through, attempt to provide this funding, while preparing the pier for future Sandy-magnitude weather events.

The Durst/Dattner proposal is the most straightforward of the two. “This is basically an enormous midtown skyscraper on its side,” said Daniel Heuberger, a design principal at Dattner. “In and of itself it’s a terrific project. So we’re minimizing the physical interventions in the existing building.” It involves consolidating the parking on one level with stackers and transforming 400,000 square feet of the interior to speculative office space and 90,000 square feet along the Hudson River Esplanade to retail. The scheme would also elevate electrical and mechanical equipment, as well as the playing fields, to above the Sandy storm surge level and add a green roof.

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/pier_40_schemes_03.jpg (http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/pier_40_schemes_03.jpg)
Dattner's proposal preserved the existing structure, converting it into retail and office space. Courtesy Dattner

Durst has determined that tech companies would be most interested in the pier. “Large floor plates, unconventional and quirky, close to public transportation—that’s what tech companies want,” said Jordan Barowitz, director of external affairs at Durst. “We think we can get 55 dollars a square foot and we’ve been approached by potential tenants.”

Tobi Bergmann, president of PPPA, disagrees. “We sponsored a study that was done last year by Tishman to look at Pier 40 in terms of what uses can happen that are both high revenue and low impact,” he said. “It made it clear that the only one you could have confidence in is residential.” WXY’s scheme proposes constructing two residential towers at the landside of the pier and removing the existing head house to provide room for another playing field while also improving access to the fields and riverfront from the esplanade. “The new development would help finance the repairs of the pier,” said Claire Weisz, principal of WXY. “At the same time there would be an annual contribution from tenants that would help to generate income.”

The viability of either proposal is contingent upon changes to the Hudson River Park Act. The state legislature would have to update the zoning of the pier to allow either commercial or residential uses and would also have to increase the lease terms to at least 49 years.

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/pier_40_schemes_07.jpg (http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/pier_40_schemes_07.jpg)

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/pier_40_schemes_05.jpg (http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/pier_40_schemes_05.jpg)

WXY's scheme adds an additional playing field and improves access to the river. Courtesy WXY

http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6564

lofter1

March 31st, 2013, 01:22 PM

The residential tower plan is dead in the water. Never gonna happen.

infoshare

March 31st, 2013, 07:24 PM

Tall towers on the water front perimeters of 'high density' city's like NYC is just bad zoning policy. Buildings' need to gradually increase in heigh starting from the waterfront, growing tall toward the center: otherwise no one in town would have long-view vistas out over the water: most everyone would be 'walled in' physically and visually.

It is a bit like a lady with a beehive hairdo and a gent with a tall hat walking down to the front row of a crowded movie theater: thus blocking the view of those behind.

Ninjahedge

April 1st, 2013, 08:17 PM

Info, talk to the Don.....

ZippyTheChimp

April 9th, 2013, 12:03 PM

Still another concept for Pier 40. This one is sort of a "two birds with one stone" thing.

Michael Sorkin Studio - An alternative proposal for the growth of NYU.

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/image/nyu_alt_sorkin_01.jpg
Michael Sorkin Studio's proposal would relocate NYU's expansion to Pier 40.
Courtesy Michael Sorkin Studio

It’s clear that the current plan for the expansion of the main campus of NYU is far from optimal. Construction on the existing residential superblocks will cause years of disruption to the daily lives of residents of both NYU’s housing and of the surrounding neighborhood. And, the inscription of additional building will deeply compromise the formal quality of those blocks, adding mass and density where there is no urbanistic call for it. While we understand the university’s desire to leverage the happy encounters of campus life by adding its new facilities in proximity to Washington Square, we note that many core functions of the campus are already distributed around the neighborhood and beyond and that there is elasticity in the idea of propinquity. Our question to ourselves was whether there were viable alternatives for a non-disruptive, concentrated expansion within a reasonable walking compass of NYU’s center of gravity. We believe we have found one such possibility and offer it as “friends of the court,” sympathetic to the desires of NYU for additional space, admiring of the existing architecture of the superblock sites, and eager to see our neighborhood develop in a way that both preserves and enhances its unique character, a character that immeasurably contributes to NYU’s own remarkable qualities of place.

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/nyu_alt_sorkin_03.jpg

This proposal suggests accommodating NYU’s academic expansion at the end of Houston Street on Pier 40, in the adjacent St. John’s Building, and on the legendary—and long deconsecrated—ocean liner S.S. United States (or other obsolete vessel), which could offer dorm, dining, and meeting facilities. Pier 40 has long been a site in search of a use and our scheme offers an opportunity for new university facilities, for a substantial expansion of the existing athletic fields, for other new community uses, and for a revival of our maritime spirit. We’ve designed for an aggregate of academic facilities comparable to those currently proposed by NYU and additional space for student, faculty, and visitor housing in a highly glamorous setting. The Coles Sports Center would be retained at its existing location and the superblocks would also remain as they are, perhaps with modest tweaks.

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/nyu_alt_sorkin_05.jpg

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/nyu_alt_sorkin_02.jpg

Of course, a project like this will be subject to much negotiation and review and does require the removal of the parking currently occupying the pier, a use we regard as thoroughly incompatible with the superb waterfront site. It is also contingent on transfer of all or part of Pier 40 to NYU and the acquisition of the St. John’s building and the S.S. United States, currently the subject of an RFP for re-use and previously floated as a hotel and conference venue in Philadelphia. This plan offers the advantages of non-disruption in the Village, easy access to the central campus, a spectacular location, what might well be a lower aggregate cost to the university, and a revenue stream for the Hudson River Park. While the designs offered here are highly preliminary—the drawings are more notional than architectural—and would need to be carefully contoured to actual uses and configured to reduce flooding risk, the availability of this virtual ready-made is intended to suggest the availability of sound, even superior alternatives to current plans. It is offered in full awareness of the vital role NYU plays in the life of downtown and seeks to conduce an expansion of the university’s facilities that will make a positive contribution both to NYU and its neighborhood. We would be delighted to develop it further.

Michael Sorkin Studio, Project Designers: Michael Sorkin, Inma Rosas, Jie Gue

We thank members the NYU Faculty Against the Sexton Plan (NYUFASP)
for their support but note that this proposal was originated by Michael Sorkin Studio and does not represent NYUFASP’s official position.

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/nyu_alt_sorkin_04.jpg

Copyright © 2003-2011 | The Architect's Newspaper, LLC