[NYguy]

http://chelseanow.com/cn_62/preservingthehigh.html

Preserving the High Line’s northern section


Robert Hammond, co-founder of Friends of the High Line

By Lawrence Lerner
November 30 - December 6, 2007

In 1999, Robert Hammond and Josh David founded Friends of the High Line (FHL), a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and reuse of the High Line, a 1.5-mile-long historic elevated rail structure that runs through Chelsea and other neighborhoods on the West Side of Manhattan. The pair, bolstered by widespread support, managed to get the city onboard and in 2005 save the southern section of the High Line, between Gansevoort and 30th Sts., which is currently being transformed into a park in two phases, due to open in September 2008 and 2009, respectively.

But with the proposed Jets stadium plan recently defeated and the future of the Western Rail Yards in doubt in 2005, the city and High Line owner CSX Transportation left the High Line’s northern section—which loops around the Hudson Rail Yards between 10th and 12th Avenues from 30th to 33rd Streets—out of the deal and vulnerable to demolition by developers, the city and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which owns the rail yards. Now that developers, bids for the yards have been made public, we sat down with Hammond to get his thoughts on the prospects for this northern section of the High Line.

From the beginning, you had an uphill battle to save the High Line from demolition. What’s been FHL’s approach?
Yeah, I thought we had only a slight chance at first. But we never wanted to be a group that had to throw itself in front of a bulldozer. We felt that if it came to that, you’ve already lost. All along, we wanted to make arguments beyond just, ‘Save it.’ We wanted the High Line to make sense from both economic and urban planning standpoint—and come up with an alternative use for the rail line—not let it be just about preservation, because ultimately, we see this as a great resource and an opportunity, this mile and a half of elevated Manhattan.

Who were your allies in the fight to save the southern section, and now as you attempt to preserve the northern section?
The core base is our supporters, along with the city, the City Council and elected officials like Christine Quinn, Scott Stinger, Tom Duane, Jerry Nadler, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. And the state and MTA have come around. The Bloomberg administration has been a big supporter, which has been key. We probably wouldn’t be having this conversation if the city wasn’t behind this.

Who in the Bloomberg administration has been key?
[Deputy Mayor Daniel] Doctoroff has said he wants to keep the High Line. But there was concern at first, since this came about in the wake of 9/11, and the Bloomberg didn’t have enough money to pay for the parks the city had. Dan didn’t want to see pretty pictures; he wanted hard numbers back in 2002. That’s when we did our first economic feasibility study to show it made planning and economic sense for the city. Dan got more and more excited when he saw the economic potential for the High Line.

Tell us more about that study, since it has a bearing on your arguments for preserving the northern section now amid the recently released Hudson Yards bids.
We did a study that said that over a 20-year period, the city would get more tax revenue than it would cost to rebuild it, even though the city wouldn’t be required to pay for all of the construction. John looked that the natural increment in value that will happen in the neighborhood, assuming it’s rezoned and real estate values go up, and he looked at how much the city would reap from that. Then he factored in the addition of the High Line and found three areas of benefit: It creates more light and air for properties adjacent to it; when you’re close to parks and open space, your property values go up between 10 and 14 percent over nearby properties; and third, it made good urban planning sense, because the High Line makes for a better neighborhood, and I think it’s encouraged developers to use interesting architects nearby.

What specifically have you found regarding real estate values and benefits to the city?
We also talked to consultants who said the way to create real value is to create a marketable district, like the Gramercy Park neighborhood. Apartments listed in that area fetch a premium. Likewise, we’ve seen listings for “High Line apartments” that have no view of the High Line but are close enough to reap that benefit. Last year’s Lonely Planet travel guide has five references to the High Line, and it’s not even open. It becomes a destination, something people want to work and live near and visit. In 2002, we estimated it would bring incremental tax revenue of nearly $200 million. John updated that study, and the conservative figure is now over $400 million. Dan [Doctoroff] did a study that said the High Line has already created $950 million in real estate value. That can only bode well for the northern section of the High Line and Hudson Yards.

Now, you’ve made a strong economic argument. What about the High Line from an urban planning standpoint?
The High Line is not a wheat field in Kansas. To me, the power of the High Line is that it’s in the city. There are a million miles of train tracks in this country with wildflowers growing on them. But it’s only on the High Line that you can see the Empire State Building and meander through a corridor of buildings that are in constant flux, with new buildings next to old ones. It will not be a static experience. And it’s not a park with a key; it’s a public park for people of all income levels.

Trace the main arguments for demolition of the northern section of the High Line.
The MTA was concerned that preserving the High Line was going to add complexity to the Hudson Yards development and make it cost more, and they needed to get maximum return on the land, which is public. We argued to the MTA that it would add some complexity and cost more, but not of the magnitude they were predicting, where it would really impact the project. So, we did another study to show why it made economic sense.

The main issues fall under three categories: construction feasibility and related cost, real estate values and retail/parking potential, and urban planning/historic preservation.

With construction, MTA and developers argued that you couldn’t get machines necessary to build the pilings for the rail yards platform underneath the High Line, but we showed that you certainly can. And they could also use the High Line itself as a staging area for cranes and other machinery—that is, both above and below it.

How about retail and parking?
Well, the MTA also argued that they could tear down the High Line and rebuild something better, since it would be easier for developers to construct the platform and buildings, and that way you could get two floors of retail space underneath the new structure, instead of one, and make it easier to build around it because it would require fewer columns than the High Line has. Our argument is that underneath the High Line makes for a much more interesting retail space, lending itself to high-end boutiques. Sure, it makes it much more difficult to put big-box stores underneath because of all the columns, but there is lots of space in the Hudson Yards development for big-box, and the developers proposals show that.

The MTA also wanted to put parking under the High Line and said you couldn’t do that because of its deep pilings underneath the columns. We estimated that you’d lose about 20 percent of the parking spots by preserving the High Line, since a new structure would require shorter pilings, leaving more space for parking. But you could still put in below-grade parking with the High Line in place, and you could do two levels of parking just inside the 30th St. side of the High Line, where there’s 160 feet between the High Line and the rail Yards. We also think that to tear down the High Line for parking would be, well, a big mistake.

And urban planning?
That 160-feet buffer I referred to means that the High Line creates an important set-back along 30th Street. Remember, developers are going to want to build out where they can to make their money back. If you tore town the High Line and built right up to 30th Street, you’d create avenue-like density on a side street, which, from an urban planning perspective, would be disastrous.

Along the same lines, the MTA also argued that because the rail yards platform running along 12th Avenue would be higher than the High Line, it would be difficult to connect the two and would be better for the platform to go right up to the road. We argued that the High Line would actually act as a soft-edge buffer to the road and be much more visually appealing and decrease density by creating another set-back, and you’d have two viewing platforms from which to look out onto the Hudson River. And it would be easy to mediate the two with ramps. Ultimately most of the developers agreed with us—and it shows in their plans. Furthermore, along 12th Avenue side, you could connect the High Line with Hudson River Park by creating walking causeways over the road. All the plans showed this, too, since the city always wanted that as well. Then there’s the connection a contiguous High line makes with the other neighborhoods it runs through. All of this makes good urban planning sense.

What’s your historic preservation argument?
It’s pretty simple: We’re going to have over 12 million square feet of new development in Hudson Yards. Let’s keep something that’s actually original. This is a rail yard; don’t we want evidence of the rails there? The High Line is a reminder of the history there. Finally, the last thing we want to do is let the High Line go the way of the old Penn Station. We have a chance to get it right this time, and we should capture that opportunity.

Are there any big outstanding issues you’d like to see resolved in the Hudson Yards bidding process?
Right now, MTA has no plans to divulge any of their financials behind the bids. So, we don’t know the difference between the bids that include the High Line and those that don’t for each developer, which may sway the MTA’s decision. Also, we would want to know the thinking behind the numbers. You can ascribe a cost to a plan, but we want to look through those numbers to make sure they’re right and are using accurate information on the High Line.

We’ve seen this movie before, when we were saving the southern portion: People made many specious arguments, some involving numbers. And people tend to believe developers more than us, thinking we’re dreamers trying to save the High Line, even though we’ve proven we’re more than that. So, we’d like complete transparency.

How do you size up the new Hudson Yards proposals just unveiled?
The good news is that the MTA and state have said they support saving the High Line, and I think most of the developers see the High Line as an asset, as reflected in their proposals and their conversations with us. But just because they show it in their plans doesn’t mean they’ll preserve the High Line. There’s no requirement in the RFP for that, so we want the MTA to mandate this.

Extell, Related and Brookfield’s proposals kept the High Line in its entirety. The first two build right up to it and connect to it; Brookfield leaves some space and lets the High Line stand apart. I think it’s interesting that Extell and Brookfield didn’t conform to the RFP’s zoning guidelines. Every developer and architect has told us that the RFP was a bad example of urban planning, in general, to try and work under. The open space stipulated by the RFP would create a dark wind tunnel. Hopefully, MTA will be open to those proposals that deviated from their plan.

The Durst plan calls for demolition of the High Line all along 12th Avenue and the spur over 10th Avenue; all they keep is part of the line running along 30th Street. Tishman-Speyer keeps all of it except the spur; I hope they’ll reconsider that. Brookfield is the only one that doesn’t have buildings spanning over the High Line at 12th Ave and 30th Street. It’s a plan that allows sun into the open space. And Extell’s designer, Steven Holl, has a real sensitivity for the High Line: His office has overlooked the High Line for 20 years.

Which proposal does FHL like the most?
We’re going to do a study of all five proposals and how they interact with the High Line. I also want to hear the upcoming architect presentations [at Cooper Union on Dec. 3] before commenting on that. The point that we want to make is that a lot of these innovative ideas can be incorporated into whoever’s plan is chosen. We don’t want to pick a favorite developer. We want to work with whoever is chosen and encourage them and the MTA to pick the best ideas from all the projects. And remember, the selection is not the end of the process; it’s the beginning, since this will all go under public review. And none of the developers wants to cut us out of the conversation. They want to work with us, so that’s good news as well.

Will you be relieved when the fight if finally over and FHL can shift full-time into conservancy mode? What will you do with yourselves?
Yeah, part of me will miss the battle. But then we’ll have to concentrate on the real thing: maintaining the High Line and keeping it safe. That’s why we’ve started a membership program—to help fund ongoing maintenance and operations—just like Central Park Conservancy. It’s a less dramatic battle but equally important, since no park that isn’t maintained and kept safe with Park Enforcement Police will thrive.

What portion of maintenance and security will FHL pay?
Central Park Conservancy pays 70 percent of the costs for that park. We’re going to have to pay our fair share as well. So, we’ll need to keep raising money for a long time to come.