Washington Sq. Park: Remembering Shirley Hayes & Conservancy Concerns

An aerial view looking south in the summer of 1935 shows doubledecker buses using the park for a turnaround and kids using the fountain for a swimming pool.  In the early sixties then Co-district leaders Ed Koch and Carol Greitzer symbolically pushed the last bus out of the park, a victory for the community.  (Photo: NYC Parks Department) 

Manhattan

By Carol Greitzer

Well, we’re all getting older. But while some of us gripe with our peers about our ailments, the newest octogenarian, The Villager, keeps going, as sprightly and energetic as ever. 

For this article, The Villager asked me about cars parked in Washington Square Park. I don’t remember such parking, though, of course I do remember cars driving through the park, and Fifth Ave. double-decker buses using the park as a turnaround.

And I particularly remember the night (about 11:45, 1962 or ’63) when Ed Koch and I symbolically pushed the last bus out of the park. Perhaps The Villager has the photo in its archive. I can’t find it, though I know it exists. Getting the buses out of the park was probably the last chapter in the fight to keep the park closed to traffic — a fight whose many battles made the front pages of The Villlager quite often back then.

All of which leads me to set the record straight on one aspect of that fight. I’ve noticed lately that people — elected officials included — attribute the leadership to Jane Jacobs. Jane, of course, participated in that effort, as did most activists in the community. But though she was undoubtedly the leader in the fight to keep Robert Moses from designating (and ultimately bulldozing) part of the West Village as a Title I urban renewal area, and though she was the acknowledged leader and inspiration in the campaign to stop the Lower Manhattan Expressway (a.k.a. the Broome St. Expressway,) from being built, she was not the leader in the Washington Square fight. That title indisputably belongs to Shirley Hayes, a park mother who, with Edith Lyons, back in the ’50s organized other mothers and started the loud — and, yes, sometimes strident — protestations about the cars, the fumes, the dangers of allowing cars and buses in the middle of a heavily used park. Once this campaign began to steamroll and look as if it had a chance to succeed, several other people (mostly men) formed their own group so as to present a more “respectable” approach to city officials, in contrast to Shirley’s stridency, which was what aroused their interest in the first place!

My goal is to make sure Shirley’s role is not forgotten. She didn’t raise money; you won’t see her name inscribed on some piece of park furniture, but she did something of major impact. Without her leadership and persistence, Washington Square Park would not be the place it is today. At the very least, there should be a plaque recognizing her efforts, like the plaque on the fence at Jackson Square acknowledging the Armani contribution to improvements at that park.

In the end, many Village groups united in obtaining park improvements, as chronicled over the years in The Villager’s coverage of park news, right up to the recent Oct. 3, 2013, issue, which featured an article on the park’s new conservancy. Perhaps an authentic history of the park could be compiled from the clips of these 80 years of your coverage. Or would you rather hold out for 100 years?

In reflecting on these past events it occurs to me that we’ve evolved, but not necessarily for the better. Back then, with three distinct political forces — an active Republican club, Carmine DeSapio’s Tamawa Club and the emerging Village Independent Democrats — we managed to get together, albeit heatedly, on community issues. Now, there are four women, well-intentioned though they may be, who appear to be in charge of the park, working officially with a park employee.

A major problem with conservancies is that there are no ground rules. Conservancies pop up suddenly, but with some connection to the Parks Department commissioner; they are said not to be really in charge — yet they have a status denied to other park users. There are hundreds, even thousands of people who feel passionately about this park, but now are confused about their role and the conservancy role. If there’s a problem, who does one go to? The conservancy? The community board? The Parks Department? Our elected officials?

It doesn’t have to be this way. Other cities enjoy a closer relationship between the public and park managers. Many cities have monthly meetings where people can tell park officials how they feel. Baltimore has a public advisory council; Minneapolis has direct election of park commissioners; Chicago is currently querying citizens as to what they like and don’t like about their parks and how they want park funds to be spent. Chicago, incidentally, pays for parks in a unique way, one we might learn from. There is a Chicago Park District, an independent taxing authority that raises money exclusively for parks. Chicago is said to spend more per capita on parks than any other city in this country. New York City, by contrast, spends less than one half of 1 percent of the budget on parks, even while acquiring more acreage to manage.

Bill de Blasio, who seems likely to become our next mayor, has said that he wants to empower individuals and to involve communities. The Villager can celebrate the start of its ninth decade by asking our next mayor whether he might implement these and similar ideas to give all park users more of a say about their parks.

So happy birthday! Let’s blow out the candles and make a wish.

Greitzer was a New York City councilmember from 1969-91, representing the Village and other Downtown areas. Prior to that she was the Village’s Democratic district co-leader with Ed Koch. 

Read More:

We won the battle for the square,  but now are we at risk of losing it again?

The Villager - October 17,  2013 - By Carol Greitzer 

Pier 40 Residential Development Not Going To Fly - The Villager Editorial

"...the Hudson River Park Act of 1998 doesn’t allow housing in the park — and for a very good reason. This is a park: It’s about open air and unbroken vistas."  

Reality Settling In. The Pier 40 Champions plan includes two 22-story residential towers - which would apparently be see through according to the renderings - is be sited at the foot of the West Houston St  pier according to the proposal. What little political and public support the plan had is fading fast. 

Manhattan

More than 400 people turned out for a major forum on Pier 40 last Thursday evening. David Gruber, chairperson of Community Board 2, convened the forum and did an admirable job moderating it, and is to be commended for his efforts, according to an editorial in The Villager.

Much information was shared, and we all learned a lot. The major stakeholders had their say, including the backers of two competing concept designs for the pier: Douglas Durst’s adaptive reuse plan and the Pier 40 Champions’ proposal for two 22-story residential towers to be sited at the foot of the massive West Houston St. pier.

But last week’s forum, in our view, is just the beginning of what must necessarily be a carefully considered and ongoing dialogue. In short, the issues confronting Pier 40 are not going to be solved overnight — and are not going to be solved, for that matter, in the next seven months or the next 10 months.

Residential use has been pushed by the Hudson River Park Trust, the state-city authority that is building and operating the 5-mile-long park. Yes, residential could be the so-called “quick fix” that the Trust is looking for. It is after all the “highest use” in New York — the type of project that generates the most revenue. And revenue is precisely what’s needed to repair the 50-year-old former Holland-America shipping pier. But the Hudson River Park Act of 1998 doesn’t allow housing in the park — and for a very good reason. This is a park: It’s about open air and unbroken vistas. The park act wasn’t created overnight, nor should it be modified overnight.

(And, honestly, how many people are really going to want to live right next to a major athletic venue, with kids cheering wildly early on weekend mornings and adult leagues playing into the night under the lights? Residents would soon be asking to restrict the pier’s hours, etc.)

The Trust has been lobbying aggressively to open up the park act to allow a wider range of uses — chief among them being residential. But once residential is allowed, the die will have been cast. The Trust will put out a request for proposals, R.F.P., and guess which proposal will win? Residential, of course, since it’s the highest use. And that will be that. We will have massive towers on the waterfront — with the threat of only more to come.

As Assemblymember Deborah Glick has stated repeatedly, development pressure on the waterfront will never abate — even, seemingly, in a post-Sandy environment. This despite serious questions about whether we should now even be building in the flood zone, which Pier 40 is definitely in.

Madelyn Wils was brought in as president of the Trust only about a year and a half ago — in other words, very late in the game. In 10 months, New York City will have a new mayor, and the Trust itself may very well be overhauled, as a result.

Wils comes from the city’s Economic Development Corporation, where she spearheaded major building projects, like the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area plan. SPURA was a major achievement and Wils did a tremendous job, along with Community Board 3, in pulling it off,  painstakingly working to achieve community consensus. But Pier 40 and Hudson River Park are not SPURA, and there is hardly consensus in our community on residential use in the park — far from it.

Yes, without a doubt, the Lower West Side has experienced an amazing youth sports boom, and Pier 40, with its huge courtyard artificial-turf athletic field, is our youth sports mecca. The field was created on an interim basis after the first R.F.P. for Pier 40 failed in 2003. A second R.F.P. for the pier, in turn, failed in 2005. Meanwhile, the pier’s field has become an icon of the community, a family-centric safe zone where kids and parents congregate and experience a healthy, almost small town-like environment in the big city. It’s a wonderful thing, and it needs to be safeguarded.

All of Downtown and Lower Manhattan is starved for park space, in general. That’s a reality. We all want to save the sports field on Pier 40. But the pier — despite the Trust’s steady drumbeat of pronouncements — is not ready to sink into the river. In fact, as Durst has said, if repairs are started on Pier 40’s corroded piles now, the overall price of the repairs will be significantly less in the long run. And Durst’s cost estimates, in general, for the pier are far below the Trust’s. Durst is a pro, he’s not making up fantasy financials.

More to the point, there is simply no political will — really, almost zero — to allow residential in the park. Assemblymember Glick, new state Senator Brad Hoylman and state Senator Dan Squadron all have said they don’t support it.

And now, this week, in major news, Council Speaker Christine Quinn has added her voice to the mix, telling The Villager she also opposes residential use in Hudson River Park — though she does support saving Pier 40’s field, as well as creating more sports fields in the park.

For his part, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is simply not going to go up against Glick, a part of his trusted inner leadership team and whose district contains the pier.

With Quinn’s statement, reality finally seems to be setting in, at least for some people. Tobi Bergman, a leader of the Champions effort, appears to have accepted the reality.

In a statement to The Villager on Wednesday evening, Bergman said, “Champions was never about residential development. We are about public open space and fields. We see a big win in the Speaker’s statement. For the first time, part of Pier 40, about 25 percent, will be designated for park use, and there’s a commitment to build more fields to meet the needs of a growing community so every child can play. We still have to figure out how to pay for the repairs needed to keep the pier open, but Champions are eternal optimists and team players, and we are ready to join a bigger team to get it done.”

It’s now time for the Trust to join that “bigger team” — to work with the community to find a solution we all can live with. But when we asked the Trust if they will now drop the plan for high-rise towers at Pier 40, they sent us a statement that indicates that Wils will still push for a legislative change to allow residential use in the park. The Trust’s statement said, in part: “In order to protect the future of the pier and achieve long-term sustainability for the park as a whole, the legislation needs to allow for as many options as possible because the park cannot afford another failed R.F.P.”

The word “quixotic” comes to mind. Again, yes, residential could be the easy quick-fix — but it’s not right for the park for so many reasons. The Champions and Trust have worked hard toward this one solution, but it’s simply not the right fit. Worse, it would be a major mistake. SPURA was a win-win. Twenty-two-story towers at Pier 40, however, would be a disaster.

It’s now time for the community to come together, as a “bigger team,” as Bergman said. The Trust’s fear-mongering about the pier, the manipulative riling up of local parents against our elected officials, is simply not constructive. We agree with Glick and others that incremental fixes can be made in the meantime while some acceptable, sensible ideas are worked out.

One good idea, for example, that we support is for a charrette, as the Trust did a few years ago, soliciting design concepts for the pier. New York City is full of so many creative, dynamic people — we’ve got to be able to come up with more than two plans for Pier 40.

Also, people need to stop seeing Douglas Durst as some sort of obstacle to saving the pier. He’s one of the city’s top developers — and, most important, he’s deeply committed to this park. He was, until recently, chairperson of Friends of Hudson River Park and has done a tremendous amount for the park, in terms of projects and fundraising. He’s got good ideas on how to save Pier 40, so let’s take advantage of his deep expertise in construction and development projects. The city’s administration will be changing in 10 months, but we feel pretty confident that Durst’s interest in the park won’t be going away. His knowledge is valuable. He needs to be part of the “bigger team” that can save Pier 40 and Hudson River Park. We hope that the Trust will be part of that team, too.

So, again, let’s scale back on the crisis-mode fear-mongering, and let’s get back to thinking — as a community — about how we can solve Pier 40. And the park act must not be opened — and it won’t be opened — until there is consensus in our community and our elected officials are onboard. To try to fight that realty in the last 10 months of Bloomberg’s last, lame-duck term — we just don’t see the point. Tone down the panic, anger and the hype, and let’s calmly work toward a constructive solution that we all can live with.

Again, do we really want 22-story towers on our unspoiled, glorious waterfront, towers that will be there for 100 years looming over the pier and the park?

There’s no emergency other than that which the Trust is creating. We need to think this through a little more carefully — make that, a lot more carefully.

Read More:

Pier 40 reality 

The Villager - Editorial  -  March 7, 2013