Chelsea landmark deserves its own ‘Domain’
To The Editor:
Re:“Hopper-Gibbons House in Limbo as Legal Gears Turn” (web news, Feb. 5, 2015):
“The 2005 DOB permit was never valid and thus could not be reinstated in any form” — that fact ALONE should rationally put an end to this. BUT NO! If that is STILL not enough to get the needed action, how about the city (or even Statem for that matter!) employ Eminent Domain, to ensure that an important landmark site in American history, is restored to its legal, former state, and Mr. Mamounas can even be compensated, so he can go buy another building to wreck for profit.
BUT NO! — I forgot! “Eminent Domain” is only ever employed around these parts when, say, a Russian plutocrat wants to spend blood money to house his trophy basketball team! Silly me forgetting something like that!
Nick Fritsch
Note: See the article “Hopper-Gibbons Supporters Prevail in Court” for an update on this matter.
New Yorkers not fit for Tokyo traffic fix
To The Editor:
Re: “Rx for pedestrian crossings” (Letter to The Editor, Feb. 12, 2014)
In response to K. Dupuys’ letter regarding pedestrian crossings: the type of pedestrian-traffic sequence she proposes would only work if the pedestrians REMAINED on the sidewalk to allow for the two cycles of traffic to proceed. Not stand halfway in the traffic lane, not cross by trying to outrun an oncoming car a half block away etc. etc…all of which I witness while driving in this city. She mentioned Tokyo, where this system works. Yes, and the Japanese are more disciplined in their actions, unlike many New York City pedestrians and bicyclists who circumvent laws made for their own safety, and for the most part go unenforced.
Richie Hecht
Art park is a beautiful gift
To The Editor:
I have been a resident of Chelsea for 24 years. My three daughters all attend New York City public schools: Manhattan Academy of Technology, the Clinton School for Writers and Artists, and LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts.
I am so excited, as a member of this dynamic community, to welcome Pier55, another venue for arts and recreation, into the neighborhood! I love Hudson River Park and marvel at the improvement along the riverfront from what used to be there. When the kids were little, we played at Pirate Park (the Jane St. Pier) and on Pier 46 a great deal.
This new park, Pier55, offers more opportunity for older kids to enjoy the beauty of our waterfront and our cityscape. I can’t wait to see what programming the people involved come up with. And I hope very much that local schools will get a chance to use these unique performance spaces, which I see as inspiring venues for dance, music and theater for young artists.
I went to the first public hearing about Pier55, to learn and to listen, and came away with a very positive perspective. Most of the complaints against the project are either about noise or traffic, which I can’t see being a problem, or worries about control of the pier, which seem to have been hashed out already.
I cannot come up with additional concerns, though I have tried, for the sake of being thorough. What a beautiful gift the city has been offered! Let’s move this forward!
Liz Craig
A lot to fear about Pier55
To The Editor:
There is little to say that is good about the Pier55 development. The organizers are real estate speculators who are making this project a linchpin of their privatization of the West Side waterfront. It is not being reviewed by anyone and is being rushed through as if the world is coming to an end.
The community board, which should be protecting the area from this, is instead a front for the real estate interests in this case, just as it was in the privatization of Washington Square Park.
Projects that are set up in secret are invariably bad and will not withstand extensive and professional examinations. The lack of vetting will speed things up, but not for the better. The governing structure for Pier55 is dubious and appears to be beyond public review.
This all comes because the Hudson River Park has no dedicated source of funding. We have already seen legislation passed to allow the unwanted and unnecessary transfer of air rights from Pier 40 to real estate speculators so that the Pier 40 park could be “saved.”
It is a vicious and bitter blow to have $35 million suddenly appear from the state and the city for Pier55 when there was “no money” to help Pier 40.
This will continue until all of the waterfront is privatized and it becomes a “destination,” like the High Line.
This will be worse for everyone but a wealthy few. Projects like this in the city are engines of inequality. We are driven down by our own government.
John Wetherhold
Arch is a Titanic issue
To The Editor:
Leaders and members of societies in the U.S., Britain, Northern Ireland, Switzerland and Scandinavia dedicated to preserving the history of R.M.S. Titanic have called for the iconic Pier 54 arch — among the last surviving vestiges of the original Pier 54 structure, and under which Titanic’s survivors, Lusitania’s final passengers and tens of thousands of American troops in two World Wars passed — to be conserved and retained.
If not in its present position, the arch should be relocated to the south side of the P55 structure to serve as a “frame” through which the remains of Pier 54 might be viewed, accompanied by a commemorative plaque or tablet at long last commemorating the significance of this pier to history. In the desire to create something “new,” it is important that the history of this culturally significant feature not be forgotten.
Charles Haas
E-mail letters, not longer than 250 words in length, to Scott@ChelseaNow.com or fax to 212-229-2790 or mail to Chelsea Now, Letters to the Editor, NYC Community Media, One Metrotech North, 10th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Please include phone number for confirmation purposes. Chelsea Now reserves the right to edit letters for space, grammar, clarity and libel. Chelsea Now does not publish anonymous letters.
