Future offi ce building O.K. for Pier 40
BY LINCOLN ANDERSON
After a pressure-packed process
that saw Community Board
2 and the Hudson River Park
Trust clash over the fate of Pier 40 —
and a leading C.B. 2 member resign
— the state Legislature recently fi nally
voted to allow commercial offi ce use on
the gigantic W. Houston St. pier.
Some speculate this could allow
Google to sail in as the anchor tenant
for yet another Hudson River Park pier.
The tech behemoth — which eventually
plans to occupy the St. John’s Building
site, due to be vertically enlarged,
across the West Side Highway from
Pier 40 — already is slated to be the
main tenant at Pier 57.
The amended legislation was sponsored
by Assemblymember Deborah
Glick and state Senator Brian Kavanagh,
whose districts contain the
pier. Governor Cuomo must sign it.
A draft version of the amendments
was fi rst publicly unveiled in late May.
In a change since then, the approved
modifi cations now say that any Pier 40
development plan must go through the
city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure,
or ULURP.
However, the Hudson River Park
Trust, the state/city authority that is
building and operates the park, still
wants the governor to make further
modifi cations — to lessen restrictions
on building size on Pier 40 — which
could happen when the Legislature reconvenes
in January.
Also, for its part, the Trust argues the
Park Act already had language requiring
this and that it was always assumed
any project would go through ULURP.
State Senator Brad Hoylman, whose
district abuts Pier 40, said it was a
challenge to navigate between the demands
of C.B. 2 (the Village) and C.B.
4 (Chelsea/Hell’s Kitchen), which have
been feuding over how much revenue
Pier 40 should contribute to the park.
“There are a lot of people below 14th
St. who think this is too much,” Hoylman
said of allowing an offi ce building
on Pier 40. “And there are a lot of
people above 14th St. who say this is
not enough. It’s a very diffi cult balance
— to have a steady stream of revenue
for the park, plus not having an offi ce
park on the Hudson.”
In a unique process, over the last six
months, local politicians hashed out the
amendments to the Hudson River Park
Act of 1998 — the park’s founding legislation
— saying they based their ideas
on previous recommendations of the
C.B. 2 Pier 40 Working Group.
In another addition to what local
lawmakers put forth before Memorial
Day, the amended legislation requires
the Trust to form a Pier 40 Task Force
of local community board members
and local city, state and federal politicians
“whose districts abut the park.”
Pier 40 is the home field for Greenwich Village Little League and other youth leagues. In general, development
plans for the pier would have to allot up to 65 percent of the pier’s footprint for playing fields. It’s
unclear, though, if the encircling pier-shed “donut,” which protects the courtyard from river winds, would
stay.
The task force will weigh in on any
future request for proposals, or R.F.P.,
the Trust would issue for developers’
projects for the pier, though would not
help select the R.F.P. winning bid.
Following the legislative changes,
the Park Act now allows up to 700,000
square feet of “business, professional
or governmental offi ce space” on Pier
40. Maximum height for buildings and
structures on Pier 40 also has now been
capped, under the amended legislation,
at 88 feet — although 20 additional feet
is allowed for mechanical systems, such
as housing for the top of elevator shafts.
It was C.B. 2 that previously recommended
a height limit of 88 feet — the
top of the pier’s tallest gantries.
The park’s founding legislation established
Pier 40 as the largest “commercial
node” for generating revenue for
the park. Yet, unlike car parking, which
is an allowable use at Pier 40, commercial
offi ce use was not permitted in the
entire park. But a 2013 amendment allowed
it at Pier 57 in Chelsea, where
Google will be the anchor tenant.
During the most recent process, local
youth sports leagues had called for
specifi c language mandating playing
fi elds on Pier 40, and also wanted to
keep the fi elds at ground level.
“Any development or redevelopment,”
the modifi ed legislation says
of Pier 40, “shall provide for playing
fi elds of not less than three hundred
and twenty thousand square feet, provided
that every effort is made to place
as much playing fi eld space at ground
level as is feasible.”
The original Park Act required that
a minimum of 50 percent of the pier’s
footprint be preserved for passive and
active public open space. Under the
newly modifi ed legislation, however,
that number would increase by 15 percent
if the pier were to be signifi cantly
redeveloped — for example, such as
with a taller building. C.B. 2, though,
had called for 80 percent of the pier’s
footprint to be playing fi elds.
The youth leagues had hoped for even
more fi eld space — up to an additional
140,000 square feet, between outdoor
and indoor space. There also has been
shifting opinion on whether it would be
best to keep the existing pier-shed “donut”
on the pier as a wind buffer for the
courtyard fi elds. Park activists say the
Trust wants to raze the old pier shed
and construct a new offi ce building,
but the Trust now denies this.
Hoylman criticized the park’s underlying
economic structure.
“It’s based on a fl awed model," he
said of the latest Pier 40 changes. “It’s
a private development model. I would
like it to become a city or state park.”
The Trust said, in part, “The legislation
that just passed does not solve
the collective problem because it will
require public funds to create all of
the public space. Over the coming
months, we will see if we can develop a
workable plan for Pier 40’s redevelopment
using the tools...available to us. ”
FILE PHOTO
The Trust’s statement seems to indicate
concern over size restrictions on
commercial offi ce development at Pier
40 limiting potential revenue.
Similarly, Connie Fishman, executive
director of Hudson River Park Friends,
the park’s main advocacy group, referred
to “burdensome restrictions.”
“While the legislation passed is not
perfect, and has some burdensome restrictions,
we are hopeful the governor
will amend the legislation to ensure
the park can earn suffi cient income
from the pier,” Fishman said.
Tobi Bergman, a former C.B. 2 chairperson
and longtime waterfront park
advocate, resigned from the community
board just days after the local politicians
unveiled their draft legislative
changes in May. Asked his take on the
Pier 40 legislative changes, Bergman
said, “Three big offi ce buildings will
greatly diminish the public value of the
waterfront park.”
He was referring to Piers 40 and 57,
plus Pier 76, near the Javits Center.
Commercial offi ces aren’t legal at Pier
76, but Bergman predicts they will be.
“And when the children return to
the pier after years of demolition and
construction,” Bergman said, “the wondrous
protected courtyard of the brilliantly
repurposed old maritime pier
will be replaced by ordinary fi elds exposed
to the glare and harsh winds of
the waterfront. That’s why the elected
offi cials who pushed hard to get this
done are not lining up to take credit.”
6 July 4, 2019 TVG Schneps Media