Pr. 40: Mutiny on the waterfront
BY LINCOLN ANDERSON
With community board members and youth sports advocates
up in arms over the recently released draft
legislative amendments for Pier 40, at least one
lawmaker is saying local politicians now must “balance the
various needs” of the W. Houston St. pier and Hudson
River Park more sensibly.
But time may be running out. The state Legislature
is set to adjourn by as early as June 19, and the Hudson
River Park Trust — the park’s governing state-city
authority — is putting on a full-court press to ram the
amendments through.
Right before Memorial Day weekend, draft legislative
amendments to the Hudson River Park Act of 1998
were publicly released — and a public forum on them
was held the day right after the holiday, leaving scant
time for people to digest the proposals, let alone formulate
reactions.
In a fi rst-of-its-kind process, since January, local lawmakers
and/or their staff met regularly to craft guidelines
for how the pier might be redeveloped, and what
restrictions should be included in the park’s legislation.
A key element of the new proposed changes to the
Park Act is to allow commercial offi ces on the 14-acre
pier — a use currently prohibited under the park’s
founding legislation.
Under the original Park Act, the 5-mile-long waterfront
park is intended to generate its own revenue “to
the extent practicable” — while Pier 40 is designated as
a “commercial node,” albeit with at least 50 percent of
its footprint designated for public open space. One of
the current draft amendments would bump that fi gure
up to at least 65 percent.
“Personally, I never saw the park as a profi t center,”
said Assemblymember Deborah Glick. “But, sadly, the
city and the state created this construction whereby the
park has to raise money to maintain itself.”
Like many others, Glick feels that since the park has
spawned all the development that has turned the Lower
West Side into the so-called “Gold Coast,” government,
in return, should recognize that by funding the park
more generously.
“We’ve had a great deal of development because of
the park,” Glick stated, “and the city and state have
both gotten major increases — in property taxes for the
city and income taxes for the state. But the reality is that
there are some development nodes and Pier 40 is one of
them. It’s the only place we have major playing fi elds, so
we have to preserve those.
“So my colleagues and I are trying to fi gure out a
balance between the need to raise money and the need
for open space. But we also, at the forum, heard very
clearly from people that they don’t believe that building
an offi ce space on Pier 40 makes any sense.
“The Trust at the forum heard people in the community
say they want more fi eld space but they don’t
want an offi ce building. We’re going to have to talk it
over and see whether there is a compromise that works
for all,” Glick said. “And we’ll have to see how we can
balance the various needs.”
Similarly, state Senator Brad Hoylman, who represents
the area surrounding Pier 40, though not the pier
itself, said he is holding out hope of “crafting a solution”
various stakeholders can be happy with.
“I’m glad we were able to hear from the public before
a bill was introduced,” Hoylman said of the public
forum. “In the past, legislation concerning the Hudson
River Park Act has dropped in the middle of the night
with no public discussion.
“As for what we heard, it was defi nitely a broad
range of comments from the public. I’m working with
my legislative colleagues who represent the pier, As-
termed “public open space.”
“The increase from 50% to 65% is only for ‘open space’ with no
delineation on where that space be placed or how it be used and
short of the 80% recommended by C.B. 2 in both 1998 when
the park was created and in April,” Booth added. And he
said, there is “no requirement that the open space be managed
PHOTO BY TEQUILA MINSKY
Madelyn Wils, the president of the Hudson
River Park Trust, called the draft legislation,
“too limiting,” yet said the Trust feels it
is “closer than ever” to finding a solution for
Pier 40.
semblymember Glick and Senator Brian Kavanagh, to
help craft a solution that will both protect and expand
the ball fi elds and park space at Pier 40 while generating
the type of revenue the Trust needs.”
What Hoylman was referring to by the sudden “drop”
of legislation was the package of amendments that,
passed on the Legislature’s last day in session in 2013,
included allowing the Trust to transfer the park’s unused
development rights to construction sites on the east
side of the West Side Highway.
Meanwhile, longtime waterfront park activist Tobi
Bergman, as this paper fi rst reported last week, saying
he was “demoralized” by the draft legislation process,
resigned from Community Board 2 at its May 23 meeting.
Bergman said the local politicians “ignored” the extensive
Pier 40 resolution C.B. 2 passed in April.
“No one is happy and the bottom line is it’s because
it’s not good enough,” Bergman said of the draft amendments.
“There is no time to fi x it and it should be
dropped for this term.
“The people who pushed hardest to amend the
Park Act, including Congressman Nadler and Council
Speaker Johnson, should now push the restart button.
The park is on the cusp of becoming one of New
York’s great parks, and everyone needs to recommit to
its future — adequately funded but undiminished by big
offi ce buildings at Pier 40, Pier 57 and Pier 76.”
Carter Booth, C.B. 2 chairperson, gave blistering testimony
at the public forum, expressing his “disappointment
on a number of fronts” in the process of the draft
legislation.
“Discussing a large offi ce building in a park is a terrible
idea,” Booth said. “But if that is a discussion that
we have to have, limiting the scale and avoiding a new
building is better than the destructive direction this legislation
is sure to take things.”
Booth blasted the fact that the proposed amendments
don’t require that adaptive reuse of the existing Pier 40
shed structure be considered fi rst, before constructing a
new building on the pier.
“The preference for reuse appears that it can be overridden
by the Trust for any reason,” he said.
He also slammed the fact that the draft changes don’t
require an increase in the amount of actual sports-fi eld
space — though they do require a slight increase of nebulously
by the Trust as a true park.”
C.B. 2 also wants the number of potential offi ce workers
on the pier to be limited to 3,000 — something also
left out of the draft amendments.
In addition, Booth said, there should be “clear specifi
c language that a ULURP Uniform Land Use Review
Procedure and EIS Environmental Impact Statement
is required. Electeds have stated this is a given, so
the language should be crystal clear.”
For her part, Madelyn Wils, president and C.E.O. of
the Park Trust, testifying at the May 21 public hearing,
said the draft amendments were “too limiting.”
“The future of Pier 40 has been in a state of limbo
for more than two decades,” she said. “We do not believe
the draft in its current form creates a viable path
forward because of its combination of limitations and
requirements. However, since I also feel we are collectively
closer than ever to fi nding a lasting solution, I am
hopeful that we can reach that goal by continuing to
work together.”
Wils noted the Trust does believe Pier 40 should generate
25 percent of the park’s operating expenses. She
said the authority wants to develop 880,000 square feet
of “newly constructed commercial offi ce space” on the
pier, and wants the pier’s lease to be 99 years — more
than triple the current permitted length — which would
allow a developer to get a better loan rate.
“Adaptive reuse of the existing pier shed may be
feasible, though perhaps less likely to meet open space
and fi nancial goals,” Wils noted.
Local youth leagues and Xavier High School, comprising
the Pier 40 Champions, wrote to the local politicians
crafting the amendments to say they support
changing the Park Act, but that “certain changes are
needed” to win their support.
In short, the Champions said they want 50 percent of
the pier’s footprint — at least 320,000 square feet — to
be designated active playing-fi eld space at ground level.
On top of that, they want an additional 90,000 square
feet of outdoor fi eld space and 50,000 square feet of
indoor fi eld space.
However, the leagues say they do not prioritize adaptive
reuse over new construction, but “support all solutions”
for the pier.
Unlike Bergman, Dan Miller, another leading waterfront
park advocate on C.B. 2, doesn’t want to put off
modifying the Park Act until perhaps the next legislative
session, which starts in January 2020.
“I want it to continue,” he said. “I don’t want to waste
a year. They are trying to fi nd a compromise,” he said of
the politicians. “I want it to go through because Pier 40
needs to be renovated. It’s an important asset, and here
it is rusting into the river.”
Like Bergman, a past president of Greenwich Village
Little League, Miller noted Pier 40 Champions strongly
supported legalizing “air rights” transfers from Hudson
River Park — which has already netted the Trust $100
million for Pier 40 from the St. John’s Terminal developers.
“We were told the air rights would be the answer to
save the pier,” Miller said.
David Gruber, another veteran development watchdog
on C.B. 2, echoed that it’s crucial that any project
at Pier 40 go through ULURP, and that the board, in
general, favors adaptive reuse of existing structures.
“We just think it’s not a development, it’s a park,” he
said of Pier 40.
6 June 6, 2019 TVG Schneps Media