CB1 Committee Critiques Hudson River Park Plan

By Ronald Drenger

A week after the concept plan for the Tribeca portion of the Hudson River Park was publicly unveiled, Community Board 1’s Waterfront Committee closely scrutinized the plan at its June 6 meeting, supporting many elements but rejecting key components of the designs for Pier 26 and the strip of land between Pier 26 and Pier 32.

Committee members said the designers of the park’s Segment 3, which extends from Chambers Street to Pier 40 at Houston Street, were trying to do too much in the available space and they called for more open space and easier public access to the water. The committee approved a resolution laying out its concerns and asking park planners to revise their designs.

The Hudson River Park Trust, the city-state agency overseeing the park’s development, and its designer for Segment 3, Sasaki Associates, had presented their preliminary plan at a public meeting on May 30 (read "A Lively Waterfront in Store for Tribeca". Sasaki came up with its design after consulting with CB1 members and others in the community.

Under the plan, much of Pier 26—close to 30,000 square feet—would be devoted to what the designers call an "estuarian transect," a series of ecological zones mimicking the natural progression from water to land along the river’s edge, and to a "science learning lawn." Both areas, devoted to environmental research and education, would be observable from a path running along the pier’s perimeter but closed to public access.

Committee members said that too much space was allocated to programs that could not regularly be used by the public. And most of them questioned the usefulness and feasibility of the "estuarian transect."

"It’s a silly, artificial idea," said Nancy Owens, the committee chair, echoing other comments.

Pier 26 would also include a boathouse and a marine biology station, larger than The River Project and the Downtown Boathouse, the current facilities. There would also be a restaurant and an 11,000-square-foot public lawn. While Sasaki has not presented design details for the restaurant, the committee recommended a small, casual place that would be inviting to all the pier’s users.

Most of the other criticisms were aimed at Sasaki’s vision for an ecological preserve, with native grasses and other plantings, on the land between Pier 26 and Pier 32, from Hubert Street to Watts Street. In most of the Hudson River Park, which will extend from Battery Park to 59th Street, an 18- to 20-foot-wide pedestrian esplanade runs along the water’s edge. But Sasaki proposes to bring it inland in this section along a gently winding route. An eight-foot-wide path would run along the water, with boardwalks connecting the two routes.

Committee members felt strongly that the wider path should run along the water, where they said most people like to walk. CB1 member Albert Capsouto also complained that the design, which includes long rows of trees running parallel to the shoreline, would require pedestrians entering the park from Tribeca to take circuitous routes to reach the river.

"If I’m walking down Hubert or Laight or Vestry Street, I want to be able to walk straight to the water," he said.
Capsouto and others went so far as to question the ecological focus of Pier 26 and the stretch of park north to Pier 32.

"The whole concept of having this environmental thing I think is misplaced," said Capsouto. "It might be very good up in Westchester, but in Downtown Manhattan, you have to maximize the number of people who can have access to the water. An environmental component is okay, as long as it doesn’t come before human use of the waterfront."

Owens, a landscape architect, was more supportive of the landscaping, but agreed that the plan "needs to be reworked."

The committee was pleased with much of the preliminary design for Pier 25, which includes a large artificial-turf playing field, sand volleyball courts, a miniature golf course and a children’s playground.

Bob Townley, director of Manhattan Youth, which runs recreational programs on Pier 25, recommended that the playground include a sandbox and open play areas, but not fixed equipment. And he said there should be more open space on the piers.

"There’s no hang-out space on either pier" Townley said "I think the piers are both over-developed. The designers feel that they have to put stuff there."

"I like the way it is now," agreed Capsouto, referring to Pier 25. "There’s a lot of usable space where people can walk around on the pier."

Townley also suggested including a community art space on Pier 25, "a place where artists can come to paint or sculpt."

The full community board will vote on the committee’s resolution at its June 18 meeting.

The design for Segment 3 still a has long way to go before it’s finalized. The design committee of the park’s community advisory council will discuss it at a meeting on June 19, and the full advisory council will take it up in July. The Hudson River Park Trust board of directors must also eventually give its approval.

Sasaki is scheduled to present a more refined plan in September, followed by more public comment, and won’t finalize the designs until September 2003.

"This is part of the process," Judy Duffy, CB1’s assistant district manager said of the June 6 Waterfront Committee meeting. "The architects are working on it, but it’s all still very preliminary."