I have a great deal of ambivalence for the Seaport District; as it currently exists today, there is no seaport, no fish market, Jeremy’s is a shadow of a pub it once was and General Growth Properties has helped “tame” this corner of Lower Manhattan into a destination for tourist shoppers and those who were fortunate enough to buy prior to market saturation. As preservation goes, we have been able to preserve the wallpaper of the neighborhood but none of the soul.
The question it seem to me is, what exactly is it that the Landmarks process hopes to achieve? Is the LPC’s main goal the preservation of historically meaningful landmarks, buildings and historic districts? Or, is it the preservation of historically meaningful landmarks, buildings and neighborhoods? South Street Seaport is barely a functional neighborhood in the Jane Jacobs sense. We have to ask ourselves, besides visuals, what is this application doing to affect the neighborhood. For better and worse.

This is where I have to diverge from the Municipal Arts Society which has testified against the proposed plan (and has been a good supporter of this website). I agree with the Municipal Arts Society and LPC that the wholesale movement of the Tin Building sets a very dangerous precedent and should only be undertaken as a measure of last resort (cf the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse). I can also appreciate the argument about altering the Brooklyn Bridge’s prominence in the harbor with a 42 story tower.

photo by pietroizzo
But let’s not kid ourselves: the current South Street Seaport is a caricature of a caricature of a shopping mall wrapped in historical wallpaper. Pier 17 is even worse: a distinctly post-modern (in the most pejorative sense) building whose design inspiration seems to have come from a miniature golf course’s miniature building, sans the three holes you putt to (guessing which one leads you directly to the pin).
This is the Greenpoint/Williamsburg Rezoning chickens coming home to roost: the crux of the Greenberg rezoning was through the upzoning of the waterfront and allowing towers on the fringe of the neighborhood the city could save the upland portions from excessive development. Which begs the question: how is this different? I’m surprised there are no renderings from the upland market/mall area looking toward the FDR; the main criticism of the tower (and the low-rise buildings as well) is that it doesn’t fit in with the low-scale Seaport district. Yet the FDR literally splits and divides the two sections apart, visually and physically.
Quick Interpolation of Why the Landmarks Preservation Commission Has No Incentive to Rush This Project
Not since the Trump SoHo abomination has a project shown a capacity to greatly alter the surrounding area. The Commissioners have exactly zero incentives to move quickly on this matter. Additionally, the Mayor is either beginning his lame duck period or running for a third term and his focus is not on this project. And if the LPC doesn’t kill this plan the market will; General Growth Properties is beyond leveraged and the current credit crisis/financial apocalypse is not looking good for the development of this building.

Obviously the GGP/SHoP Architects plans need to be reviewed and improved on, accounting for the movement of the Tin building, providing accurate height renderings from the upland area of the Seaport and the Brooklyn Bridge, and further design development and improvement of the 42 story tower. But, if I had a magic 12th vote on the Commission I could be persuaded to approve this plan contingent on another design revision. But since I am not the 12 Beetle, and the LPC understandably has its reservations, this project is going nowhere fast.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the tower portion, which is outside of the historic district, be broken off from the LPC filing if GGP wants to play hardball. But that maneuver is certainly the nuclear option and it isn’t certain if this project can be financed without the retail portion.