East River Waterfront Dreaming in Midtown

Monday, June 11, 2007, by Lockhart

[Renderings courtesy www.doegoe.com]

One of the great looming urban planning questions for NYC is what's going to happen at and around the ConEd Plot, aka Ground Zero North, the lot just south of the United Nations plot along the East River in midtown. As we've known for awhile now, where that massive ConEd plant once stood, developer Sheldon Solow plans an array of office and residential towers designed by starchitects Richard Meier and David M. Childs. But what the layout of the site will end up being is anyone's guess, as is the question of how the site will interact with evolutions underway at the U.N. site to its north.

To spur the urban planning dreamer in all of us, this past weekend the Municipal Arts Society hosted a charrette (archi-speak for "a really long conference-thing") to ponder the possible use of the East River waterfront viz. the changing neighborhood. The goal: to envision an open, usable waterfront along the East River from 34th to 63rd Street. Above, one dreamy outcome of the vision.

Before... [photo credit: Giles Ashford]

... and in the (at this point purely hypothetical) after.

From the MAS press release:

The charrette was organized because Manhattan has a rare opportunity to open up public access to Midtown’s East River waterfront, create a new park and complete a greenway connecting the Battery to Harlem. The state is planning to rebuild the midtown section of FDR Drive, the former Con Ed power plant site is being redeveloped, and the city is planning to facilitate the expansion of the United Nations campus and create an adjacent waterfront esplanade. The charrette explored how the projects could be planned together and result in an open waterfront from 34th Street to 63rd Street.

"By realigning and lowering the 42nd Street exit ramp off FDR Drive, the architects hit upon the concept of ‘elevating the people, not the traffic,’” said Frank E. Sanchis, III, MAS senior vice president. “They proposed a grand urban terrace above the FDR overlooking the river from 38th Street to 42nd Street. They also proposed a ‘forested hill’ surrounding a existing ventilation shaft at 42nd Street and proposed creating a glowing six-story ‘pylon’ which would anchor a ferry terminal, restaurant and vertical public space, and provide a means to descend to the river.”

The landscape architects included Ken Smith, designer of the rooftop garden at the Museum of Modern Art and the elevated plaza at 55 Water Street; Ricardo Scofidio, designer of the High Line and the redevelopment of Lincoln Center; Matthew Urbanski, designer of Brooklyn Bridge Park; Margie Ruddick, designer of improvements to Queens Plaza and a master plan for downtown Trenton; Kate Orff, a principal at SCAPE Studio and a protégé of Rem Koolhaas; and Brian Jencek, a principal at Hargreaves Associates.

Above, an overview of the land in question from the project charrette. We'll have more dissection of this document to follow, which has a lot to say about how to subvert the FDR Drive. But for now, dreams aside, it's worth noting that these plans are totally nonbinding; MAS hopes that they'll influence the policymakers and developers, a goal which might prove rather dreamy itself.
· Charrette Presentation: Midtown's East River Waterfront [MAS.org]
· Residents push to open up East River waterfront [amNY]
· Ground Zero North Update: ConEd Demo Underway [Curbed]
· Coming to the East 40s: Ground Zero North [Curbed]

Filed under Manhattan: Midtown East/Kips Bay, Urban Planning,

Email this post to a friend

Comments feed for this post

Comments (22 extant)

nice idea, except for the ghost buildings

By Anonymous at June 11, 2007 12:04 PM

I like it a lot. Especially nice is that the proposed towers actually front on 1st Avenue, rather than being towers-in-the-park(ing lot) like the Hudson Yards proposal.

I'm sure the folks in the buildings across 1st will scream bloody murder about losing their views, but in New York, guaranteed views don't exist unless you're on the waterfront or a park.

By Anonymous at June 11, 2007 12:10 PM

i hate it when archtitects make their buildings transparent in renderings. it's such bullshit.

By tenementer at June 11, 2007 12:44 PM

where's the landing for human-powered boats?

By robbuc at June 11, 2007 12:49 PM

I think the ghost buildings look awesome. I vote they build something that looks exactly like that.

By Shilli at June 11, 2007 12:50 PM

They should close the utterly useless 42nd street northbound FDR exit ramp since there are exits north and south of it nearby and it's closed most of the time anyway.

By penny at June 11, 2007 12:56 PM

The old invisable building design trick fools the public everytime. Sad to see Childs involved in this now.

By GrandPa at June 11, 2007 1:10 PM

I love how architects plan a conference around how best to make use of someone else's land.

By Anonymous at June 11, 2007 1:12 PM

Correct keep dreaming - this will never happen not even close, but love the idea. West is the best Hudson River Park.

By John at June 11, 2007 1:14 PM

10.

Unfortunately, they didn't include my suggestion to extend the Times Square Shuttle through the site (with a station, which would drastically increase the value of the real estate there), then at-grade under the FDR to the ferry terminal at 34th Street (which would drastically increase the viability of all ferry services by making rapidly Midtown accessible from the water). With the extended Flushing Line (#7) (and given a new shuttle stop at 6th Avenue to transfer between them), it would make a near river-to-river crosstown line.

The Times Square Shuttle Right of Way turns south from 42nd, and is above the Lexington Avenue Line, as part of the alignment of the original IRT. It could be extended down 41st Street or perhaps, depending on its alignment relative to the Park Avenue tunnel, down 40th Street. As the picture shows, it would then be at-grade in the site which presumably, as the rendering shows, would be below a platform at the same grade as First Avenue.

Less that 1/2 mile of underground construction (the at-grade construction would be cheaper) with a whole lot of added utility.

By Larry Littlefield at June 11, 2007 1:48 PM

11.

7 world trade is the closest thing to a transparent building ive seen

By Anonymous at June 11, 2007 1:48 PM

12.

That is unfortunate. An extension of the shuttle is a really good idea, especially if were to link up with ferry service. Must be pretty boring driving the shuttle as it is set up now.

By Anonymous at June 11, 2007 2:05 PM

13.

#10 has a great suggestion. The only thing is that you need to substitute the 42nd Street shuttle with the NO. 7 train. The No. 7 could have a stop at 42nd Street and 1st Avenue without affecting any other line. However, the United Nations might have a problem with subway station beneath it.

Maybe the Vision42 plan could extend a light-rail line to the site, which I think is a part of their plan.

By Mark the Shark at June 11, 2007 2:07 PM

14.

Since when is David "the Developer's Best Friend" Childs considered a starchitect?

Meier? Yes.
Childs? No!

Has the the fact that he designed a building ever increased it's appeal? No. In fact in my mind it's a hindrance.

By Whitbo at June 11, 2007 2:19 PM

15.

Re the first sentence in the post:

Oh, the United Nations is located on the East River in Midtown? Who knew that??? (C'mon Curbed. Give us some credit.)

By Anonymous at June 11, 2007 5:23 PM

16.

Uhhh Whitbo have you heard of this development called the Time Warner Center?
I believe 4 billionaires live there..David Childs may not be a starchitect in your eyes and i'm not claiming he is in my mind, however his most recent work seems to some of the biggest projects in the city (7 World Trade Center, Time Warner Center, etc..)

By Jay at June 11, 2007 5:46 PM

17.

...and Dave Childs is redesigning and reconfiguring the Farley Post Office for Penn Station and MSG V for Vornado.

By Mark the Shark at June 11, 2007 5:52 PM

18.

what a piece of crap, I'm going to sketch my idea and submit it

By ideahaver at June 11, 2007 8:18 PM

19.

To #18 ideahaver. Yes, we wanna see your piece of crap. Sketch it pleeze. We need a good laugh.

By on all fours at June 11, 2007 10:47 PM

20.

how tall will these buildings be? i know the original plan was knocked down... has city planning approved the rezoning? i can't find any good info. love the parks. i hope that happens even though my view will be obliterated.

By annie at June 13, 2007 11:53 AM

21.

all the 1st ave condo owners will be very happy with this

By rv at October 12, 2007 1:55 PM

22.

To all who hate the 'invisible' buildings: Wake UP! It's part of presentation, translucency, etc. Wow people, go back to your video games if you're going to make stupid naive comments like that. The proposal has some good qualities, although the towers are a bit overwhelming in a 'park' and also great suggestions #10.

By aspiring at October 16, 2007 7:15 PM