Virtue Signaling

When Do Sustainability, Handicapped Access, and Public Art Become Something Else?

Community Board 1 (CB1) is taking a dim view of a plan by the owners of a Financial District office tower to appropriate almost 400 feet of public space for a new entrance.

At CB1’s April 30 meeting, Laura Starr, who chairs the Board’s Land Use, Zoning & Economic Development Committee, explained that the owners of 88 Pine Street, also known as Wall Street Plaza, “want to create more expansive, ADA- [Americans with Disabilities Act] compliant doors.”

As the debate by committee members began, she said, “If they are taking away plaza space, then give something back to the community in exchange for that. It also wasn’t clear that they needed to take that much space for doing what they are trying to do.”

CB1 member Joe Lerner interjected, “they already have an ADA entrance,” and suggested that the owners are trying to expand their property on public space.

Both “88 Pine Street” and “Wall Street Plaza” are misnomers, as the building is not located on Pine Street or Wall Street. The front door actually opens on to Water Street, between Maiden Lane and a part of Pine Street that was de-mapped from the street grid to facilitate the building of the plaza. The name “Wall Street Plaza”appears to be an exercise in branding.

The plaza is a so-called “privately owned public space” (POPS). This amenity (along with those in many nearby buildings) was created as a result of zoning regulations in the 1960s and 70s that were intended to encourage builders to add public benefits to their plans, in exchange for which they were allowed to erect taller, bulkier skyscrapers.

The new entrance would protrude toward Water Street. The building’s owners are also proposing a new, large sculpture of the number 88 at the entrance, which CB1 describes in a resolution on the matter as “effectively a marketing tool.” The owners say that the new entrance is necessary for energy-efficiency and sustainability upgrades. When asked whether they would commit to upgrades to the remainder of the plaza, as compensation for the space being taken away, representatives of the building owners said only that they would “take that back” to senior executives.

In the resolution enacted at the April 30 meeting, CB1 noted that while the Board “is in full support of energy efficiency and accessibility… the proposed project lacks sufficient necessity, because the current entrances are compliant, and lacks sufficient benefit to the community.” The measure urged the City’s Board of Standards and Appeals to veto the project.