 BErnStein has proposed building two piers, one at India Street (center) and one at Java Street (right), to help enlarge his towers.
 In a similar trick, the developer wants to turn side streets, such as India, into parkland to further boost the project.
|
Does the Bloomberg administration want ferries zipping back and forth across the East River so badly that it is willing to sacrifice a piece of Greenpoint waterfront to achieve it?
That is how local Councilman Steve Levin sees it. In July, the city’s Economic Development Corporation released an RFP for “a new pier structure that will allow for vessel moorage and provide local residents with safe and enjoyable access to the East River waterfront.” The pier, which will not accommodate ferries, but will possibly host recreational or education boats, is to be located at Java Street. It is adjacent to another pier already planned for India Street that will serve ferries, as had been outlined in the area’s 2005 waterfront rezoning.
Levin and a handful of community groups argue that the Java Street dock serves no clear purpose except to enrich developer Jonathan Bernstein, whose property lies upland from the proposed piers. Bernstein stands to benefit from the air rights another pier would add to the two Pelli Clarke Pelli–designed luxury towers he unveiled last year. Furthermore, Levin argues that the Economic Development Corporation gave Bernstein’s Stiles Properties preferential treatment under the RFP, all but ensuring his company would be awarded the land.
“It’s not kosher,” said Rami Metal, a community liaison in Levin’s office. “They should just do India, but [the city] said ‘No, if we don’t do both, he won’t build either.’ They’re so afraid of losing ferry service, they’ve just given in to this guy.” Both the developer and the Economic Development Corporation declined to comment on the specifics of the RFP.
The community desperately wants ferries, given Greenpoint’s isolation—it is served only by the fickle G train—and a quick link to Wall Street and 34th Street, as has been proposed, would be welcome. The city is also eager to finally realize ferry service, as programs in the past have faltered. At the same time, locals have expressed exasperation at the tide of luxury housing that has washed up on their shores in the wake of the 2005 rezoning and are thus wary of any new development, particularly any that are larger than current zoning allows.
Bernstein, or any developer of his property, is already obliged to build the India Street pier, and in exchange the developer receives an air rights bonus. Add a second pier, add more air rights, which Levin’s office estimates at upwards of 40,000 square feet, effectively taking the project from a 4.7 FAR to a 5.8 FAR.
What makes the piers such a threat is that Bernstein would not actually be increasing his FAR but instead his site, by adding the land under the piers. Bernstein has already proposed a similar idea, to demap India and Java streets and turn them into parkland. This would create more open space, but it would also further expand Bernstein’s site, giving him more square feet to add to his buildings.
By gobbling up all this land that had previously been public property, Bernstein would be able to enlarge his project without pushing it over the 4.7 FAR threshold that would trigger a public review—one in which Levin and the community board would have much sway. If the city signs off on the pier and the street demapping (the latter is under the purview of the Parks Department and the Department of Transportation), Bernstein could wind up with an outsized tower without any community input.
Further complicating the matter is Levin’s contention that a provision was made in the RFP that required any applicant to acquire permits from the Army Corps of Engineers to build the pier. According to Metal, the Economic Development Corporation helped Bernstein acquire the necessary permits prior to releasing its RFP. Not only would this show favoritism, but because the RFP’s purpose is to sell the land, Bernstein could not technically have received the permits because only those already in possession of the property in question are able to apply to the Army Corps for such permits.
“They want that ferry pier so badly, they would do anything to get it,” Metal said of the Economic Development Corporation. A spokesperson for the corporation suggested that nobody but Bernstein would be interested in the project. Assuming this is true, why the need for preferential treatment? The spokesperson would not say. After the RFP closed in early August, Levin requested the city rescind it. So far no action has been taken, nor has a winner been announced.
George Fontas, a Bernstein spokesman, defended the project on the grounds that it had community support, as Greenpointers were clamoring for waterfront access. Neither he nor the city could produce any groups or individuals saying they favored the pier, though, while a number of prominent groups, such as Neighbors Allied for Good Growth and the Greenpoint Waterfront Association for Parks & Planning, have spoken out against it. “The project hasn’t even gone through the public review process yet,” Fontas said. “It’ll be hard for anybody to see the project as a whole, and to judge it, until it does.”
Mundane as these details may seem, they have drawn intense scrutiny from the community because many feel developers have continually tried to subvert the 2005 rezoning that was painstakingly crafted. “2005 was arduous enough,” said Heather Roslund, an architect and chair of the Community Board 1 land-use committee. “Now, not one single developer wants to follow these rules.”
“This is just the next step on the ladder to insanity.”