By Henry J. Stern
July 28, 2006
As predicted, the New York State Public Authorities Control
Board (another incarnation of the “three men in a room”) approved the expansion
of the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center.
Acting just twenty years after Javits opened in 1986, at which time it was
pronounced too small, the Control Board can hardly be accused of moving with
undue haste.
Sadly, despite the fact that
Rip Van Winkle could
have completed his nap in the Hudson Valley while state agencies dithered
over the center, the protracted process of planning and design has not resulted
in a satisfactory solution to the problem of increasing the capacity without
sacrificing appearance.
It is widely agreed that New York City needs a larger convention center.
We are now said to be 29th largest in the country, the expansion will bring
us up to sixth place. Of course, as other cities build and expand their
centers, our relative position will decline. There will always be
jerkwater localities
who are gulled into thinking that a convention center will bring them recognition
and prosperity; history has not generally borne out these optimistic hopes,
but a great deal of concrete has been poured in their expectation.
The Times' account of the Board's decision, by
Danny Hakim
and
Thomas
Lueck, includes some expressions of skepticism about the project and
its design. The Times'
editorial
on the subject, published May 2, was also critical. Its last sentence:
"But this legal breather gives Lord Rogers and his clients an opportunity
to adjust the design so that it improves the waterfront and enhances access
to it." That opportunity, NY Civic observes, has not yet been taken.
The prospective overseer of the $2 billion project was lukewarm in his endorsement,
as quoted by the Times: "Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat
who is running to succeed Mr. Pataki next year, was measured in his response
on Wednesday. 'I think everyone agrees that the current expansion plan
is far from perfect, but I think we should proceed with this expansion plan
unless there is a consensus among the various participants that a better
alternative is available'."
It is highly unlikely that the 'various participants' will agree on any particular
redesign proposal. They have different economic interests, and widely
varying standards of taste. But the appearance and utility of a major
public structure, which will cost several billion dollars to build, should
not be decided by such participants as the construction unions, the contractors,
the hotel industry, the convention center board (from which critic Robert
E. Boyle, former executive director of the Port Authority has already been
dismissed by his old Peekskill buddy, Governor Pataki), or the apparatchiks
who want to grind out some project for which the departing governor can claim
credit, perhaps to compensate for the undisturbed crater about three miles
south, where the World Trade Center once stood.
Among the public critics of the current design is Senator Charles E. Schumer.
He wrote an
op-ed
piece, stating: “For this hefty price tag, New York City should
be getting a world-class facility. Instead, we may be stuck with a development
that cannot accommodate the largest conventions, and could curtail the growth
of our tourism industry.”
The
Municipal
Art Society spoke for seven civic and design organizations in expressing
its reservations about the project. Other critics include many architects
who are negative in private, but fear to speak out against the construction
colossus. That is the wealthy and powerful force to whom all construction
is desirable, whether it is useful or not, ugly or not, economically sensible
or not. The building lobby is a tad impeded by the arch preservationists,
who consider every element of the built environment a sacred relic, unless
its architect was particularly unfashionable. We cite Rule 30-T: "The
truth lies somewhere in between."
Given the glacial pace of design and construction, it is probably not too
late to revise the Javits scheme. Of course, that will increase the
costs, but it's borrowed money anyway, to be paid in the
sweet
bye and bye. We limit ourselves here to just four points of contention:
the facts that a project of this magnitude turns a blank wall to the Hudson
River; complicates access to the 39th street ferry terminal; splits exhibits
among multiple floors and limits future expansion of the center. We
encourage review of the plans by a blue-ribbon panel of architects who do
not necessarily have an economic stake in the magnitude or opulence of the
temple which will be grafted onto the Javits Center at an
Brobdingnagian
expense, exceeding the original cost of the center.
The PACB decision has its supporters as well.
Mayor
Bloomberg promptly released a prepared statement endorsing the plan.
This issue is among other west side land use questions in which Deputy Mayor
Doctoroff has taken a major role for many years.
The New York Post
editorialized
Thursday approving the plan, and praising Speaker Sheldon Silver, an unusual
twist. The Post is the Speaker’s most ardent and persistent detractor,
usually with vehemence. When the two agree, it may be due to the intervention
of a higher power. As luck would have it, both the Post's owner and
the business interests promoting the expansion share representation by the
ablest of New York’s corporate advisors on public affairs.
The local elected official who represents the district, Assemblyman Richard
N. Gottfried, told us that the PACB decision was much more limited then news
stories indicated.
“The Javits expansion was NOT approved by the PACB on Wednesday. It
was made explicitly clear by the Governor's representative and the Assembly's
representative at the PACB meeting that all that was being approved was the
acquisition of the hotel site [east of Eleventh Avenue 35th to 36th street]
and the transfer of the Yale Lowenstein warehouse building [east of Twelfth
Avenue, 39th to 40th streets], AND that the financing and the disposition
of the 33rd Street block were NOT on the agenda and would still have to happen
at some point in the future.” (Emphasis in original.)
Where does all this lead us? Another step has been taken – whether
it leads deeper into the quagmire or toward solid ground remains uncertain.
We have not yet built a vertical convention center, an untested element of
the proposed design. Another feature dismaying us is the extension
of the center's north-south orientation, its bland rear end facing the great
Hudson River, impairing public access to the waterfront and the opportunity
to overlook it for six solid blocks.
The prolonged, protracted convention center expansion effort appears to be
shambling along. The adjective
shambling combines the
concepts of ambling, rambling, shuffling and stumbling. Its close similarity
to the noun
shambles
is doubtless coincidental.
New York deserves better.