High-rises on the Hudson? Let’s think this through

BY DEBORAH J. GLICK  |  Downtown Manhattan and the West Side are awash in new development proposals that threaten the very nature of the most successful — and livable — of New York’s neighborhoods. The latest is a plan to construct high-rise luxury housing with 800 apartments at Pier 40, which will dramatically alter the Hudson River Park in precisely the way community residents rejected slightly more than a dozen years ago. The 1998 New York State legislation that created the Hudson River Park and its governing body, the Hudson River Park Trust, was the result of scores of public hearings, meetings and forums attended by thousands of community residents who raised their voices on this issue over a period of years.

At these public meetings, these New Yorkers expressed adamantly that their greatest need in these park-starved neighborhoods was an open waterfront park. Their greatest fear was that powerful real estate interests would overwhelm the community and construct luxury housing on the very desirable and profitable West Side waterfront. The core principle of the 1998 state legislation was to create a park that would forever maintain open access to the waterfront for everyone.

Ever since the Hudson River Park was created, there has been the oft-repeated mantra that the park is required to be self-sustaining — meaning that revenues within the park would have to cover all the costs of keeping the park in good repair. The actual language in the legislation (Chapter 592 of the Laws of 1998,) states, “It is intended that to the extent practicable and consistent with the intent of subdivision (c) of this section, the costs of the operation and maintenance of the park be paid by revenues generated within the Hudson River Park and that those revenues be used only for park purposes. Additional funding by the state and city may be allocated as necessary to meet the costs of operating and maintaining the park.”

There is no doubt that some of the physical structures in the Hudson River Park are in need of serious repair. Years of little maintenance, heavy use by park visitors and increased weather extremes have continued the process of aging parts of the park. However, the legislation never envisioned Hudson River Park needing to generate enough revenue to actually construct the park, which seems to be an implication of some of today’s discussions.

The original park plan designated some development nodes, and Pier 40 has certainly been one of the most productive locations throughout the park’s short history. Pier 40’s parking operation has generated 40 percent of the Park’s operating budget for years, while the much larger Chelsea Piers contributed 30 percent. Regrettably, the sweetheart deal concluded by a former governor has tied us to a less-than-generous contribution from Chelsea Piers for years to come. Pier 40 has lost some of its profitability, but a 2007 study by HR & A Advisors suggested that gross parking revenues of $13 million are achievable with monthly parking as a central feature, while at the same time preserving the playing fields that are crucial to our neighborhoods.

The recent “concept” of 15-story luxury housing at Pier 40 is projected to offer about $9 million to the Trust for operations, but would also include capital to stabilize the pier. The problem is that to build these mega-developments requires enormous funds to create the foundations necessary to carry the weight of these huge buildings that would irrevocably change the park and turn it into something we already have all over Manhattan: large buildings that block out air and light and, in this case, views of the water for the vast majority of those living in our neighborhoods.

Not yet discussed is how much of the park gets torn up to put in the necessary infrastructure — from sewer and water lines to utility lines — not to mention the actual construction of the buildings themselves. So there goes your park for at least a few years, if not longer. It’s not clear how much money the Trust gets during this time of construction, while the pier is largely a construction zone, or if anyone wants to be playing ball there then, or if that is even possible considering the liability issues that will be raised.

So this is why I have said we need to think this through carefully and rationally. And we have to have many more questions asked and answered about this proposal and any of the other legislative changes that the Trust is seeking. Years of experience, especially when it comes to the development of our most precious community resources, such as the jewel that is our waterfront, tells me that when we are presented with an ultimatum with an expiration date of six weeks, we need to be particularly vigilant.

Open space in New York City is the most valuable commodity we have. Once you lose it, you can’t get it back. That’s why we have to find a solution that balances the needs of the present with the responsibilities we have to future generations of New Yorkers.

Glick is assemblymember for the 66th District

The Villager encourages readers to share articles:

Comments are often moderated.

We appreciate your comments and ask that you keep to the subject at hand, refrain from use of profanity and maintain a respectful tone to both the subject at hand and other readers who also post here. We reserve the right to delete your comment.

2 Responses to High-rises on the Hudson? Let’s think this through

  1. Thank You Member Glick for your long dedication to the creation of the park as well as your stewardship.
    I hope we never forget the hard fight the community undertook in defeating Westway and creating Hudson River Park.
    The Act specifically says NO housing and it seems to me that the current powers within the Trust want to do an end run in order get the result they want.
    Thank you for putting the brakes on this rush job. I know it must be hard to stand up to developers with their deep pockets. And thanks to The Villager for continuing to report on this story and not just swallowing talking points handed out by the Hudson River Park Trust as was done by Crains and Wall St. Journal

  2. Patrick Shields

    Thank you, Assemblymember Glick, for the quick and sensible calming of the waters. Whenever a so-called solution becomes presented as "a done deal" (the usual anti-labor tactic), or as "the only alternative", you know it's trouble. Couple this with the fact that we have a "confidential" study, ostensibly funded by the youth leagues (where is the transparency, they exist on public property?), and it all adds up to the usual brutal development and luxury housing tactics. They smell blood and now they are making their move, so we Villagers and other Community Board residents might as well get ready to be vilified as nimby and anti just about everything else. One one end, Assemblymember Glick and others rightfully look for a solution that keeps the space completely park and recreation. On the other, developers want the pier, and somehow have hooked the youth leagues into supporting their efforts. If neither of these happen, we who support Major League Soccer hope that it will be considered as a park and sports friendly middle ground. It seems obvious that their idea can be done without Trust Act meddling, and that they are prepared to act cooperatively and transparently with the neighborhoods for an honest combination of open space design and financial practicalities, including keeping the current youth league footprint or better. The youth leagues are saying nothing about general park space for the rest of us, above and beyond their current use, MLS I'm sure will address this because they need us as much as we need them. One thing we all know for certain; an industry that does not care about whether or not we have a hospital does not care about youth sports. The youth leagues have put their heads in the lion's mouth, offering trust to a tenant whose residents will eventually box them in and further privatize the pier once they have a stranglehold. What are the youth leagues thinking? Luxury tenants will fuss about noise, lights, and access, from the get-go. Perhaps for some of you, suddenly a low-rise and modest stadium isn't seeming like such a bad idea? This neighborhood has major events year round, soccer will seem like a blip compared to the loss of the pier to the usual gang. It would be like rewarding them handsomely for leaving us without a hospital. We have to do two things: 1.) Stop them, and at the same time, 2.) Finish this this time. Find a solution, make an agreement, make a compromise. Now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

six − 1 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>