TALKING POINT: At Pier 40 Residential Would Work

BY PAUL A. ULLMAN  |  I was appointed to the board of the Hudson River Park Trust five years ago by former Governor Spitzer. I asked to be chosen because I love and use Hudson River Park. I also thought I could contribute, intellectually, to the planning and development process of one of the nation’s great urban parks. And, I was terrified about the prospect of the mega-development on Pier 40 proposed by The Related Companies. My wife, motivated by those same impulses, became a co-founder of the Pier 40 Partnership, which created and submitted to the Trust a counterproposal to Related’s plan. As it turned out, neither plan was deemed an adequate response to the Trust’s request for proposals (R.F.P.) and both were rejected.

I began my career on the Trust board with a suspicion (widely held Downtown) that somehow the Trust R.F.P. was rigged such that Related was the only company that could respond. Among the first questions that I asked then-Trust President Connie Fishman and current Vice President Noreen Doyle concerned the process leading up to that R.F.P.’s release. Believe me, I got an earful. It seems that the plan for the R.F.P. was discussed well in advance with the Hudson River Park Advisory Council and the local community boards and also with the staffs of the relevant elected officials. The neighborhood fever, created by the Related proposal, became so hot that the Trust’s prior disclosure efforts were forgotten or ignored. The real reason that Related was the only Pier 40 R.F.P. respondent from the New York City real estate community was that the use and lease-term restrictions imposed by the Hudson River Park Act made large-scale, commercial, capital-infrastructure investment within the boundaries of the park almost impossibly unprofitable.

I provide this story as background because I believe that a part of the political and emotional gauntlet that the Trust is now attempting to negotiate, with respect to its potential proposals to make changes to the park’s governing legislation, has to do with lingering unease about how the Trust has gone about its job of managing the park’s affairs. This despite the fact the park has been such a resounding success.

I am currently member of the strategic task force that has been wrestling with the complexities of how the park act can be changed to better enable the Trust to manage the financial difficulties the park is now facing.

This task force, initiated by current Trust President Madelyn Wils, has heard presentations from the Trust about the park’s financial condition. It has also examined financial analysis, developed by several real estate consultants, showing how various new uses could meaningfully affect the income to the park generated by future development proposals. And, the task force has heard explanations on how tax-exempt bond financing could help the Trust structure a development proposal that would net more income for the park.

Most importantly, over the course of many meetings, various park uses beyond those currently allowed by the park act have been generally discussed, openly and in detail. The task force members are from a wide range of constituencies, and the opinions voiced form a wide range of perspectives. One thing has been abundantly clear almost from the beginning: There is a widespread belief among the task force members, that in order for the park to fulfill its mission, the park act has to change in basic and fundamental ways. And, among those fundamental ways is the allowance of residential development at specific commercial nodes that have already been designated by the park act. While residential development would, by far, generate the most revenue for the park and be the least impactful from a traffic standpoint, other use types that could have an important place in any future proposal are hotel and office development.

Let me be clear, despite claims to the contrary, there is no existing plan for residential development on Pier 40 or anywhere else in the park. There is, however, open and detailed discussion about the idea among members of the task force, many of whom — including myself — live near, use extensively and love the park.

Churchill said, “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity. An optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” With respect to Hudson River Park, we should, as a community, optimistically confront the realities of the current financial climate and support new ways to fund the park and its mission. The ability of local and state governments to support capital infrastructure for parks that they had previously generously supported is compromised and will remain such for many years to come. To ignore that reality — merely to hope that somehow something will soon change — would miss a wonderful opportunity.

Let me also say that the Trust and their board really should be given their due as a group of people who are serious, substantial and sophisticated and who really care about the park, its mission and its constituencies. Any additional flexibility that is granted the Trust by amendments to the park act will be used judiciously, creatively and artistically to create an environment that gives pleasure to the greatest number of park users. There may very well be a future R.F.P. that will seek plans from local, national and international firms to develop Piers 40 and 76 that includes expanded uses and lease terms. If that day comes, rest assured that the Trust will consult with all the various park constituencies — as it has in the past — such that the process is open, creative, beneficial and successful.

The future of the park can be very bright.

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.

8 Responses to TALKING POINT: At Pier 40 Residential Would Work

  1. Patrick Shields

    I'm sure few here dispute the facts as you state them, but the reality is that your editorial focuses on residential housing, and office and hotel development, above and beyond any others. The most important thing to be taken from this is this quote, "And, among those fundamental ways is the allowance of residential development at specific commercial nodes that have already been designated by the park act. While residential development would, by far, generate the most revenue for the park and be the least impactful from a traffic standpoint, other use types that could have an important place in any future proposal are hotel and office development." You cannot argue for a an open and varied RFP process, and in the same breath, make your preference as a Trust Board member absolutely clear. It matters not if there is "no existing plan" for residential. If a Board member is signaling that preference, real estate will certainly fill in the gaps.

    • Also Mr Ullman writes:
      Most importantly, over the course of many meetings, various park uses beyond those currently allowed by the park act have been generally discussed, openly and in detail.
      OPENLY? The meetings of this "task force" hand picked by Madelyn Wils were not open to the public and the members of this task force were instructed NOT to speak to the press and were not even allowed to remove this Trust Commissioned Study from the room after presentation, for fear, as was reported, of manipulation by the press or pubic. Originally Ms. Wils said these were just "small changes" to the Act and that these "changes" didn't even require public hearings or public meetings because the Legislature could act on their own.
      Putting high end market housing on an already crowded West Side on a Public Park on a Pier in a River is not a good idea. When you have 600 families living there and have to be evacuated by something like last years Hurricane Irene I'd rather see a Stadium there than have to relocate and pay for the insurance claims of those families.

  2. Mr Ullman as a member of the Park Trust Board approved a Park Budget that continued to show increasing deficits for years without ANY PLAN to address the situation.
    They had no plan then they have no plan now except to put Luxuary Housing adjacent to his own property.
    I'm sure he will approve of the quality of the residents for these above market housing families within the gated community he advocates.
    So why hasn't he allowed the plan that he and the Board of Trustees commissioned and was paid for by other nearby property owners (to the tune of 125k) and has influenced his judgment behind closed doors I might add still not been shown to the press or the public. Including the massings!

  3. "…the Hudson River Park Act made large-scale, commercial, capital-infrastructure investment within the boundaries of the park almost impossibly unprofitable." — Seems like there is a very good reason for this! Once you open the Park to residential development, it is not longer a park. Then it is just someone else's backyard. It's a very bad idea and goes against the Trust's founding principals.

  4. Charlie Walker

    Your first insticts were right.

  5. I think a residential area there would be viable too. The major concerns are flooding but that happens on very rare occasions like hurricane Sandy. A similar concept is under construction in rent apartment brussels, where they are near the banks of the Kregg river.

  6. The only solution I can think about this topic is to not force the residential area at the pier yet. We all know that the public needs a reassurance that the place is really safe to live in. There's also a same incident such as this one in some houses for sale liverpool people don't really trust the idea about putting up a village near the bay. Assurance and proof that the location is safe for them to live in.

  7. I agree that they should just continue the thing that they are doing. They should avoid being a pessimistic type of person.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


9 + = eighteen

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>