The Tuesday meeting of Waterfront, Parks, and Development Committee of Community Board 1 (CB1) was the venue for a spirited discussion about the City’s plan to demolish a South Street Seaport structure that many preservationist believe has significant historic value, along with the process that led to this decision. All of which has inspired calls to revive a once-effective tool for incubating both consensus and transparency.
Committee chair Paul Goldstein began by noting that the New Market Building was erected in 1939, “as one of the original fish market buildings,” at a time when the South Street Seaport was the largest fish distribution center in the world. In 2013, the Howard Hughes Corporation, which has been designated by the City to redevelop the South Street Seaport, announced plans to demolish the structure and erect a 60-story residential tower there. This plan inspired bitter opposition among preservationists, community leaders, and elected officials, which eventually scuttled to proposal.
Even with the planned skyscraper’s cancellation, however, the New Market building has long faced an uncertain future. Years of neglect have compromised the structure, raising the prospect that it may collapse.
“It’s been a source of controversy for a number of years,” Mr. Goldstein recounted. “And the latest controversy is that we got a call from the Economic Development Corporation [EDC], informing us that they are planning to demolish the building.”
The EDC is the City agency that negotiates strategic partnerships designed to foster economic growth by harnessing public-sector resources to private-sector projects. It was EDC that selected the Howard Hughes Corporation as the developer of the South Street Seaport.
CB1’s Waterfront, Parks, and Development Committee chair, Paul Goldstein: “This is actually very consistent with a pattern that EDC has had in running the Seaport for a number of years. They do things behind the scenes, behind closed doors_ and do not inform the public about what’s going on until they make a decision.”
“In fairness to EDC,” Mr. Goldstein said, “we were aware that this building had structural issues, and that something had to be done, at a minimum, to stabilize it. But none of that stabilization took place. Instead, they came to us on January 3 and just told us, ‘okay, we’re pulling it down.'” He also noted that the building is listed in both State and Federal registers of historic sites, but does not enjoy City landmarks status, which means that it is not legally protected from demolition.
“This is a troubling development for a number of reasons,” Mr. Goldstein continued. “One is that we just heard about it and they didn’t consult with the community board prior to announcing this final decision.”
Second, Mr. Goldstein said, “this is actually very consistent with a pattern that EDC has had in running the Seaport for a number of years. They do things behind the scenes, behind closed doors, and do not inform the public about what’s going on until they make a decision. And it’s also my understanding that they treat our local elected officials in the exact same way. That they, too, are having an impossible time gaining information out of EDC.”
“We encountered this problem back in 2013,” he recalls, “when they initially sprang that 60-story building on the community and said, ‘oh we have a new building coming your way.’ They did that without informing us or consulting, or trying to be collaborative with the community. Instead, they just sprang it on us.”
“And back then,” he remembered, “the Community Board, working with the local elected officials, established a panel called the Seaport Working Group, a group that met for close to an entire year back in 2014, chaired mainly by the Borough President and City Council member.”
The Seaport Working Group (SWG), although it lacked any formal authority, did have significant credibility. Comprised of local residents, business owners, educators, neighborhood advocacy groups, and elected officials, it conferred with representatives from EDC and the Howard Hughes Corporation, formulating a series of recommendations and guidelines. The panel had a mandate to make recommendations prior to the City’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) process that was a legal prerequisite for any major development work in the Seaport.
Artist Naima Rauam’s painting of the New Market Building
and the Fulton Fish Market
Several of the SWG’s recommendations were subsequently been implemented, at least in part. These included the call for alternatives to the plan for a large tower on the site of the New Market Building, the resurrection of the South Street Seaport Museum, the creation of new local transportation options (such as the ongoing proliferation of ferry service along the East River), and fostering public access to the waterfront (which is taking shape in the gradual development of the East River Esplanade). Others proposals, such as formalizing an advisory role for community leaders in the development process, seem to have been largely ignored.
“It was a fairly effective body that put out a number of recommendations and principles to guide future development. One, of course, was that they would consult and work with the community,” Mr. Goldstein observed. “Well, here we are, three or four years later, and very little of that has happened.”
He also recounted another instance of the pattern: “With Pier 17 and the rooftop, EDC told us at the very last minute, ‘oh, we made many changes to the rooftop and all your open space has been turned into a concert hall, in essence.'”
He added that representatives from EDC had met with CB1’s leadership earlier that day, “and they were very apologetic. They gave us some helpful information about the state of the project with New Market Building, and what they said was that the building cannot stay the way it is, that it’s going to fall down if we just leave it alone. So therefore their recommendation is to knock it down.”
“I don’t think they considered alternatives to tearing it down,” Mr. Goldstein added. “Instead, they are applying for $3.5 million from the City to hire an engineer to demolish the building. At that point, they would have to get all kinds of approvals, from groups such as the State Historic Preservation Office, the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Buildings, and a whole range of agencies. That could not be until this summer. And if everything goes according to their plan, they would then knock down the building, beginning demolition in the fall.”
“We informed them that there’s opposition to demolishing this building,” Mr. Goldstein noted, “and that there’s concern about, if it does go through, what would replace it? Clearly people don’t want to see just another tall, out-of-scale building being proposed for the site. So, there are a lot of questions ahead of us. One thing we do want to move forward with is a resolution that calls for a far better, more collaborative working relationship with the EDC and the City to plan for the future of the site. And we’re also recommending that the Seaport Working Group be reinstated.”
This is not the first time that CB1 has called upon the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio to resurrect the Working Group. In April, 2016, CB1 enacted a resolution calling upon elected officials and City Hall to, “reconvene the Seaport Working Group with the goal of establishing a planning framework for consideration of future developments in the South Street Seaport.” This measure was ignored by City Hall.
When Mr. Goldstein opened the floor to discussion of the proposed resolution, Committee member Bob Schneck observed that, “the question for this community is do we have any ideas for how to employ this really remarkable, valuable space? If you leave it to EDC and Howard Hughes, I have a feeling I know what they’ll do.”
Mr. Goldstein concurred, saying “we need to hear ideas from the community for what people would want to see there if the building does come down. We have to have some ideas and not just say no to what the City proposes.”
Committee member Marc Ameruso asked, “what is the structure of EDC, with regard to having to inform the public?”
CB1’s Land Use Director, Michael Levine answered, “to the best of our knowledge there is no regulation regarding disclosure by EDC.”
“But the salaries of these people are paid by the taxpayers,” Mr. Ameruso pressed. “EDC is accountable to the taxpayers and they should not be planning projects in secret. We pay their salaries. Where the hell do they get off doing this when the taxpayers pay their salaries? Do they think they are their own corporation?”
“It’s ridiculous,” he continued. “I’m sick of this. The arrogance is disgusting when the taxpayers are paying their salaries.”
Committee member Wendy Chapman raised the concern that, “whoever the next developer is gets the City to pay for the demolition. Wouldn’t we want to advocate for whoever wants that space should pay for the demolition? It seems really bad that we’d be on the hook to demolish the structure.”
Mr. Goldstein noted that the Howard Hughes Corporation, “does have an option on this site, but they have not exercised it as of now.”
Ms. Chapman replied, “we should advocate that no public money gets spent on this site until it’s clear what’s going to be there. If it’s a public good — if we know it’s going to be a school or a community center — that’s one thing. But if it’s eventually going to be a private development, we shouldn’t be using public money to demolish it. That just doesn’t make sense.”
Committee member Laura Starr asked, “when that building is demolished, how high can they build on that site?”
Mr. Levine replied, “it depends on large a site a developer gets. EDC owns a substantial portion of that waterfront. They could sell a small portion where the New Market building sits, or a large parcel. The more they sell to a developer, the taller the building could be.”
Mr. Goldstein interjected that, EDC says they have no more plans for a high rise building. Take that for what it’s worth. But Borough President’s office was adamant that the City and the developer have heard the message that we, the community and the elected officials, will not tolerate something like that on this site.”
Committee member Bob Townley said, “having worked with EDC closely years ago, I think they’re going to sweeten the pot. This could be an example of the community board works at its best. There may be deal-making on this site, and that’s why they are not saying anything yet.” He added that formulating the outlines of such a deal, in which the community received some kind of civic amenity in exchange for agreeing not to oppose demolition of the New Market Building, and acquiescing to some kind of private development there, “would be a job for this Working Group. To see what’s acceptable, what’s not acceptable.”
Ms. Starr interjected, “Amen! It’s been too long since we’ve done this.”
Mr. Goldstein reflected that, “CB1 has a history of negotiating deals that have brought us schools, parks, and community centers.”
“This smells like that,” Mr. Townley observed.
“Well, we’d better get in the ring and do a good negotiation,” Ms. Starr concluded, “because we haven’t done one in a long time.”