http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/newsnov08/seaport.html
CB1 Backs Moving Historic Building, Demolition of Pier 17 Mall
By Matt Dunning
OCOTBER 31, 2008
Whether General Growth Properties will survive the economic storm gathering against it remains to be seen, but that did not stop the mega-mall developer from pushing forward in the approval process for its massive South Street Seaport redevelopment plans.
After weeks of debate, the company got a big boost on Oct. 28 when Community Board 1 narrowly voted to support key components of the company’s bid to rebuild the Seaport, including the relocation of the 101-year-old Tin Building and demolition of the Pier 17 mall.
“It’s been a rough couple of months, but I think we’re moving in a good direction,” said Michael McNaughton, a General Growth vice president. “Overall, I think there’s a general sense of optimism.”
Earlier in the month, General Growth made its initial presentation to the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, seeking its approval to move the landmark Tin Building to the end of Pier 17. The company wants permission to tear down the existing shopping mall in order to erect four two-story retail buildings and a cantilevered, 120-foot-high boutique hotel in its place.
The company’s plans also include a 42-story hotel and residential tower on the site of the New Market Building, next to the Tin Building, but its construction is not subject to the Commission’s protection because it lies outside the South Street Seaport’s historic district.
Twice—at a Landmarks Committee meeting in September and again at an emergency meeting on Oct. 15, six days before the beginning of the Landmarks Preservation hearing—the board failed to reach a majority opinion.
Late last month, the board finally passed, by a count of 23 to 18, a resolution in support of General Growth’s applications to the commission.
“We knew this was going to be a very difficult issue,” Landmarks Committee chairman Roger Byrom said. “It is very confusing for many of us to be asked to opine on the historic relevance of this project, ignoring [the 495-foot tower] that’s located just outside the historic district.”
CB1 members appeared eager to shrink the size of the proposed tower after General Growth made its first presentation to the board in July. But because the site of the tower is outside the historic district, there is little that the board could have asked the Landmarks Preservation Commission to do about it.
The board will have a chance to vet the tower’s height, along with the rest of the project, when General Growth enters into the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP) in the spring. CB1 can then try to negotiate for community amenities such as a school or community center, or simply turn it down.
General Growth’s hearing with the Landmarks Preservation Commission is scheduled to resume this month.
