Seaport tower plan is met with boos

 

 Image courtesy of the Howard Hughes Corp. Rendering of Howard Hughes Corp.’s plan for the Seaport. Image courtesy of Howard Hughes Corp.


I
Rendering of Howard Hughes Corp.’s plan for the Seaport. Image courtesy of Howard Hughes Corp.

By TERESE LOEB KREUZER AND JOSH ROGERS Originally posted Nov. 20, 2013 and updated Nov. 21 | Howard Hughes Corp. unveiled its plans Tuesday night to build a 50-story hotel and residential tower with a marina at the South Street Seaport. The presentation was met with boos and mocking laughter at a Community Board 1 meeting.

The board’s Seaport Committee had long feared the corporation was planning a large development at the Tin and New Market Buildings. Members of the committee and more than 150 attendees made it clear they did not like the proposal.

Both buildings were part of the old Fulton Fish Market, but only the Tin is in the city’s historic district. The New Market site has long been viewed by the city, Hughes and its predecessors as a prime development site, and it appears the Hughes Corp. would not need city landmarks approval for the tower portion of its plan.

The first detailed information about the Hughes plan surfaced in The New York Times in an article published online Nov. 18.

The next night, Christopher Curry, senior executive vice president for the Dallas-based developer, presented the plan although he said he was not ready to go in to too much detail since it was still preliminary.

Many in the audience held signs saying “Save Our Seaport,” “NYC is not for Sale” and “Don’t Block the Bridge.”

The proposed tower would visually dominate the nearby Brooklyn Bridge and the low-rise, 19th century buildings of the historic Seaport.

“A tall building is something we are proposing because we’re showing you that a tall building is necessary to satisfy a lot of the wants and needs in the community,” Curry said.

This remark was greeted with loud boos.

Gregg Pasquarelli, whose firm, SHoP Architects, designed the shopping mall for Hughes now under construction on Pier 17, outlined the financial pressures that he said led to the inevitability of a high-rise tower in the Seaport.

“We want to be incredibly transparent and we want to show you what we’re thinking about,” Pasquarelli said.

The crowd responded with derisive laughter.

Pasquarelli showed slides of deteriorated pilings under the Tin and New Market buildings.

“Between 80 and 90 percent of the original piles are deteriorated beyond repair where they cannot carry the load,” he said. “About 50 percent of the repaired areas are failing as well. It’s so badly deteriorated that it is not possible to fix it from underneath anymore and it is a huge expense to rebuild these piers.”

He estimated that it would cost $50 million to fix the pilings and another $45 million to repair the Tin Building, which suffered a fire in 1955 and has been empty since the Fulton Fish Market moved to the Bronx in 2005.

“Right now, 95 percent of the façade is actually fiberglass that was replaced in the 1990s to simulate the old, historic building,” he said. “We want to rebuild it with the real tin and make it the original colors.”

Pasquarelli said that additional money would be needed to enhance the esplanade that runs through the Seaport and to build a marina next to the proposed tower. The total cost, he said, would be between $125 million and $150 million.

He and his firm have been working for Hughes and its predecessor at the Seaport, General Growth Properties, for years.

Five years ago, he designed a 500-foot tower for the area. At the time, they proposed restoring the Tin Building and moving it to the east end of Pier 17.

But the plan did not advance far and General Growth ended up filing for bankruptcy.

Under the current plan, which would require Landmarks Preservation Commission approval, the Tin would be elevated to five feet above the flood plain, one story would be added, and the building would be moved around 30 feet closer to the East River.

The building would house a food market under a commitment that Hughes Corp. made earlier this year as part of the approval to demolish and rebuild a new Pier 17 mall. It would be open seven days a week.

The proposed food market would not be run by Robert LaValva, who helped organize the meeting’s large turnout and is the founder of the New Amsterdam Market, held in a temporary, outdoor setting under the F.D.R. Drive.

“The New Amsterdam Market was invited to be a tenant in our Pier 17 market and Mr. LaValva made it very clear that he had no intention of being a tenant of ours,” Curry said. “At this point we have no interest in talking to the New Amsterdam Market about any project.”

The crowd responded with loud boos.

Moments later, LaValva came to the front of the room to huge applause.

“Yes. We were invited to be part of the Pier 17 mall,” he said, “and I did decline that and the reason is very simple. We don’t think that this historic district should be led by a suburban shopping mall.”

The crowd applauded loudly.

LaValva asked how many people were in the room because of the New Amsterdam Market. Many hands went up.

“I’m only asking,” LaValva continued, “because it’s clear that over the years we have grown a citywide audience and a Lower Manhattan audience that understands and recognizes the unique values in the site that is the South Street Seaport.”

He said that the value had to do with the buildings that are there and the placement, uses and height of the buildings.

“We also understand,” he continued, “the significant problems with this site. It needs structural repairs that are huge and are not easy to solve. That being said, what we don’t agree with is the process.”

He said that the Howard Hughes Corporation was acting as though it had an unassailable right to the Tin and New Market Buildings because of its options on these structures, when in fact the options are far from binding.

He asked for “a real master-planning process,” which is something that the community board has also been requesting for a long time.

Addressing Curry, who was standing near him, LaValva said, “I saw the presentation just now and it was terrific but it was all unraveled backwards from the point that you want to get to [a high-rise building] and we have no reason to take everything that was said [based on] your word and frankly, especially on the part of Howard Hughes because you’re not known to be the most honest and honorable of people.”

The crowd applauded.

It’s not yet clear how the project will be viewed by the incoming de Blasio administration, which will play a key role in advancing or nixing the plan.

At the meeting , John Fratta, chairperson of the Seaport Committee, had asked Curry, “In the event that we reject the tall building and that the City of New York miraculously agrees with us, what happens to your plan?”

“I can’t answer that,” Curry replied.

As the discussion concluded, Fratta said, “We have a concern about the towers and even though we’re going to have more dialogue, we want to make our concerns very clear – that at this point we are opposed to any type of tower on that site.”

The C.B. 1 committee unanimously approved a motion opposing a tower on the New Market site.

Fratta said that there would be a town hall meeting some time in January at which members of the public could ask questions and express their concerns about proposed development at the Seaport.

C.B.1 chairperson Catherine McVay Hughes, who is not connected to the corporation, attended the meeting but did not indicate initial support or opposition for the project.

Although she was quoted in the Times article, saying “We understand that in order for it to succeed and provide community amenities, it needs to be economically viable,” she told Downtown Express that her quote pertained to the Pier 17 project and not the latest proposal.

Councilmember Margaret Chin did not attend the meeting but issued a statement expressing “serious concerns about the prospect of a high-rise tower in the South Street Seaport…. I expect the developer to engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue with the community to ensure that any development on this site preserves the unique character of the Seaport. We also want to work toward incorporating much-needed public amenities that reflect what residents want to see in their neighborhood.”

On Wednesday, the Hughes firm issued a press release outlining support from the leaders of business and labor organizations including Robert Douglass, chairperson of the Downtown Alliance, who said, “The South Street Seaport area is in need of continuing revitalization after Superstorm Sandy. The Howard Hughes Corporation’s plan for Pier 17 is an extraordinary piece of that revitalization,” bringing “even more residents, tourists and excitement to Lower Manhattan.”

Gale Brewer, newly elected Manhattan Borough President, attended the C.B. 1 Seaport Committee meeting but did not speak. In March, she was the only City Councilmember to vote against the Hughes firm’s Pier 17 plan.

Some attendees came with protest signs.. Downtown Express photo by Terese Loeb Kreuzer.

Some attendees came with protest signs.. Downtown Express photo by Terese Loeb Kreuzer.

Gregg Pasquarelli, a founding partner of SHoP Architects, and Christopher Curry, executive vice president of The Howard Hughes Corporation, presenting Hughes' plans for the South Street Seaport to Community Board 1's Seaport Committee on Nov. 19. Downtown Express photo by Terese Loeb Kreuzer

Gregg Pasquarelli, a founding partner of SHoP Architects, and Christopher Curry, executive vice president of The Howard Hughes Corporation, presenting Hughes’ plans for the South Street Seaport to Community Board 1′s Seaport Committee on Nov. 19. Downtown Express photo by Terese Loeb Kreuzer

 

Spread the word:

12 Responses to Seaport tower plan is met with boos

  1. Should you have any questions as to how this tower will look — just walk over to the corner of William and Beaver Sts. The enormous black & yellow tower is actually smaller than what is being proposed by Hughes for this proposal.

  2. One of the most articulate and persuasive speakers at last nignt's CB1 meeting was Robert LaValva, founder of the New Amersterdam Market. His 'street cred' has long been established by his creation of a beloved neighborhood institution–a true gathering place for farmers and city folk, residents and visitors. LaValva remarked that a glass-box suburban shopping mall, plus a gigantic tower, will contribute nothing to the authentic and historically rich diversity of the Seaport area.

    The Howard Hughes developers appear to be driven by the profit motive, unadorned, with no regard for the value of this unique landmark community. The 'bait and switch' plan was proceeding under the cloak of secrecy until our neighbors rallied. The arrogance displayed by the developer was completely consistent with their record of ignoring the needs of the community. This plan would rescue some rotting piers at a very high cost — the desecration of a one-of-a-kind remnant of Manhattan's nautical past. Let's put an end to 'sweetheart deals' for these carpetbaggers, and listen to the wisdom of a true local hero, Robert LaValva.

  3. This design (tower and Pier 17) is really pretty pathetic. So "nowhere", it could have just as easily been intended for the Mississippi River at St Louis, or the harbor in Seattle, or Tokyo Bay. Did they even bother to take a cab ride through the area before composing this image? I have to imagine that this is a "negotiating" depiction, in which Hughes intentionally puts in things they fully anticipate negotiating away. That silly marina looks like something they cut off a subway poster, then Photoshopped onto their Powerpoint deck, during the cab ride to the presentation.

    I realize we're far down the process, but given what is being proposed — it seems that altogether eliminating Pier 17 and restoring the Tin Shed would serve the best interest all of NYers. All except those standing to directly profit (Developer, Retailers and crooked pols) Not gonna happen, I know — but it still seems like the better option.

  4. Where is LaValva's wife in all this, she is high ranking at EDC? And why did he turn down the opportunity to run the market in the building Howard Hughes Corp. offered him? He clearly has an ulterior motive if he's not that keen on giving his market and all those people that sell from there a solid home. Don't trust a wolf in sheep's clothing.
    He has a lovely market but its in the wrong location eg. falling into the river along with the rotted pilings it sits on.

    • LaValva's wife works for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation — not for EDC. At the Community Board meeting, LaValva explained why he had turned down Howard Hughes' offer to put his market on Pier 17 in the Link Building. "The reason is very simple," he said. "We don’t think that this historic district should be led by a suburban shopping mall." His idea and his vision go beyond just having a food market. He wants to preserve the entire historic Seaport district.

      • Sorry – that's not really an explanation. Its an excuse. And one that again does nothing to further an air of collaboration – that could potentially result in a permanent home for the vendors of the market, a place to work, and sell their goods. I don't think that is what Lalvala is really about – and I'm not alone. On another note he 'wants to preserve the entire Seaport district'…that is sweet but I do believe that falls under the Seaport Museum's mission.

        • Doris,

          There is a good reason. LaValva’s vision is one outside the common boundaries of capitalism. I have been a vendor at the market and I can tell you this -if NAM were to become a tenant of the Hughes Corp, it would be about 5 minutes before guys like me would not be able to afford the stall fee. Do you realize how low the stall fee is under LaValva’s stewardship? If you are a food startup, you are losing money. It takes years to get going properly. If this becomes a proper capitalistic enterprise, there will be no room for those folks trying new things, doing every part of the business themselves just to keep it going. No, what you will have is corporate food that tries to look like something more valuable. NAM needs a home that keeps new ideas coming in from local people. How great is that to be able to knock on the door with a small idea and get a public venue to give it a go. How unlikely is that at NYC rents.

          • Frank; great point although we are simply talking about very different things. I wish you all the business success in the world. I am simply speaking as a local long time resident of the seaport district an outdoor market 4 or 6 times a year does nothing to fill the void of a 7 day a week year round market open 365 days a year providing an abundance of local produce. To support my growing neighborhood and local families a market within the 'boundaries of capitalism' is just what we need. The prices at your market also do not reflect what you suggest are low stall fees for vendors. Heirloom apples sold at many dollars a pound is a special purchase at an event – not a sustainable weekly way of shopping for produce – unless your customers are coming via car service from Carnegie Hill.

  5. Hughes only reason for offering vendors a locale on Pier 17 is towards their own end (removing an obstruction towards making their case for a 50 story tower). Long term, the vendors are not on Hughes radar screen. But give Hughes their way now, and build the tower — where do vendors possibly go after Hughes squeezes them out. Providing a locale for vendors is wholly towards Hughes benefit, because it is in their mission statement, towards building a 50 story tower. Eliminate the resistance — that's the Hughes game plan.

  6. Just say NO to the Hughes Corporation. Their idea is about money, not history. No seaport on the East Coast
    of this country has been torn apart. Investigate the Mystic Seaport. It is a place of great beauty and the
    history of whaling. No high buildings are even suggested at this seaport. It remains as it began, a beautiful historic
    place to visit……..and yes, tourists come, enjoy and the seaport raises its own money. South Street Seaport
    could do the same without the Hughes Corporation.

  7. I still have quite some doubts about this tower, I hope they will find the right solution in the end.

  8. a state of the art indoor/outdoor market like Pike Place Market in Seattle…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


8 − six =

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>