By James Way

Last weekend I walked across the Williamsburg Bridge and couldn’t help but think of all the hub-bub around waterfront development. Manhattan’s west side has been transforming for years in that stretch between the West Village and Hell’s Kitchen, with the more celebrated development revolving around the High Line in Chelsea. Now that development is growing up along the East River, and the hotbed of debate there, settled yesterday, has been revolving around the Domino Sugar Refinery in Williamsburg. Congestion, affordability, and infrastructure were among the top points of contention, in a largely political debate aesthetics were not.

This all reminds me of a panel in May, IIDA NY’s “Residential Forum: Art & Design in Artistic Neighborhoods.” The event, subtitled “Potential Growth of Residential Waterfront Real Estate and the Artists Behind the Transformation” gathered Mark Strauss, Senior Partner of FXFOWLE; Brian Lewis, Senior Associate of Andre Kikoski Architect; and Julie Pham, Senior Vice President of Corcoran Group as three constituents of the forces transforming waterfront neighborhoods: the planner, the architect, and the broker, respectively. I thought any moment someone would accuse one, if not all, of the panelists of destroying the artists’ neighborhoods. It came a lot later than I had anticipated.

L to R: Julie Pham, Mark Strauss, Julie Iovine, Brian Lewis, Hans Galutera

Conspicuously missing from the panel was a developer or an artist, especially as the forum was to highlight artists’ roles in new neighborhoods and how architects and interior designers envision new waterfront residential buildings. Without an artist, or a developer, the discussion was fairly one-sided. Granted, Strauss gave a sweeping history of migrating art-centric neighborhoods—LES, Chelsea, WeVil—and the zoning affecting development. This led to waterfronts, whether in Hell’s Kitchen, Williamsburg, or Hunts Point, and their increasing role in the city, which begins to court controversy. While touching on FXFOWLE’s projects, including Northside Piers (adjacent to Domino) and the Helena (Hell’s Kitchen), he focused on the political factors involved and the need to maximize mixed-use, diversity, and vibrancy as possible. Lewis used his firm’s work in Williamsburg, Bushwick, and the Wright restaurant at the Guggenheim Museum as examples where context informs the project. However the latter, neither residential nor waterfront, seemed moot (but it did win a James Beard award that evening). Pham’s delivery begged the most vehement reaction from the crowd, but she emerged unscathed from the fallout that would soon emerge. Listing a litany of recent High Line-associated projects by starchitects—Lindy Roy, Jean Nouvel, Shigeru Ban, Neil Denari—that fetch up to $4,600/sf for prime penthouse real estate, she speculated that the units are occupied a mere month or two out of the year; however, she indicated that the waterfront market remains strong even in the economic downturn. Furthermore, these prices have established “Manhattan as a gated community” beyond the reach of most artists.

Moderated by Julie Iovine, Executive Editor Architect’s Newspaper, the Q+A started quite innocuously until one young attendee, who has been living in Williamsburg, lamented the development along the waterfront and sporadically further inland, which is effectively pricing-out young designers, artists and those caught between affordable and “market-rate” housing. This caused the proverbial other shoe to drop when another accused the panel, Mark Strauss in particular, of destroying the community fabric of “artist neighborhoods.” Architects, he responded, cater not to developers, but are inextricably tied to the politics and economics that realize projects. Plus, this push of the market causes exploration of other neighborhoods such as Astoria, Clinton Hill, Washington Heights, or, yes, even Staten Island, a whole untapped borough.

Which brings me back to the controversial 2.8 million-square-foot Domino. The developer and politicos have been debating the proposal’s “appropriateness” and establishing its program. Supporters praise the inclusion of playgrounds, a four-acre park, riverside esplanade, a school, a supermarket, and 30% affordable housing, sadly needed even in an economy leaving many neighborhood units vacant. Those expressing concern cite the plan’s density, 40-story towers (which have come down to 34, see the Architect’s Newspaper for coverage) and the limited public transportation. As an L-train rider, I fully understand this rush hour concern. However, beyond mere pros and cons, widely-published writer Stephen Zacks criticizes the plan for supporting the status quo of development and lacking the vision and creativity deserving of New York and the designer.

photo by Eugenio Pastor

The issues are well-worth debate as the waterfront is a commodity and resource increasingly attracting, even demanding, attention and development. The debate, quantitative for city officials and the developers and qualitative for the design profession and public, could very well be a turning point in how we approach integrating design with market forces and public policy. While many cities have developed their waterfronts with high-rises and public parks (the more successful tend to front beaches), New York must accommodate mixed-use, accessibility, amenities, affordability, and diversity, as well as expand notions of and approaches to planning, development, and design. Our city certainly has the talent. Let’s not sugar-coat it.