Plans for Pier 40

[Edward]

From Downtown Express
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=4913018&BRD=1841&PAG=461&dept_id=1 12709&rfi=6
Park Trust releases seven plans for Pier 40
By: Lincoln Anderson July 31, 2002

Starting the public review process of proposals by developers for Pier 40, basic designs and project outlines were posted last Thursday in the pier's lobby at the end of W. Houston St. The seven proposals range from an aquarium to a sports park to a "world expo" facility.
The Hudson River Park Trust, which is building and operates the five-mile long Hudson River Park, last year sought requests for expressions of interest for developing the currently three-level, 15-acre pier.

Under the Hudson River Park Act, 50 percent of the pier's footprint, or about seven and a half acres, must be devoted to park and open space. The pier is one of the Hudson River Park's so-called commercial nodes, from which it is intended that revenue will be raised to fund the park.

A total of seven proposals were submitted, five proposals for the whole pier and three for part of the pier.

The design boards posted in the Pier 40 lobby provide the first look at the plans' visuals. Alex Dudley, Trust spokesperson, said the designs will also be posted on the Trust's Web site, www.hudsonriverpark.org, later this week. There will be ample time for public comment, Dudley said, with one or more forums to be held after the summer in September and October. Trust representatives will be on hand to explain the plans.

"We understand the community wants input and that they intend to give it," Dudley said.

A plan called "Park on the Pier," designed by architect Sebastian Knorr and backed by a developer, calls for 760,000 sq. ft. of open space and 136,000 sq. ft. of restaurant and retail space, fewer than 2,000 spaces for long-term car parking; soccer and baseball fields in the pier's courtyard and on the roof, a fitness center and track-and-field facilities, art facilities and a state-of-the-art daycare center. The design calls for the removal of the pier's walls, while leaving up the pier's structural skeleton of concrete beams. The construction cost is $92.4 million.

"The New Pier 40," submitted by Forest City Ratner, a prominent developer, includes 664,000 sq. ft. of park and open space and 450,000 sq. ft. of restaurant and retail space. The plan has a park on top, including a sports field - the park's courtyard would be roofed over - on top of a level of parking and a level of retail. There would be parking for 2,000 cars. Accessing the rooftop park would be a slope up the south side of the pier from the ground level. The construction cost is $146 million.

A third plan, "River Green," was submitted by C&K, the parking company of Ben Cohen and Meir Korman, who currently hold the operating lease for the pier. The C&K plan would keep the existing FedEx terminal on the pier by converting it to a water-delivery freight forwarding system: The freight would be delivered to the pier from Kennedy or LaGuardia airports by boat, thus making it legal under the Hudson River Park Act's requirement that commercial uses in the park be "water-dependent." Long-term parking would be retained and there would be retail space. The courtyard would be covered to create a rooftop park. The plan's cost is $118.6 million.

A fourth plan, "Oceanarium," features a 200,000 sq. ft. aquarium on the pier's west edge, topped by white sail-like canvas, looking like a galleon. This plan calls for 241,000 sq. ft. of retail space and 594,300 sq. ft. of "park landscape," in the form of apparently passive park areas, including paths and small pools. The pier's interior courtyard would be roofed over to create a rooftop park. The developers of this plan estimate the pier's annual visitorship at 2.4 million people. There would be parking for 1,720 cars. The plan includes a 95,000-sq.-ft. indoor "soccer pavilion," and an 88,000 sq. ft. movie theater. The construction cost is $265,855,000.

"World Expo 2005/Hudson Pier," another proposal, would last only three years. It would include a film center with two studios - "Houston St. Film Center" and a "Canal St. Film Center" - and three large 30,000 sq. ft. restaurant/retail spaces on the pier's south side. The plan labels the pier's central courtyard the "Great Court," the inside of which is identified as "Temporary Market Location (Union Sq.)," apparently a Greenmarket.

The "Expo" plan includes 131,000 sq. ft. of open space, less than half the seven and a half acres of open space required under the park law. Annual visitorship is predicted at 15 million. The construction budget is $186.4 million.

A partial plan is for an "Animal Shelter and Recreation Center." The 59,500-sq.-ft. facility would occupy two floors and the roof on a corner of the pier. It would include a rubble pile to train search-and-rescue dogs, explosives training area, classrooms for therapy-dog training, a canine workout area and dog and cat adoption facilities. The cost is $15 million. Last September, the pier was used to retrieve and care for pets trapped in apartments closer to ground zero.

New York University submitted a proposal for a portion of the pier, for 85,000 to 105,000 sq. ft. for continuing education programs, professional studies, libraries, its Tisch arts school and film studies. (Currently, Pier 40 has about 600,000 sq. ft. of indoor space.)

A plan just for the roof, "Sports Park at Pier 40," submitted by Pier, Park & Playground Association (P3), calls for covering the pier's courtyard with a roof on top of which there would be 58,000 sq. ft. of sports fields and picnic areas. The sports facilities would be run be a non-profit group, possibly P3, said Tobi Bergman, P3's president. At night, the fields would be rented to adult leagues to support the sports facility's operation.

A few years ago, P3 led a community planning process for the pier that resulted in a plan that included a sports complex and parking. Architect Sebastian Knorr subsequently designed a plan along the lines of this P3 design that included an automated "stacker" parking facility to consolidate the pier's long-term car parking in a smaller area. P3 also did an economic feasibility study for this plan.

Bergman said the parking stacker plan was to show what was feasible at the pier. He said P3 would be willing to work with any of three of the current plans for the full pier, those by the Knorr group, C&K or Forest City Ratner.

"A developer could do whatever they want with the downstairs area," Bergman said. "We would put this [sports complex] on the upstairs area."

Knorr's previous Pier 40 plan was approved by Community Boards 1 and 2. Knorr's latest plan is similar to that one, but P3 is not part of the development team and is not supporting Knorr's proposal over any of the others, said Bergman.

Bergman, a former Greenwich Village Little League president, said P3 favors high school-size athletic fields, which the area lacks. When Little League players reach age 12, they play their games in Central Park or elsewhere.

Bergman said, "Maybe two parents will go up and watch in Central Park. It's not the same kind of community activity and community unification as when you have your own field."

Bergman said his group favors artificial grass so the fields could be used even in rain. In general, the weight of natural grass might rule it out as an option for a rooftop field, he said.

In terms of the design process moving forward, Dudley said the Trust has "milestones we have to keep in order to keep the Pier 40 lease active and we intend to meet that." The community and the Trust recently reached an agreement on extending commercial uses on Pier 40 on condition developing a park on the pier sticks to a timetable.

Dudley said while the formal public comment period hasn't begun, people are welcome to send letters or e-mails to the Trust. For now, he said, "People should look at the plans and think about them."

Dudley said all the information about the proposals will be made public; probably people will have to come into the Trust's office to see them because it would be difficult to copy all the materials, Dudley said. Everything except proprietary information about the developments will be made public, he said.

Dudley said the reason there weren't more proposals is because the potential for development is limited, since the park doesn't allow office or residential space or hotels.

©Downtown Express 2002 *

[Edward]

The Tamaroa at Pier 40 (http://www.wirednewyork.com/piers/pier40/default.htm) in May of 2000.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/piers/pier40/hudson_river_park_pier40_tamaroa_29may00.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/piers/pier40/default.htm)

[NYatKNIGHT]

Looking forward to whatever goes here, that Hudson River Park keeps getting better and better. I would prefer any of those recreational uses for the pier over NYU's proposal for continuing education programs, professional studies, libraries, its Tisch arts school and film studies. Big Yawn.

Did I miss it, or is there a way to get a look at these plans? It says you may have to go into the Trust's office to see them - I wonder where that is.

[Jessica]

"The New Pier 40," submitted by Forest City Ratner, a prominent developer, includes 664,000 sq. ft. of park and open space and 450,000 sq. ft. of restaurant and retail space. The plan has a park on top, including a sports field - the park's courtyard would be roofed over - on top of a level of parking and a level of retail. There would be parking for 2,000 cars. Accessing the rooftop park would be a slope up the south side of the pier from the ground level.

Wow! *They have plans for all this? *Amazing! *Has my vote!

[Jessica]

Anything more recent on this since July?

[Edward]

DOWNTOWN EXPRESS
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=5555795&BRD=1841&PAG=461&dept_id=1 12709&rfi=6
Maximize recreation on Pier 40, advocates say
By: Albert Amateau October 01, 2002

Soccer and Little League moms and dads joined Downtown waterfront advocates last week at a Pier 40 forum to urge the Hudson River Park Trust to favor proposals for the pier that include the maximum amount of large playing fields and indoor recreation space for youngsters and adults.
Over 50 people turned out for the meeting. There was support also for Floating the Apple, the community-based rowing and boat-building organization that currently occupies space on the 15-acre pier at the west end of Houston St. And a voice was raised in favor of a proposal to use part of the pier for an animal shelter and recreation center.

The Trust, the city-state agency building and operating the five-mile-long river front park between Chambers and 59th Sts., hopes to choose one of several proposals submitted for the redevelopment of Pier 40 by February 2003, said Connie Fishman, the Trust's vice president.

The decision will be made by the Trust board of directors in consultation with the Pier 40 Working Group, Fishman said at the Sept. 23 meeting. The Pier 40 Working Group is composed of elected officials, directors of the Trust, members of the Hudson River Park Advisory Council, Community Board 2 and Friends of Hudson River Park, a community group.

The Trust will conduct another hearing at New York Law School, 57 Worth St., on Oct. 7 when the developers who submitted the proposals are expected to attend and respond to questions, Fishman said.

Under the Hudson River Park Act, a state law, space equivalent to 50 percent of Pier 40's footprint must be devoted to park and public recreation. Nevertheless, Pier 40 is also designated as one of the commercial nodes intended to produce revenues to help maintain the entire park. An unanswered question, posed by Assemblymember Deborah Glick, concerns how much revenue the pier is expected to produce. The answer, she said, would have a determining influence on which proposal is chosen.
* * *
"There are wonderful elements in the proposals - if one could only choose some from column A and some from column B," said Glick. "But I don't know if there is any one proposal that is right."

Judy Duffy, Assistant District Manager of Community Board 1 who attended the Sept. 23 meeting, recalled later that the Downtown board's waterfront committee went on record on Sept. 25 in favor of active recreation proposals for the pier. "It's the only pier with enough square footage for playing fields and for passive recreation space," she said.

Stuart Waldman, a Village waterfront activist, urged that the financial implications of the Pier 40 development should be open to public scrutiny, "not like Chelsea Piers." The state had granted Chelsea Piers Management, which holds the prime lease on Piers 59, 60, 61 and a temporary lease on Pier 62, a two-year rent deferment in the 1990s after the company had won the public bidding process.

Carol Feinman, a former member of Community Board 2, wanted to know if the community would have any input on the selection of a developer. Fishman replied that multi-year leases like Pier 40 are subject to public debate.

Laurie Silberfeld, general counsel for the Trust, said that under the state legislation for the park, commercial office space would not be eligible for the pier, and warehouse uses are not likely unless associated with waterborne transportation. Special parking for recreational vehicles - such as campers and trailers - would also be a questionable use, she added.

Jane Ritter, mother of a son at the Middle Lab School on W. 17th St., and another son at Stuyvesant High School, said students at those schools and at the High School for the Humanities in Chelsea all need full-size playing fields. She urged that the Sports Park at Pier 40 proposal, submitted by Pier, Park and Playground (P3), be selected. The P3 proposal calls for roofing over the pier's expansive central courtyard and building 58,000 square feet of playing fields and open space on top.

Charles Kramer said that while the proposed P3 rooftop field is fine for about nine months of the year, Pier 40 also needs a large indoor playing field. Providing temporary playing fields during the Pier 40 reconstruction also needs attention, Kramer said.

Mike Derosa, head of the Greenwich Village Little League, and Mike Mirisola, a Village native and long-time advocate for youth recreation, also called for a developer who would provide large playing fields for teens and adults. David Smith, head of the Downtown United Soccer Club and active in youth recreation since 1974, said Pier 40 needs a full-size field to allow youngsters who are now teenagers to continue playing together.

Honi Klein, a Community Board 2 member and head of the Village Alliance business improvement district on Eighth St., said she was impressed with two proposals - River Green submitted by Meier Cohen and Ben Korman, current lease-holders of Pier 40, and New Pier 40, submitted by Forest City Ratner.

River Green would convert the existing Fed Ex trucking terminal located in the pier courtyard into a waterborne freight service from Kennedy and LaGuardia airports, thus conforming to the park legislation that requires that commercial uses be "water-dependent." Cohen and Korman also propose to cover the courtyard and create a roof-top park.

Forest City Ratner's New Pier 40 would include 664,000 square feet of park and open space, 450,000 square feet of restaurant and retail space and public parking for 2,000 cars. New Pier 40 is the only proposal that would provide auto access separate from pedestrian and bicycle access, by providing a separate ramp on the pier's south side to the rooftop field for park users.

©Downtown Express 2002 *

[Edward]

NY TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/24/nyregion/24PIER.html

November 24, 2002
A Plan for a Big Box in the Village, but With Icing on Top
By TERRY PRISTIN


A private developer has proposed building two or three so-called big-box stores on Pier 40 in Greenwich Village, the same neighborhood that resoundingly rejected a Costco store just two years ago.

This time, however, the superstores would be accompanied by a giant carrot for the community: a 15-acre sports park that would occupy the top level of the huge pier. The stores would take up 450,000 square feet on the lowest level, hidden from view, according to the developer, Forest City Ratner.

Forest City's plan is one of four proposals for Pier 40 that are being weighed by the Hudson River Park Trust, the public benefit corporation that is building a five-mile park. The project will stretch from Battery Park to 59th Street and will include 13 piers with public parks and a waterfront esplanade.

All of the proposals for Pier 40, at the foot of West Houston Street, were required to incorporate a park as well as commercial development. As the biggest pier in Hudson River Park, Pier 40 is expected to provide the park's largest green space as well as a significant chunk of its operating revenues. A decision is expected in February.

Sponsors of the other plans refrained from proposing large-scale commercial development. One developer, C&K Properties, the current manager of Pier 40, would create Federal Express's first maritime operation, allowing packages to be transported to Newark Liberty International Airport by water instead of 18-wheel trucks.

Another proposal, by TEC-PMC Associates, of Los Angeles, would remove the pier walls and roof, leaving a pergola-like structure with a number of smaller stores. The fourth proposal is for a large aquarium, but community leaders have opposed it on the ground that it would take business away from the Coney Island Aquarium.

Completed in 1962, Pier 40 currently houses parking for trucks, buses and about 2,000 private cars as well as a company that rents out props and an acting school for children. A soccer field is atop the structure.

Village leaders say they remain adamantly opposed to big-box development.

"I don't think anybody's in favor of having a big-box store there," said Arthur Z. Schwartz, the chairman of the waterfront committee of Community Board 2, which represents the Village. Arthur Strickler, the board's district manager, said big-box development would generate too much traffic at times when park use was at its heaviest and would put small neighborhood stores at risk. In 2000, community opposition forced Costco to abandon plans to open a store on the former site of the 14th Street Armory and to sell property it had acquired for two other stores.

Still, the Forest City proposal has not provoked the intense outcry that Costco faced — not yet, anyway. Judy Duffy, the assistant district manager of Community Board 1, which represents the neighborhood just south of Pier 40, said the tone of the discussion had changed. "It's not the Village it was six years ago," she said. "We're all asking a lot of questions."

The Hudson River Park Trust has not released any financial data from the proposals, but has told the Pier 40 Working Group, an advisory group made up of community leaders, that the Forest City Ratner plan would be the most lucrative. Ms. Duffy said that the developer's experience in building such large projects as the Metro Tech Center, an office complex in Downtown Brooklyn, also worked in its favor. "There's a certain amount of confidence that Forest City Ratner has deep pockets and can bring this baby home," she said.

The proposal by Forest City Ratner, which is the partner with The New York Times Company in the development of The Times's new headquarters, does not spell out which retailers would lease space at the pier, although Costco, Ikea and Fairway supermarkets are cited as potential tenants.

Costco and other national big-box retailers have been eager to break into Manhattan. "We are very interested in doing something there," said Jeffrey H. Brotman, the chairman of Costco, referring to Pier 40. In 1999, the City Council approved plans for a shopping center along Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive that would include a Costco and a Home Depot, but the development has been stalled because of financing and legal hurdles.

Mr. Schwartz of Board 2 said that Forest City Ratner might be able to lower its development costs and avoid having to lease space to superstores. But Michele deMilly, a spokeswoman for the developer, said the stores were needed to make the project viable. She said Forest City would go ahead with the project only if the community was behind it.

Whichever plan is adopted, one thing is certain: The 2,000 car owners who park at the pier at the exceptionally low rate of about $200 a month will continue to be accommodated. Mr. Schwartz said that 90 percent of the car owners came from the neighborhood and constituted what he described as a "powerful lobby."

[Edward]

The Villager
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1840&dept_id=505431&newsid=6868366&PA G=461&rfi=9
C&K adds developer to Pier 40 plan; but aquarium is gaining support.

By: Lincoln Anderson January 29, 2003

*
After failing to land a FedEx ferry system as part of plan to redevelop Pier 40, C&K Properties announced Monday they have partnered with the Durst Organization, one of New York City's most prominent real estate owners and developers, and are hurriedly devising a new plan. *
As part of its proposal to develop Pier 40 in the Hudson River Park at Houston St., C&K Properties, owned and operated by Meir Cohen and Ben Korman, hoped to convince FedEx to build a small fleet of boats to service the pier. However, two weeks ago, FedEx announced the plan was not economically feasible.

Meanwhile, time is running out before the legally mandated Feb. 15 deadline for the Hudson River Park Trust to pick a developer for the 15-acre pier.

"We're trying to come up with a revised plan by the end of this week," Korman said. "The Durst Organization brings additional resources and a wealth of experience to our redevelopment plans for Pier 40. We believe that Douglas Durst is a 'green developer,' environmentally good."

In a joint Jan. 27 press release with C&K, Douglas Durst, co-president of the Durst Organization, said, "C&K has a great reputation for working cooperatively with the community and various government agencies on the West Side over the past decade. We look forward to helping them ensure that Pier 40 is an asset to the Hudson River Park and the adjacent neighborhoods."

Douglas Durst is active in the Hudson River Park as president of Friends of Hudson River Park, an advocacy group for the park. Korman is treasurer and a board member of Friends of Hudson River Park. Korman said he's always known Durst to be a top developer, but also got to know him through the Friends group.

The Durst Organization owns over 7.5 million sq. ft. of New York City office building space. A leader in the "green" development movement, Durst's Four Times Sq., a 1.6 million-sq.-ft. office tower built in the mid-1990s, is considered one of the world's most energy efficient office buildings.

Durst also is the financial backer of New York Water Taxi, a water taxi service launched last fall and headed by Tom Fox, former president of the Hudson River Park Conservancy, the Trust's predecessor.

Korman made a general presentation to the Pier 40 Working Group last Tuesday regarding C&K's new partnership with Durst and some of ideas they're considering for Pier 40. Korman said he didn't discuss anything definite and that nothing's being ruled in or ruled out at this point.

However, Arthur Schwartz, a member of the Pier 40 Working Group - a group of residents and waterfront and park activists reviewing the plans for Pier 40 - said it seemed Korman was implying there would be one big-box tenant, "a Home Depot-like store."

According to Schwartz, while Korman didn't mention it specifically, the plan's anchor tenant has to be Home Depot, or a similar type of competitor hardware chain because "there's nothing else" that fits what Korman described.

"He said a large store that wouldn't require any change in zoning," Schwartz said. Hardware stores are the only kind of large retail over 20,000 sq. ft. that would be allowed on the pier without rezoning. Other types of stores would be allowed without rezoning, but only if they are under 20,000 sq. ft.

But Korman said, "It could be that [Schwartz] speculated Home Depot. I did not say it. I said that it will comply with the city's waterfront zoning and the Hudson River Park Act, so that it doesn't have to go through a tiring ULURP [uniform land-use review procedure].... To be honest, I have no clue what we are going to come up with on Friday."

Korman didn't tell the Working Group that the developer they were teaming up with was Durst, but Schwartz said they knew who it had to be when Korman said it was a major developer heavily involved with Hudson River Park.

"We guessed it right away," Schwartz said.

As to why they felt they needed to bring in Durst, Korman said, "We could do it by ourselves.... [But] I think a lot of it has to deal with the magnitude of this kind of project." He cited Durst's experience in developing large projects.

Asked if there was still time for the Trust to review the new plan by C&K and Durst, Alex Dudley, the Trust's spokesperson, said, "We are still on course to meet our Feb. 15 deadline. If we have time to look at a plan from them we will. We have not seen a plan from them yet, but we've heard they have something."

Bruce Ratner, head of Forest City Ratner, another major local developer that has proposed a big-box retail plan for the pier, is head of the City Parks Foundation, so like Durst, he is also a park supporter. Ratner's plan includes three big-box stores of 150,000 sq. ft. each - IKEA, Costco and Fairway have been mentioned as possible tenants.

The Ratner plan would roof over the pier's inner courtyard to create a rooftop park with sports fields. Schwartz said that from what he picked up, C&K's latest plan would not roof over the pier's courtyard, and would use the park's courtyard for the park and any sports fields while the roof would have gardens; since not roofing over the courtyard would be cheaper to build, the C&K plan would require less retail store space to support its cost than the Ratner plan.

Under the Hudson River Park Act, space equal to 50 percent of the pier's footprint must be devoted to open park use.

There are also two other developers' plans still in the running, "Oceanarium" - a large aquarium - and a proposal by a group led by architect Sebastian Knorr that would strip off the pier's sides and include many smaller stores. Knorr is reportedly trying to increase the size of his retail component, however, to compete with Ratner.

Word is that "Oceanarium," once considered a long shot, is now very much in the running and could well end up the winner. This development seems to have resulted from Community Board 2's resolution against big-box retail stores on Pier 40, which was specifically aimed at the Forest City Ratner proposal, but which now could also apply to C&K's new plan if it indeed includes a Home Depot-like store.

When asked her thoughts on the latest news on C&K, Madelyn Wils, a member of the Pier 40 Working Group and the Trust's board of directors and chairperson of Community Board 1, sounded as if Board 2's resolution had quite an impact and would even negate C&K's rumored "modified big-box plan."

"I would assume if Community Board 2 supported a resolution against big-box stores, I assume it wasn't just against Ratner," Wils said. "I think that Community Board 2 made a very good argument for no big-box stores, particularly in the area of transportation [impact]."

Meanwhile, Schwartz said he'd heard from Wils that several board members of the Trust, including Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff and the city and state Parks commissioners, are leaning toward the aquarium as a destination-type attraction for the park. The Trust's board will make the final decision on or around Feb. 15, though the Working Group will weigh in earlier with its own opinion.

Wils said she hadn't polled enough Trust board members to know if the aquarium plan is now favored. But she said she thinks "Oceanarium" sounds like the best use for the park among the four proposals, and is consistent with the Hudson River Park Act, since it is a water-dependent use.

"I think you certainly could consider that a water use, yes," Wils said of the aquarium. "Just from a personal point of view, I like cultural uses and water uses. I like 'Oceanarium.' It relates to water - certainly more than Home Depot. [And] in Lower Manhattan, we tend to prefer cultural and recreational uses. Home Depot and IKEA don't fall under that."

But Wils added she isn't endorsing any plan: "I'm definitely not asking for anything here," she said.

Before Board 2's anti-big-box resolution, Wils had sounded somewhat interested in Ratner's big-box retail plan. But she maintains it was only Schwartz saying she was in favor of Ratner's plan.

"I said if you want a big, open park on the top, then [Ratner] had the answer," Wils clarified. "But that didn't mean I was advocating for a big-box mall. Ratner made it very clear that they are not interested in modifying their proposal."

While Ratner seems unwilling to reduce the scope of its retail, Wils said the "Oceanarium" group seems more flexible.

"I think they pretty well have shown they can accommodate what the community's interests are," she said.

However, Schwartz said if "Oceanarium" is selected, the aquarium plan's current lack of rooftop park and sports field space "would be a problem" and that "hopefully the Trust board won't do that." Schwartz said the "Oceanarium" plan originally called for an "asphalt" roof surface with "paths." He said the aquarium plan has now allocated a corner of the pier's rooftop for park space and athletic fields, but that the aquarium's layout still makes it impossible to configure good field space. If the aquarium is redesigned, there may be a way to get more outdoor park space, he said.

Hearing of Wils' qualified endorsement of the aquarium, Schwartz said, "I can tell you, 'Oceanarium' will be very unpopular in the Village - maybe not in Tribeca. Maybe they can build it on Pier 25 [in Tribeca]."

One advantage of "Oceanarium" over Ratner though is that many of the projected three million annual visitors it would attract would come by bus, Schwartz said. Ratner's big-box stores on the other hand would attract a projected 7 million annual auto trips to or from the pier, according to an estimate by Brian Ketcham, an environmental engineer specializing in big-box impact.

Dudley, the Trust's spokesperson, noted that both the aquarium and retail plans are legal under the Park Act, though the big-box retail would require rezoning. Illegal uses under the Park Act include hotels, residential housing, casinos, riverboat gambling, manufacturing, motorized aircraft facilities or incompatible municipal uses, like garbage trucks.

Dudley said he couldn't answer questions about whether the aquarium plan has become the frontrunner. Although some Working Group members are speaking openly about the process, it's supposed to be "contained," Dudley noted.

"The only decision that counts is the decision the Trust board will make on Feb. 15," Dudley said. "Everything else is at this point is speculative."

Schwartz said that the Working Group met on Monday in an informal meeting and decided that, due to concern over the aquarium gaining popularity, they will present a position paper to the Trust at the Trust's Thurs., Jan. 30, board of directors meeting. Schwartz said "everyone was very excited" about the group's making a statement. However, he said there's a "reason why" he cannot give any hints as to what the Working Group's recommendations for Pier 40 will be, but that it will all become clear by next week.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Latest on Pier 40

from Downtown Express

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7029264&BRD=1841&PAG=461&dept_id=1 12709&rfi=6

Village group favors big box plan for Pier 40

By: Lincoln Anderson February 12, 2003

With less than a week left before the deadline for the Hudson River Park Trust to pick a redevelopment plan for Pier 40, on Monday the Pier 40 Working Group endorsed the River Green plan by C&K Properties and the Durst Organization.A hint was seen at the Trust's Jan. 30 board of directors meeting, when Assemblymember Deborah Glick, on behalf of the Working Group, asked for an extension of the Feb. 15 deadline, saying a "community-friendly developer, like C&K," should be considered for the sprawling W. Houston St. pier. The extension request was ostensibly to give C&K some time: Two weeks before, FedEx had abandoned a waterborne delivery plan that C&K hoped would be its main commercial tenant. C&K quickly partnered with developer Douglas Durst and submitted a new plan to the Trust on Feb. 4.Alex Dudley, the Trust's spokesperson, said he didn't know if the deadline would be extended.

Ben Korman, of C&K Properties, said they sent their revised plan to the Trust, and "are waiting like everyone else." Korman said Tobi Bergman, president of Pier Park & Playground Association, a youth sports advocacy group, worked closely with their architect to devise a new plan for rooftop ballfields in the revised proposal.

"We have an understanding with P3 and together we worked on enlarging the ballfields," Korman said.
Korman said their new plan calls for a single 120,000-sq.-ft. big-box retail store. He wouldn't say what type, but that it is "as of right," not requiring any changes to the city's waterfront zoning or the pier's Hudson Sq.-area manufacturing zoning. Korman said they have a retail tenant in mind but can't announce who it is until they have a signed agreement with the tenant. The store would get a 30-year lease, the same-length lease the developer will get for the whole pier. Park watchers suspect it's a large hardware store, like a Home Depot, since that's the only type of large store that wouldn't need rezoning.

Korman said they also have back-up tenants, to avoid what happened when FedEx pulled out of the waterborne delivery system.

C&K's plan also includes 200,000 sq. ft. of TV and film production studios and a TV and film museum. In general, it resembles the previous plan except one big-box store replaces the waterborne FedEx system as the anchor commercial tenant.

Arthur Schwartz, chairperson of Community Board 2's waterfront committee, said under their revised plan, C&K will roof over half the pier's courtyard to allow for creation of full-size sports fields.

The amount of space for viewing gardens on the roof - part of C&K's original proposal - was reduced to allow for larger athletic fields.

"The gardens will be designed with consultation with the community," Korman said. The gardens will have different themes, he said, but won't be open for people to garden in.

"It's not like the East Village-type gardens," Korman noted.

Both Schwartz, a leading member of the Working Group, and Bergman, who, though not a member of the group, took on a large role in recent weeks in reshaping the ballfield component of C&K's proposal, expect the Trust will make the designation Feb. 15, and will pick C&K.

"Unless the Trust wants to go against the community, they'll pick C&K," Schwartz predicted. "It's not just C&K, it's C&K/Durst," he stressed. "I think Durst's addition made it much more plausible. With Durst, you know you're not going to run out of money and lose financial backing."

Bergman said that having one big-box store in the C&K plan is far more acceptable than three big-box stores called for in a plan by Forest City Ratner.

"If C&K is a gorilla, Ratner is a monster," Bergman said.

In its Feb. 10 statement, the Working Group gave several reasons why it endorsed the C&K plan.

The group felt C&K's plan recognizes the uniqueness of the 15-acre pier's large footprint and takes into account the community's need for athletic fields for local youth organizations. Second, the plan dedicates substantial open space to passive recreation, including the entire perimeter walkway and area with best water views. Third, the group said, C&K's plan doesn't overburden Pier 40 with commercial activity that would negatively impact the park, includes "more appropriately scaled attractions" and retains the current number of long-term parking spaces, about 2,000, allocated for community use.

Also, although it includes one large-scale retail use of 120,000 sq. ft. in its revised plan, it is less than one-third of the 450,000 sq. ft. of big-box commercial space in the Forest City Ratner plan and one-half the 286,000 sq. ft. of retail space in the Oceanarium aquarium proposal.

"The impacts of one large-scale retailer are certainly less offensive to the community than three and will not have the same crippling traffic impacts. The River Green proposal represents a fair compromise," the Working Group said.

The Working Group said C&K/Durst have "demonstrated creativity and flexibility in its proposal and responsiveness to the community's needs and concerns regarding development of the pier." As a result, the group said, "River Green is the only proposal that will be able to gain broad support."

While noting that the commercial uses in the C&K plan far exceed the guidelines in the Working Group's "Blueprint for Pier 40" position statement, the Working Group accepts them as a "compromise," though stressing that they should be no larger.

The Working Group also gave reasons for why it did not endorse the three other competing plans.

Regarding the Oceanarium project, the group said the combination of a 200,000 sq. ft. aquarium, 286,000 sq. ft. of retail space and 88,000 sq. ft. of theater space "will bring excessive traffic and congestion to the park and adjoining neighborhoods, while creating a mall-like atmosphere." The group also expressed concern about the impact of Oceanarium on the Coney Island aquarium. And they objected to the loss of 1,000 long-term parking spaces called for in the Oceanarium plan.

As for the New Pier 40 plan by Forest City Ratner, with three big-box stores, such as IKEA, Costco and Fairway, the group opposes it because it rejects such a large amount of big-box commercial retail in the park, feeling it would not be park-compatible and "would elicit direct, vehement and immediate community opposition."

Finally, the group said it opposes the Park on the Pier development, designed by architect Sebastian Knorr, because the plan is ill-defined and the developer lacks experience. "Limited concrete information was presented regarding both the design of the plan and the commercial activity being considered," the group said.

The Working Group's members include representatives of the elected officials who represent the Pier 40 site and from the Hudson River Park Trust Advisory Council, Community Board 2, Friends of Hudson River Park and The Federation to Preserve the Greenwich Village Waterfront.

Schwartz said the Working Group's position statement on Pier 40 that Glick read to the Trust's board last month was a watershed moment, possibly marking the end of conflict over the Greenwich Village waterfront, which even influenced local Democratic club politics. Different factions, like the Federation, all came together in the end.

"It represents a real change in the political wars in the community," Schwartz said. "It's also a testament to the hours and hours of meetings and discussions and e-mails by the Working Group's members. We all united to stop the big-box stuff. We all united to stop the Oceanarium - though it's not guaranteed that it's stopped."

The Working Group passed a resolution against Oceanarium on Feb. 3.

©Downtown Express 2003 *

[billyblancoNYC]

I would like to see more of the studios, less retail, and am not sure about the museum - don't we have museums dedicated to film and tv (Museum of the Moving Image, Museum of Television and Radio, among others). *Who knows, it might be a nice museum.

It would be better the improve the CI aquarium, though. To have 2 is crazy and the aquarium should be used as a CI centerpiece.

I guess we'll see, hopefully soon.

[ZippyTheChimp]

from The Downtown Express

Two Pier 40 Developers Propose Bigger Fields

By Lincoln Anderson

One thing was abundantly clear at last Monday night’s public hearing on two development proposals for Pier 40, as clear as the black and white patches on a soccer ball or the laces on a baseball: the developers had heard the message loud and clear that youth sports leagues want large ball fields on the W. Houston St. pier. Both Park on the Pier Developers and the Chermayeff, Sollogub and Poole groups presented significantly revised plans at the meeting, co-sponsored by Community Board 2 and the Hudson River Park Trust and run by Board 2.

About 150 people turned out to hear the presentations at the Manhattan Developmental Center at 75 Morton St.

The most striking changes were that whereas in previous plans, both development groups did not fill in the pier’s central courtyard, in their new plans both cover over the courtyard on both the second and third floors, creating a park on 100 percent of the pier’s rooftop. In each plan, most of the rooftop is devoted to a complex of sports fields, which would allow teens to play regulation baseball games.

Fields, retail, parking

The first to present was Park on the Pier Developers, a group comprising three principals, Bob Fagan, Abe Lesser and Louis Stahl. The group came with a new architect, John Schimenti, who has stepped in because the group’s previous architect, Sebastian Knorr, is reportedly involved in some other big projects. Schimenti has designed many New York City movie theaters, including the Angelika on Houston St.

As Fagan described it, their plan, a $130 million project, will include on the pier’s ground level, 30,000 sq. ft. of indoor recreation space and 250,000 sq. ft. of retail space. This retail space could but doesn’t have to include a 120,000-sq.-ft. Home Depot-type store, Fagan said.

“The most reliable sources of income are going to create the most fervent opposition, because people don’t want big box,” Fagan said, though noting there was support for C&K/Durst’s plan with one big-box store in the last round of planning.

“As far as the anchor tenant, we’re looking at a Home Depot, like other people are talking about,” Fagan said. Fagan said despite the weak retail market, there has been no lack of interest in the big-box space. “We have more companies than we can accommodate interested in the site,” he said.

There would be two other retail spaces of from anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. to 50,000 to 60,000 sq. ft. There would also be a 46,000-sq.-ft. banquet hall within the 250,000 sq. ft. of retail space. The plan also calls for smaller attractions: sports bars, a pizzeria or a microbrewery.

Fagan said they hope to have on the first floor a 60,000-sq.-ft. greenmarket four to five days a week, which they think would become comparable to the Union Sq. Greenmarket within five years. Fagan said that on off days, the greenmarket space could be used as artists’ space. The finger pier might have a Hudson River fisheries museum.

On the second level, they would keep 1,800 spots for long-term parking, with 600 other parking spots devoted to short-term parking for the Home Depot and other retail stores.

An audience member expressed skepticism that 600 parking spots would satisfy a Home Depot. But Fagan said, “Those were the numbers they gave us.”

The roof would include a full-size soccer field, full-size baseball field and a softball field, possibly with squash or tennis courts around the perimeter. Fagan said either the Trust or a “professional operator” would operate the sports fields.

“We don’t know right now,” he said. “It’s the Trust’s call.”

Architect Schimenti said that grass would be more suitable for the passive areas, while an artificial grass surface would be better for the soccer field, for example, since grass would wear down from use.

To allow sunlight to get to lower levels, large notches would be cut in the edges of the roof and there would be a light well in the middle of the roof.

The previous plan they proposed cost less at $90 million. Fagan said the additional $40 million was because of the roofing over of the courtyard.

The group of Fagan, Lesser and Stahl own the Downtown Athletic Club and have renovated buildings for the Department of Education.

Fields, aquarium, parking

Peter Chermayeff, a principal of Chermayeff, Sollogub and Poole, the Boston-based international aquarium design firm, described his group’s revised plans with a slideshow and Power Point presentation.

“We are hearing a lot of strong opinion. You are not light in the articulation department,” Chermayeff told the crowd. “This community really needs sports facilities. We’ve heard that loud and clear.”

No longer is the project called Pier 40 Oceanarium. Now it is called Hudson Place – An Environmental and Sports Center, reflecting that it is as much sports facility as oceanarium. The construction cost remains the same: $265 million.

In the revised plan, the pier’s courtyard would be roofed over and the roof primarily devoted to sports fields. The goal of the new plan is “maximum park and recreation space,” Chermayeff said. He noted that their plan includes a baseball field with a 400-ft. fence – Major League proportions.

The artistic white “sails” that were suspended over the oceanarium in the previous design have been retained, but are now over the baseball field area. Soccer fields, located on the east side of the pier’s roof, will be covered with some sort of translucent mesh material.

At two-and-a-half acres, an 800-ft.-long strip along the western edge of the pier’s rooftop, about 14-20 percent of the roof space, will be devoted to passive recreation.

The sports fields would not be free to use but would be available at a “low cost,” he said. Under Chermayeff’s plan, Andres Gazzolo, a former semi-pro soccer player from Argentina who runs a children’s soccer program in Mansfield, Mass., would oversee the fields’ programming.

In addition to increased sports fields space, Chermayeff would join the Babe Ruth birthplace museum in Baltimore and Yogi Berra Museum and Learning Center in New Jersey to create small sports museum spaces at Pier 40.

But from his presentation, it was clear that the oceanarium is Chermayeff’s passion. Instead of rising up above the pier on its western edge as in the earlier design, the oceanarium is now fully under the roof of the pier, though still on the pier’s western edge.

With huge windows, the tanks would be four stories tall and wide to give the sense of looking into a vast ocean and accommodate the showpiece — a whale shark.

“There’s nothing like having a whale shark go right by you at the window,” Chermayeff noted. “So impressive, people tend to go silent….”

A Pier 40 aquarium in the Village/Hudson Sq., at 200,000 sq. ft., would be the second-largest aquarium in the world, after Osaka’s — one of six major aquariums Chermayeff’s group has built — which draws 3 million visitors a year. Chermayeff projects 2.5 million annual visitors to a Pier 40 oceanarium.

Chermayeff assured the audience that although the oceanarium will draw lots of people it is “not scary, but it is in fact an economic driver,” capable of generating well over $100 million a year for the area.

In the revised plan, Chermayeff reduced both the amount of retail and office space in their proposal by a third; the aquarium stayed the same size; long-term parking spaces increased from 1,700 to 2,800, with up to 650 spots for short-term parking for visitors to the pier. The car parking would be on the ground floor.

Rather than hurting the Coney Island aquarium as many fear, Chermayeff said the Pier 40 oceanarium could help it through cross-marketing and ticket packages. But in response to a question, he acknowledged that the Wildlife Conservation Society, which operates the New York Coney Aquarium in Coney Island, said “no thank you” to such a connection.

Buck Moorhead, from Jane St., was among several who objected to the idea of commercial ball fields. He said he’s been waiting so long for a park on Pier 40 that although he once was interested in getting active recreation space on the pier, now he’s ready for passive recreation.

“To not be able to walk out there on that huge, huge space, like Central Park would be a big loss,” Moorhead said. He also didn’t like the plan to cover the fields with sails or other materials, saying he’d like to feel rain fall just like on any other field.

Chermayeff said there would be no charge to watch people playing sports on the pier.

Stu Waldman said it’s not inconceivable the aquarium could draw 4 million visitors a year, most from the suburbs who “will be circling around the neighborhood looking for parking.”

Tobi Bergman, a leading advocate for ball fields on the roof of Pier 40, and whose group, Pier, Park and Playground Association, noted that under the Hudson River Park Act the 50 percent of the pier’s footprint that is required to be open/park space must be either free or for use with a nominal fee.

Two more plans

Ben Korman and Meier Cohen of C&K Properties were in the audience. They were scheduled present their plan for the pier May 5, along with the other remaining development group, Forest City Ratner. On May 14, the C.B. 2 committee will discuss all four plans for Pier 40 at 75 Morton St. at 6:30 p.m.

Korman, who proposed Home Depot as the anchor tenant, indicated that he has also made some changes. “I’m enjoying the process,” he said. “You’re going to be surprised next week.”

Chermayeff, Sollogub and Poole’s new Pier 40 design sports a full rooftop park with sports fields under white sails, and an aquarium underneath.
http://www.downtownexpress.com/DE_WEB_02/pier40.jpg

[ZippyTheChimp]

The revised plan for Pier 40 by C&K/Durst includes 100 percent coverage of the pier’s 15-acre footprint with park and open recreation space. Soccer fields would be recessed on the pier’s second floor and baseball fields would be located on the roof, which would be ringed by 15 gardens, some containing art installations. The pier’s second floor would have eight to 10 spaces for arts and cultural institutions.
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_2/roof.jpg

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_2/pier.jpg

[Gulcrapek]

The NY Aquarium at Coney Island will be out of business.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Editorial from The Villager

Only a financially realistic plan at Pier 40 can work


Monday’s presentation by C&K Properties/Durst Organization of their revised redevelopment proposal for Pier 40 concluded another round of public hearings on the competing plans for the pier.

By seemingly abandoning a proposal for a 120,000-sq.-ft., big-box Home Depot-type hardware store as the pier’s anchor commercial tenant, the developers demonstrated an effort to respond to the objections of many in the community, as well as officials at the Hudson River Park Trust, to big-box retail in the park.

In C&K/Durst’s new $115 million plan, screws and hammers have been replaced by performances, paintings and video workshops.

The pier would have the equivalent of 100 percent of its footprint covered by a public park and sports fields. But — and here’s the hitch — the developers would not pay the estimated $30 million cost of building this park and would seek outside funds.

Clearly, the developers, who originally proposed a first-of-its-kind waterborne FedEx delivery system for the pier, have again taken the minimum impact route, judging there was too much opposition to a big-box retail store in the park for any Pier 40 plan including one to work.

Yet, their new arts proposal obviously does not generate anywhere near the money of a big-box store, hence the need for outside funding.

However, in tight economic times, it’s questionable if $30 million can or will be found in any reasonable timeframe. The developers suggest the city or state governments may offer funding and that the private sector could be tapped through fundraising groups such as Friends of Hudson River Park.

There was a suggestion a conservancy be set up to fundraise for the park. But that takes time, and this is the low-density Village, not the Upper East Side and the Central Park S. area with its Fortune 500 companies that finance the Central Park Conservancy.

Meanwhile, in addition to having increased the sports field space in its latest plan, the oceanarium group now pledges that most of the baseball fields and soccer fields on the pier’s roof in their plan would be free. This is a positive move, addressing an obstacle to community support. Peter Chermayeff’s group has a proven track record of developing successful aquariums. On the other hand, C&K’s early FedEx ferries plan sunk and their new one looks financial “iffy.”

An argument against the oceanarium is the estimated 2.5 million annual visitors it would draw. A Home Depot, originally supported by Friends of Hudson River Park and the Pier 40 Working Group, would have drawn the same number of car trips (2.5 million) to or from the pier. Why is traffic O.K. heading by car (and it would almost always be by car) to a Home Depot but not by foot or subway or car to an aquarium?

Whether the oceanarium can overcome fears of its traffic impact and the opposition of the Coney Island aquarium and Brooklyn remains to be seen.

There’s still time for a compelling Pier 40 plan to emerge and gain support — but only a realistic, financially sound one can succeed.

--------------------

Pier 40 is 15 acres. CB2 meeting on May 14

[NYatKNIGHT]

Why don't they make more use of the water taxis in these locations to allow an alternative to driving. Like the Jets stadium, cut way down on available parking and in time people will figure it out that this mode of transportation is the way to go.

I'd rather see just about anything other than Home Depot as the financial anchor of this great new park's showcase pier. I may have to go to this meeting......

[ZippyTheChimp]

I wouldn't want the CI Aquarium to go out of business, but the thought of a Home Depot on pier 40. Coney can help the Aquarium by looking to what made it a destination in the past. The great natural resource is there, the subways are there, the Brooklyn Cyclones are sold out. All that's needed is a vision and the will to do it. It's been too long.

Water Taxis will be a feature on many of the park's piers, but let's face it, you drive to Home Depot. Big SUVs to haul
4x8 sheetrock. The park needs income, but I hope another plan is chosen.

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_04/pierplan.html

Pier plan endorsed

C.B. 2 committee endorses plan for Pier 40

By Lincoln Anderson

*
After hearing community input, followed by a lengthy deliberation among themselves, Community Board 2’s waterfront committee last Wednesday night endorsed C&K Properties/Durst Organization’s redevelopment plan for Pier 40.
Called River Green, the plan includes baseball fields and gardens on the pier’s roof; soccer fields, an arts and cultural center and TV and film studios on its second level; and car parking on the ground floor.

C&K/Durst is the same development group Board 2’s former waterfront committee endorsed in late February before Aubrey Lees, the board’s chairperson, intervened and removed eight committee members and reformed the committee.

Board 2 will vote on the waterfront committee’s recommendation at its full board meeting this Thursday, at New York University School of Law, 40 Washington Sq. S., Room 110, 6:30 p.m.

As part of a four-month deadline extension approved in February, three of four of the developers competing for the pier project revised their plans; the fourth developer, Forest City Ratner, dropped out. C&K/Durst changed its anchor tenant from a big-box Home Depot store to an arts/cultural center; the developers of Oceanarium retained their idea of building the world’s second-largest aquarium on Pier 40 but increased sports uses on the pier’s roof, changing them to noncommercial and adding small sports museums; Park and on the Pier group added a Home Depot big-box store.

The developers presented their new plans to the community on April 28 and May 5.

The Hudson River Park Trust, the state-city organization overseeing the five-mile-long park of which Pier 40 is a key section, faces a June 15 deadline to pick a developer for the four-and-a-half-block-long W. Houston St. pier, or pick none and opt for an interim-use plan. The Trust will consider C.B. 2’s resolution before making a decision.

Under the Hudson River Park Act, the equivalent of at least 50 percent of the pier’s 15-acre footprint must be for park or other open use.

At last Wednesday’s waterfront committee meeting, committee chairperson, Don MacPherson, first gave local groups and individuals a chance to give their input “and vent their spleen,” as he put it, on the plans and the process.

Tobi Bergman, president of Pier, Park and Playground Association, a Village-based youth sports advocacy group, and a member of the previous waterfront committee, said P3 could work with any of the three remaining developers to get sports fields on the pier’s roof. However, he said, River Green’s proposal that the $30 million park component of their $115 million plan be funded by someone else was “unacceptable” and he also expressed concern about the possibility a big-box Home Depot store could still be included in the River Green plan.

Bergman urged the committee to make a pick, noting, “It would not make sense for the community to put in so much work over so many months and then not make a pick.”

Arthur Schwartz, the committee’s former chairperson until his removal by Lees, also urged the committee to make a selection to send a message to the Trust that the community is for something being done on the pier.

“I think the board has to recognize that there is a major chance the Trust will do nothing,” he said. “That would be a major loss to the community.” Schwartz said Oceanarium’s accommodations to free sports uses on the pier were “heartening” but that the traffic impact from millions of people (he said 4 million a year would be a realistic number) visiting the aquarium would be too great.

Afterward, Schwartz said he’s heard the Trust is already moving forward with an interim plan for tennis bubbles on the pier’s roof. Chris Martin, the Trust’s spokesperson did not return calls for comment.

Noting the hugeness of the project and of its potential impact on Greenwich Village, Stu Waldman of the Federation to Preserve the Greenwich Village Waterfront advocated an interim plan and not picking any developer. He feared C&K/Durst would revive their plan for a big-box store.

“We’re talking about the single largest development this community has ever seen,” Waldman said.

Waldman recalled he backed the Home Depot before when it seemed there was no alternative as the previous deadline had loomed.

“I’m embarrassed to say I said it, but that’s what can happen in this process,” he said.

Jessie McNab, a member of the West Village Committee and a Wesbeth activist, objected that in all the revised plans for the rooftop park youth sports fields have been increased.

“One thousand children will get three-quarters of the space and the 20,000 to 40,000 adults will get one-quarter of the space. That’s not exactly fair,” she said of the third-floor roof area. There needs to be space for “old fogies and middle people,” she said, adding, “let’s stick with the plan we have in front of us — parking.”

Some members of the waterfront committee proposed backing none of the plans, but MacPherson stressed he felt it was important for the committee to make a recommendation.

After they had gone around the table, it was clear about two-thirds of the committee supported C&K/Durst. A resolution was then hashed out in support of the River Green project but with some conditions including a requirement that C& K not switch back to its big box plan.

When a show of hands was requested, 10 supported C&K/Durst, four supported Oceanarium and one supported Park on the Pier. According to Board 2’s bylaws, votes of public members and appointed members are given equal weight.

David Reck, the committee’s vice chairperson, said he was for “none of the above.” Although he called Oceanarium “gorgeous” and felt it would be “marvelous to go in,” he said it was a “nonstarter” because of opposition from the Wildlife Conservation Society, which runs the Coney Island aquarium; he called Park on the Pier “not exciting;” and was concerned about the unfunded $30 million park in C&K/Durst’s plan.

Jim Smith, Lawrence Goldberg and MacPherson said they preferred the Oceanarium. because it’s “beautiful” and the “most creative,” adding that he’d rather walk over on a Sunday and visit the Oceanarium than buy floor tiles at a Home Depot.

Mark Rosenwasser was one of the members for River Green (C&K/Durst), saying that as someone in real estate, he often goes with his gut feelings and that he felt Korman’s plan was most in line with what the community wants. “Ultimately, it’s going to come down to trust,” he said. “I trust him.”

In a new development, Korman told Downtown Express last Friday that they have ruled out a big-box store for their plan. When he was presenting C&K/Durst’s revised plan to the community on May 5, Korman had hedged in his answer when asked if a big-box store was an option if the arts/cultural plan didn’t work out. But now Korman says there will be no 120,000-sq.-ft. Home Depot or any store of such size.

“I want to clarify, we have no idea of going back to any kind of hardware with big-box retail,” he said. “If the Trust says this [arts/cultural center plan] is not going to work, we’ll have to go back to the drawing board. The big box is off. We will not bring with big-box retail again — or any other traffic-generating destination uses..”
C&K/Durst still may consider adding another commercial tenant to help generate revenue for the park; Korman mentioned a relocated Flower Market as a possibility.

Korman said there are two ways they can address the need for generating revenue for the park: convince the Trust to reduce or even eliminate the need or reduce the cost of their project. Also, he feels the gardens would naturally lend themselves to corporate sponsorship.

Cohen and Korman have run the parking garage and other uses, such as FedEx, on the pier for the last several years under a lease from the Trust, generating $4.5 million a year for the Trust.

[NYatKNIGHT]

So it's still up in the air I guess. All they did was "vent their spleens".

[NYatKNIGHT]

Posted by NYguy in another thread

(NY Times)

Three Proposals, and Big Decisions, Figure in Pier 40's Future
By DAVID W. DUNLAP

WITH none of the fanfare and little of the scrutiny attending plans for ground zero, a decision is to be made soon about a parcel that is almost as large and almost as important to the future of Lower Manhattan.

At stake is Pier 40 on the Hudson River, at the foot of Houston Street, a three-level leviathan that opened 40 years ago to serve the Holland America Line. Covering 15 acres, only one acre less than the World Trade Center site, it is really more like a peninsula than a pier.

Also at stake is the tenuous balance between citywide and neighborhood needs along the ribbonlike Hudson River Park being constructed from Battery Place to 59th Street. Would-be developers of Pier 40 say they are trying to plan a complex that would draw enough people to generate revenue but not so many as to overwhelm — and alienate — communities whose support they need.

Three competing proposals are before the board of the Hudson River Park Trust, which is charged with planning, designing, building, operating and maintaining the park. The board has a deadline of June 15 to choose among:

River Green
a proposal by C & K Properties and the Durst Organization, both of Manhattan, to create a complex of 8 to 10 small museums and cultural institutions, television and film studios, shops and restaurants. Ball fields and small thematic gardens would fill the rooftop. The design, by Reichen & Robert of Paris, would preserve the old cargo-handling gantries.

Hudson Oceanarium
a proposal by Jacoby Development of Atlanta and IDEA of Boston, to create an aquarium, shops, offices and four theaters. Ball fields, parkland and an all-weather soccer pavilion would fill the rooftop. Chermayeff, Sollogub & Poole, a Boston architectural firm, has designed a forest of masts up to 180 feet high with expanses of netting to provide shade and evoke sailing ships.

Park on the Pie
a proposal by Robert Fagan, Abe Leser and Louis Stahl of Brooklyn for a home improvement superstore, smaller shops, restaurants and a farmers' market. Ball fields would fill the rooftop, though it could also be parkland. The architect is John Schimenti of Lynbrook, N.Y.

A fourth proposal, by Forest City Ratner Companies, has been withdrawn.

The designated developer would lease Pier 40 for 30 years. All three teams plan to reuse the pier's existing superstructure, a sprawling square doughnut about 40 feet tall with sides nearly 800 feet long. They would gain extra floor area by filling in what is now a four-acre hole in the doughnut.

They would all use the roof to satisfy a requirement in state law that the amount of "passive and active public open space" on Pier 40 be no less than the equivalent of half of its 15-acre footprint.

Each proposal includes a great deal of parking — no fewer than 2,000 spaces — recognizing that for many neighbors, the scarcity of parking is as critical as the scarcity of parkland. About 2,000 vehicles are now parked at Pier 40, which has been operated since 1997 by Meir Cohen and Ben Korman of C & K Properties under a lease that runs through the end of this year.

Last week, by a vote of 29 to 2, Community Board 2 in Greenwich Village recommended C & K and Durst as the long-term developers, provided, among other conditions, that they do not include a superstore, as they briefly proposed to do earlier this year.

The board's action is not binding on the Hudson River Park Trust, which is conducting its own evaluation of all three plans.

"We're giving them all equal weight and assessing the community's needs in making our decisions," Christopher Martin, vice president of the trust for marketing and public affairs, said yesterday.

Though it operates quietly, the 13-member board of the Hudson River Park Trust includes some well-known government officials, business and civic leaders and political contributors. Five members are appointed by the governor, five by the mayor and three by the Manhattan borough president.

Charles E. Dorkey III, a managing partner in the New York office of the Torys law firm, was recently named chairman by Gov. George E. Pataki. The vice chairman, appointed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, is Daniel L. Doctoroff, deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding.

Other members are Adrian Benepe, Bernadette Castro, Erin M. Crotty, Franz S. Leichter, Georgette Mosbacher, Julie S. Nadel, Theodore Roosevelt IV, Joseph B. Rose, Henry J. Stern, Diana Taylor and Madelyn Wils.

New Yorkers may be forgiven for having lost track of Pier 40's future, since so many plans have been advanced over the years: 1,700 apartments, a new home for the flower market that was traditionally housed in the West 20's, a setting for a branch of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum.

Besides being used as a parking lot, the pier shed serves as a storage, distribution and sorting center. C & K has installed a soccer field on the roof and opened the walkway around the pier shed to the public.

One vestige of its romantic past is a 12-by-20-foot mural by Frank Nix showing the four vessels that sailed under the name Rotterdam and a map of Europe with Holland America's ports of call and a miscellany of national symbols: windmill, harp, Eiffel Tower and, for Belgium, the Atomium structure built in 1958, the same year that work began on Pier 40 and jetliners began crossing the Atlantic, dooming the pier as a passenger terminal even before it opened.

[billyblancoNYC]

Bastards...

Trust delays Pier 40 decision indefinitely

By Lincoln Anderson




Downtown Express photo by Lincoln Anderson
Pier 40’s parking lot

Bringing months of speculation to an end, last evening the Hudson River Park Trust issued a faxed statement regarding Pier 40 in which Robert Balachandran, the Trust’s president, said the Trust will not pick a developer at the moment but instead do an interim plan on the Lower West Side pier until a more favorable economic climate occurs.

“After an extensive and thorough review of the proposals and their subsequent modifications that were submitted in response to the request for expressions of interest issued by the Hudson River Park Trust for the redevelopment of Pier 40, the Trust board has decided not to move forward with the selection of any of the proposed developers at this time,” Balachandran said in the statement issued at the end of the day June 9.

“Given the magnitude of the decision to dedicate Pier 40 for a period of as long as 30 years, and considering the inability of each proposal to successfully address all of the Trust’s development goals, as well as those of the city and state, the Trust has determined that it should wait for a more favorable economic climate in which to carry out such an important project,” Balachandran said.

“As the Trust continues to review its long-term options for Pier 40, it will develop a plan for interim recreational space to bring Pier 40 in compliance with all Hudson River Park Act mandates, while also continuing to receive the income necessary to operate and maintain the park, including offering residential parking. The Trust’s interim park development will include recreational playing fields to the maximum extent feasible.”

Balachandran did not say when the interim park will be built.

Arthur Schwartz, former head of Community Board 2’s waterfront committee, said he was told that a nonpublic board meeting was held by the Trust June 9 at which they held the vote. Schwartz said he believes that the whole turmoil on Board 2 where conflicts of interest were alleged on the waterfront committee, which led to his being deposed as chairperson, was fomented by the Trust and sapped momentum and leverage from the community in the process.

“While we were listening to proposals, they were snookering everybody,” Schwartz said. “So we’re going to have to have a fight. I think it’s going to mean local organizing and I think it’s going to mean litigation. I already have some theories.”

Trust officials could not be reached for comment.

Schwartz said, assuming he gets plaintiffs for the case, he’ll probably base the suit on the language of the extender amendment under which its says the Trust “shall designate” a developer by the deadline; the amendment doesn’t just say the Trust must make its “best effort,” Schwartz noted.

Schwartz reiterated a rumor he has said before that he has heard from sources regarding the Trust’s interim plan for the pier: that the Trust plans to put tennis bubbles on the pier’s roof and move the parking from the roof downstairs to the pier’s ground-level courtyard.

Schwartz has a good track record litigating on Pier 40. In 1997, he was one of the attorneys on a successful community lawsuit on behalf of the Greenwich Village Little League and Downtown United Soccer Club to get a youth ballfield on the pier’s roof.

“No more papers,” Governor Pataki had said in mock distress as Schwartz was bringing his statement to read at an event on the pier marking the lawsuit’s settlement. But it seems now there will be more papers.

In a process that started before Sept. 11, 2001, the Trust began looking for a private developer for the 15-acre pier. Initially, there were four main proposals: a plan for a full rooftop park over three big-box stores by Forest City Ratner; Pier 40 Oceanarium, a plan for the world’s second-largest aquarium; C&K Properties’ proposal for a waterborne FedEx system, which collapsed in negotiations and was replaced by a plan for a Home Depot big-box store after C&K partnered with Durst Organization; and another plan including many small retail stores.

During the four-month deadline extension, Ratner dropped out, C&K replaced the Home Depot with an arts complex and Oceanarium roofed over the pier for mostly free sports fields.

Community Board’s 2 waterfront committee, in two different incarnations, endorsed C&K/Durst as the developers for Pier 40, and Board 2’s full board last month approved the committee’s resolution endorsing C&K/Durst.

Local park activists and Assemblymember Deborah Glick fought to amend the Hudson River Park Act to include deadlines for Pier 40’s development. As the first deadline, Feb. 15, 2003, loomed, the Trust, Glick and park activists decided to extend the deadline for picking a developer four months to June 15.

As a result of not picking a developer by the deadline, the Trust will forego a sixth-month extension of current commercial uses on the pier that are nonconforming under the Hudson River Park Act, such as the Police Dept. barrier unit, FedEx and Academy Bus. These uses will have to vacate the pier by the end of this year. Long-term car parking will be allowed to continue on the pier. Currently, the pier generates $4.5 million a year for the Trust, with C&K Properties running the pier under a master lease which is month-to-month.

[Kris]

June 12, 2003

Park Trust Favors More Playing Fields for Pier 40

By DAVID W. DUNLAP

Three ambitious redevelopment proposals for Pier 40, an almost peninsula-size structure at the foot of Houston Street, were rejected Monday by the board of the Hudson River Park Trust, which announced that it would instead take over operation of the pier and build more playing fields.

One plan, endorsed by the Greenwich Village community board, called for 8 to 10 small cultural institutions, studios, shops and restaurants. Another proposed an aquarium, shops, offices and theaters. And the third involved a home-improvement superstore, restaurants and farmers' market.

But the trust was not persuaded by any of their financial underpinnings. Robert P. Balachandran, the president, said in a statement, "Given the magnitude of the decision to dedicate Pier 40 for a period as long as 30 years, and considering the inability of each proposal to successfully address all of the trust's development goals, as well as those of the city and state, the trust has determined that it should wait for a more favorable economic climate in which to carry out such an important project."

Covering 15 acres — almost as much area as the World Trade Center site — Pier 40 will be the most dominant single feature in the ribbonlike Hudson River Park, now under construction between Battery Place and 59th Street.

The trust, which is in charge of developing and operating the park, will build playing fields to the "maximum extent feasible" on Pier 40, Mr. Balachandran said, and continue to offer long-term parking.

Under state law, the equivalent of half the pier's 15-acre footprint must be dedicated to public open space. There are currently batting cages and a soccer field on the roof of the 800-foot-square, three-level structure, which was built 40 years ago for the Holland America Line. The walkway around the pier has also been opened to the public by the current operators, C & K Properties, whose lease expires at the end of the year.

C & K and the Durst Organization proposed the cultural complex. The aquarium plan was by Jacoby Development of Atlanta and Idea Inc. of Boston. The superstore proposal came from Robert Fagan, Abe Leser and Louis Stahl of Brooklyn.

Ben Korman of C & K said yesterday that he was "very disappointed" by the decision but that he respected the board's deliberations.

However, Peter Chermayeff, the president of Idea, said the rejection came "without even the courtesy of a meeting or the review of material that we had been asked to provide." The developers' consultants were preparing supplementary information that would have buttressed their proposal, he said.

News that the trust had postponed indefinitely the long-term planning of Pier 40 came as a "disappointment, to say the least," said Donald C. MacPherson, chairman of the waterfront committee of Community Board 2 in Greenwich Village.

"It's very unfortunate that we will not get the benefit of the fruits of the labor of many people," he said. "Now it's going to be quite a number of years before we see anything done."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

Disappointing, but maybe the right decision. The pier will continue to provide revenue for the park, which is under financial pressure. The pile field just north of pier 40 (pier 42?) was pulled out of the Greenwich Village segment, and the pier 26 design was shortened by 150 ft - both to save money.

[NYatKNIGHT]

I hope there are some restaurants with outdoor seating on Pier 40. Dining on the waterfront is so nice and almost non-existent in this city of islands.

[TLOZ Link5]

Didn't the article say that half of the site would be used for outdoor recreation? *I'm sure that there'd still be some space left to make a nice restaurant or whatnot.

[Edward]

Pier 40 (http://www.wirednewyork.com/piers/pier40/default.htm), AOL Time Warner Center on the left, ESB on the right. 8 July 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/piers/pier40/pier40_esb_hudson_8july03.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/piers/pier40/default.htm)

[ZippyTheChimp]

From The Villager http://www.thevillager.com/

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_36/bpcover.jpg
Last weekend, FedEx trucks were still parked in the courtyard of Pier 40 at W. Houston St., in which construction of a 3.2-acre sports field is planned. Under the Hudson River Park Act, FedEx, buses and other commercial uses were supposed to vacate the pier by Jan. 1, 2004.



PIER PRESSURE: Activist files Pier 40 lawsuit

by Albert Amateau

Arthur Schwartz, a Greenwich Village park and waterfront activist, served papers on the Hudson River Park Trust last week in a lawsuit seeking to force the Trust to designate a permanent developer for Pier 40 and to stop any action to install interim uses on the 14-acre pier, including expanded parking and construction of an athletic field.

The often-delayed redevelopment of Pier 40 for mixed commercial and recreation use has long been the source of controversy among park advocates, elected officials and the Trust, the state-city agency planning and building the five-mile riverfront park between the Battery and 59th St.

The suit by Schwartz, the Village’s male Democratic district leader and former Community Board 2 Waterfront Committee chairperson, was filed on behalf of the West Village Community Alliance for Parks and Playgrounds, Inc., a park advocacy group he organized in 1993, originally to rehabilitate Bleecker Playground.

The suit charges that the Trust violated state legislation by failing to designate and negotiate with a developer as planned last June. The action also charges the Trust with violating the Open Meetings Laws in connection with the decision.

Chris Martin, spokesperson for the Trust, said the agency had received papers pertaining to the suit on Dec. 29 but would not comment on it this week. “We don’t ordinarily comment on pending lawsuits, but we might issue a statement later,” he said. The suit requires the Trust to appear in court on Feb. 3, when a judge will be assigned and a hearing date for February will be set.

Some neighborhood park advocates, although critical of the Trust’s failure to proceed with the permanent redevelopment of the mammoth W. Houston St. pier, found fault with Schwartz’s suit, saying they supported an interim plan that could provide an artificial turf playing field by the summer of this year.

Tobi Bergman, head of Pier Park and Playground Association, the nonprofit group that currently runs recreation on Pier 40 as a tenant of the Trust, said his group, along with the Greenwich Village Little League and the Downtown United Soccer Club, was in favor of an interim playing field in the courtyard of Pier 40. “We also support moving forward with permanent development of the pier, but for now we’re in favor of the Trust proposal,” Bergman said.

State Assemblymember Deborah Glick, long a critic of the Trust, was also leery of Schwartz’s case. Glick acknowledged that Schwartz’s 1997 lawsuit against the state Department of Transportation had won Governor Pataki’s agreement to build a youth athletic field on the southeast corner of the pier’s rooftop and also to provide an indoor field and other space for community use on the pier. But she said on Jan. 5 that a settlement of the current suit could make Schwartz the only person sitting across the table from the Trust.

Nevertheless, Glick said the Trust should not be allowed to put off Pier 40’s permanent development indefinitely.

Last month, Charles Dorkey III, chairperson of the Trust board of directors, told an Assembly committee that the Trust intended to engage a marketing survey firm to determine how best to redevelop Pier 40 and to suggest possible changes in the Hudson River Park’s legislation to facilitate the pier’s development.

“I’m not eager to make major changes, but I’m willing to look at narrow changes,” said Glick, adding, “I’m not opposed to waiting a few months to see what development possibilities there might be as long as they’re compatible with the park.”

The Trust last year rejected proposals from three potential developers after inviting them to submit amended plans. The Trust said the proposals failed to meet the Trust’s development goals and that it would be better to wait until the economy improved to undertake the pier’s redevelopment.

At the same time, the Trust announced plans for interim use of the pier. Space for 800 to 900 more cars in addition to the present 2,000 parking spaces on the pier and construction of a $5 million temporary, 3.2-acre playing field were also part of the interim plan. The interim parking plan for Pier 40 calls for a contract with an initial term of four years with three one-year extensions.

Originally, Schwartz had planned to file the suit on behalf of Friends of Hudson River Park, but the Friends decided to hold off when Dorkey allegedly promised that the Trust would move expeditiously to either pick a developer or reissue a request for proposals for developers for the pier.

Yet, in case the Trust did not follow through on its alleged promise and to allow him to potentially activate the suit later, Schwartz made sure to file the lawsuit in State Supreme Court last October, just before the statute of limitations was set to expire. He then had 120 days in which to activate the case. Saying he wanted to “let it run” a bit, he held off serving papers on the Trust until Mon. Dec. 29.

“They [the Trust] had agreed to start the Pier 40 process expeditiously, but instead they have an interim plan for seven to 10 years. I don’t think they’ve done anything to make the situation better,” Schwartz said. “If they had done something, the suit would have stayed in my computer,” he said.

“I’m not a Lone Ranger in this suit,” said Schwartz, adding that though no one initially knew he had served the Trust with papers, they do now. He said he would have had more plaintiffs if he’d sued in October. As for his playgrounds group, he said it includes “dues-paying members.”

Schwartz seeks a court order directing the Trust to select one or more developers and negotiate a Pier 40 lease. An alternative remedy, the suit says, would be to order the Trust to issue a new request for proposals and “expeditiously” carry forward the process of selecting a developer and negotiating a lease.

But Stuart Waldman, president of the Federation to Preserve the Greenwich Village Waterfront and Great Port, said he feared that if Schwartz won the suit, the result could be worse than it is now.

Waldman noted that the Trust rejected proposals for a big-box store and an oceanarium — planned as the world’s second-largest aquarium — that many community activists found unacceptable. “If he wins, there’s nothing to stop the Trust from getting the same proposals or worse and designating whomever they want,” said Waldman.

“The major issue is the Trust’s control of the process,” Waldman said, “We have to find a way to do something about that.”

As to Glick’s fear that he’d be the “only one at the table,” Schwartz said if the case reaches negotiations before a judge or with the Trust, he’d bring in all the local elected officials and “anyone from the community who wants to work on this.”

Schwartz added that the lawsuit could also force the termination of the new parking permit issued by the Trust to Standard Parking, which took over management of the parking operation at the pier as of Jan. 1, 2004.

Schwartz noted he was also the attorney who brought suit in 1998 on behalf of then-Councilmember Tom Duane and Assemblymember Richard Gottfried to remove a restaurant, Aquamarine, from W. 26th St. in the park, after it overstayed its lease.

One activist wondered if Schwartz, in filing the suit, was just trying to put some pressure on the Trust. He also suggested that without support of the youth leagues, the suit might not stand much chance of winning.

But Schwartz said the lawsuit is not half-hearted.

“I don’t file lawsuits that aren’t serious,” he said, adding that, for example, in addition to not picking a developer for Pier 40, the Trust hasn’t been giving 60-day notification before making major changes to the park plan. “I want them to function within the guidelines set up within the law,” he said.


The Villager is published by
Community Media LLC.
The Villager | 487 Greenwich St., Suite 6A | New York, NY 10013

[Derek2k3]

I admire this Schwartz guy. Unlike others in the community who are settling with the interim proposal that may last for a decade or more, he is making sure the grander proposal is built.

I'm not conviced that an increase in traffic is a good reason why the Oceanarium proposal shouldn't be built. It was the grandest proposal- no doubt. So grand it would attract multitudes of visitors and tourists, but of course these residents couldn't stand the increase in traffic so something less visionary must be built. It is this kind of thinking is why nothing grand and inspiring on the large scale ever goes up in New york anymore.
Fortunately, we already have an aquarium so I'm not too upset on this one.

http://csp-architects.com/images/pier40-high.jpg
CSP Architects http://csp-architects.com
Renderin by Visarc http://www.visarc.com/

[BrooklynRider]

But the original RFP was issued at a time when we were in economic chaos in the city. I think the construction cycle has bottomed out and is on the upswing. I hope they will be going out with new RFP's soon. The pier should be redeveloped before West Street becomes a premier residential blvd - NIMBY's will kill the better, grander proposals for sure.

[billyblancoNYC]

I like these...


7 proposals submitted for Pier 57
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_43/7proposalssubmitted.html


By Albert Amateau


The Hudson River Park Trust last week presented the seven development teams that propose to transform Pier 57, the former city bus depot on the Chelsea waterfront, into a cultural destination in the 5-mile-long riverfront park currently under construction.


The seven schemes for the pier between 15th and 16th Sts., which is the third-largest site in the park after Pier 40 and the Gansevoort Peninsula, were broadly inclusive — featuring performance spaces, maritime museums, historic ships, restaurants, cabarets, auction houses, retail shops, television studios, floating swimming pools and more.


The Trust called for proposals last September, set a Jan. 20 deadline and hopes to select a development team by June of this year.


“Over the next several months we will also meet with a group made up of members of Community Board 4 and the Hudson River Park Advisory Council to receive input directly from the nearby neighborhoods about the future of Pier 57,” the Trust announcement said.


The Advisory Council, which advises the Trust board of directors, includes elected officials, members of Community Boards 1, 2, and 4 — whose districts include the Hudson River Park — park advocates and Trust directors.


The broad development goals stated in September for the 300,000-sq.-ft. pier were, “quality park-enhancing uses for a combination of cultural, educational and maritime recreation noncommercial and commercial uses.”


The disclosure of the seven respondents came barely a month after the Jan. 20 deadline for submissions and gratified park advocates.


“That’s a pretty good record compared to Pier 40,” said Ross Graham, co-chairperson of the board of directors of Friends of Hudson River Park, a park advocacy group. She referred to the delays and eventual collapse of the process to select a developer for Pier 40 at Houston St. The 15-acre Pier 40 is currently being proposed for interim uses — including a 400-ft.-by-400-ft. sports field, strip of rooftop open space and long-term parking — pending the resumption of the developer selection.


Graham had high praise for Connie Fishman, former vice president of the Trust who became the Trust’s president at the end of December. “All of us at Friends of Hudson River Park are pleased at what the Trust has been doing lately,” Graham said. “There’s a sense of all of us working together.”


None of the principals in the seven teams would elaborate on their proposals, citing a confidentiality agreement with the Trust.


Original Ventures, Inc., proposed a Hudson River Performing Arts Center, including restaurants, a broadcast studio, performance spaces, a maritime museum, a nonprofit arts incubator, exhibition space, catering and events space, historic vessels, a marina and a floating swimming pool. Michael Kramer, a former member of Community Board 4 and a Chelsea resident, is a partner in the team.


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


LCOR Development Services and Pier 57 Preservation Trust propose to establish “Discover Pier 57,” featuring a Cousteau Society Visitor and Ocean Center for marine exhibits and education, a maritime museum, a destination cinema, historic vessels and dinner cruises, events and catering space, retail, galleries, restaurants and mini storage. John Doswell, a Community Board 4 member and dock master of Pier 63 Maritime — a public dock on a barge at W. 23rd St. — is a member of the LCOR team. LCOR is the developer of major real estate projects in New York and Washington, D.C.


Another group, Pier 57 Maritime — a team of R2 Electric and John Krevey, owner and operator of Pier 63 Maritime — proposed open space and public recreation, charter boats and accessory parking, historic vessels, artists studios, offices for nonprofit groups, food and beverage cafes and snack bars, catering and events, kayak and canoe storage, boat building and a small boat marina. Krevey, the principal in the team, currently operates Pier 63 Maritime where the decommissioned lightship Frying Pan and fireboat John R. Harvey are berthed. Doswell is not associated with Krevy in this proposal.


U.S. Four, Inc., of the Pier 57 Development Corp. proposes a restaurant and cabaret, catering and event space, a theater, artists’ studios, commercial gallery, performance arts education, television sound stages and a public outdoor gallery.


Chelsea Piers Management for Pier 57 proposes a tennis and aquatics center, art galleries and arts education, a dance center, historic ships, two marinas, one for yachts and the other for small boats, marine supplies and services, dinner cruises, restaurants and retail, a film/TV production facility, accessory parking, emergency management center and a co-generation energy facility. Chelsea Piers Management runs the sports and entertainment complex on the Chelsea Piers 59, 60, 61 and 62.


The Witkoff Group, Cipriani and Plaza Construction propose to develop “Leonardo at Pier 57,” an international center for Italian art, crafts, culture, design, commerce and retail, including a museum, gallery, photography studios, a promotion bureau, marina, marine supplies, catering and events space, a swimming pool and accessory parking.

[NYatKNIGHT]

From Downtown Express:

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_80/pier.gif

Downtown Express photo by Jennifer Bodrow

Most of the artificial-turf surface for a new, interim sports field has been rolled out on Pier 40’s inner courtyard. New lights for nighttime use have also been installed. The strips of FieldTurf still need to be sewed together and a mix of sand and rubber pellets still needs to be poured onto it to provide give and cushioning. There won’t be any locker rooms built on the pier at the end of W. Houston St., but bathrooms will be available for clothes changing. The sports facility is slated for an early-January opening, with a gala ribbon-cutting ceremony slated for spring. Permits have been distributed for use by local youth and adult leagues until the spring season, when new permits will be issued.

[projectsnyc]

SoHo Politics

A resident's perspective on local politics in downtown Manhattan. SOHO JOURNAL

Monday, July 24, 2006

The Investigation
Just when you thought that Community Board #2 couldn't get more complicated, enter the Department of Investigation. In a rare showing of equanimity, neither mentioned nor shared with the Full Board, the Chair of Community Board #2 and its Executive Committee apparently discussed a subpoena issued for all documents related to the Waterfront Committee and its deliberations during 2003 under the tutelage of Arthur Schwartz.

While Schwartz is currently the Chair of Parks, Waterfront and Open Space -- a title that seems to convey the impression that he's calling the shots on most of the external world in CB2's territory -- he was only the Chair of Waterfront in 2003, before he was summarily removed during the "Saturday Night Massacre" by Board Chair Aubrey Lees.

Her actions were spurred on by rumors of inside deals and financial coziness. In fact, the entire Waterfront Committee was disbanded as was the Pier 40 Working Group.

The theory at that time speculated that there was too much "friendship" between the developer, the Chair, and members of the Waterfront Committee who were charged with making recommendations to the Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT) as to which selection was preferred by the community after extensive review. The Korman/Durst plan seemed to have the inside track and was ultimately selected by the community anyway but was then rejected by the Trust. Schwartz actually sued the Trust over its rejection of the Korman plan but later withdrew the lawsuit.

What bothered some people was the fact that Korman was already the operator of the parking concession (a $5 million dollar per year operation), was friendly with Schwartz and needed support from Community Board #2 to get the nod from the Trust. Durst, the financial partner of the Pier 40 development team was a member of Friends of Hudson River Park (FOHRP), a respected watchdog group that supports the waterfront and its development and Schwartz was also a member of the FOHRP Board. For some, there just seemed to be too many interlocking interests.

So, why is all of this being resurrected again now?

The Korman/Durst plan was rejected by the HRPT and since that time some beautiful new ball fields have been installed at Pier 40 at a cost of $5 million dollars. This was agreed upon by the community after extensive hearings at Community Board #2, after Schwartz's ouster and prior to the election of the current Chair, Maria Derr.

Derr and Schwartz share a law office and were mutual supporters in the Board Chair elections. And, since Schwartz is now the high mucky-muck of everything in the Board #2's external universe, including Parks, Waterfront and Open Space, he is once again poised to be in the position to make the decision regarding Pier 40.

And, guess what was just issued?

That's right rangers, the new RFP for Pier 40. The classy moniker for the HRPT's announcement that it is now again ready to receive proposals for the development of the pier. This is a bid request for a 14 acre property in lower Manhattan. Modest estimates would place this puppy in the $250 million dollar category with no problem. There's a lot of room for fuzzy thinking in those numbers.

As Yogi Berra once said, "It's Deja Vue all over again."

With the shenanigans that have lately been going on at Board #2 with the Nightlife crew who took over the Board leadership and looking to shore up its connections at the Chamber of Commerce and the Nightlife Association -- following the money is something that members of the community are a little leery about. And, with the serious effort made by the current Board leadership at character assassination -- including using the talents of PR undercover operative Allen Roskoff -- it's not surprising that the issue has once again reared its ugly head. Anonymous letters, smears against David Reck (Derr's opposition candidate in the election), and attacks heaped upon community activists - make a cogent argument for some disgruntled downtown resident to want an investigation to be initiated.

The financial report on Treasurer Roscia Sanz and Chair Maria Derr's watch has been the subject of much consternation and has caused such a stir that records have been requested by the Borough President's office as a result of their being too little, too late provided to the Full Board. The sums in that matter were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Pier 40 RFP, controlled now by the same people, involves hundreds of millions of dollars. Somebody is uncomfortable about the situation.

Stay tuned.

[projectsnyc]

Volume 76, Number 19 | September 27 - October 3, 2006
THE VILLAGER
Lame-duck G.O.P. Trust in final push to redevelop huge Pier 40
By Lincoln Anderson

The Hudson River Park Trust is moving ahead with a new effort to redevelop Pier 40 at W. Houston St. The Trust on Aug. 31 issued a new request for proposals, or R.F.P., for a “master developer” for the sprawling 14-acre pier, and one can only assume that the authority is serious in its intent.

As opposed to the drawn-out process that ended up melting down three years ago without a developer being selected, the Trust appears ready to move fast — very fast — this time. The new R.F.P. sets a deadline of Nov. 17 of this year for submission of responses, after which the Trust then intends to “select a conditionally designed developer within 90 days,” according to the R.F.P.

However, Chris Martin, the Trust’s spokesperson, when asked if a Pier 40 master developer would indeed be picked within 90 days of Nov. 17 — in other words, by the end of this year or early next year — indicated nothing’s definite.

“We’re not really sure of the timeframe at this point,” he said on Tuesday. “But we do have a submission date of Nov. 17.”

Adding to the questions about the R.F.P. is the timing of its release: On Jan. 1 there will likely be a new Democratic governor, who will have the power to replace five of the Trust’s 13 board members — including its chairperson, Trip Dorkey — who were appointed by outgoing Republican Governor George Pataki.

Three years ago, the finalists to redevelop Pier 40 included a plan for an oceanarium and mall, as well as a plan for a big-box store with rooftop gardens and art gallery spaces. Both proposals included sports fields. But the community opposed both the oceanarium and big-box store because of the auto traffic they would have attracted. And the Trust’s board of directors didn’t want a big-box store in the park.

The new R.F.P. notes that the Trust “considers ‘big box’ retail development at Pier 40 as incompatible with park uses.” In addition, the R.F.P. says the Trust considers as “goals of paramount importance for reuse of Pier 40” the willingness to “preserve or enhance the recreational uses” at the pier and to accommodate 1,800 public parking spaces for long-term use by area residents. Yet the developers are allowed to submit plans showing alternate schemes under which the amount of parking spaces could be reduced over time; but any replacement use or uses must generate at least $5 million in annual revenue for the Trust, as does the parking current operation. (Spokesperson Martin said Pier 40 currently accounts for slightly more than 40 percent of the 5-mile-long park’s operating budget.)

The pier currently has 2,000 parking spaces. The pier’s sports fields include the spacious 3.5-acre artificial-turf field in the pier’s courtyard, added last year. Together with a smaller rooftop sports field, the field space meets the requirement under the Hudson River Park Act of 1998 that 50 percent of the pier’s footprint be set aside for noncommercial park space.

Developers are required to submit at least one scheme showing retention of the existing playing fields and parking. Plans may also include roofing over the pier’s courtyard and putting the fields on top. The Trust would continue to operate the ball fields.

The chosen developer would also be responsible for any expenses associated with the upkeep and maintenance of the pier, which has not been renovated in the 45 years since its construction.

The master lease is being offered for a term of not more than 30 years, with the option, however, that it could also possibly be for up to 49 years.

A pre-bid meeting and tour for interested developers was held at the pier earlier this month on Sept. 15. Citing the process’s confidentiality agreement, Martin said he couldn’t divulge who may have attended.

Arthur Schwartz, chairperson of the Community Board 2 Parks and Waterfront Committee, expressed concern that scant opportunity for public comment and input seems to be included in this latest R.F.P. process. Three years ago, there were a series of Board 2-sponsored public hearings attended by hundreds about the proposals then on the table.

“I’m upset about how little room they left for public input on the R.F.P.,” Schwartz said, “because they only released the draft R.F.P. on Aug. 1.” Schwartz said he was able to show the draft to the Hudson River Park Advisory Council, but really wanted to present it to C.B. 2 to get more input.

“I asked Connie Fishman if we could have a public meeting on it, and she said, ‘No, I want to get it [the R.F.P.] out,’ ” Schwartz said, referring to the Trust’s president. “I hope the process of choosing a developer involves a lot more community input than there’s been,” he said. “And if it takes more than 90 days, so be it.”

According to Schwartz, Fishman is pushing the R.F.P. because the pier, which is built on steel and concrete pilings — needs $30 million in repairs. However, Schwartz feels this money should come from government sources.

“To give Pier 40 away to a developer because you need to make $30 million in repairs in a $400 million park is ludicrous,” said Schwartz. “We’d be much better off funding the park through some capital budget allocation, like they do with the rest of the park, and let H.R.P.T. keep running the parking and the fields.

“I think Connie has a commitment to public input, but I’m not so sure all the board members do,” Schwartz said with concern.

As for the Trust’s willingness to allow the parking to be replaced with another equally lucrative use, Schwartz warned, “They would have riots if they got rid of the parking.”

Schwartz said a Pier 40 Working Group will be set up, as was done three years ago, drawing its members from the Advisory Council.

But Martin said the Trust is making an effort to include the community’s input.

“Public input is always a component, and we’re interested in what the public has to say,” he said. “That’s indicated in the preclusion of big-box stores on Pier 40, because the public has indicated that they do not want big-box stores on the pier.
The fields are obviously important and we’re specifically requesting that at least one option [submitted by each developer] keep the fields.”
Martin said the main reason for issuing the R.F.P. is that the pier’s infrastructure needs significant investment. He didn’t confirm that $30 million worth of repairs is what is needed, but he also noted that he couldn’t say that that figure hasn’t been cited either.
“I don’t know the exact amount,” he said, “but it definitely needs investment in the infrastructure, for sure, to keep the pier up and running. And whatever comes in response from the R.F.P., that’s definitely part of it.”
Martin noted, for example, that within the last year the Trust spent $1 million to replace part of the pier’s roof because it was leaking. He said the Trust wants to focus on building the park, programming activities and “mowing lawns” — not maintaining infrastructure.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Cirque tries to swing Pier 40 deal

By Lincoln Anderson

Not too long ago, when people spoke about swingers on the Lower West Side waterfront, they were probably referring to the gay cruising scene on the crumbling former shipping piers. But a new proposal to redevelop Pier 40 at Houston St., if successful, would bring a new kind of swinger to the waterfront — namely tights-clad trapeze artists with Cirque du Soleil, speaking a strange gibberish called Cirquish, no less.

Or, if another proposal is picked, the swingers might be basketball players — hanging from basketball hoops after throwing down rim-rattling dunks.

The deadline for the Hudson River Park Trust’s request for proposals for developers for Pier 40 recently passed, and a handful of proposals were submitted.

“We are currently in receipt of four responses to the Pier 40 R.F.P., and the Trust has just begun its initial review of them,” Christopher Martin, the Trust’s spokesperson, said on Tuesday. “We are committed to working closely with the Advisory Council’s [Pier 40] Working Group throughout the review process and expect our first meeting with the Working Group to take place soon.... We have also committed to posting brief summaries of the proposals on our Web site, and these will be posted shortly.”

Martin would not provide specifics on the proposals or who submitted them. However, Arthur Schwartz and Tobi Bergman, two local Hudson River Park activists, said they had heard there were four responses and that one was by Cirque du Soleil, partnering with The Related Companies, and the other by a sports group seeking to enhance the pier’s current sports uses.

Under the Hudson River Park Act of 1998, 50 percent of the sprawling 14-acre pier’s footprint must be devoted to public park use. The rest of the pier is permitted to be developed commercially to provide revenue for the 5-mile-long park, which is intended to be self-supporting. The long-term car parking on the pier currently generates about $5 million annually for the park.

Bergman, president of the Pier Park and Playground Association, or P3, and a member of Community Board 2, said he’d heard that the Cirque du Soleil/Related Companies plan would entail completely taking down the pier’s existing two-story “doughnut” shed structure in order to construct a new permanent theater. Under this plan, the pier’s existing, heavily used youth sports fields — currently located in the pier’s ground-level courtyard — presumably would be relocated to the structure’s rooftop.

Bergman said P3 supports the sports-centric plan, which he said he has been told would add eight high school-regulation-size basketball courts, three swimming pools (including one outdoor pool) and summer camp uses. The basketball courts would operate similarly to Basketball City, but not be run by Basketball City, he said. Due to the R.F.P. process’s proprietary nature, Bergman said he was not comfortable divulging the name of this development team — but he said P3 was not involved in the proposal.

“We like it because it would bring more of the uses that we like now,” Bergman explained.

Bergman further said he feels the construction of a new Cirque du Soleil theater from the ground — or, rather, pier — up, would negatively impact the pier’s current youth sports and parking uses because the whole pier would have to be cleared for possibly up to a few years. The parkers certainly would not be pleased, he was sure. On the other hand, he said, the sports proposal would have “incremental development,” allowing existing uses to keep functioning at spots on the pier.

Also, the P3 president said, Cirque du Soleil would undoubtedly be a traffic nightmare, since the nearest subway station is four blocks away at W. Houston and Varick Sts. The car traffic flowing to Pier 40 each evening for the Cirque show would just exacerbate the current rush-hour and evening traffic bottlenecks, he predicted.

“I think it’s a couple of thousand seats, and it’s year-round,” he said of the proposed theater. “Look at West and Canal Sts. now — it’s a complete mess.”

Also, Bergman was against removing the pier’s shed because, he said, it provides some shade for the sports fields as well as blocking the wind from off the Hudson. Contrarily, rooftop sports fields would be boiling hot in summer, while in cooler weather in the fall, baseball players would have a hard time trying to catch fly balls caught up in the wind currents.

Pier 40 currently has a small field on the southeast section of its roof.

Bergman said he’d also heard the Whitney Museum had been interested in Pier 40, but that now appears to be moot, since the Whitney now has a tentative deal with the city to build a new museum on the High Line at Gansevoort St.

Schwartz, chairperson of the Hudson River Park Trust Advisory Council, said he was told that the Trust wants to spend four months looking over the R.F.P. submissions.

A Pier 40 Cirque du Soleil theater would not be Related Companies’ first waterfront project. One of the city’s most active developers, Related recently got its feet wet in Hudson River Park by partnering with the Witkoff Organization to redevelop Pier 57 at W. 15th St. into a banquet hall after Cipriani dropped out of the partnership. Jeff Blau, Related’s president, did not return a call by press time regarding the Pier 40 proposal.

On Tuesday, Julie Nadel, a member of the Trust’s board of directors, said she had not heard about the four R.F.P. proposals.

“Board members have not been briefed on the proposals,” she said. “I think they’re sitting on it at the staff level.”

The Trust’s 13-member board is appointed by the governor, mayor and borough president — the governor and mayor have five appointments each, the B.P., three. The board hires the Trust’s staff, but the board ultimately would make the decision on which Pier 40 proposal to pick, if any.

An incentive for the Trust’s picking a developer for a 30-year or possibly even 49-year long-term lease is that Pier 40 needs repairs. Under the R.F.P.’s conditions, any developer chosen would have to pay for the pier’s repairs and ongoing maintenance.

Cirque du Soleil (Circus of the Sun), based in Montreal, Quebec, was founded in 1984 by two former street performers. It used to perform in Battery Park City for its New York visits when more of the neighborhood was undeveloped.

It has touring and resident troupes, with its main resident troupe currently based in Las Vegas. Performances combine acrobtics, circus, opera and ballet, and feature contortionists, jugglers, clowns, trapeze artists and rock music. No animals are used. All music is live. In many performances, spoken parts are done in Cirquish, an imaginary gibberish.


Downtown Express is published by
Community Media LLC.
145 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10013
Phone: (212) 229-1890 Fax: (212) 229-2790
Advertising: (646) 452-2465 •
© 2006 Community Media, LLC

Email: news@downtownexpress.com

[ablarc]

Yay, Cirque! Shuttle bus to subway?

[projectsnyc]

Will it be Related vs. Vornado? The sports proposal and maybe the Therapeutic Riding Center as the fourth and least likely?

Does anyone know what Vornado is proposing?

I don't think that Related has formally joined the Witkoff team at Pier 57 (isn't it time for the Trust to take back the conditional designation...or are they waiting for the new Governor to step in?) They certainly haven't been approved by the Board of Directors of HRPT in any public meeting.

Extending the staff consideration by four months clearly puts the decision in the hands of the new administration, and seems like a last-ditch effort for current staffers to keep their jobs.

[lofter1]

As much as I'd like to see the Cirque gang establish a permanent performance space in Manhattan it seems that the more-likely-than-not bad traffic situation at Pier 40 will be very problematic ...

Related should go back to the drawing board for their building at 42nd / 10th Avenue and figure out a way to make that one work so that it includes the previously discussed Cirque theater (sans the non-allowable zoning bonus that Related was seeking for that site).

[lofter1]

What’s up on the waterfront?

Cirque, youth group float Pier 40 plans

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_190/pier.gif
The Related Companies plan for Pier 40 includes a
Performing Arts Center for Cirque du Soleil.

downtownexpress.com (http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_190/cirqueyouthgroup.html)
By Lincoln Anderson
Volume 19 Issue 33
Dec. 29, 2006 - Jan. 4, 2007

A glitzy “Downtown Lincoln Center” on the Hudson — with stilt-walking Cirque du Soleil performers clomping over soccer fields adding festive atmosphere to the Tribeca Film Festival’s new maritime home — or a teeming sports, day-camp and academic complex devoted to building healthy young bodies and minds, are the two competing redevelopment proposals for Pier 40.


The Pier 40 Working Group got its first look at the proposals for the 14-acre W. Houston St. site last week. It turns out that what were believed to have been four legitimate submissions are in fact only two, with the other two being “not serious,” according to Arthur Schwartz, the working group’s chairperson.