HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2016, 1:19 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,027
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2016, 10:59 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,027
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2016, 4:15 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,027
via the daily news -- this project got the court ok to move forward:


Hudson River floating park proposed by Barry Diller gets OK to move forward


Barry Diller’s futuristic floating island in the Hudson got a green light from a state appeals court Thursday.

A panel of judges from the Manhattan Appellate Division said it was not “arbitrary and capricious” when the Hudson River Park Trust determined there would be no negative environmental effects when it signed a 20-year lease with Diller's Pier 55 Inc. to build and manage the pier as a park and entertainment venue.

The City Club wanted a full Environmental Impact Statement done for the project, which will be located over the shoreline on platform already under construction near W. 14 St. Diller, a media mogul, and his wife, designer Diana von Furstenberg, are funding the bulk of the cost with a $113 million grant from their foundation.

Thursday, the appellate judges said the City Club does not have the authority or standing to question whether the Hudson River Park Trust should have requested bids from other developers before signing up with Pier 55. Its contract gives Pier 55 the right to keep the lucrative licensing royalties from any performances in the space.

Court allows Diller Island Pier 55 project to begin construction

The decision was hailed by Gov. Cuomo, who said, “I look forward to seeing construction move forward, and realizing both the economic and recreational benefits this vital park will bring."

Madelyn Wils, president and CEO of the Hudson River Park Trust, said "this was a ridiculous lawsuit from the start."

A rep for Pier 55 said "We are grateful for the court's decision and are pleased to be back on our fall construction schedule, which will make Pier55 a reality for all New Yorkers."

Richard Emery, the lawyer for the City Club, said his clients will appeal because if the ruling stands, "it means the legislatively mandated protections for the Hudson River have been substantially degraded" and the "park" has essentially been "privatized."

Construction on the "floating" pier started last month when contractors — with the court's permission — drove the first nine piles that will hold up the 2.7 acre platform with its undulating hills and an amphitheater that could rise as much as six stories.


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.2783986
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2016, 6:58 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, TAAR1
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 19,017
I think this is an exciting project. Essentially the parks along the Hudson River like Riverside Park or Hudson River Park have been huge successes.

At one time, all of this was inhabited by piers. Granted a lot of jobs!!!, but... times have changed.



Lots and lots of piers...




Credit for all pics: http://www.boweryboogie.com/2014/01/...-1940s-photos/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2016, 1:26 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,027
^ yep -- and now they are actually putting one back!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2016, 4:53 AM
antinimby's Avatar
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 1,886
And just putting one back now requires countless lawsuits, environmental studies and public meetings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 12:02 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, TAAR1
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 19,017
More BS... For a nice project, a pier that is a park, this has a shitload of issues. Jeez!

===========================

Nonprofit waging battle against Pier55 ordered to disclose its funding

Quote:
A small nonprofit that launched a multipronged and pricey legal battle against Barry Diller's 2.7-acre Pier55 project along the Hudson River has not filed required financial-disclosure tax forms since 2003.

The City Club of New York has filed three lawsuits against the pier-to-park project that would connect to Hudson River Park near West 14th Street. And Diller, a media mogul who is ponying up most of the development's $200 million cost, has publicly accused real estate titan Douglas Durst of secretly funding the legal campaign.

Earlier this month, following questions from Crain's, New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued the nonprofit a violation, and ordered it to file financial-disclosure documents that could offer clues to the inner workings of the organization.

"We were not aware until very recently of the state requirement and are cooperating with the state to get our filings up to date as quickly as possible," City Club President Michael Gruen said in a statement.

Diller and the Hudson River Park Trust announced plans for the park two years ago. Shortly afterward, City Club filed three separate lawsuits to try to stop it. The organization lost one of the suits in October; the other cases are pending against the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the Army Corps of Engineers.

City Club is small enough to be exempt from filing a Form 990—which would also list the organization's members—but even small nonprofits are required to fill out a less comprehensive disclosure form, something the group has not done with the state since 2003. While City Club was dormant for many years, it has become active recently, coming out against Bloomberg-era plans to rezone midtown east in 2013 and later suing over a plan to redevelop a swath of auto shops in Willets Point, Queens.

A spokesman for City Club said that it plans to file disclosure forms for the most recent fiscal year tomorrow, and will work back through prior years. While that form could offer clues to how the nonprofit has managed so many legal disputes, it is unlikely any connection to Durst will surface beyond Diller's accusations.
============================
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...o-disclose-its
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 2:11 AM
gramsjdg's Avatar
gramsjdg gramsjdg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 512
Durst.

Does anything else really need to be said?

For the man who ruined what was to be the symbol of NYC's resilience in the name of the almighty dollar (leaving the spire on WTC-1 an unfinished skeleton), should we expect anything less?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 2:26 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, TAAR1
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 19,017
True. The almighty dollar instead of integrity. Well, I have faith this project will move forward. It's just for something not even that big, a lot of loops it has to go through. There are high rises that have less issues than this. But it can't top 1WTC or the WTC site to begin with in terms of the issues that it had and delays.

In the end, all of these delays just increase costs. If anything, this pier is a little example of why nice things often take giant fights. Lets not even get started on transportation...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 6:08 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,027
there is active construction on this site









Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 2:22 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, TAAR1
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 19,017
A project like this is good to attract even more foot traffic for the area. Lots of bikers in the area. This will probally cause some detours in terms of the bike lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2016, 7:48 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,027
I think the mods should combine all the pier projects in nyc into one thread, but since that hasn't happened yet i will add this project here. its the sanitation dept gansevoort peninsula/jetty/piers just below or just south of the von furstenberg pier 55 project.

its closed off and also an active construction site.

its going to become a park.




all the old structures there have been or are almost torn down.




i certainly hope they keep the cool brick road remnent of old 13th avenue that is back there.


more:
https://www.hudsonriverpark.org/expl...oort-peninsula


Last edited by mrnyc; Dec 21, 2016 at 8:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2017, 7:13 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, TAAR1
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 19,017
Pier 55 offshore park may be flatter than originally proposed



Quote:
Despite the fact that the 535 concrete piles that will support the planned undulating base of the Pier 55 offshore park have already been erected, the Hudson River Park Trust is now looking towards a flatter design. The Architect’s Newspaper obtained a copy of a permit modification request that the group submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers that reduces the park’s overall size slightly from 2.7 to 2.4 acres and replaces many of the hollow pentagonal pots that would have sat on top of the columns with “a flat structural base sandwiches between the piles and the landscaping.”

In a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers, the Trust said the changes came about after possible construction partners were wary to bid on the $200 million project due to the “complex fabrication and installation challenges” of the 60-ton pots, causing concern for the group about increased construction costs. According to the drawings submitted, the number of piles will be reduced by 27 and the pots from 202 to 132. Those pots remaining will be around the park’s perimeter; the center will be supported by traditional steel and concrete piles, and the undulating sections will be instead supported by a light foam material.

However, in a statement to 6sqft, the Hudson River Park Trust points out that there will be no visible changes to the hills or overall topography. In addition to the statement below, they also sent over a new batch of renderings to illustrate how the undulating form remains.

The Trust has made technical alterations to make the project easier to build, but the topography, landscaping, program and size have not changed. It’s unfortunate but not surprising that the plaintiffs — who have now lost four times in four courts including the highest in the state — are making another desperate attempt to derail a project that has strong support among neighborhoods along the park, Community Board 2, park advocates and prominent civic groups. Construction continues and we’re looking forward to opening this addition to Hudson River Park in 2019.



=======================
https://www.6sqft.com/pier-55-offsho...nally-propsed/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2017, 12:29 AM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,396
Building permits for this were rescinded by a judge. Apparently the guy who is single handedly paying for this thing, is getting really fed up and might abandon it.

As usual, the push to get this stopped was a NIMBY organization. Pretty unreal. Guy wants to build a brand new public park, on basically land he is creating, and NIMBY's get offended. No wonder we can't build anything in this country anymore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2017, 7:08 PM
jamesinclair jamesinclair is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
Building permits for this were rescinded by a judge. Apparently the guy who is single handedly paying for this thing, is getting really fed up and might abandon it.

As usual, the push to get this stopped was a NIMBY organization. Pretty unreal. Guy wants to build a brand new public park, on basically land he is creating, and NIMBY's get offended. No wonder we can't build anything in this country anymore.
Im all for a park, but this is a real problem.

A billionaire cant just skip the line and get anything he wants built because "hes paying for it." Was this park in a master plan? Was there community outreach? Was ANYBODY consulted?

No. He wanted his way and thought he could get it because hes rich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2017, 9:30 PM
Zerton's Avatar
Zerton Zerton is offline
Ω
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesinclair View Post
Im all for a park, but this is a real problem.

A billionaire cant just skip the line and get anything he wants built because "hes paying for it." Was this park in a master plan? Was there community outreach? Was ANYBODY consulted?

No. He wanted his way and thought he could get it because hes rich
I'm all for due process - but when someone wants to donate something like a park you take it.
__________________
If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. -Orwell
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2017, 2:53 AM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesinclair View Post
Im all for a park, but this is a real problem.

A billionaire cant just skip the line and get anything he wants built because "hes paying for it." Was this park in a master plan? Was there community outreach? Was ANYBODY consulted?

No. He wanted his way and thought he could get it because hes rich
How exactly did he skip the line?

To me, this is a perfect example of how community groups are given far too much power in this city. Zerton said it perfectly, when a guy wants to donate a new public park, you make sure it happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2017, 4:14 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesinclair View Post
Im all for a park, but this is a real problem.

A billionaire cant just skip the line and get anything he wants built because "hes paying for it." Was this park in a master plan? Was there community outreach? Was ANYBODY consulted?

No. He wanted his way and thought he could get it because hes rich
Don't like it, don't use it. I fail to see how there can be a legitimate argument against this by any faction, barring some structural damage tos hire line or shoe structure. No evidence of that. This is a structure out in the water. There's not even the typical NIMBY arguments of blocked views, out of character with the neighborhood, or shadows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2017, 4:16 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,965
[QUOTE=jsbrook;7755402]Don't like it, don't use it. I fail to see how there can be a legitimate argument against this by any faction, barring some structural damage to shoreline or shore structures. No evidence of that. This is a structure out in the water. There's not even the typical NIMBY arguments of blocked views, out of character with the neighborhood, or shadows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2017, 4:16 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,965
Don't like it, don't use it. I fail to see how there can be a legitimate argument against this by any faction, barring some structural damage to shoreline or shore structures. No evidence of that. This is a structure out in the water. There's not even the typical NIMBY arguments of blocked views, out of character with the neighborhood, or shadows.[/QUOTE]
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:06 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.