Developer's Plans for Seaport Historic District Spark Passions on Both Sides
.jpg "The lot at John and South streets, looking north, part of Schermerhorn Row, where Howard Hughes Corp. propose to construct a new building to house the Seaport Museum and some below-market housing. Credit: SHoP Architects")
.jpg "Current view of the empty lot at South and John streets. Credit: SHoP Architects")
.jpg "Proposed view beneath the FDR Drive at South and Beekman streets showing the design for pavillions proposed for under the drive. Credit: SHoP Architects")
Some 350 people packed into St. Paul's Chapel Wednesday night, with about 70 of them taking the microphone to weigh in—pro and con—on Howard Hughes's development plans within the South Street Seaport Historic District.
It was the biggest crowd yet to speak out on the developer's controversial $300 million proposal, and the most diverse mix of opinions in what will be a continuing and lengthy approval process.
This meeting was a required appearance before Community Board 1's Landmarks Committee, which will issue a recommendation on the plans' appropriateness to the district. Among those plans, to be considered by the Landmarks Preservation Commission in January, are a reconstruction and glass addition to the historic Tin Building, pavilions and lighting beneath the FDR Drive and a new building on Schermerhorn Row at John Street.
Missing from the discussion is the target of heated controversy: a nearly 500-foot-high residential tower that is not under the jurisdiction of the Landmarks Commission because it would stand just outside the historic district.
The community board will issue a resolution following a second meeting next month. But several members noted their misgivings.
Landmarks Committee chair Roger Byrom took issue with the developer's "piecemeal" approach, presenting the historic district portion as separate from the overall plan, which includes the tower on what is now the site of the New Market Building. From the start, Byrom said, the committee had wanted to see a master plan for the entire district. Breaking it up makes it difficult to evaluate the plan's suitability for the Seaport as a whole, he said.
“While all these pieces are very nice, individually,” he said, “how do we retain that sense of place? I have some doubts about that.”
“When I look at this, I really get the feeling of Las Vegas,” said Seaport Committee member Paul Hovitz, to the applause, cheers and whistles of many in attendance. “I don’t really get a feeling of the old Seaport.”
Seaport and Landmarks Committee member Jason Friedman told the Hughes Corp. representatives that he was not fond of the 5,000-square-foot facility planned for Pier 16, which could house one of two new structures for the Seaport Museum.
“I don’t like the non-programmed pavilion that’s supposedly for the museum,” he said. “But who knows what they’re doing? So I wouldn’t want to put another building out there that doesn’t seem in style with either the Tin Building or the [new Pier 17] mall.”
Member Una Perkins was dissatisfied with the entire proposal, arguing that it does not belong in the South Street Seaport.
“To me, it seems as though you want to build a whole different city,” she said. “It’s not indicative of the Seaport as far as I’m concerned.”
The public was mixed in their opinions. Many wore bright yellow and blue T-shirts with a Howard Hughes-branded design that read, “Support the Vision for NYC's Original Waterfront District.” Everyone wearing the shirts was invited to the Seaport’s ice rink for free skating, and free food and drinks at the nearby Ambrose Hall.
Blocks of support came from speakers representing union, real estate and business interests.
Ann Kayman of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, who lives and works in the Seaport, tagged a personal response to the end of the prepared statement she read on behalf of the Chamber.
“Frankly, ever since I remember, the South Street Seaport, as beautiful and historic and iconic as it is, never really worked,” she said.
Dan Ackerman, the chief of staff for the Downtown Alliance, said the developer’s plans provide a much-needed boost for the deteriorating Seaport that the city could not afford to provide.
“The Alliance recognizes major capital investments are needed to protect the historic legacy of the Seaport and to sustain it moving forward,” he said. “Any investments must respect the historical integrity and enhance the vibrancy of the area.”
Denise Courter, a mother of two who runs the FiDi Families blog, praised Hughes Corp. for turning the Seaport into a more local family-friendly place.
“One of the things that we really were lacking was that sense of community and places to go, things to do with our kids in our own neighborhood,” Courter said. “[Now], we do not have to leave our own neighborhood.”
Other residents as well as business owners were very divided in their opinions of the plans.
Diane Honeywell, the owner of The Nelson Blue on the Seaport, which was shuttered after Hurricane Sandy, agreed that the developer’s plans would revitalize the area.
“I am hopeful that we can work with Howard Hughes to open up the quarters to my neighborhood and bring in more life,” Honeywell said. “Howard Hughes has reached out to me on many occasions and I feel that they are truly trying to work with our community.”
But Joanne Gorman, a member of Save Our Seaport, had several concerns. Among them was the extension of the East River Esplanade, which she argued is being done to accommodate the residents of the proposed tower.
“[It’s] not [for] the pedestrians who would now have another street to cross on their strolls up and down the river,” said Gorman, whose T-shirt carried the message, “Just Say No! No Tower!”
Another speaker, Chris Cobb, urged the supporters of the plan not to be fooled by the developer’s promises of benefits to the community.
“I’m here to say that this is not philanthropy, and you guys are framing it as that,” he said. “They’re investing and they’re going to get a return on it. They’re going to get a big return.”
The second Landmarks Committee meeting on the Hughes Corp. plans will take place on Jan. 5, at 6 p.m., at the National Museum of the American Indian. At that meeting, which will be public but will not include public comment, the Landmarks Committee is expected to pass a resolution favoring or opposing the plans.
Here is what they will be considering:
-
The historic Tin Building would be dismantled and reconstructed, with an additional floor, 30 feet back from its current location, away from the FDR Drive so that there is space to lift it above the floodplain. (The additional floor would be a community space with some kind of cultural programming. The bottom two levels would hold a food market.)
-
The storage structures will be removed from the already under-construction Pier 17.
-
A mechanical screen will be added to the top of Pier 17 to hide the air conditioning units placed there and protect the 60,000 square-foot rooftop field. A weather-shielding canopy will also be placed on the pier.
-
The Link Building, located just to the west of the now-demolished mall, would be torn down as well.
-
Pavilions and nighttime lighting will be added under the FDR Drive.
-
The East River Esplanade will be extended through the Seaport to the Brooklyn Bridge, a $53-million project.
-
Sixty to 70 below-market and 150 market-rate apartments are proposed to be built on the historic Schermerhorn Row block. A new building at South and John Streets could accommodate some of that housing, a relocated Seaport Museum or a community center.
-
A new 5,000-square-foot building would be built on Pier 16 that could house the museum.
-
Brightly colored signs will be placed around the district to help visitors find their way around.