BY LINCOLN ANDERSON | For those who don’t mind the sound of baseballs pinging off aluminum bats or the occasional home run shot plopping into their bubbling deck-top jacuzzis, Pier 40 could be the Lower West Side’s new residential hot spot.
That is, if one study’s options for possible uses of the decaying pier becomes a reality.
A recently completed analysis of the 14.5-acre West Houston Street pier was presented late last month to a task force, whose mission is to improve the economic viability of the cash-strapped Hudson River Park. Housing especially piqued the interest of task force members and the Hudson River Park Trust (H.R.P.T.), the state-city authority charged with building and operating the five-mile-long park.
The massive Pier 40 is crumbling and requires some $100 million in repairs.
The six-figure, confidential study was commissioned by three local youth sports organizations that heavily use Pier 40’s sports fields: Downtown United Soccer Club, Pier, Park and Playground Association (P3) and Greenwich Village Little League.
Of the combinations of proposed uses, the report found that building 600,000 square feet of rental apartments, amounting to about 600 apartments, plus a 150-room hotel would generate the most revenue for the park and have the least impact in terms of vehicular traffic.
Pier 40 wouldn’t be in demand for office space, the study concluded, since the site is relatively remote from public transportation and is perched next to the busy West Side Highway.
According to Arthur Schwartz, a leading member of the task force, all of the study’s proposals would preserve at least half of the pier’s footprint as open space — as required by the Hudson River Park Act, the park’s governing legislation dating back to 1998.
The housing would have to be rental, because the Trust isn’t allowed to sell property. Rents would reportedly be high-end — around $7,500 per month.
Manhattan Youth Director Bob Townley, who saw the presentation, said the residential option featured massing studies with several 15-story towers or one 30-story tower. The lower of the two heights would be in line with Morton Square, a large, 15-story residential development that’s near the pier.
The residential-hotel scenario would also come with parking, but it would have fewer spaces than the 1,400 lots the pier currently offers.
Not surprisingly, the study also found that, compared to other uses, retail and entertainment would generate the largest number of visitor trips to the pier.
In addition to the different models’ revenue-generating potential, the study also scrutinized traffic impacts on the West Side Highway, as well traffic crossing the bike path, which runs parallel to the pier.
Pols react to the study
The idea of the G.O.P.-led NYS Senate rejecting a plan to build market-rate housing in the park — or anywhere, for that matter — doesn’t seem likely. But State Senator Daniel Squadron, whose district encompasses Pier 40, says he has traditionally been against such an idea.
“I’ve long been opposed to housing in a park to fund a park,” Squadron said. “Whatever the conclusion, this is the time for creative thinking to ensure the long-term viability of Hudson River Park.”
Assembly Member Deborah Glick is also wary of residential use of Pier 40.
A skeptical-sounding Glick told Community Media she’s concerned H.R.P.T. is trying to “frighten and stampede” people into accepting residential use on the West Houston Street pier. The park may well need some emergency repairs, she said, but this is just a case of real estate developers trying to make a grab for Pier 40 while the grabbing’s still good during Mayor Bloomberg’s final years in office.
Hearing mandate up for debate
The Assembly Member stressed that, in her understanding, amending legislation so as to introduce major changes to the pier requires a public hearing. To allow residential and hotel use on Pier 40, the language of the 1998 H.R.P. Act would have to be modified.
“The Trust has painted a dramatic picture of the pier falling into the water, although it turns out that wouldn’t happen for years to come,” Glick said. “My concern is that they’re asking for dramatic changes but don’t seem to have any plans for public hearings — and the legislation requires significant changes to be vetted through the public, not just a task force of 25 or 30 people.”
But Schwartz e-mailed the relevant section of the H.R.P. Act, which states that a public hearing with 30 days’ advance public notice is only necessary in the event that a significant change (technically termed “significant action”) is proposed for the park.
The law also requires various government entities as well as Manhattan Community Boards 1, 2 and 4 to weigh in on the decision within a 60-day period following the notice of the proposed action.
Countering Glick’s claims, Schwartz said, “I don’t think a request for legislation is a ‘significant action’ under the law.”
Lee Alman, another Trust spokesperson, also said the state legislature is entitled to make changes to the H.R.P. Act without the need of a “significant action hearing.” Were the park legislation to be changed — say, to allow residential use — and the Trust actually decided to move forward on the idea of housing, then a hearing would be required, he said.
“Nevertheless,” Alman said, “the Trust has asked the Hudson River Park Advisory Council to hold a public meeting, in conjunction with the three community boards, to react to the recommendations of the task force.”
The meeting will be held on Thurs., May 31 at St. Paul’s Chapel (209 Broadway between Fulton and Vesey Sts.) at 7 p.m.
Stadium still kicking around
In mid-April, representatives of Major League Soccer gave the task force and Trust officials a presentation of the league’s proposal for a 25,000-seat stadium on Pier 40.
Schwartz said he may ask M.L.S. to give a presentation next month to the H.R.P. Advisory Council, which has a partial overlap with the task force in terms of its members.
The soccer stadium scenario wasn’t analyzed in the Pier 40 study, because M.L.S.’s pitch to the Trust and the task force came sometime after the study was already underway. But the impact of the stadium on Saturday evenings during soccer season would undoubtedly be off the charts.
While it’s unclear whether the soccer stadium has local support, it’s crystal clear that it has political clout behind it. Emily Giske — vice chairperson of the New York State Democratic Committee and a close friend of NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn — is a lobbyist for the M.L.S. plan.
However, Schwartz assured he’s not being pushed to allow the soccer group to present to the H.R.P. Advisory Council.
“No one is pressuring me,” he stated.
Park needs funding
Hudson River Park as a whole is supposed to be self-financing, and Pier 40 has been generating about 40 percent of the park’s annual revenue. Yet city and state capital funding to complete the remaining 30 percent of the park’s construction has dwindled in recent years.
In short, the Trust needs an estimated $200 million to complete the park.
In modifying the H.R.P. Act, the Trust would like to be able to issue longer leases than are currently permitted under the law. Currently, it can only issue a 30-year lease for Pier 40, which isn’t long enough to make projects there viable for developers.
However, Albany’s legislative session ends in June, leaving a very narrow time frame if these changes are to be made this year. The Trust, reportedly, along with leading park advocates are eager to see the changes made during this session.
Glick — whose district contains Pier 40 — is a key player and would need to be won over if there are to be any legislative changes.
