Tom Fox knows a thing or two about Hudson River Park. He was the founding president of the Hudson River Park Conservancy — and he’ll even have a book published about it this spring called: Creating the Hudson River Park, Environmental and Community, Activism, Politics and Greed. Tom shares in this op-ed why Pier 76 and the stretch of Hudson River from W29th Street to W44th Street should become the park it was originally conceived to be.
The continuing effort to pave paradise for economic development, under the guise of generating critical long-term Hudson River Park funding, threatens to undermine the public use and enjoyment of a magnificent waterfront park that we’ve worked for 40 years to create. Rather than continuing to sell pieces of our park to the highest bidder, the city and state should implement the funding recommendations made when the Hudson River Park was first envisioned.
Instead of planning more real estate development projects in the park, Pier 76 should be rebuilt as critically needed public open space. For the past two decades the Trust has misled elected officials and the public, by insisting that economic development in the park is required to make the park self-sufficient.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the late 1980s, the city and state were in dire financial straits and struggling to support their existing parks. Real estate developers had various plans for projects along the Hudson River. The West Side Waterfront Panel, which proposed the creation of the park in 1990, recommended a three-part financing formula to accommodate real estate development interests, justify the park’s construction and support its long-term care:
- City, state, federal, and philanthropic funding — common in most park financing. ✅
- Allowing park-related commercial development at three locations where there was 4 million sq ft of space, at Pier 40, Chelsea Piers and Midtown Maritime district from Piers 81-86 (not Pier 76), and retaining the revenue from those solely for park use. ✅
- Establishing a special assessment district or another mechanism to capture a portion of the increased real estate value in the adjacent neighborhood, up to 1,500 feet from the park, that would result from a major public investment in a new waterfront park. ❌
However, pro-development forces were undeterred. As recently as 1993, the NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC) proposed Hudson River Center, a 40-story hotel and residential complex on Pier 76, to help fund the proposed park. Carl Weisbrod, the consultant guiding the current planning effort, was then president of EDC which championed that project.
The 1998 Hudson River Park Act limited economic development projects to the three designated areas while dedicating all funding generated within the park solely to Park use, which set a precedent at the time. The city and the state initially pledged $265 million towards the park’s construction. However, they failed to develop a viable mechanism to secure a last critical element in the funding formula, designed to support self-sufficiency.
Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki objected to sharing any of that revenue and the Bloomberg administration added insult to injury by rezoning the entire West Side from transportation, warehousing and manufacturing use to commercial office and residential development — yet refusing to develop a mechanism to capture a portion of increased real estate value to support the Hudson River Park. Bloomberg redirected the public revenue windfall created by the park to his pet projects such as Governors Island and Brooklyn Bridge Park, while insisting that the Hudson River Park was required to be self-sufficient. Without that third source of reliable funding, park construction and maintenance soon began to falter.
By 2004, the original Friends of Hudson River Park began to document the impact of the first completed segment of the park. Their study confirmed the projections made by the West Side Waterfront Panel. The $75 million public investment in the park on the Greenwich Village waterfront increased the value of adjacent real estate, within three blocks of the park, by $200 million.
In 2008, the original Friends proposed a Neighborhood Improvement District (NID) with an annual fee of $0.075 per square foot to secure long-term funding for the park. It would include residential property owners but have a minimal impact on family budgets, because a 1,000-square-foot condominium owner would contribute just $75 a year to support the park.
The Trust initially said “make it happen” but the situation changed drastically by 2011 when former EDC employees assumed control of the Trust’s leadership positions. The original Friends had generated $100 million for the park through private fundraising, advocating for increased city, state and federal funding, and suing city agencies that refused to leave the waterfront as required by the Act.
Yet Hudson River Park executives Madelyn Wils and Diana Taylor forced the original Friends to reorganize, and the reconstituted Friends became a fundraising arm of the Trust. They formed a 29-member Task Force chaired by Carl Weisbrod, now at HRA Advisors, to examine funding challenges and explore solutions. The Task Force recommended multiple amendments to the Act in 2013 that increased economic development in the park. The Trust dropped the NID initiative, insisted that economic development in the park would support self-sufficiency, and private fundraising would help fill the park’s funding gap on an annual basis.
The reconstituted Friends is complicit in the deception, stating “Hudson River Park is not a city run park and relies on private funds for its operations, maintenance and free public programing” on the banners they posted celebrating the park’s 25th anniversary. From April 2022 to April 2023, Friends’ IRS 990 filings show a little over $2 million was donated to the park, while $300,000 was spent on the Executive Director’s salary. That’s a far cry from $13 million the NID was projected to generate by 2023 without the need for any increased real estate development in the park.
Many suspected that the Trust and Friends abandoned the NID because it would add an independent party to the park’s financial decision-making. In 2020, the Trust again hired Carl Weisbrod to analyze various economic development options and they were rated by reliability, revenue potential, equity and feasibility. A rebranded Park Improvement District (PID) received high ratings in every category except feasibility, because “HRPT would not be able to form or control a PID. This would need to be controlled by an external party.”
The report also stated that adjacent Business Improvement Districts in Hudson Yards Hell’s Kitchen, the Meatpacking District and Hudson Square generate $9.6 million in annual fees, yet failed to mention that none of that funding is shared with the Hudson River Park, even though adjacent residents and corporate tenants benefit tremendously from the open space, recreational opportunities and access to the river. That situation must change.
Parks pay for themselves through their contributions to sales, employment, real estate taxes and the city’s quality of life. They enhance air quality, absorb noise pollution and reduce street, home and highway flooding by retaining and absorbing storm water. They support tourism and make the city a more desirable place to live, work and visit. We must return to the initial vision for a magnificent public park on the West Side waterfront and stop selling off pieces to the highest bidder.
The 2020 amendment to the Act requires at least 50% of the pier to be public open space. That’s the minimum, and redeveloping 100% of Pier 76 as public open space is consistent with the Act! It’s time to stop unnecessary economic development projects in the park and focus on creating a Park Improvement District to ensure the Hudson River Park’s long-term survival. It’s time to stop kicking the can down the road and address the funding issue head on instead of nibbling the park to death with development.
The best place to start providing critically needed public open space for the Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen neighborhoods would be to remove the heliport and illegal private bus parking in front of the Pier 79 Ferry Terminal and complete the upland park and esplanade between W29th and W44th Streets. However, Friends accepting donations from heliport operator Blade complicates the effort to remove the heliport.
Tom Fox was a Westway opponent, a citizen appointee on the West Side Task Force and Waterfront Panel, the founding president of the Hudson River Park Conservancy, a board member of the original Friends of Hudson River Park and currently represents the City Club of New York on the Hudson River Park Advisory Council. His first-person history Creating the Hudson River Park, Environmental and Community, Activism, Politics and Greed will be published by Rutgers University Press on April 12, 2024.
Tom says “That’s the minimum, and redeveloping 100% of Pier 76 as public open space is consistent with the Act!”
But this is incorrect. Under the Act as originally drafted in 1998, only 50% of Pier 76 was to become part of the park. The other 50% would have been retained by the City. It was never envisioned that 100% of Pier 76 would become public open space.
Of course, it would be a great if 100% of the pier could be public open space. But without the political will to create a NID to benefit the park, the funding has to come from somewhere.
Tom loves to sling arrows at Madelyn and Diana for their stewardship of the Trust and Friends, and he hasn’t stopped even though both of them have been gone for a couple of years now. But the political will to create a NID shouldn’t come from the Trust – it should come from the local politicians: Glick, Simone, Rosenthal and Hoylman – and they have shown NO interest in doing so. After all, when has a politician ever won a campaign by raising taxes?
I think reviewing the link to the 2020 amendment of the Act provided in the article, could have clarified some of Mr. Jacobs misconceptions. The Act clearly states that “at least 50% of the Pier 76 footprint shall be used for park uses that are limited to passive and active open space”. Many of us hoped that Pier 76 would be redeveloped as public open space as we the drafted and negotiated the 1998 Act even though the city jealously protected the NYPD tow-pound there.
If Madelyn Wils and Diana Taylor were “stewards” of the park they’d receive my praise and thanks. The many heroes, from all walks of life, who’ve contributed to building our incredible public park are recognized and celebrated in my upcoming book. Wils and Taylor amended the Act to exploited the park for economic development, allowed private car clubs to usurp public space at Pier 76, tolerated NYC DOT’s illegal bus parking lot at the Pier 79 Ferry Terminal, support the retention of the heliport, extended commercial leases in the park to 99 years, introduced commercial office development and a night nightclub at Pier 57 and allowed water taxi dock to be built on Pier 25 for Citigroup, on whose board Diana served, without consulting CB 1, the HRP Advisory Council, or their own board of directors.
They insisted that the original Friends, an independent watchdog and protector of the park, become a lapdog to “do the bidding of the trust”, as Madelyn is quoted saying in the linked NY Times article. Their primarily focus was economic development that benefits special interests rather than the trust’s main mission – building and operating a public park. It’s unfortunate that the reconstituted Friends has never petitioned the city, state or federal government for increased funding for the trust. Especially since, during the pandemic, Friends solicited donations to support city parks, which I thought was odd.
While I’m thankful that Madelyn has left, unfortunately, Diana has not. She’s the chair of the reconstituted HRP Friends that paid their executive director $300,000 last year to raise the $2 million they donated to the park. Some of us thought that preventing the establishment of the Park Improvement District was the trust’s initial intent in killing Friends as an independent watchdog.
I agree with Mr. Jacobs that the trust cannot establish the Park Improvement District, and neither can Friends as an arm of the trust. However, members of the Friends board of directors could be an important asset for the Hudson River Park if they joined with city and state elected officials and other stakeholders to demand that the Park Improvement District finally be established.
I love the park and my family has enjoyed countless hours biking, playing and hanging out there. I know this sounds crazy, but the one thing we felt it lacked were good places to eat! It would be nice to have a few more outdoor cafes and low-rise restaurants that could provide both income for the park and services for the many people who use the park.
The park resources should be aimed to enhance the quality of life for residents and not used to develop yet another tourist attraction. Pier 76 has been great for skaters, dancers and musical events as it is, it certainly is not the most inviting place with all of the concrete and pillars, but the large open space could be better developed to accommodate activities of residents while creating more green space for us all. It should not be developed for commercial use.
Pier 76 needs to provide 100% Open Space Outdoor Recreation use for all adjacent local & NYC residents, as well as for Tourists looking for a quality lifetime experience within the Hudson River Park! Partial Commercial development use for Pier 76 is a detriment towards the original intentional use of the Park! It is imperative that all parties, politicians, & individuals need to put aside their own selfish goals & develop a sound feasibility document that will achieve 100 % Open Space usage for Pier 76. As a retired National Park Service Senior Manager, who worked at Gateway National Recreation Area throughout Greater NYC Metro area for 20 years & managed the Ellis Island Reopening, I had the pleasure & honor to provide assistance & early thinking for Tom’s initial efforts in developing the Hudson River Park.
Mr Fox – you’re making stuff up. Yes, the 2020 amendment which finally got rid of the tow pound required 50% open space/park uses. Yet the part of your piece I quoted said that 100% open space was consistent with the Act. In what way is 100% open space/park uses consistent with a provision that says a minimum of 50% open spaces/park uses, and the original provision which maintained 50% of the pier for the city?
OK, now let’s address your criticisms of prior Trust leadership:
1) When the lease with the Classic Car Club was signed, Pier 76 still belonged to the city, as the tow pound was still in place. The Trust generated revenue from a portion of a pier they did not control.
2) Pier 79 is not legally part of the park, and thus not under the Trust’s control.
3) Pier 57 has slated to be a park/commercial pier since 2005, thus the offices and lease with City Winery (not exactly a “night club” in the usual view of that term) are completely consistent with the Act.
4) The Trust has never taken a position on the heliport. Community activists have tried to remove the heliport but State elected officials have never taken action on this. Place the blame where it belongs.
5) 99 year terms are standard in the real estate industry for commercial leases. This is not unique to the park. And if you accept that that the Act calls for commercial uses at designated piers (I know you don’t and that’s ok, but it’s also not the Trust’s fault), 99 year leases were necessary.
Our understanding of the Hudson River Park’s history, and our visions for the future of the waterfront differ considerably. Your misunderstanding may result from the fact that the Trust does not provide access to any historic information about the park, except what they choose to highlight. I’ll respond to your specific insinuations here. My new book comes out in April and after this, I’ll let the book answer any other queries you may have.
1) Instead of generating revenue with a private car club exclusively for wealthy patrons who drive fancy cars, the trust could’ve made that space an indoor public recreation facility for the local community if public benefit rather than money were their goal.
2) Pier 79 is not part of the park, it was built by NYC EDC, and is under the jurisdiction of NYC DOT. The 1998 Act limits buses serving the terminal to a pickup and drop off (PUDO) lane at the front of the terminal, not daytime, and overnight parking for a private bus fleet in a public park. There’s absolutely no reason why the park should subsidize a private ferry operator’s parking while precluding public use of the esplanade for the last 10 years. Had you read the link to the Hudson River Park Advisory Council’s letter to the NYC DOT Commissioner Gutman requesting it removal you would understand that.
3) The initial RFP for Pier 57 was let in 2005 and by February 2008 the RFP was withdrawn. In October 2008, the trust received responses to the new RFP with a 49-year lease and selected Young Woo Associates, who proposed an international marketplace (a commercial use I considered consistent with a public park). However, by 2014, Young Woo Associates failed to implement its proposed “Super Pier” development even though the 2013 amendments to the Act allowed commercial office development on Pier 57 and extended the lease to 99-years.
With a new lease term and a new allowed use the RFP should’ve been re-drafted to maximize the return to the public. However, Madelyn and Diana allowed RXR Realty, with Seth Pinsky NYC EDC’s former president and Madelyn’s former boss, to join the development team with no public review or input. Commercial office space, was then expanded but Anthony Bourdain, failed to implement his marketplace plan, which was planned part of the redevelopment, so the pier was developed as a commercial office building. BTW City Winery has a 350-seat concert hall with a 150-person loft, a hundred-person restaurant and tasting room, and a winery on the pier. Seems like a nightclub to me.
4) The heliport is only there because Related pressured the Trust to keep it there as they were developing Hudson Yards, which provides no support for the park, even though it was probably the park’s open space was a justification in there, environmental impact statement.
5) While the 99-year lease may be common and real estate development. The trust is responsible for developing a public park. There’s obviously a reason why, a 99-year lease was not allowable until the trust amended the Hudson River Park Act.
By the way, I strongly supported commercial development at the three “nodes” of development recommended by the West Side Waterfront Panel and actually helped NYS DOT negotiate the initial Chelsea Piers lease in 1994.
re (4): ‘the Trust has never taken a position on the heliport’. FYI: the original Friends was the main plaintiff in the 2007 successful NY Supreme CT Settlement No.116581/07 against HRPT mandating its full closure by 2014. 17 yrs ago! At the eleventh hr, Wils/Taylor, with Richard Gottfreid’s sponsorship amended that Settlement to the dustbin. Since HRPT did comply with the Settlement’s closure of tourist flights, that would disprove HRPT claims of non juridiction over the Heliport. They own the 30 day lease.
For 25 yrs, the Trust has poisoned park users, its own employees (esp adj Compost Center workers), and community volunteers with 600 lbs/hr of helicopter exhaust to ensure Wealth’s flying privilege.
Electeds have submitted numerous (lame) Fed and State bills to control helicopter use.
For your interest, the Trust gave the VIP Heliport a Covid rent deferral, written and signed by HRPT’s Dan Kurtz Aug 3 2020, to ensure Wealth’s flights to safe estates -while the rest of us choked on that foul tarmac in the midst of a respiratory pandemic.
As you may know, the Trust Board opens each meeting with its royal proclamation; “The Board does not entertain comments or questions from The Public”.
Jim, you prove my point – it is the STATE that wants the heliport to remain open. If they wanted to shut it down, it would be easy to amend the Act to get rid of it.
It’s entirely possible that the State wants to keep it under pressure from Related. But the bottom line is, the heliport is still there, and if Hoylman and Simone had the will, they could shut it down the same way they got rid of the tow pound. By passing legislation.
Russell,
Actually, my point is that the Trust has de facto jurisdiction beyond its appointers. Its closure of tourist flights in 2008 was proof- as was its recent rent deferral and the back room defeat of the 2007 settlement. The Trust can take unilateral administrative action and end its lease with the heliport in 30 days.
Instead of operating like a C Suite corp with no public contact, the Trust could use its ‘advisory’ position, with the Advisory Council, advisory Community Boards, plus electeds to go fully public with their combined social media and press contacts. Advice can be activism and public leadership if it loudly publicizes action countering those whose hands are on the throttle of our environmental trainwreck.
Unlikely as it sounds, all of toadies above could join the brave protesters at the Heliport last Fall in real action like ongoing picketing at the heliport. Frankly, Hoylman, Simone, Gottfried, and Brewer are, at best, acquiescent to Wealth.
I’m sorry that my initial response was not clear, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. As of 2020, the city’s possessory interest in Pier 76 was transferred to the Hudson River Park Trust. The 2020 amendment to the 1998 Act that facilitated the transfer required that “at least” 50% of Pier 76 be developed for public open space.
Had it said “at most, or no more than, or a maximum of 50%” of Pier 76 will be developed as public open space you would be correct. You read the amendment as an obstacle where I see an opportunity an opportunity. I’d rather focus on how to maximize public benefit at Pier 76. Unless you support a particular type of commercial development there, we should all work together to interpret the legislation in the public’s favor, ensure Pier 76 is improved as a magnificent public open space for active and passive recreation, and establish a Park Improvement District to support the park.
Tom, I love the way you shift your arguments every time you’re called out on factual inaccuracies/inconsistencies. This is why nobody listens to you.
You seem to be listening Russel. Sorry the facts are inconvenient. Trivial insults won’t make your case any stronger. Over, and out.
I looked at the 2020 Amendment to the HRP Act and it says “Pier 76 shall become part of the park and shall remain part of the park under the operational control of the trust and following redevelopment at least fifty percent of the Pier 76 footprint shall be used for park uses that are limited to passive and active open space and which shall be contiguous to water; and provided further that the remaining portion shall be for park/commercial use.” There is NOTHING that says part of the pier MUST be used for commercial use and quite frankly, Hell’s Kitchen deserves to have a large grass covered pier similar to Chelsea Cove and Pier 63. How is it that the majority of the “park piers” are located in the southern portion of HRPK and the commercial ones are clustered up here in the northern portion? Who in their right mind would argue that this space SHOULDN’T be 100% park in an area that has so few green spaces to begin with? Our community deserves to have this space. Perhaps the Trust should have thought twice about giving away a 99 year lease to the Intrepid for $1 if they truly wanted to ensure they had funding for long term maintenance – what a missed opportunity that was for an organization that earned $4.8 million on “rental property income” in 2022 and paid their executives a combined $4.2 million…
I agree with one of comments. More eateries. McDonald’s, Popeyes, Burger King or anything reasonable and profitable. Next try dog parks, our furry friends do like Astro turf and grass.