Adaptive Reuse of a Specialized Structure

A lot of New York’s adaptive reuse comes directly from deindustrialization. The loft buildings of SoHo and TriBeCa, the big concrete buildings in Long Island City and the far west side, the railroad now known as the High Line, and a lot of our waterfront were all industrial. The other force driving reuse is changes in transportation. The piers along the Hudson were still reasonably heavily used after World War II – although even then use was down from the peak earlier in the twentieth century – but were largely deserted by the end of the 1960s.

The last gasps of maritime construction on Manhattan’s Hudson shore were the Passenger Ship Terminal at piers 88, 90, and 92, and the big passenger and freight terminal at Pier 40. Both came too late and were barely used as intended. Pier 40 is known by most people today as a leaking garage and not-very-nice park.

This article by Michael Sorkin, an architect and urban analyst*, discusses combining two problems to create one solution. The article stands on its own, without any interpretation from me, but I’d like to add a few points. Ditching the parking from Pier 40, as annoying as it would be to people who use the garage, makes perfect sense in light of the general topic of reducing reliance on cars. But even if the same amount of parking is eventually put elsewhere, at least it won’t be on the river: in a city desperate for open space and views, reusing a pier for parking rather than for people is an enormous waste.

The purpose of adaptive reuse is not historic preservation per se, which is good when we’re discussing Pier 40, which is no one’s idea of a landmark. It’s about reducing the environmental effects of demolition and construction and it’s about keeping the physical fabric of a neighborhood intact. For better or worse, a big chunk of West Street is dominated by Pier 40 and has been for sixty years. Changing that pier into something that (a) better serves the needs of the adjacent neighborhoods and Manhattan in general and (b) is less overtly ugly seems like an obvious win to me. We’ll see if this plan can move ahead.

* I was fortunate to have been able to take a class on urban design called “Housing and Cities” with Michael when I was an undergrad. That was, of course, over thirty years ago.