That a new ad hoc committee of the Hudson River Park Trust is taking a fresh look at Pier 40 is welcome news. The effort is being spearheaded by two Trust board of directors members who live in the community, which is also a positive step, since we have long held that the Pier 40 process must be more grassroots, and that the best solutions — and likely the only solutions — will be those acceptable to the community.
This committee is starting with a clean slate, with nothing off the table, open to all proposals. That’s not something to regard with trepidation, but is a smart idea: Rather than ruling uses out at the start, the committee is casting as wide a net as possible.
This is basically a research project right now, not a formal public review process or a request for proposals (R.F.P.). But that’s the point. The formal process has not worked. Two previous R.F.P.’s issued within the last several years failed to produce a viable proposal for the 14-acre West Houston St. pier that was acceptable to both the Trust and the community and that worked within the pier’s 30-year lease term.
As a result, this committee — led by local parents Paul Ullman and Pam Frederick — is going back to square one. Even the Hudson River Park Act is being scrutinized in regard to the limits it puts on uses on Pier 40. Perhaps the act is too limiting, some think. If — and that’s a big if — a good commercial use can be found to add to the commercial portion of the pier to help finance its renovation and also help fund the rest of the 5-mile-long Hudson River Park, then, and only then, would modifying the park act be considered.
For example, the “R” word — residential — has been floated as a possible use for the pier that would provide significant income for the park, yet without high impact. Could a limited number of high-end residential co-ops and condos be the key to Pier 40’s financial Rubik’s Cube, as it were? Some think possibly yes. We’re not endorsing the idea here, not now, at least — but we think it deserves serious study, as do many other ideas for the pier, many of which haven’t even been heard yet.
In the last R.F.P., the proposal the Trust’s board initially favored, The Related Companies’ so-called “Las Vegas on the Hudson,” would have utterly transformed the pier, the park and the surrounding neighborhood — a disastrous trifecta that the community opposed.
Also, the Trust is reportedly mulling not issuing a third R.F.P., but instead creating its own Pier 40 master plan. The state-city park authority could then bid out portions of the pier for specific developers or uses. This approach may allow for incremental and lower-impact uses, which seems the right way to go, since recent history has shown the R.F.P.’s tend to attract mega-development projects that are anathema to the community.
Parking — the pier’s other main use besides sports — is the big moneymaker. Bringing in $6 million to $7 million a year for the park, parking — like youth sports — has a very strong local constituency.
But the status quo can’t be maintained without more revenue. Pier 40 needs serious repairs, the most pressing being $20 million worth of work for its roof. One or possibly more commercial uses must be found to add to what’s there now. Hudson River Park is intended to be financially self-sustaining, and Pier 40 is a large part of that equation, providing about 40 percent of the park’s annual operating budget.
We wish the committee well in its ongoing research efforts, and encourage both the Trust and the community to keep an open mind as this process unfolds. There will come a point, probably sooner rather than later, when it will make sense to begin opening the discussion at small, informal brainstorming sessions such as at the individual community boards’ waterfront committees. Clearly, a new approach of outreach for feasible and acceptable ideas is needed — and that’s exactly the sort of intelligent, proactive course that this new group is taking.
