Loggia Loggerheads

The Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises opened when chairman Donovan Richards invited City Council member Margaret Chin (whose district includes the Water Street corridor) to speak. Ms. Chin said, “I live in Lower Manhattan and I know this increasingly residential area lacks restaurants, grocery stores, and other amenities that make a neighborhood vibrant seven days a week. However, in a City where open space is at a premium, it is important to consider the significance and the precedent it may set by making it easier to infill similar spaces in other parts of the City. We must ensure that residents of the financial district receive the maximum benefits in exchange for the loss of any publicly accessible space along Water street.”

In essence, the plan envisions turning over the arcades to the owners of the Water Street buildings in which they are located, so that the spaces can be reconfigured as storefronts. In exchange, these building owners would be required to upgrade the open plazas in front of their towers, and invest in resiliency measures that would harden the skyscrapers against flooding. (Both the arcades and the plazas were created when the buildings were constructed, in exchange for allowing the structures to rise higher, with more floor space, than otherwise would have been legally permitted.) Supporters of the Water Street proposal view this as a pragmatic and equitable quid pro quo. Critics decry it as a giveaway of public space for private profit.

	Margaret Chin

Ms. Chin was followed by Jessica Lapin, president of the Downtown Alliance, which has played a leading role in formulating the Water Street proposal. “The corridor is home to over 19 million square feet of office space, more than the World Trade Center and Brookfield Place combined; more than downtown Pittsburgh,” she began. “It is also home to a growing residential population, which has increased by 122% since 2000. In almost any other American city, it would be the premier central business district. But it doesn’t look or function like one today.”

“One of the reasons,” she observed, “is the poor quality of the street’s high concentration of privately owned arcades — covered walkways designed to enhance pedestrian circulation — and private plazas. This dense concentration doesn’t exist anywhere else in the city, which is why this unique area needs a unique approach. This isn’t about setting a precedent, but righting a planning wrong.”

Jessica Lappin

Ms. Lapin continued that the Water Street proposal creates, “a clear process and a rigorous set of design guidelines governing plaza upgrades. It would require owners to create and maintain meaningful open space if they choose to fill in arcades. That could mean nearly a quarter of million square feet of improved public space for the neighborhood. That would have an immeasurable positive impact on the area.”

About the arcades, Ms. Lapin predicted, “creating attractive new retail that’s close to the street would make the area brighter, safer, and greatly improve existing conditions for struggling retailers. Today, stores are set back and hard to find.”

Subcommittee chair Donovan Richards asked Ms. Lapin, “how can we reassure the public that this is a fair trade?” She replied that the proposal, “gives the public much more than it takes away,” adding, “after 40 or 50 years of living with these spaces and having them not be the public amenity that they were meant to be, in an area that does need retail, we can use the small amount of arcade space to meet that goal and enliven the street.”

Mr. Richards pressed, “how do we compare and contrast how much the building owners stand to benefit from building out the arcade space versus upgrading the plazas?” Ms. Lapin replied, “we can’t put a dollar amount on it.” This caused Mr. Richards to observe, “I’m not seeing where the public is actually reaping a huge benefit from developers perhaps building out a plaza. Is this a fair trade for the public? That’s the million-dollar question that we’re going to be raising as we move forward.”

Council member Antonio Reynoso asked for further clarification: “The money generated from the commercial development — who would it go to? The property owner?” Ms. Lapin answered, “correct, after they make the investment to build out the commercial space, and make the buildings meet requirements for flood-proofing, and make the substantial investment in the plazas themselves.”

Mr. Reynoso added that the building owners, “have yet to invest in their own properties and the public plazas, which they can do now. You want to give them something, when they done absolutely nothing, they haven’t given us anything back. If anything, we’ve lost in giving them the extra floor area.” He continued, “we’re renegotiating something that’s already been negotiated and moving the goal posts to where the community benefit is being lost. I don’t think we should be giving a benefit to people I’m pretty sure are doing pretty well and could improve a public plaza on their own.”

In a reference to the developers who originally accepted the terms of public space in exchange for being able to build larger office towers, Mr. Reynoso said, “these folks didn’t take it upon themselves because they are good people to create public spaces for the City of New York. No one here is doing us a favor, but we’re doing them a favor by moving the goal posts, which would now lead to an increase in private property and more income to building owners who have done nothing to improve these spaces.”

Ms. Chin said, “I live in this area. A lot of those plazas are not being taken care of. Many are very bare and some are not kept clean. The property owners have not lived up to their agreement.” Envisioning new retail space in these buildings, she asked, “how do we prevent big box stores from coming in? That’s not what the community wanted. All the surveys said small stores.”

State Assembly member Deborah Glick submitted written testimony, which said (in part), “while these plazas may need improvements, this could be accomplished with more creative use of these spaces. We should not be relinquishing more than 110,000 square feet of public land for the profit of a private business. Although I agree with enlivening pedestrian arcades with lights and seats, as suggested, this amendment would allow leases to be granted for commercial use in what had been public space. This runs counter to the original agreements, short-changes the community, and impacts the quality of life for the growing number of residents in lower Manhattan. This is an unacceptable change. Public spaces should remain public.”

After elected officials were finished speaking, members of the public were invited to comment. Chuck Delaney, a resident of 76 Pearl Street, said, I’m an arcade user. I use them every day. My kids scooter under 85 Broad. Arcades have a tremendous public benefit.”

	Alica Blank

Alice Blank, an architect who serves on Community Board 1 (as co-chair of the Tribeca Committee), said, from how Water Street has been presented recently, someone unfamiliar with the neighborhood would think they were entering a hellish environment with its ‘windswept, moribund, cavernous, bleak, and smoke filled corridors,’ a place where no developers would spend a dime. That presentation has misled the public.” Saying that, “the time has come for specifics and not uninformed generalizations concerning the fate of these public spaces,” she asked, “where is the financial analysis showing the value of the land at each arcade and the compensating public benefit? We cannot give away hundreds of millions of dollars in real property rights without any understanding of this value and without answers to these critical questions.”

Patrick Kennell

Patrick Kennell, who chairs CB1’s Financial District Committee (and also serves as president of the newly formed FiDi Neighborhood Association) offered a contrasting perspective. The area, he said, “has largely become a residential community. Gone are the days of the 5:00 pm ghost town. Except for one important area: Water Street.”

Disputing the characterization of the proposal as overly generous to building owners, he argued, “it’s not a complete giveaway. It’s giveback to the community — to the residents and the office workers. It’s a balancing test. The arcades simply aren’t working, and on balance, they can be put to better use for this community.”

“It’s true that the arcades originally were carved out decades ago as part of a deal between the City and developers,” Mr. Kennell noted. “But through no fault of either side, that deal simply isn’t working for the new FiDi, which has become a vibrant, 24-hour residential neighborhood. This plan is something the residents of FiDi, especially in the immediate areas surrounding the Water Street portion of the Special Lower Manhattan District, want to see happen and want to see succeed.

After two hours of debate and deliberation, the Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises appeared to be convinced of one thing: It needed more time to consider this issue, and hear from the public. Mr. Richards closed the session by saying, “we are going to lay over this application until the next regular Subcommittee meeting on May 17 at 9:30 am and give members of the public another chance to testify at that time.”