Our Hudson River Waterfront is on the verge of being overshadowed by oversized development enabled by the same agency which created such an exceptionally beautiful park along the river. On Wednesday evening, November 13, the Greenwich Village Society made the first presentation to discuss the possible negative impacts of recently passed amendments to the Hudson River Park Act. Chairperson Andrew Berman gave a carefully prepared and well-illustrated description of one of the most threatening changes, the transfer of air rights, otherwise referred to in both the NYC Zoning Law and the amended Hudson River Park Act as “unused development rights” from anywhere in the 490 acre park into anywhere one block east of the park from Chambers to West 59th Streets.
The 490 acres of the park is entirely a Hudson River estuary, not buildable land. The recent amendments to the law by a very generous legislature have allowed the Hudson River Park Trust to spur development of an additional 200 acres along five miles of Hudson River waterfront. Not since the days of Robert Moses has so much power been given to so few. “They are building on top of a disaster zone,’ exclaimed Marcy Benstock, director of the Clean Air Campaign. “No other city in the country transfers air rights to flood prone zones.”
Mr. Berman’s presentation showed what could result from the transfer from Pier 40 alone of 730,000 sq ft of floor area to the St. John’s Terminal site across West Street. (Actually, my analysis of the built floor area of Pier 40, including the deck, shows that it not only has no unused rights, but is overbuilt by some half million sq ft) On the screen appeared towering Trump SoHo buildings looming over the park, far higher that the three 16-story Richard Meier buildings to the north which were built as-of-right without such a generous transfer. “What our state legislators need to know,” he added, “is that they have created the problem which they must correct.” He said that the area slated to receive air rights should be downzoned before it receives them. “This could be seen as a precedent for all parks, leading to high building walls around all our parks,” added another speaker, “a scary thought indeed!”
To understand the concept of air rights transfer, we need to step back and remember the underlying purpose of zoning is to control building use, placement, and size. This is done by establishing a ratio between the usable floor area of a building to that of the lot on which it sits. This is called the floor area ratio(FAR). Zoning law contains limits on FAR, and in the case of contextual zones, height as well. It basically defines and in some cases protects the character of a neighborhood. The difference between the built floor area and the allowable floor area is referred to as “unused air rights” as described in the first paragraph above. Most ordinances place strict limit as to how far these rights can be transferred. The recently passed amendment contains no such limits within the one block wide receiving area east of West Street. It could be over two miles away.
As Assemblymember Richard Gottfried, an author of both the original act and the amendments, assured me, nothing can happen until the City Planning Commission prepares a comprehensive plan for the area and the Mayor and City Council adopt a new zoning district embodying the air right transfer provisions and change the zoning of the receiving area. Local community boards will weigh in on the geographic limits of both the sending and receiving areas before they becomes legally established. It is essential that limits be placed on both the sending and receiving areas and the number of years the process is allowed to proceed. One has only to look at Riverside South to see what the Trust may have in mind. In an email of November 11, Ms. Benstock stated, “Zoning in a river is not a sensible conceptbecause there’s a night and day difference between water and dry land. Grand Central Terminal (which has unused transferable air rights) is on dry land. Rivers are supposed to be public waterways, not zoned land.” The zoning law refers to it as “land under water.”
When I asked our State Assemblypersons if they could tell me the extent of unused air rights in the park,no one could. On inquiry, I learned that the members of the Trust did not approve the language that was inserted into the law, only the concept. It is clear that the legislators do not understand the full implications of the law for our community.
Richard Gottfried did not know that the newly adopted provision will leave the city and state who own the park land with the bill for all future storm damage, though they will not receive one penny of the over $20 billion that could be earned over time from the sale of all unused air rights over the entire 490 water acres. This is based on the low balled estimated value of $600/sq ft provided by most knowledgeable architects.
Felix Salmon in his Opinion Piece, November 22, describes the buyer of these high-rise waterfront apartments “paying $100,000 per square foot for your spectacular view,” adding that “you (the buyer) feel that it is yours. You will donate money to it, you’ll improve it – and,since most philanthropy these days has a transactional element to it, you’ll expect something in return.” Though I don’t share his pessimistic paranoia, this is a process which should be watched carefully for the impacts it will have on our community.
