archBOSTON ARCHIVE

Smuttynose26 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 152

Great opportunity for New York. You guys have any ideas for what should go there?

New York eyes island for urban oasis

Governors Island's 225 buildings have been largely vacant since the Coast Guard left in 1996.

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- With acres of greenery and a view of the Manhattan skyline, Governors Island is an oasis of calm just a few minutes from New York's teeming financial district. But for most of the last 200 years, that oasis has been off limits to all but military personnel.

But that may change as New York officials evaluate proposals for the 172-acre island including building hotels, a museum, schools, theaters and a link to connect the island to Manhattan and Brooklyn.

"The island is nothing short of remarkable," said Ken Fisher, chairman of the Governors Island Alliance, a watchdog group pushing for redevelopment. "It's a very big piece of land in a very congested city ... It can be a destination cultural location, and can also serve as an economic development tool."

For most of New York's history, Governors Island was a military installation. But the island's 225 buildings have been largely vacant since the Coast Guard left in 1996. In 2003, the U.S. government sold the island for $1 to a partnership controlled by the New York city and state governments.

In February, that partnership, the Governors Island Preservation and Education Corp., put out a formal call for development proposals. About 100 parties have expressed interest in submitting ideas, which are due by May 10.

The deed of sale requires more than half the island, 90 acres, to be used for the public benefit, through parks, educational institutions or other amenities. It bans permanent housing, gambling and private cars. Allowing time for environmental review, development officials said it's likely the first projects could break ground in 2008.

Development officials said they expect the cost of any project to top $1 billion, most of which would be paid by private developers. So far the city and state have allocated $120 million to the island's upkeep.

Isolation a challenge
Observers said any development on the island, a 10-minute ferry ride from southern Manhattan and near the Statue of Liberty, needs to capitalize on its physical isolation.

"That's a great advantage and a great liability," said Jeremy Soffin, vice president of public affairs at the Regional Plan Association, a not-for-profit group focused on development in the New York area.

"The kind of uses that benefit from a little bit of isolation -- hospitality, education, recreation, arts and culture -- need to be the bulk of the program," Soffin said.

In an effort to jump-start development, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has unveiled plans for one possible transport solution -- a gondola designed by architect Santiago Calatrava, connecting the island to Manhattan and Brooklyn.

But most development officials interviewed said the bulk of people traveling to and from the island would go by water.

"The gondola idea is only one of the many that we will be looking at. It's exciting, but it's only one idea," said Charles Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corp., the state development agency. "Ferry service is ... going to be very important."

Hotels, schools, theaters
The island is vacant much of the year for all but the roughly 50 preservation workers who work there. But in recent summers it's been open for visitors to its historic sites, as well as the 2.2-mile shore promenade, baseball field, soccer pitch and other relics of its peak population of 3,500 Coast Guard personnel and families during the early 1990s.

Most development officials said they expect hotels to serve as a cornerstone of any development plan. But to attract visitors in a city that already has more than 70,000 hotel rooms, activities will be key.

"The active recreation and events are going to be critical to drawing people to the island," said Fisher, of the Governors Island Alliance. "The more interactive it is, the more things there are to do, the more likely it is to be successful."

One of the groups developing a plan is the New York Harbor School, a 320-student public high school currently based in Brooklyn, which wants to move to the island.

Another proposal is to build a theater in Castle Williams, one of the three abandoned forts on the island. It would be called the New Globe Theater, and take its inspiration from Shakespeare's Globe theater in London.

The Savannah College of Art and Design, a school based in Savannah, Georgia, is also planning to submit a proposal to open a satellite campus on the island.

Given the high costs of any redevelopment and the reliance on private financing, advocates' main concern is that private investments not result in a loss of public access.

"The long term risk is that a developer will chip away at the commitments to public access," said Fisher, of the Governors Island Alliance.

Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

build an observatory, something to look at the city from, and leave the rest alone as a park or something. tear down those buidings, put in green grass, trees, and a pond of some sort. keep it fresh. maybe a museum, too. NO HOTELS> this is an instance of me being a nimby. the closest youll ever see.
view from the island

http://jschumacher.typepad.com/photos/governors_island/

garbribre · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 459

I'm trying as hard as I can not to make a wise ass remark. Like a place to house all NIMBYs who don't want their views blocked and need lots of urban green space and back yards. Oh, maaaannn, I did it anyway, didn't I?

I'm kind of with patrick here. Leave it be, for the most part. Let it be used for a public getaway or purely a recreational facility utilizing what is already there, and leave all the extreme commercial development and accompanying amenities out of it. And allow ferry service only. No bridges or gondola tramways. Especially since the article says that no permanent housing would be allowed.

I don't know if NYC needs another 'outdoor' theatre space, even as unique as this one, but an excursion on a boat to see a like-minded or themed performance (or not) with scripts that are structured to use the existing environments of the island could be an interesting draw. (No, not CirquedeSoliel or anything of that ilk.) Not necessarily history-related, to either the locale nor the region, not necessarily uncommercial nor purely educational. Just riffing here.

San Francisco Bay has something similar--Angel Island--that was the Bay Area's equivalent to Ellis Island. It is recreational, with daylight ferry only access, and permits are required for overnight camping. I think Governors would serve well to ignore the lure of further commercialization and let nature and human curiosity of history take its course. Not meaning let it fall into complete disrepair or ruin, but not to gussy it up either.

Like that link you found, patrick. I always wanted to venture there when I lived in NYC, but never did (or even knew if I could).

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

Im assuming there is a pretty major aquarium in NYC? if not, perhaps this island?

Vanshnookenraggen · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 364

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

add -- how about another NYC monument similar to the statue of liberty? something to make it stand out as the center of the universe, something other than a skyscraper. howabout something like that?

garbribre · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 459

NYC aquarium is out at Coney Island in Brooklyn. (My cousin worked there.)

A number of aquariums in the Bay Area have that underwater glass pedestrian tube thingy so you can view wild sealife in its natural habitat.

The car tunnel thing would be freakish. The requirements for the island seem to eliminate vehicular traffic, so that wouldn't be an option, though. If you are going to go to an aquarium there, may as well go by boat for the full seafaring experience.

We have three major aquariums (SF has two, and one in Monterey Bay, of course). Don't see why NYC couldn't support two.

As for a monument, the island is already a monument of its own.

How about moving some sea-faring vessels around its periphery as a maritime museum, rigged vessels, schooners, skips, tall ships that are less on the scale of those warships, carriers, etc. that are currently berthed on the West Side?

ItsConanOBrien · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 460

Here's some pictures of Calatrava's designed gondola between Manhattan and Governor's Island....

I it looks pretty neat.

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

^ neat? yes. would I support it, though? nope. it looks to cluttery, as with everything calatrave seems to want to do. it seems like it would make NYC a jumble of odd looking things. have you seen some of the more odd looking proposals for the new trade center? NYC should work hard to be unique but non-louisville-scraper-ish. it doesnt need that sort of attention. Am I contradictiong myself based on earlier posts? probably. but I write as I think, so my opinions are bound to change from time to time. I think I get it from my mother. haha.

Matt · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 840

i think it looks pretty neat also....sleek and graceful. But am I missing something...is that for cars or some sort of public transportation?

why don't you think NYC should bring attention to itself? I think the opposite...that bold, cutting-edge architecture (like the NY Times headquarters) just shows the rest of the world that it's not going anywhere....fuck being afraid or timid.

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

it is a gondola, like the rides that bring people up ski mountains, if im not mistaken.

Its not that I dont think NYC should bring attention to itself, I'm all for it. but not this sort. I think it is not as sleek and graceful as some might perceive it. the second pic looks better, but the first pic looks horrendous, and it looks like it would be of particular concern for ships. either way, whether or not it posed a problem for marine travel, I'd say a big white string like that across the water does not fit in with NYCC at all. And as I said earlier, I'm all for new and unique things not fitting in, like the new building in louisville, but they would have to be in a place like louiseville, somewhere that isn't on the radar screen of most people across the country. such things would put them on the radar screen. NYC is already there, and it isnt going anywhere, you're right, so there is no need to make last ditch efforts like building this ugly thing, in my opinion. it just ruins the view. but as with everything, its just my opinion.

lastly, I know I'm gonna get a lot of shit for this, but I am an amateur economist so I like to believe my thougths are rational and grounded in logic rather than hyped up emotion. that said, I think NYC should not build blatant structures that are "in your face" types of buildings, taunting, if you will, those who destroyed the former trade center. I dont think this because I am afraid, but I do think it makes sense not to repeat history, and building an even grander target might invite future target practice (I'm convinced there is a reason having to do with what the height of the WTC represented that underlies the fact that Al-Qaeda struck that particular complex more than once, and not some other skyscraper). but go ahead and build whatever you want, NYC, I wont be found in the top floors, I'd rather be checkin out the roof of boston's new 1,000 footer! Cool

Matt · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 840

like i've said...art is subjective! The thread somewhere around here of pedestrian bridges was fantastic, proving that it would be cool to see other options for this project.

Hmmm...well, I don't feel that any bold design is in your face in new york...i think it's continuing along the current trend into modern architecture that was started before 9/11...the use of curves, for example...which is very sleek and modern (again, i'm thinking of the nytimes building). I guess I just don't think that terrorism should be a factor in the type of design...or the height, for that matter. I think whatever bold vision was in place 9/10/01 should be fully continued. I assume you mean whether or not it's economically wise to construct a type of building that could be a threat? well...what are you going to do. If they want to target something; well, they're going to target something.

I can't wait until the terrorism threat starts ramping up here with that 1000 footer.... Rolling Eyes

Still pretty wild to me that we even have these types of discussions...

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

Matt · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 840

i'm glad that you have a different way of looking at things! it's how we all can learn.

1. I only like to say art, food, wine and other things that are 'sensual' are subjective to consciously avoid coming across as superior or arrogant...because that drives me nuts in other people (what the hell do I know? what the hell do they know?).

Now, I do know that there are many studies that have shown there tends to be a commonality in what we feel is ascetically pleasing or not (but even then, it's on a bell curve, like everything else in the world). In photography, for example, there's a 'rule of threes' that is one of the benchmarks of 'good' photography (I hate that phrase). It has to do with how we find dissonance in an image with a line split down the middle of the image, either hor. or vert....if the line is instead 1/3 or 2/3 up or across there is more aesthetic pleasure (another reason why many now symbolic chair rails come up 1/3 the way up the wall). I've been trained to see it, but if someone loves a photograph that doesn't follow these rules....good for them. Just like the fact that California chardonnay is the biggest selling wine in the country...yet most people who know two things about wine will stay clear...let alone white zinfandel. But, my friend's mom loves it and thinks the flavor is fantastic...good for her!

2. Unpatriotic??? please...because you're not towing the common line means you're a free thinker (which, unfortunately, can be considered unpatriotic nowadays. I prefer my fries french, thank you, not freedom). Never, never back down on that one...people will think whatever they want to about you...in this regard, i most certainly say fuck 'em.

3. You bring up very interesting points...my thoughts about going high isn't about the in-your-face way, it's more of the continue life as it was before. Maybe it's my own competitive shit going on under the surface, that I can't see any other way of rebuilding because it would mean they 'won' and we 'lost'...which could put ultimately put people at risk. Again, it's this new world we're now living in....you've given important points to think about. It's refreshing to hear other interpretations on how to have that area rebuilt.

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

^ haha I must be having a dislexic day, i thought you mistakenly wrote that you prefered your french fries over your freedom. haha, my bad!

Matt · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 840

ha! should have written it differently...some of my satellite friends from NH still buy into that whole freedom fries thing (and, of course, go off when I say I don't)...brilliant p.r., I have to say...the way the words 'freedom' and 'patriot' are used....it's a carte blanche...if you disagree with the underlying concept, you're against freedom and unpatriotic. Unbelievable.

great analogy with the punching; never thought of it like that. damn it patrick...i need to think about this one...i can't say that I disagree with your logic....

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

Nor can I say that I disagree with your desire to continue business as usual as pertains to construction, design, and ambition in major cities, NYC in particular. I just hope that the desire to be patriotic and strong does not blind us from the fact that this logic (that I have presented, but cannot take credit for coming up with) should be incorprated. Many times the popular will of the people (in this case, in-your-face-flag-waving-construction) overcomes reason. I hope this is not such an instance. But if there can be devised a way to make sure that NOBODY SHORT OF GOD can get into this new complex, or fly near it, then I am all for building a structure so high and tall that it hits the moon with every revolution of the globe. unfortunately, many people see my views as belongting to those of a "party pooper", as belonging to those of a "watch that stick, you could put an eye out" parent. I hope everyone else is right and there is no need for my concern with this new structure's height.

TGSwimFly · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 176

Well, I feel like there's not much I can add to Patrick and Matt's discussion so I think I'll just present my ideas about the original article.

What I found really neat about this whole situation was that they were banning full time cars. I think that the city should take full advantage of this, because most people know that there are few places in NYC where cars are not allowed.

When I began thinking about what the city could do with this island I was leaning much less towards conservation and more towards a very unique, family-oriented (in the day) and 20's-30's oriented (at night) 'urban-esque' environment with vivid street life and plenty of entertainment. I envisioned cobblestone or brick paver streets lined with cafes and restaurants, maybe a maritime museum or aquarium, and a small central plaza/park with a large, highlighted fountain designed after the island's military history. The aquarium or other museum would be the main highlight for families in the day and at night the area would become very cosmopolitan with themed bars (military/maritime) and clubs. The 'shore promenade' would really top the whole area off. Think of the setting! No cars, all pedestrians, with a constant view of downtown Manhattan. I think hotels would provide people so that the area didn't become a ghost town, but perhaps all buildings have to be restricted to 8-14 floors.

The access issue might be a problem because I'm not sure how many people would want to take the time to travel there just for a night out (unless they were damn good clubs) but I think that with the right planning it could work well.

So that's my little proposal. Sorry it incorporates almost no conservation but I found the idea of a small, sophisticated, and ped-oriented neighborhood too appealing.

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

sounds intriguing. but i am renaming this piece of land "nimbyisland" because i think 14 stories is way too tall for it. i would say, keep building to 5-6 stories, and make it victorian era design. something like that would mesh better for me.

TGSwimFly · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 176

How about a general 5-6 with a few highlight 10-14 hotels?

This might work better if there was a mass transit (subway) stop added, but I imagine that would cost a pretty penny.

There's something about taking a tram that's a little dorky, for lack of a better word. I can't see a group of college kids or young business professionals hopping on an aerial tramway (or something like it) to spend the night on the island.

P.S.- Specialty shops would be a must.

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

id say a few exceptioons (for higher rise development) would be okay. but only so long as they were designed to fit the scheme. something like the cacoulidis second proposal for south portland (a 15 story hotel). ill find a pic.

patrick0000 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2570

^ how about a hotel or two that look like the building all the way over to the right in the image below? I would be okay with that. but nothing modern. i know i sound nimby.

garbribre · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 459

I'm responding to TGSwimFly--

I could go for a compromise of your expansion ideas with my need to keep this conserved and uncommercialized as much as possible, leading to a modification of what you suggest.

However, think about this: the NYC metro area has so much geared to commercialized entertainments already. Why squander an opportunity to create a lessened example of a commercialized environment, or an oasis relatively free from much of that?

'Partying' opportunities for the under 40 crowd or families has already been developed--Times Square, South Street Seaport, the commercialization of the East and Greenwich Villages, and numerous similar enclaves in the Boroughs, suburban Jersey and LI, etc--with their extensive club and bar scenes. Despite the unique setting Governors could create in that realm, development of this type already exist in abundance.

Governors Island presents itself as such a unique place in the metro area, why not maintain and reinforce the present historical significance of it, and create something that fits more in that vein, rather than completely re-invent and over-commercialize it? (Not that it has to go to the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, like a Plimouth Plantation or Sturbridge Village-y kind of idea, either.)

All I kept thinking, when I initially read your ideas, is that it has been done already--in DisneyWorld, Florida. I happened to be there about twenty years ago when they opened Pleasure Island, I believe it was called. It is exactly what you suggested.

Just something to consider.

And to go further back in this thread, what is it with Calatrava that he has to bridge everything nearby?! All three proposals he presented in Oakland for the new Cathedral had some web-like spans over streets and waterways, even when, throughout the development process, it was suggested that he lose the bridges or that they weren't necessary or an option. (Yeah, yeah, I know that is his signature specialty.)

TGSwimFly · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 176

I understand what you mean. I guess maybe a better idea might incorporate a preservation area with a more developed "village" area with the brick streets, etc. That way you could have an informative and historical area in the day time but also a part with nightlight so that the island didn't completely shut down at night. It's a hard call though, because I feel like if it was completely set aside for preservation it would be overlooked because of Ellis Island/Statue of Liberty but that if it were completely developed it wouldn't be special anymore, like you said.