Division Over Seaport Development

Community Board 1 passed two diverging resolutions on the Howard Hughes Corporation’s proposal for development in the South Street Seaport Historic District last Tuesday. HHC is proposing the construction of a pair of 470-foot towers consisting of a mix of affordable housing units and market-rate condos as well as designs for a new building for the beleaguered South Street Seaport Museum – but the board is only recommending the plans for the museum move forward.

In one resolution, CB1 urged the Landmark Preservation Commission – which must review the project because the zoning law regulating the historic district states buildings can be no taller than 120 feet – to approve plans for the museum slated for 173-69 John Street; but in a second resolution, the board asked for the LPC to reject the proposal for residential towers at 250 Water Street, saying the towers are “self-evidently and completely out of scale and inappropriate” with the rest of the district. It is unlikely, however, for one project to be built without the other, as the museum’s fate has been tied to HHC’s plan for 250 Water Street.

The community board’s review was the first step in what will be a lengthy vetting process, as it heads to the LPC and the Economic Development Corporation for approval. HHC will also have to go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. The LPC review will be a pivotal point in this process as the commission has rejected nine previous development proposals for 250 Water Street, with all such rejections relating to the outsized scale, size, mass and volume of those proposals.

During Tuesday’s meeting, opponents and supporters went back and forth arguing their respective positions during public discussion.

Supporters say the project would bring much-needed housing, including 100 affordable units, to the neighborhood. They also said it could bring more business and prosperity while making use of a parcel that currently functions as a parking lot – which many supporters called an eyesore in the community. Additionally, one of the most galvanizing points for supporters is that the project is an opportunity to save the museum with the $50 million HHC has earmarked for the museum in its proposal. In the museum’s view, the money would not allow only for it to open for the first time since Hurricane Sandy, in 2012, but it would also ensure its longevity.

“In my view, proposed developments in the seaport will create a stronger South Street Seaport Historic District, one that has as intended a strong seaport museum as its beating heart. It’s hard to find a clearer definition of ‘appropriateness,’” said Captain Jonathan Boulware, president and CEO of the museum, during the meeting. “It will support to a stronger New York City, and it will create long term stability for the museum without which both the district and the city will be poorer.”

Shadows from Towers

Opponents wholly disagree on the issue of whether the design is appropriate for the historic district, where the current tallest building is 100 feet. One opponent called the proposal a “behemoth.” Another said the height and bulk of the towers would ruin the “ambiance” of the historic district. Others wanted further studies how shadows cast from the towers would affect the neighboring buildings, including Peck Slip School, which sits right at the doorstep of 250 Water Street.

Opponents also expressed a deep skepticism in regard to HHC tying funds for the museum to the 250 Water Street project, saying it creates a false choice that the HHC project is the only way to save the museum. The Seaport Coalition, made up of local grassroots organization, has offered alternative ideas to fund the museum. Additionally, since the $50 million HHC said it would invest in the museum would not necessarily fund constructing the new headquarters – $10 million would be used to renovate the existing building and the rest would be put in an endowment – critics say they have doubts that the designs for the building would ever materialize in physical brick and mortar.

“This is not a choice between a parking lot and a building. It is not a choice between a parking lot and funding for the museum. There are other sources available,” said David Sheldon, who said he’s been a volunteer and member of the museum for 20 years. “What is proposed to us this evening is wholly inappropriate, it will dominate and overshadow everything around it.”

A couple supporters of the project addressed the skepticism among critics, saying HHC had stuck to their word in other projects in the Seaport and believed they would follow through with the museum.

“I think the anger and the ire, the righteous indignation that I’m hearing in this resolution offends me, and I think that we have a very good partner right now,” Tom Berton, a member of the community board, said of HHC, citing Pier 17 as an example of a “promise kept.” Berton, who has worked for HHC in the past and recused himself from the resolution votes, said he believes the board was making a mistake by urging the LPC to reject the Water Street proposal. “I see this as giving so much back to our community that we’ve wanted desperately for so long.”

Mariama James, another board member, said the board should consider HHC’s character as a company, adding that the corporation has proven to hold the right values.

“By all definitions of the word, HHC is an outstanding example of diversity in a severely lacking district and should be at the top of any list of developers here where public assets are involved and approvals are necessary,” said James.

The LPC is expected to review the proposals for Water and John streets in January.