CB1 Committee Shoots Down Tower in Seaport Development Plan

Gregg Pasquarelli of SHoP Architects presents a preliminary plan for many changes to the South Street Seaport, including a towering residential building where the New Market Building now stands. Photo: Carl Glassman/Tribeca Trib

The Howard Hughes Corp. revealed last month its long awaited but “very preliminary” plans to bring big changes to the South Street Seaport.

Speaking to a standing-room-only—and often angry—crowd in the Southbridge Towers community room, a Hughes Corp. executive and the project’s architect described a plan for a 600-foot-high residential tower that they maintain will help save the South Street Seaport Museum and its ships, rebuild and preserve the historic fish market Tin Building, create a marina and more.

“A tall building is what we’re proposing, showing you it’s necessary in order to satisfy a lot of wants and needs from the community,” Chris Curry, a Hughes Corp. executive vice president, told the meeting of Community Board 1’s Seaport/Civic Center Committee.

It was a statement that drew jeers and sarcastic chuckles from the room. The committee, and later the full board, voted to oppose the tower. 

"Even though we are going to have more dialogue, we are going to make our concerns very clear," said committee chair John Fratta. "At this point we are opposed to any type of tower on that site."

The proposed residential tower would be 50 stories tall and stand on a newly built platform at the site of the New Market building, shuttered since the Fulton Fish Market moved out in 2005. The architect, Gregg Pasquarelli of SHoP Architects, defended the demolition of the building, which he says is deteriorating and a "really dangerous situation." The building lies just outside the South Street Seaport Historic District and is deemed not historically significant by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the architect noted.

CB1 has passed several resolutions over the years calling on the city to extend the South Street Seaport Historic District to include the New Market Building—to no avail. The Landmarks Commission twice turned down the request.

The Tin Building, meanwhile, is in fragile condition and must be reconstructed to be saved, Pasquarelli said. Having suffered a fire, most of the "tin" is actually deteriorating fiberglass made to look like tin. The building, planned to house a food market, would be reconstructed 30 feet away from its present location, with an added second story. (The building, he said, has to be raised in order to avoid potential flooding, and moved both because its overhang sits just below the FDR Drive and to accommodate a continuation of the East River Esplanade through the site.) 

Pasquarelli put the cost of the Tin Building's "first-class" restoration at $45 million and the rebuilding of Pier 17, which he says is on the verge of collapse, at $50 million.

All told, he said, it would cost $125 million to $150 million to fund these and other projects, including a proposed marina. (The cost of saving the Seaport Museum was not mentioned.) He said the developer needs to build a 670,000- square-foot building to pay for it all.

Many in the room were of no mind to accept a tower in the heart of the Seaport. They asserted that a building of that height has no place on a site that is adjacent to the historic district.

"The tall tower that suddenly came on the scene doesn’t fit. It’s not appropriate to the context of the whole historic fabric of the neighborhood," said Diane Harris Brown, a Southbridge Towers resident.

Supporters of the Seaport's New Amsterdam Market and its founder Robert LaValva, a leading opponent of the Hughes Corp. plan,  held signs and grilled Curry about whether the New Amsterdam Market would have a role in the proposed project. 

"The New Amsterdam Market was invited to be a tenant in our Pier 17 renovation project and Mr. LaValva made it very clear, he had no interest in being a tenant of ours," Curry said. "And at this point, we have no interest in talking to the New Amsterdam Market about our new project."

Later, LaValva walked to the front of the room to explain his position.

"Yes, we were invited to be part of new Pier 17 mall, and I did decline that," he began. "The reason is very simple. We don’t think that this historic district should be led by a suburban shopping mall."

LaValva said he would call on the next city administration to "halt" the Hughes Corp. plan, which is being overseen by the city's Economic Development Corp. He said he wants to see the start of "a true master planning process."

As for now, a lengthy city review process lies ahead, with multiple public hearings and with land use and landmarks approvals needed.  That process is not expected to be completed before the spring of 2015.

Second Try for a Seaport Tower

In 2008, General Growth Properties, Howard Hughes Corp.’s predecessor, put forth a plan to erect a 500-foot, 42-story apartment and hotel tower at the site of the New Market Building, just north of Pier 17—an area that sits just outside the city-designated South Street Seaport Historic District. General Growth also proposed building a smaller hotel at the site of the Tin Building, which it proposed to move, along with a half-dozen low-rise retail buildings along Schermerhorn Row (the portion of Fulton Street between Front and South streets).

Numerous community meetings were held with General Growth Properties to discuss the tower, the most contentious aspect of the plans. In resolutions, Community Board 1 called on the city to protect the New Market Building by including it in the historic district—a request that the Landmarks Preservation Commission twice turned down. The General Growth project was eventually scrapped, around the time the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009.