C.B. 2 decked by Pr. 40 legislation
BY LINCOLN ANDERSON
As expected, the legislative
amendments being proposed
by state lawmakers for Pier 40
include allowing commercial offi ce
development on the jumbo-sized W.
Houston St. pier.
However, the modifi cations also call
for bumping up the amount of the pier’s
public open space by 23 percent.
But what the legislators are pitching
isn’t sitting well with most members of
Community Board 2. In fact, Tobi Bergman,
the chairperson of the board’s
Pier 40 Working Group and a former
chairperson of the Village board, resigned
at last week’s C.B. 2 full-board
meeting, charging the lawmakers had
“ignored” an extensive resolution C.B.
2 passed on Pier 40 last month, in
which they outlined what the legislative
amendments should contain. Bergman
said that, instead, the politicians were
clearly responding to “political exigencies,”
which he did not elaborate further
on.
Carter Booth, the board’s chairperson,
also issued a stinging rebuke of the
proposed legislative changes.
Assemblymember Deborah Glick released
the draft legislative proposal last
Thursday afternoon — right before the
start of the Memorial Day long weekend.
A public forum on the proposed
changes was held the day right after the
holiday, when many people were still
out of town.
Pier 40 is one of two remaining “commercial
nodes” permitted to generate
additional revenue for Hudson River
Park. Any changes to permit currently
prohibited uses — such as commercial
offi ces — on the 14-acre Lower West
Side pier must come from changes in
the Hudson River Park Act of 1998
passed by the state Legislature.
The Hudson River Park Trust, the
waterfront park’s governing state-city
authority, favors adding offi ce use as a
dependable revenue generator at Pier
40, which currently boasts parking as
its main moneymaker. According the
Park Act, the park is supposed to be
fi nancially self-sustaining “to the extent
practicable.”
In a fi rst-of-its-kind process, local
lawmakers and/or their representatives
have met regularly since the start of
the year to hash out what the proposed
use changes for Pier 40 should be, and
to determine what parameters for the
pier’s redevelopment — such as height
— can or should be set legislatively.
The Trust wants to pass the amendments
during the current legislative
session, which runs through the end of
June. However, the authority is not happy
with the lease term being proposed
for Pier 40 or limitations on the size of
what it can build there.
The politicians noted they used the
COURTESY DUSC
Local youth leagues, like Greenwich
Village Little League and
Downtown United Soccer Club,
want to see playing-field space
increased at Pier 40. The pier’s
massive central courtyard is currently
covered by an artificialturf
field.
groundwork laid by the Community
Board 2 Future of Pier 40 Working
Group, which was started in 2017, as a
template for their discussions.
“It is imperative that if any changes
are made to the Hudson River Park Act
that will allow for future development
at Pier 40,” Glick said, “they must evoke
the desires of the greater community
of residents and park users while also
contributing to the fi nancial stability of
the park in the future. ... The Hudson
River Park Act must refl ect a community
driven solution at Pier 40, and the
draft legislation shared here, based on
many months of community input, proposes
to achieve that goal.”
Among the proposed measure’s stipulations
is that no commercial offi ce
on Pier 40 exceed 700,000 square feet
in size. Specifi cally, the modifi cation’s
language refers to allowing “business,
professional or governmental offi ce
space.”
The pier’s existing donut-shaped
two-story pier shed encloses 761,924
square feet of space.
Another proposed regulation change
is that no structure on the pier would
be allowed to exceed 88 feet in height.
That is the height of the still-extant
gantries — pulleys that were used when
Pier 40 was a maritime pier — and is
the maximum height C.B. 2 endorsed
in a resolution last year. The current
pier shed is about 48 feet tall.
The proposed modifi cations would
also increase the lease term for developers
of Pier from 30 years to 49 years,
with the option of one 25-year renewal.
No doubt pleasing local youth sports
leagues, the proposed changes also
would see the minimum amount of
passive and/or active public open space
on the pier increased. Right now, under
the existing Park Act, a minimum
of 50 percent of the pier’s footprint
(or equivalent amount of space located
throughout the pier structure on different
fl oors) must be reserved for such
uses. Under the draft proposal, that
number would be boosted to 65 percent.
Active open space would include
playing-fi eld space, while passive open
space would include things like seating
areas and plantings.
The politicians also want to see the
perimeter walkway preserved around
the pier in any future plans.
The lawmakers are asking members
of the public to give their opinions on
the proposed amendments. Comments
could be submitted at the public forum
on Pier 40 on Tues., May 28, at the 75
Morton St. middle school, M.S. 297.
Meanwhile, Bergman, in a phone
interview the day after Memorial Day,
expressed his disappointment at the
process, saying he “had enough.”
“I quit the community board,” he
said. “This process was over-the-top
for me. The electeds sent us a letter asking
us to comment and for our position
on Pier 40. They ignored the board’s
input. I love the community board, but
this just blew me away.”
Noting that he is now speaking only
for himself, not C.B. 2, Bergman said
that the politicians did not back up the
board on several key points.
First, he noted, the board requested
that if commercial offi ces are going to
be allowed on Pier 40, then any such
project should go through the city’s
Uniform Land Use Review Procedure,
or ULURP. C.B. 2 was not enthusiastic
about offi ce use on the pier, in general.
Second, C.B. 2 requested that the
open space on Pier 40 be designated
specifi cally for park use and that it be
managed by the Trust.
Third, the Village board stated that,
if there is to be offi ce use on the pier,
then there should be no more than
3,000 workers. But Bergman said that
offi ce space equal to 700,000 square
feet could bring in as many as 5,000
workers, which would have too great
an impact on the pier and park.
Furthermore, C.B. 2 said only
850,000 square feet of development
rights on the pier should be used for
structures, whereas the Trust wants to
use all 1.4 million square feet.
In addition, C.B. 2 wants the current
pier shed “adaptively reused” if the pier
is going to redeveloped with commercial
offi ces. But the proposed legislation
provides an “easy out” for this, saying
that if reuse of the current structure
“is determined to be unfeasible” then a
new offi ce building could be constructed.
Obviously, the Trust would have a
major say — probably the primary say
PHOTO BY TEQUILA MINSKY
Local waterfront watchdog Melvyn
T. Stevens, who is also a gayrights
activist, has dusted off his
protest sign from six years ago
when local youth sports leagues
were pushing a plan for residential
towers at the foot Pier 40, and
the Hudson River Park Trust was
considering the option among a
couple of possible scenarios.
— in what is allegedly feasible or unfeasible
on the pier.
Among local elected offi cials, those
reportedly most committed to the
adaptive reuse option are Glick and
Manhattan Borough President Gale
Brewer, while other local politicians
are said to be more open to the “fl exibility”
option.
Google already will have offi ces
at Pier 57 in Chelsea — where it will
be the anchor tenant — and Bergman
said that is more than enough for the
5-mile-long park.
Ironically, the Pier 40 Champions
group — a coalition of which Bergman
was a leading member — in 2013
pitched the idea of building twin market
rate residential towers at the foot of
the W. Houston St. pier to raise revenue
for the aging structure’s repairs and
help generate revenue the park. Bergman
now admits that was a mistake.
Yet, he added, “Those residential
buildings were smaller. We were talking
a couple hundred families.”
In addition, although Bergman did
not specifi cally mention this, the C.B.
2 resolution stated that 80 percent of
Pier 40’s footprint — or an additional
250,000 square feet — should be dedicated
to active recreational uses.
A former G.V.L.L. president, Bergman
was C.B. 2 chairperson during
2015-16. When he announced his resignation
from the board last week, he
received a standing ovation for his two
decades-plus of work on the body, his
signature issue having been Pier 40.
“I’ve had enough,” Bergman told this
paper. “I really feel severe demoralization
about this process.”
6 May 30 - June 12, 2019 DEX Schneps Media