Page 7 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 384

Thread: Hudson River Park

  1. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Far West Village, NYC


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

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

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

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

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

  2. #92

    Exclamation Westway: Landill with new highway tunnel

    Quote Originally Posted by billyblancoNYC
    What do you mean? Think about all the Striped Bass that were saved and allowed to frolic by the West Side H'Way.
    And of the extra brake dust emissions and run off into the Hudson River from the guaranteed extra stops from a West Side "Highway" with traffic lights due to not constructing a tunnel.

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

    Douglas A. Willinger
    Takoma Park Highway Design Studio

  3. #93
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    New York City


    Maybe Westway was a good idea; maybe not. But at the same time, that money would have been -- and was -- better spent on improvements to mass transit.

  4. #94
    Forum Veteran krulltime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Manhattan - UWS


    October 31, 2005

    Ground broken on the West Harlem Piers

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

    Copyright 2003-2005 The Real Deal.

  5. #95

    Default Best BBQ on the Hudson

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1
    I always liked the cheap burgers at the b-b-q stand ... lousy lemonade, though.
    I prefered the hot dogs. For beverages I would cross the parkway an go the the Supermarket in tribecca.

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

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

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


  6. #96


    Quote Originally Posted by infoshare
    does anyone know if there is a resturant going up on this pier. The previous maps of this same schematic showed a resturant.

    Also, For YOur Information: construction on this site starts in a few last.
    The HRP website mentions a restaurant.

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

    Other construction in the park:

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

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

  7. #97

    Default Thank you Zippy

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

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


  8. #98


    Why don't they use the Yankee ferry to shuttle people to the South Bronx for Yankee games?

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

  9. #99

    Default Big changes on piers 25/26

    Quote Originally Posted by czsz
    Why don't they use the Yankee ferry to shuttle people to the South Bronx for Yankee games?
    I am not certain, but I do not think the Yankee is has a running engine. My guess is that it is probably beyond repair. Where ever it goes these days, it gets there with the aid of a tug boat.

  10. #100

    Default Opposition to anything but "Parks"

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
    Yankee may go down the river

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

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

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

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

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

    The following is supporting documentation for my opinions/statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Last edited by infoshare; November 12th, 2005 at 05:51 PM.

  11. #101

    Default opposition to anything but "Parks"

    I would like to provide some additional documention; the following is an attempt to substantiate my previous statements regarding _ "political oppostion" to Development at the Hudson River Park.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Visit the IOTW Archives!

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

  12. #102


    Marcie Benstock?

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

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

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

    I haven't heard her name mentioned in years.

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

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

  13. #103
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    NYC - Downtown


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

  14. #104


    Here's the link from Gotham Gazette archives.

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

  15. #105

    Default Community board meetings

    Quote Originally Posted by NYatKNIGHT
    Arthur Schwartz, chairperson of the board’s Waterfront Committee, spoke against the south side of Pier 40 because it would, among other things, block the romantic harbor views where he proposed to his wife.
    If this does not demonstrate the futility of going to community board meetings- nothing does.

    And he's a board chairperson....

    Last edited by infoshare; December 1st, 2006 at 09:17 PM.

Page 7 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hudson Yards
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 1905
    Last Post: June 7th, 2019, 05:20 PM
  2. Pier 57 - Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: December 17th, 2013, 04:00 PM
  3. Pier 45 - Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: July 10th, 2012, 10:58 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 26th, 2011, 04:09 AM
  5. Third Avenue Bridge - Across Harlem River
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 10th, 2002, 06:36 PM

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software