Dept of Sanitation Garage in Hudson Square

[lofter1]

The whole "leave the DOS facility at Gansevoort and build a new pier for the park" argument was trotted out last week in the comment section at curbed ...

You've answered that question yourself: There is an order that DOS vacate Gansevoort Peninsula ...

Pier 40 is part of the park and will have multiple uses -- Are you suggesting that DOS move this facility in there?

The area in front of Pier 40 will be upgraded along with the renovation of that pier.

The Tribeca stretch of the Park is under construction.

The whole traffic concern is overblown. West Street is already a very high traffic hiway. Whenever possible most of the DOS truck traffic should be directed out of the area via West Street to reach the far-lying areas of the CB Districts which they serve. To access the garage trucks will be using an entrance / exit on West Street or coming up around on Clarkson and then down Washington and into the garage. The strip of Spring between Washington / West already is lined with various trucks -- parked and otherwise.

[CBTwo]

lofter1,

Your reply to my comment, “The whole "leave the DOS facility at Gansevoort and build a new pier for the park" argument was trotted out last week in the comment section at curbed ...” So? What does that have to do with examining a possible new solution? Is it a viable solution or not?

You also state, “There is an order that DOS vacate Gansevoort Peninsula ...” So? There also was an “order” to "CHARGE!" given to the British Light Brigade during the Crimean War. Just because it’s an order doesn’t make it an intelligent order, or an order that cannot be rescinded before it's too late.

I never suggested, nor would I suggest, that Pier 40 be altered to accommodate the DSNY. It’s fine just the way it is (although it could use some upgrades) and does not need a Las Vegas style circus to make it into something else.

You also state that the front of Pier 40 will be upgraded with the renovation of the Pier itself. They are two different projects. How do you know that they will be cojoined and what is the timetable for accomplishing that feat?

I can’t believe your logic when you state, “The whole traffic concern is overblown. West Street is already a very high traffic hiway.” So adding a few hundred more trucks and more than a few hundred cars (you got to know that the sanitation guys drive to work for the most part because of free parking) isn’t going to impact the already overburdened streets and highway?

Then you go on with, “The strip of Spring between Washington / West already is lined with various trucks -- parked and otherwise.” I agree with you, yes it is, it’s lined already to the gills with randomly parked DSNY trucks and DSNY employee vehicles, who park on the side walk with impudence.

I also noticed that you have posted over 10,000 times to this site. So? Does that make you an expert on all of New York City's affairs?

[lofter1]

Not an expert, no ... just a longtime CB2 resident who loves NYC ...

But conversely, I note that you have 2 posts here -- does that make you an un-expert?

And "Charge of the Light Brigade"??

C'mon -- you can do better than that ...

But seriously ...

I'm a big fan of turning Gansevort Peninsula into a park. Have no interest in fighting the (losing) fight to try to undo the order that DOS must clear out.

If you are proposing same are you filing legal paperwork to get it done?

We both note that trucks are parked along that stretch of Spring. Wouldn't the GARAGE help to alleviate that?

If you think a couple of hundred more cars and trucks a day in that area are a problem -- when there are already many thousands that drive along West Street everyday -- then I don't know what to say to that.

I'm not a fan of the big proposal for Pier 40 either -- prefer the smaller scale plan that has been proposed.

What is your specific and viable proposal that would solve the DOS needs?

[lofter1]

You also state that the front of Pier 40 will be upgraded with the renovation of the Pier itself. They are two different projects. How do you know that they will be cojoined and what is the timetable for accomplishing that feat?

Regarding the Tribeca / Hudson Square stretch of Hudson River Park (Segment 3):

Segment 3 is being built by the Hudson River Park Trust and is expected to be opened in or before 2010.

Pier 40 development is also overseen by the Hudson River Park Trust (LINK):

The Hudson River Park Trust is in the midst of a selection process for a master developer for Pier 40

Renderings of the two plans proposed for Pier 40 seem to indicate that the space between Pier 40 and the bike path will be designed / built in conjunction with the plan chosen for Pier 40.

According to the Segment 3 Plan rendering, Segment 3 does NOT include the space in front of Pier 40.

[CBTwo]

You are one tiresome individual I must say.

You say “Not an expert, no ... just a longtime CB2 resident who loves NYC ...” I can definitely agree with the “Not an expert part.” So you see we are agreeable on at least one point.

I’m sorry I only have a 2 rating, but given time discussing the problems of New York City and the Universe with you I am sure it will rise.

What parts of CB2 do you love? Can you tell me what and how many of the parts of this DSNY project that you love or find acceptable? I doubt for a variety of reasons that you live in Hudson Square and that you are neither in the field of architecture or city planning, nor environmental science. If so, an evaluation must be done on the certification process.

I admit that the Light Brigade was a bit reaching but it does illustrate a certain bull headed go ahead at any costs mentality that seems to pervade most of this DSNY discussion. It kind of reminds me of other decisions and positions made by leaders in power today.

Pataki ain’t governor anymore, are you aware of that. So things can change. Are you aware of that? Why take a defeatist attitude?

Regarding the first step to alleviate and start a legal proceeding, I believe that is underway with the Friends of Hudson Square under the brilliant guidance of David Reck. It will be interesting to see how much Donald Trump throws into the arena’$ legal pot.

The garage will not alleviate any of the “on street” parking that currently is there. Just walk down Greenwich Street after six and see how UPS takes over the four block stretch from Spring to Houston. They are drivers with total disregard of any and everything that is around them, hot rodding back and forth and jockeying for position. DSNY will be no different guaranteed. I don’t know how the two trucking groups are going to duel it out on Washington Street.

Relative to “there is a lot of traffic there already,” adding more will just be the same as adding just a few more straws to the camel’s back. At what point does it become obvious that one cannot add more?

I’m not anti-park, but I read constantly about the HRPT is having problems financing what they have already. Why would they take on additional financial burdens just because it was ordered by... ? I'm new to this ordering stuff, but can you tell me who ordered the removal of sanitation from the pier?

Realizing there is no quick fix to the problem, whether it’s the truck storage, or the salt storage. I’m suggesting that this has to be thought out in a more thorough manner than it has been to date.

I read somewhere there was an architectural competition to design the garage. I can just imagine the solutions. Renderings with a lot of trees at sidewalk level and foliage dripping from the "green" roof. Does anyone have a link to the competition?

[bigkdc]

I have seen the mention of homeland security as it relates to the fuel storage and the tunnel. Does anyone know if something like this would actually get reviewed by homeland security?

[CBTwo]

That is an interesting thought bigkdc. Hopefully there will be some input from them as well as OEM, but unfortunately I think OEM is asleep at the switch for the most part. Remember the somewhat recent blackout in Queens that caught OEM flat footed, and they had a duh duh duh response? I guess they need more higher paid people sitting around in planning meetings discussing pay raises.

Hopefully the feds will help.

lofter1,

Thanks for the update on the completion of segment 3 of the Hudson River Park scheduled for on or about the year 2010. I just find it amazing that the planners have moved the completion schedule from the fall of 2001 to the year 2010. At a certain time in the past (pre 9/11) I received monthly updates on the progress of 9A, which also included the progress of the "park." The Hudson Square portion of the park was scheduled to be one of, if not, the final phases of the park to be finished in the fall of 2001. I haven't received any of their updates since the summer of 2001. Did they go out of business? Talk about pissing on a community. How can it take nine years to do a simple job? And where were the time and resources diverted over the last five years to screw Hudson Square once more? What are we chopped liver?

Also I didn't ask for the where abouts of the renderings for the Pier 40 concepts, I was looking for the renderings for the garbage garage building renderings. I heard there were ten firms that offered "design" solutions.

[ZippyTheChimp]

You are one tiresome individual I must say.

Save the hostility for the CB meeting; personal attacks are not permitted here.

[CBTwo]

I believe UPS got an OK back in the last days of that less than perfect Mayor David Dinkens reign before he left office, to build a very large multi storied garage that would have bridged over Washington Street from their existing building to a new structure where the parking lot now exists. It would have extended from Spring to Charlton (or maybe half the way between Vandam and Charlton) from Greenwich to West street. Economics shut that project down I believe. But I can imagine them resurfacing the idea.

Andrew Stein Ok'd the idea also in his waining days. This would be late 1993 I believe.

I remember the renderings vividly. A non descript beige block building fronted with a forest of rendered trees. None of the trees would have lasted the first season given the sub-artic weather and wind suffered on our blocks.

[CBTwo]

Sorry Chimp,

I didn't mean it to be personal. I mean he does have 10,199 posts and I only have 5.

It was meant only to be an observation. I think we are friends now. Co-combatants so to speak in the same war.

[ZippyTheChimp]

You also state, “There is an order that DOS vacate Gansevoort Peninsula ...” So? There also was an “order” to "CHARGE!" given to the British Light Brigade during the Crimean War. Just because it’s an order doesn’t make it an intelligent order, or an order that cannot be rescinded before it's too late.

The original order for the DSNY to vacate Gansevoort was a result of the Hudson River Park Act in 1998. Rescinding the order would have to go before the State legislature to amend the law.

Suit was brought against the city in early 2005, charging that the DSNY was in violation of the law, not only in not vacating the peninsula in a timely manner, but attempting to build a temporary structure. An agreement was reached in court that they would vacate by 2012 and pay the HRPT $21 million in rent.

In spring 2006, the DSNY proposed building a marine transfer station for recyclable waste at Gansevoort, and to enlarge the solid waste facility on pier 99 at W59th St. They acknowledged that the law would have to be changed.

CB4 proposed consolidating both operations at pier 76.

So it seems unrealistic to me that no garage will be built at the UPS site. However, I think it is unfair that it is all being consolidated in one spot. And a better location can be found for the fuel depot.

A garage is under construction at w57th St.

[lofter1]

CBTwo: Now you're asking for credentials?

Offer yours first, if you please.

Do you serve on the Community Board in District 2 (as your moniker infers)?

While I do live in CB District 2, I don't live in Hudson Square.

But, like you and others in this District, I do generate garbage (I know I'm giving you an opening with that one ) that needs to be collected -- which is what the DOS proposal is about.

Intersting: you still haven't offered a viable alternative -- or any alternative, for that matter -- to what DOS has put forth.

And if you think I'm tiresome because I challenged you on your first couple of posts -- hold tight, there's most likely more challenges to come ... as you can see I don't tire easily .

btw: I posted the link to the renderings of Pier 40 to shed some light on your claim that Pier 40 and the space that fronts it "are two different projects". Are you still holding to that position? If so, please offer some basis so we can continue the discussion based on the facts rather than conjecture.

Also, you say now "I was looking for the renderings for the garbage garage building renderings", but you hadn't mentioned that previously. Those renderings are fairly clear in their depiction of what is proposed for that area.

You also state "I heard there were ten firms that offered "design" solutions." Any links to that info -- which I've not heard?

[lofter1]

A bit more on the Court ruling regarding the DOS facility on the Gansevoort Peninsula [aka Friends of Hudson River Park et al v. New York City Department of Sanitation et al, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Index No. 105763/05, I.A.S. Part 5 (Stallman, J.), Settlement Agreement and Order] from the New York City Council Staff Report (February 2006):

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK


REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION
Robert Newman, Acting Legislative Director

COMMITTEE ON SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Hon. Michael E. McMahon, Chair

OVERVIEW:

On February 7, 2006, the Sanitation and Solid Waste Management Committee, chaired by Michael E. McMahon, will conduct a hearing on the status of the proposed draft Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) as it pertains to the borough of Manhattan. In particular, it now seems that several facilities proposed to handle aspects of Manhattan’s waste may no longer be viable ...

GANSEVOORT STREET FACILITY

The use of the Gansevoort site has apparently been precluded by the recent settlement of a long-standing court case between the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) and a group of civic organizations, including Friends of Hudson River Park.[2] The settlement reaffirms the City’s intent to comply with the Hudson River Park Act, the state law that establishes the Hudson River Park and controls, among other things, land uses allowed on the Gansevoort Peninsula. Under the agreement the City will pay the Hudson River Park Trust $21,500,000 to design and build parks on Pier 97 and at the Gansevoort Street site, and the Department of Sanitation agrees to remove all of its operations from the Gansevoort Street site by 2012.

Although the decision is silent as to approval or disapproval of Gansevoort as a site for a recycling facility, it reiterates the terms of the original park act that precludes any “incompatible government” use.[3] The settlement agreement specifically calls for the demolition of the existing marine transfer station at Gansevoort Street upon the Department of Sanitation vacating, but provides no indication that the plaintiffs would consider it being restored in the future.[4] In addition, the Friends of Hudson River Park have stated that the Hudson River Park Act prohibits any sanitation facility from being located within the park.[5]

And this from The Villager (August 2006):

To The Editor:

I generally am supportive of the reportage done by Albert Amateau and the rest of your staff regarding local issues affecting the waterfront. I am writing this letter to ask that you correct something that was omitted from Mr. Amateau’s article “Local politicians, activists, boards are not on board with barging plan” (July 26), which has to do with the city’s new 20-year Solid Waste Management Plan passed by the City Council on July 19, which includes a provision for a transfer station for recyclables on the Gansevoort Peninsula — the jewel of the Hudson River Park.

Mr. Amateau is correct when he refers to my remarks that the settlement of our lawsuit in October 2005 did not preclude transfer stations at Gansevoort and W. 59th Sts., but I would like to add the following clarification.

Our settlement agreement with the city of New York permits only present Sanitation activities to remain on the Gansevoort Peninsula until 2012. It is our position that the city cannot use the Gansevoort Peninsula in any other way until after the 2012 vacate date. In other words, even if the State Legislature allows another use at Gansevoort before 2012, the Friends of Hudson River Park would bring an action under their settlement agreement, which provides, contractually, that no other use can be there until 2012.

Finally, Mr. Amateau is correct when he says that the Friends would probably go to court to make sure the transfer stations are dropped, but we must add the other phrase, “or any other use before 2012.”

I hope this clarifies Friends’ position on the Gansevoort Peninsula.

Daniel Alterman

Alterman was the attorney on the Friends of Hudson River Park’s lawsuit to vacate the Department of Sanitation trucks from Gansevoort Peninsula

[Downtowner]

The HRP website says:
… this 550-acre park is the largest open space development in Manhattan since the completion of Central Park.

It seems to me that there should be more reason to create a park than to put photos of the former governor on the web site.

What city with a sense of greatness would build a significant park on the waterfront and then, having created choice waterfront views, put a sanitation garage overlooking the masterful new park. Would Chicago? Would Paris? Do we think NYC is so great it can survive being ugly and stupid --ignorant of architecture, land use and planning?

It is customary when building a handsome new park, at least in the cities I know, to put amenities next to the park, such as hotels and residences, where people can enjoy the park and have views of it. Symbiotically, when you are in the park, the handsome residences that line the park form an important part of their charm and appeal. Likewise, elegant buildings at an entrance to a park define the experience before you even enter.

I can't think of Regent's Park in London without the uniform elegant townhouses on one corner or of the Parc Monceau in Paris without the varied elegant residences adjacent to it. Likewise Chicago has some of its most attractive apartments overlooking the lake. And many of the fabled views from Central Park feature the prewar apartment buildings on its periphery. Only New York treats its waterfront --its fabled and fabulous waterfront --as a cesspool.

So what does the proposal match HRP with? A 150 ft tall sanitation garage.

Spring St and Canal are major cross town arteries. They effectively meet beside a charming new triangular park at an important entry point to the park. So what will set the tone at this key gateway? --a truck garage, more sanitation trucks and cars from sanit workers and plowing equipment stored on the sidewalk.

How stupid. How sheerly stupid.

[Downtowner]

I live in a single family home in Hudson Square/South Village suffiiciently far from the UPS site that it will not affect my quality of life, except to the extent that the whole neighborhood will be affected, including Trump's building.

However, whenever I or my family go to the park we will pass under 150 feet of looming ugliness and have to thread our way through cars and equipment parked on the sidewalk.

But I would like to address the question of our use of the City's garbage collection services. As a homeowner, I act as my own super. The way our garbage gets collected directly affects the apperarance of our street and our quality of life. I also have a small office in Chelsea, for which I have to hire a private carter.

Others may have a different experience, but I find the contrast between the private carter and our fine public servants the difference between night and day. The difference is simple. With the private carter, if I put out trash, they pick it up, and leave the sidewalk clean. With DOS, I never know, from day to day, whether they will show up at all or, if they do show up, what they will deign to collect. Moreover, if the private carter is unhappy, if they feel I have put out quantities or types of trash that are not in our agreement, they call me and in a few minutes and for insignificant amounts of money the problem gets solved.

With sanitation workers, it's like they are finicky cats who are likely to turn up their noses at our offerings for the oddest reasons, which they are incapable of communicating, except by leaving significant messes. I live in terror of my garbage not being picked up.

People in the know, contractors and people who have grown up in the neighborhood (I have only been here for 20+ years), tell me I have to wake up early and wait for them to come and bribe them. Then they will do their job.

So I would gladly dispense with their services, if our taxes were appropriately reduced, and hire the excellent private carter who services my office and manages to park his trucks somewhere without destroying neighborhoods and expecting me to break the law.