Public forum on Pier 40’s future
BY LINCOLN ANDERSON
Local politicians will hold a public
forum on Tues., May 28, on
potential legislation to amend
the Hudson River Park Act — possibly
to allow commercial offi ce use on Pier
40. While an area equivalent to 50 percent
of the pier’s footprint can be used
for some commercial purposes — like
parking — commercial offi ce use, specifi
cally, is currently not allowed on the
roughly 14-acre W. Houston St. pier,
per the park’s founding 1998 legislation.
An area equal to at least 50 percent
of the pier’s footprint must be devoted
to passive or active recreational use.
The forum will be held on Tues.,
May 28, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., in the
cafeteria of the new 75 Morton middle
school, at Greenwich and Morton Sts.
The event will be hosted by Assemblymember
Deborah Glick, state
Senators Brad Hoylman and Brian Kavanagh,
Congressmember Jerrold Nadler,
City Council Speaker and Manhattan
Borough President Gale Brewer.
According to Hoylman, draft legislation,
with the proposed amendment or
amendments, will be circulated in advance
of the meeting.
In a fi rst-of-its-kind process, local
elected offi cials and/or their staff have
met regularly in recent months to hash
out some basic guidelines — and a possible
plan — for what they would like
to see for the future of Pier 40. Much
of this reportedly will focus on what
should or should not be mandated or
restricted for Pier 40, in terms of development
parameters, in a possible legislative
amendment.
The Hudson River Park Trust, the
5-mile-long park’s governing state-city
authority, has made it clear that it feels
commercial offi ce use is its preferred
way to redevelop the pier commercially.
The Trust reportedly envisions
a “full teardown” approach toward the
existing three-story pier-shed structure
and constructing a new building, six to
Pier 40’s huge courtyard, with its double-size artificial-turf field, is
a sacred cow for local families with children in youth sports leagues
like G.V.L.L. and DUSC.
seven stories tall, on the pier’s northern
edge.
Community Board 2, however, is
calling on the Trust not to use all the
pier’s available development rights, but
instead to “leave some on the table.”
C.B. 2 also is not exactly championing
commercial offi ce use, saying it would
like to see space devoted to arts groups,
among others, on the pier. If, however,
the pier must get commercial use, then
C.B. 2 says there must be some “givebacks”
to the community, in the form
of space for arts and the like.
The board outlined its views in a
lengthy resolution last month, that was
passed by the 50-member body with
strong support — though not without
some strong dissent, notably from Susanna
Aaron, a board member of Hudson
River Park Friends, the park’s main
private fundraising group.
The Trust was outraged by C.B. 2’s
position, and its board chairperson,
Diana Taylor, recently fi red off a letter
to local politicians to complain about
the board’s stance. In response, Glick
wrote back to Taylor, defending the local
PHOTO BY ALEJANDRA O’CONNELL-DOMENECH
community board.
“Many stakeholders...are deeply invested
in their visions for the future of
Hudson River Park and Pier 40,” Glick
wrote. “These range from parents
whose children use the playing fi elds,
or who don’t play organized sports but
need more open space; to groups who
have worked on environmental concerns
in the Hudson for decades; to
Friends of Hudson River Park, a subsidiary
of the Hudson River Park Trust,
who are working to encourage community
advocacy. I believe it is essential to
have a community-led process where
the needs of these and other stakeholders
can be heard and weighed in our
deliberations as we move forward. I
am proud to be working with my fellow
elected offi cials and Community
Board 2 to ensure this continues to be
the case. …
“There continues to be a need to improve
Pier 40’s facilities for active and
passive recreation,” Glick wrote. “The
community has already accepted signifi
cant development surrounding the
park, and any path forward needs to
ensure the best possible facility with
the least negative impact to the park
itself.”
Pier 40 has already received $100
million for repair of its steel support
piles, thanks to the “air-rights transfer”
legislation that was passed back
in 2013 that allowed the park to sell its
unused development rights to projects
on the other side of the highway — in
this case to the former St. John’s Terminal
site.
Local youth sports leagues, like
Downtown United Soccer Club and
Greenwich Village Little League, say
they just want “the process to move
forward” — and that the details of any
plan can be worked out after developers
and possibly other parties respond
to a future request for proposals, or
R.F.P., to redevelop the pier. Keeping
their fi eld space is the leagues’ priority.
Previous R.F.P.’s for the pier have
sunk due to community opposition
over the plans’ expected impacts on the
pier, park and surrounding area.
Meanwhile, there is concern in some
parts that a new building on Pier 40
would just become yet another Google
facility, as has happened with Pier 57,
in Chelsea, where the Internet giant is
now the main tenant. Google was not
part of the original plan for Pier 57.
Google recently sealed a deal for the
new building planned at the former St.
John’s Terminal location, at Houston
St. between West and Washington Sts.,
in Hudson Square — right across the
West Side Highway from Pier 40 — as
well as two other nearby properties.
Tobi Bergman and Dan Miller, two
leading waterfront activists on C.B. 2,
say they have different things about
Google and Pier 40. Bergman said he
has not heard Google is interested in
the pier. Miller said he has.
The Trust is hoping to pass legislation
at the state level during this current
Albany legislative session, which
concludes at the end of June. With so
much at stake and a deadline fast approaching,
it promises to be a lively
forum.
Got Milk: Google it some more in Chelsea
BY LINCOLN ANDERSON
Adding to its already enormous
Chelsea portfolio, Google on
Wednesday announced it has
acquired another building in the neighborhood,
the Milk Building, at 450 W.
14th St., from Jamestown Properties.
According to Crain’s New York Business,
the sum for the deal was not disclosed.
As Crain’s accurately summed it up,
“The tech giant already owns or rents
nearly all the property between W. 15th
and W. 16th Sts. from Eighth Ave. to
the middle of the Hudson River on Pier
57.”
The Milk Building and Chelsea
Market are connected by a sky bridge.
Google bought the Chelsea Market
building from Jamestown last year for
$2.4 billion.
According to Crain’s, Google plans
to occupy three of the Milk Building’s
eight fl oors. Google said it “will continue
to honor all existing tenant lease
agreements as part of this purchase.”
“This purchase will help us meet our
short-term growth needs in Chelsea-
Meatpacking,” said William Floyd,
Google’s director of external affairs, in
an offi cial statement. “We are excited
by this investment and are committed
to continuing to contribute to the vibrancy
of this amazing neighborhood.”
Google’s fi rst purchase in Chelsea
was in 2010, when it bought the massive
former Port Authority building,
at 111 Eighth Ave., which boasts 2.9
million square feet and covers the full
square block between W. 15th and W.
16th Sts. and Eighth and Ninth Aves.
Google currently has 8,000-plus employees
in the city and, within the next
decade, plans to double that.
At the end of last year, Google announced
a $1 billion plan to create a
second offi ce hub, in Hudson Square,
including renting space in a new project
by Oxford Properties Group to
vertically expand the former St. John’s
Terminal to 12 stories. The existing
building was the southern terminus of
the High Line when it was a functioning
freight railroad.
6 May 23, 2019 TVG Schneps Media