By Albert Amateau
More than 300 people at a Wed. Jan. 21 forum cheered the Hudson River Park Trust’s plan to build a temporary artificial turf field that would be ready in September and accommodate a variety of sports in the courtyard of Pier 40.
Children and teenage members of community and school sports groups were an overwhelming presence at the forum. Recreation advocates hailed the plan for desperately needed sports fields for interim use on Pier 40 until the Trust is ready to proceed with the permanent redevelopment in about four years.
But many Village residents and park advocates urged the Trust to come up with more un-programmed green space on Pier 40.
The $5 million project, presented by Connie Fishman, president of the Trust, and Andrew Lavallee, landscape architect for the project, calls for a 162,000-sq.-ft. field to be built in what Trust officials call “the donut” of the pier. In addition, the project includes a 20-ft. wide promenade with benches and tree planters running 665 ft. along the southern outdoor edge of the roof of the pier.
The large field, to be built on eight inches of sand and artificial turf, could accommodate two soccer fields, a teen-sized baseball diamond and a softball diamond, and would be marked for football during the fall, said Lavallee, an associate of Matthew Nielsen, landscape architects.
“This is a wonderful opportunity for fields but the 20-ft. wide walkway on the roof is not as much as we’d like,” said Assemblymember Deborah Glick. “We have to balance different uses – like yoga and Frisbee and kite-flying.”
Under state legislation that created the 5-mile riverfront park between the Battery and 59th St., 50 percent of the 15-acre pier must be devoted to public recreation when it is finally redeveloped.
“We are 4,000 sq. ft. short of the 50 percent,” said Fishman, referring to the interim plan. “We have to look at it. One way would be to widen the walkway on the roof by 20 feet, but we would have to find a way to accommodate cars that park there,” she said in response to the call for more un-programmed space.
Stu Waldman, a member of the Federation to Preserve the Greenwich Village Waterfront and Great Port, also called for more un-programmed passive space. “I have no problem with the field, but the interim plan needs more than the field,” he said. “There are 162,000 sq. ft. of active space and 13,000 sq. ft. of passive space,” he said, adding, “I don’t think we need parking for 3,000 cars. Let’s leave it at 2,800 and have more passive space for people like me with arthritic knees.”
The Trust is conducting the formal hearing process mandated by the Hudson River Park state legislation for significant actions, with a 60-day period for submission of comments ending on March 31 and a final decision due in May, Fishman said.
The Trust hopes to start construction in May and complete the project in August in time for a September opening, Lavallee said. The fields and the second floor promenade would have lighting for night use, and the Trust would run the program schedules and permit process.
Members of the Community Board 2 waterfront committee, led by Don MacPherson, and the Hudson River Park Trust Advisory Council, led by Lawrence B. Goldberg, met separately after the forum. “We hope the trust will provide more information about their thinking as the process moves forward,” MacPherson said.
The Advisory Council, comprised of elected officials and community members, supports the plan for the fields, Goldberg said. “But we want more,” he said, referring both to un-programmed space and to details about programming for the interim field.
Bob Townley, of Community Board 1 and an Advisory Council member, urged the Trust to make public its construction schedule as soon as possible. He cautioned that sports groups would have to make other arrangements if the field was not ready to open in September.
Townley, director of Manhattan Youth, a community-based youth recreation group that operates on Pier 25 and in P.S. 234, was also concerned about potential conflicts between youth and corporate leagues vying to use the fields. “It could be a dilemma in the future,” he said.
Arthur Gregory, a C.B. 1 member and youth recreation advocate, urged the Trust to include sufficient bathrooms and water fountains in its plan.
Permit fees would be comparable to fees for Parks Department fields, $50 for adult annual permits, plus a $25 registration fee. Youth groups would pay only the $25 registration.
Youth recreation advocates celebrated the decision to build the interim field. Tobi Bergman, direction of Pier Park and Playground, which currently runs recreation on Pier 40, hailed the move. “This is a bigger step forward than the one four years ago when the Trust built the small indoor field on the roof,” he said. “I hope four years from now the next step will be a permanent field,” he added.
Bob Russo, head of Downtown United Soccer Club, and Barry Lafer, president of the Greenwich Village Little League, congratulated the Trust on the interim plan.
For 15 members of the Stuyvesant High School football team, The Peglegs, who turned up at the forum, the event was an occasion to rejoice. Dave Velkas, Stuyvesant coach since 1983, welcomed the prospect of a nearby field, observing that The Peglegs must raise $1,500 a year to transport the team to various fields for practice and games.
A group of 10-to-12-year-old girls from the Downtown soccer club were happy at the prospect. “We need a bigger field than the one on the roof,” said one girl, who was glad her team would not have to play at Randall’s Island anymore. “You have to clear away the broken glass there before you can play,” she said.
Al Butzel, president of Friends of Hudson River Park, also referred to the small soccer field on the roof. “There ought to be every effort to enlarge it,” he said. He welcomed the Trust’s decision to hold a formal 60-day comment process.
Arthur Schwartz, a longtime critic of the Trust who filed a lawsuit to stop the interim plan and force the Trust to proceed with the permanent redevelopment of Pier 40, said he would not drop the lawsuit but acknowledged that he was “conflicted.”
“I was moved by the number of people at the forum,” Schwartz said in a telephone interview. “I like the fact that they’re going to build a field but it won’t cause me to drop the litigation. My goal from the beginning was to make the Trust deal with the recreation needs of the community. But the Trust isn’t functioning in accordance with the law and that’s worth fighting. I don’t trust the Trust. I’m concerned that they’re not going to come up with a permanent plan, and the interim plan is subject to the Trust’s whim, even with a 60-day comment period. If I win the suit and the Trust has to negotiate a settlement, the community will have a say and be able to get a court-ordered plan in writing.”
Reader Services
Also Read:
