Ditching Friends, Durst to pursue own Pier 40 plan

Developer Douglas Durst.

Developer Douglas Durst.

BY LINCOLN ANDERSON  | Three months ago, Douglas Durst unveiled an alternative plan for Pier 40.

Then, in recent weeks, the high-profile developer declared the aging West Houston St. pier’s piles could be repaired for as little as around one-third of what the Hudson River Park Trust has been saying — or just $30 million versus $80 million.

Capping things off, last week, Durst resigned as chairperson of Friends of Hudson River Park, the waterfront park’s main private fundraising arm.

In a statement sent to The Villager last Friday morning, Jordan Barowitz, Durst’s spokesperson, said of the prominent builder, “He is still deeply committed to the park, but he has a different vision from the Trust of how to move the park forward. He believes all sides have the best interest of the park in the hearts, but it was counterproductive for him to remain in his role as chairman of Friends.”

Ben Korman, who was one of the group’s two vice chairpersons, has also resigned his position, and Durst and Korman have both left the Friends’ board of directors.

The Friends of Hudson River Park was formerly the 5-mile-long park’s main watchdog group, aggressively suing the city and Trust to get unwanted municipal uses out of the park, such as the Department of Sanitation garage on Gansevoort Peninsula. But the Friends has more recently forged much closer ties with the Trust as Friends has morphed into the chief fundraiser for the state-city park authority.

NO CHOICE BUT TO RESIGN   In an e-mail sent to The Villager this Tuesday, Korman said, “I have been on the board of the Friends for almost 13 years. I fully endorsed the mission changes at Friends and its collaboration with the Trust. However, the Trust leadership’s emphasis on putting housing in the park and their lack of both transparency and a long-term financial strategic plan for the park, forced my resignation and reignited the need for advocacy on behalf of the Hudson River Park. The park is a precious public amenity that must be protected and enhanced.”

Korman, whose C&K Properties formerly ran the parking operation at Pier 40, collaborated with Durst in crafting the alternative Pier 40 plan that the developer unveiled in late August. That proposal includes a high-tech commercial office campus, along with  automated, valet parking, while retaining Pier 40’s popular artificial-turf playing field.

Durst has previously stated of his alternative Pier 40 proposal that he’s just “putting it out there” to be “helpful” and that he would not reply to a request for proposals, or R.F.P., if the plan was put out to bid by the Trust.

Durst opposes residential development on the pier, saying it just “won’t work.” Yet the Trust wants to open up the Hudson River Park Act of 1998 to allow a wider array of uses for the park — including residential housing — saying that more viable, revenue-generating options are needed, since two previous tries to redevelop the decaying structure both failed.

GRATEFUL GOODBYE    In response to a request from The Villager for comment on Durst’s resignation, Madelyn Wils, the Trust’s president, and A.J. Pietrantone, the Friends’ executive director, issued a joint statement last Friday:

“The Friends of Hudson River Park and the Hudson River Park Trust are extremely grateful for the many contributions of Douglas Durst and the Durst Organization to Hudson River Park,” they said. “His philanthropy and advocacy for the waterfront and this distinct New York City amenity have had a profound effect on the quality of life for countless New Yorkers. We welcome the leadership and commitment of Friends’ Acting Chairperson Justin Sadrian as we develop a more permanent transition plan for the board in the coming months. Despite these and other challenges, including the recent impact of Superstorm Sandy, the Friends and the Trust remain wholly committed to working together to secure resources for the park and sustaining its future.”

The park still hasn’t had its electrical power restored since Sandy almost burned out Pier 40’s transformer. However, Pier 40’s playing field reopened Monday after repairs following Superstorm Sandy.

In a telephone interview last Friday, Pietrantone explained how Durst and Korman announced the news.

“Wednesday, at our quarterly board meeting, they resigned,” Pietrantone said. “They basically expressed a desire — because they had a difference of opinion about some of the activities of the Trust, particularly about Pier 40 — that they thought it was in the best interest of the park and for the Friends that they step down.”

Durst joined the Friends board in 2002. Korman was one of the group’s founding board members in 1999.

As for how Durst’s departure will affect the Friends’ pocketbook, Pietrantone said, “That’s something that remains to be seen. Douglas Durst is a very philantrophic person. He’s been a major contributor.”

NID STILL NEEDS HIM  Durst remains a steering committee member of the nascent NID, or neighborhood improvement district, for Hudson River Park. The NID’s catchment area would extend two to three blocks inland from the waterfront park, and — if the special district is approved by the city — property owners would be assessed a special tax, which would raise millions annually for the park.

“The NID is one thing he’s been a major catalyst on,” Pietrantone noted.

Losing Durst is a blow, but the Friends is committed to its mission, the executive director assured.

“A leadership change is a setback,” he said. “But we’ll move forward and get the park the resources it needs.”

One of the Friends’ biggest coups was the settlement of a lawsuit it filed to get the Sanitation facility off of Gansevoort Peninsula, near W. 14th St., so that a park can be built there. Under the agreement, the city agreed to pay the Trust an escalating fee each year it didn’t vacate the peninsula. As a result, by the time Sanitation vacates the parcel — which is expected to happen in spring 2014 — the city will have paid $36 million to the park.

The Friends earlier this year also raised $1 million for the Trust at a white-tent benefit on Tribeca’s Pier 25, setting a new record for a fundraiser for the park. The group has a goal of raising $4 million per year, which will go toward the park’s operations, and also hopes to raise even more cash on top of that to help with capital costs to finish the park’s construction.

GLICK: ‘TRUST MUST BE FLEXIBLE’   Assemblymember Deborah Glick has been one of the most vocal critics of residential housing in Hudson River Park. But she didn’t see much of a downside to Durst’s departure from the Friends.

“I think it’s a loss for the Friends,” she said, “not maybe for the park. I believe that Douglas Durst has been a huge supporter of the park — and of the park as a park.

“I’m sorry that there is this conflict with the Trust,” Glick added. “I think that Douglas only has the park at heart. I’m sure that he will continue to be involved [in the park].

“I would hope that the Trust, going forward, would be flexible enough to work with partners who are totally focused on the future of the park, and be more engaging and receptive to hearing things that are not simply whatever they have decided behind closed doors is the future of the park.

“They need to work with those of us, and people like Douglas, who are committed to the park’s future,” Glick continued. “And just because he has pointed out some of the financial shortcomings that many of us have pointed out before in their financial plan, there’s really no reason for them to be so offended.”

FINANCED GANSEVOORT SUIT  Arthur Schwartz, a longtime Village waterfront activist, said the loss of Durst’s financial prowess is serious for the park.

“Durst is one of the richest people in America,” he said. “He’s not in the Bloomberg field, but he’s one of the biggest developers in America. If it wasn’t for Doug Durst, Friends wouldn’t have existed its first 10 years. He not only donated a large percentage of the money that paid for the litigation they did — hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars — about the Sanitation facility at Gansevoort, eliminating the tourist chopper flights at the W. 30th St. Heliport — he was also the connection to people in the money world.

“This year they raised more than ever at their benefit, so there was something at play there more than Doug Durst; so it doesn’t mean that fundraising will go away without Durst,” Schwartz noted. “But it’s a loss, a real loss. I would guess, in New York, there isn’t a person of his means more dedicated to parks. Ratner and the Central Park Conservancy, he’s a close second. But Douglas Durst is the most environmentally concerned person in the world you’re going to find. So it’s a loss.”

Schwartz, who is the chairperson of the Hudson River Park Advisory Council, said personally he’s open to any and all ideas for Pier 40 — including Durst’s — at this point.

“It’s always good to have counterproposals,” he said. “It’s always good to have a competition of ideas, if they’re not hot air — and Douglas Durst doesn’t spout hot air.”

DURST’S PRIOR PIER 40 PLAY  Schwartz recalled that Durst and Korman made a play for Pier 40 back in 2003 during the Trust’s first R.F.P. attempt to find a developer for the pier. At first, their proposal was for a water-based FedEx hub, with shipments ferried to and from the pier by barges. That plan morphed into one including rooftop gardens. Both plans preserved the pier’s sports fields. The second version featured a Home Depot and a Costco.

“I wouldn’t call them superstores,” Schwartz said, though conceding, “They were big enough.”

Schwartz, who was chairperson of Community Board 2’s Waterfront Committee at the time, supported the Durst/Korman plan, and said Glick did, too.

“Everyone thought the proposal was great,” he recalled. “And that was when Aubrey Lees [the then C.B. 2 chairperson] came in and did the ‘Sunday Night Massacre,’ and took me and Elizabeth Gilmore and Tobi Bergman off the Waterfront Committee. And the next thing we knew, the Oceanarium was being pushed, which the Trust wanted.”

Lees thought there was a conflict of interest since Korman and the three committee members were all Friends of Hudson River Park board members. But Schwartz said the city’s Conflict of Interest Board ultimately ruled there was no conflict.

Ultimately, that R.F.P. process sunk, as did another R.F.P. attempt a few years later that featured a pitch by The Related Companies for a glitzy “Vegas on the Hudson” entertainment destination spot, which topped all previous plans for inspiring horrified community opposition.

Bergman is the head of P3, a youth sports organization that uses Pier 40. It’s also part of the new Pier 40 Champions coalition of youth sports leagues, which recently floated an idea for towers next to — but not on — Pier 40 as a way to raise funds for both the decaying pier and the cash-strapped park.

‘NOT A NONPROFIT LEADER’   Asked for comment on Durst’s departure from Friends, Bergman said, “Douglas Durst is a great builder who cares about New York and the park, but I think he realizes his strengths are not the ones needed to be an effective nonprofit leader. At board meetings, he always projected a sense of reluctance or ambivalence. I think it is impossible for a developer to play an unconflicted, leading role in creating public policy for Pier 40 because of its innate development significance and also because of its impact on nearby in-play properties, especially the St. John’s Building. His best value to the pier will be as a responder to a future request for proposals. Of course, given the needs of the park, we all hope he will continue to be a generous contributor.”

Indeed, some suspect Durst will eventually make another play for the prime pier property. A duo of a developer and a parking magnate who once operated at Pier 40 is too coincidental, according to one source close to the Trust who requested anonymity.

“There’s an utter and complete lack of randomness” in Durst and Korman striking out on their own, he said.

But Durst spokesperson Barowitz insisted the developer isn’t interested in the St. John’s Building property, which stretches for several blocks along West St. in front of Pier 40.

“Like every other large developer in town, we looked at it,” he said, “but we are not buying it, nor are we trying to buy it.”

And Barowitz added, “As we have said from the beginning of the process, we have no interest in developing Pier 40.”

Likewise, asked if he’s angling to run the parking again at Pier 40, Korman said, “I have no intention in getting involved in executing the plan. The purpose of our plan for adaptive reuse of Pier 40 is to prove that there are economically viable solutions for Pier 40. I have been working on it for the benefit of the park and its users, not for any self-serving purpose.”

FEBRUARY PIER 40 FORUM?    David Gruber, the new chairperson of Board 2, has been “immersing himself in the waterfront,” as he put it, getting a handle on Pier 40 and all the rest. But he said he’s not in a position to speculate on Durst’s maneuverings.

“This is internal stuff, to be honest with you,” he said. “I never met Durst. I never physically met him. But I’m looking forward to meeting him and seeing the presentation of his plan.”

Gruber said he plans to hold a public forum on Pier 40 and the park but not until February at the earliest.

“There’s a lot of players, moving parts,” he said. “I’ve got to get them all lined up.”

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.

6 Responses to Ditching Friends, Durst to pursue own Pier 40 plan

  1. Still waiting for the Glick Pier 40 proposal.
    Will it be presented at the next public meeting, or perhaps
    offered as new legislation? Have any of you people on the inside heard of what her office might be
    pushing or planning? I think not. Or is anyone ready to run against her yet, so an actual life legacy for Tobi
    can be protected, and cemented? I disagree with the prevailing local ideal that this will not
    be solved electorally. For Pier 40, change in the Assembly is the only solution. What is this community afraid of?
    We have an 2013 Assemblymember who is bogged down in the least effective ideological remnants of the sixties.
    She writes us about mental health care for young people re: Newtown, when that is, and has always and forever been obvious. She says "it is too easy to just focus on the ready availability of guns", with a straight face in a community e-mail to New York City residents. HOW ABOUT STARTING THERE AND STAYING THERE FOR A WHILE ?? We need a champion. A realistic person in office. One willing to attack and solve the immediate problems, at the source. Idealists must be able to bear SOME fang to be successful. Our Assemblymember is not this person, and it is time for action, even if it means recall, in order to save Pier 40, and to push for gun control at the state level as the first and most important public safety concern right now. To get someone in there willing to actually take on upstate Assemblymembers on their fanatic, ludicrous, paranoid Second Amendment stances. There has been joy in Greenwich Village these last few weeks with the election of the first out lesbian to the US Senate, but has anyone else been watching how unbelievably she has been protecting and defending the NRA and the gun lobby in North Dakota this last week? And like Glick, towing the NRA line and commenting only on mental health issues. Any comment from Glick, any disappointment at all from the northeast gay political community? A free pass. The auto-focus to youth mental health, exactly where the NRA wants her to go, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." This pathetic and embarrassing situation has gone on far, far too long. Where is the power which should be wielded on the state level by this progressive community? Pier 40 is just the tip of the iceberg.
    Cue Hurricane Sandy Assembly excuse from our elected officials…

    • OY!
      What the hell are you saying?
      "…so an actual life legacy for Tobi can be protected, and cemented?"
      so you are the sock puppet of Tobi Bergman now…who HIMSELF is the sock puppet of Madelyn Wils!
      It is not the job of Ms. Glick to come up with the plan for financing the (entire) Hudson River Park or for Pier 40 that IS the job mandated by LAW of the TRUST BOARD. It's time for new Trust Board to be remade and frankly that's what everyone is waiting for so lets just please have Bloomberg's girlfriend who chairs the Trust politely step down now.
      The day Pier 40 becomes the legacy of Tobi Bergman is the day Pier 40 becomes the gated community he so lusts after–look honey more rich people–and the day Hudson River Park is officially privatized.

  2. Tobi Bergman's comments about Douglas Durst's motives and his ability as the leader of a non-profit organization are disgraceful. As Arthur Schwartz stated, the Friends wouldn't exist today were it not for Douglas' leadership, generosity and passion for the Hudson River Park. Tobi is well aware as he sat on the Board of Friends where, unlike other Board members, he pushed his own agenda for Pier 40 rather than involve himself in the bigger issues related to the Park as a whole.

    The exit of Douglas Durst and Ben Korman from the Friends is a huge loss for the Friends; but I doubt that it will be a loss for the Park. Friends was an advocacy group whose lawsuits and public support generated tens of millions of dollars for the Park when the Trust leadership was unable or unwilling to stand up to other city and state agencies that wanted to exploit the Park for their own purpose.

    Friends morphed into a fundraising group to try to find a less confrontational way to help the park. Many of us resigned from the Friend's Board to allow that to happen, but that obviously didn't work. I wouldn't be surprised if another advocacy group formed to protect the Hudson River Park from political appointees determined to dismantle it.

    I'd like to suggest that Tobi and Madelyn start their efforts to build residential in the Hudson River Park the day after the Mayor announces the ground breaking of residential development in Central Park.

    • Tom I agree if the Friends becomes….as MS. Wils and her political appointees on the Trust especially the mayors "girlfriend" (aka DIANA “If it was up to me, not one more dime goes into Pier 40” TAYLOR) an organization that as Wils stated in the press….is there to do the Trust's "BIDDING" not only would we need a new advocacy group, but without transparency why donate? IF Friends is forced by the Trust to give up their advocacy as it appears it is being forced to then sadly you are correct and I look forward to hearing you and others who will be there.

  3. It is unfortunate that Mr. Bergman chose to take such a low pot shot at Douglas Durst. How uninformed and blatently wrong. I have known Douglas as a not for profit leader for more than two decades and can attest to his extraodinary leadership firsthand as Executive Director fo the Roundabout Theatre Company! If it were not for Douglas's counsel, i don't know where our company would be right now but it certainly would not be the leader in the field we are today making a demonstrable difference in countless lives of more than 1000 artists and staff employed by our company each year, thousands of public school students and their teachers who participate in our arts programs in schools and our community at large. I am grateful to know him, to have benefited from his kindness, generosity and effectiveness as a member of our board of directors. It is rare to meet an individual such as Douglas who has a true selfless commitment to improving the quality of life for all of us in New York City; from personal experience i can say (as can so many of us in NYC) he is a true environmental and community visionary.

  4. TOBI BERGMAN should be ASHAMED of himself.
    How DARE TOBI BERGMAN malign Douglas Durst's nonprofit leadership and basically call him a liar about his professed disinterest in developing Pier 40.
    It's about time Bergman fessed up to his own self-interest and those of the wealthy downtown families that virtually CONTROL PIER 40 fields. My understanding of Bergman's own tenure on the Friends of The Hudson River park Board is that it amounted to nothing but an opportunity for inside information and he contributed little to the organization or it's fundraising efforts, while his beloved P3 amassed a war chest to pay for a rigged study to put luxury housing on the Pier. If they really cared about the Park and more than the fields on Pier 40, they could have invested in a real analysis of solutions years ago; and the Trust would not have wasted efforts on failed RPF's and developed a support constituency to move the Park forward.
    I am proud to call Durst a neighbor and admire his long-timeefforts and those of his family to improve our ENTIRE city-not just his backyard. Those following this debate might do some homework, and Mr. Bergman should give up his role as cover for the Ms. Wils, the Trust, and her EDC colleagues to privatize Hudson River Park.
    And Mr. Durst should be Thanked for his support of Hudson River Park and the Friends which The Observer has reported to be in excess of 2.3 million dollars during his tenure on the Board.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


+ 2 = ten

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>