Every time I hear the word "activist" I cringe.
Who elected these individual to protect our interests? I certainly didn't!
We do have elected officials whose job it is to protect our interests, & as I understand it, in this case they had approved the project. So who asked the "activists" to butt in?
What we do know is that these activists have huge egos & use their self-appointed positions to attract attention. They seldom end up blocking projects they oppose, but add considerably to the cost & cause endless delays. One can't help but think of the Frick expansion & the Museum of Natural History's planned addition. They will go thru (I certainly hope so) but end up delayed years & with much higher costs.
3
It's impossible to make some people happy. In NYC, it's a miracle anything gets done.
2
Well, now Douglas Durst can spend his money to fix the piers AND help the striped bass.
1
Douglas Durst will do nothing of the kind. He will be calling on his friend Bill De Blasio to help improve the river near the three towers the family owns. Last noteworthy thing that the Durst family, not Durst Organization did was to kill and chop up people.
5
As a West Side Chelsea resident I'm not losing too much sleep over the death of this project. However, I think we all need to be a little cautious, you never know what the future could bring.
Once Donald Trump is impeached he may come back and build something so vulgar on this real estate that we would pray to have Barry Diller's park there.
If the citizens of NYC did not want this project, then it should not have been considered. If the citizens did want it, why didn't they fight for it?
1
In articles about things like homeless shelters and low-income housing, the Times has no problem presenting the concerns of local residents as extremely important. But in an article about a billionaire's art pier pet project, the concerns of local residents are dismissed as nothing more than petty, meaningless nitpicking. What's with the difference in presentation?
3
because, Max from Mass (not NYC). it was not a "billionaire's art pier pet project". Words matter and your use of them shows your world view already. Calling it that is not correct - it was to be a public park on a pier. At least do not try to paint it as something it was not in order to gain favor. Again the project was part of the grand plan developed by the state of New York with plenty of community input. They merely asked him to pay for it, which he did. The reality is most people are too busy with their lives to fight something like this, they rely on others to get it done. Unfortunately a small but vocal group of left wing NIMBYS has outsized power do to the lack of anything better to do in life.
I am not a billionaire, but I am sure glad they wish to spend there money (and taxes here). Mr. Diller can easily spend it in his original city of LA.
Mr. Diller became depressed over "petty" questions. What's petty is the thought of someone spending so much money on an art project when so many families in the US live in fear and poverty. It's hard to care about art when you're hungry.
3
This is the third long article in which the Times treats this simply as a story of egos and personalities, as if there were no principles involved. One of the most basic truisms of the public good is that a unique, non-renewable resource (such as shoreline or waterfront) should be used only for activities that require it, such as boating, swimming, wildlife preservation, etc. An urban audience can sit and watch performers on a stage anywhere on dry land and has no need to be out in the river. Worse yet that many of the events would not have been open to the public; on many nights it was to be just like another catering hall rented out for private events. This was an inappropriate project from the very start, even if some groups and media folks got dazzled by the flash of cool design and big names. Its inherent weaknesses were not caused by challenged in courts. In a democracy, legal motions are the sling shot and stones that Davids need against a Goliath trampling on public needs.
7
Who cares. Some more rich people arguing over things that aren't remotely important in the vast majority of our lives. This is on par with incredibly rich sports team owners wanting taxpayers to pay for their stadiums.
1
Im pleased this billionaire will not be calling the shots on whats done with this public project. ENOUGH. If the ultra-wealthy really care about our city they should PAY MORE TAXES. In fact, is it not immoral for one person to hold over a billion dollars? The average income in NYC is around 50-70 THOUSAND a year. Yet, this person walks around with BILLIONS. Meanwhile, more broadly 8 people hold as much wealth as 40% of the GLOBAL population. Its perverse and its KILLING us. The billionaire Donald Trump has just pulled us out of the Paris Accord to fight climate change! We have to STOP these people. We have to begin the process of bringing balance back to our society. We NEED strong progressive taxation ASAP.
3
I do not blame Diller for giving up on the project. Something that one pays hundreds of millions of dollars for that is designed for and about the community, but is received with complaints and criticism before it even really starts is not worth one's time.
Too often today we let a few whiners steer the boat. While you can never please everyone, this wasn't about a tax payer funded boondoogle. I'd rather have seen this project over any of the new 'sports stadiums' that hook taxpayers and waste for decades.
2
I walked my dog in the park on the west side until he had trouble walking. He would rest on the grass pulling hard on the leash because he likes grass. I would be reprimanded by the Park Police. There is no place for him to go on grass and he can't go to the dog run because he is a rescue dog and was abused as a puppy, never socialized with other dogs.
The park is too regimented, too many granite border trim, metal hardware handrails, etc. Reminds me of the Highline, a great idea that has become a tourist attraction with as much allure as Times Square.
That Diller island sounded like a time bomb of overcrowding, elitism and the consecrating of New York as the playground for the rich. I would like to return democracy to the Hudson River Park and return the park back to the people.
3
This article hardly questions the project itself: does Manhattan booming Hudson River shore need another mega performance venue? for what purpose? with the ill-defined Shed at Hudson Yards and performing arts center at World Trade Center, does this over-priviledged part of town really need yet another venue not attached to any presenter or company? If Mr. Diller has so many millions to spare, why not explore underserved neihhborhoods in Bronx or Queens? Projects like this only serve as vanity case for wealthy people. I don't regret its demise.
5
We, the people, dodged a bullet on this one. It would have been a bombastic intrusion onto river and land. Gov. Cuomo and Sen. Schumer should not have advocated for this project - and certainly not have twisted arms at the Army Corps of Engineers to get approvals. Not right.
3
Who was going to be responsible for the long term maintenance and upkeep on this rather elaborate installation? If the entertainment concept were to fail would there be a huge white elephant left behind?
The river front park still needs funds for completion and there are plenty of neighborhood parks that could benefit from a cash infusion.
2
The courts exist to protect the interests of the people no matter how many were involved. This project was sunk by the incompetence of the Hudson River Park Trust, their blatant disregard for the environmental issues that were the genesis of the park, their disrespect for the public process and inability to execute a comprehensive vision that benefits the majority of its constituents.
3
So the question is, what have opponents of these projects learned, if anything? The next time a donation like this appears do they intend to jam it up with petty nonsense about dogs and VIPs and signage and art?
5
Geez - so many petty little people. Glad the guy finally listened to his family (my family said, Don’t you think we should use our resources where they’re wanted?”).
As someone here said "In the age of Trump I guess you can expect most folks to complain 1st, learn the facts later".
Tiny petty jealous people
7
tiny jealous billionaires who affect your life and mine, perhaps...
I understand with mr. Drillers feelings of frustration I call it "benefactor burnout". On a very, very smaller scale I've experienced it and seen others grapple with it. As volunteers like mr. Diller try to build something for The community others use the project as a way to get their 15 minutes of fame and relish in their ability to see the trees and miss the Forest. Unfortunately most volunteers are retired and or seniors who tire of the constant resistance and prejudice to progress.
10
The ignorance expressed in the majority of these comments is astounding.
This was to be a new pier, publicly acessible 100% of the time. The vast majority of entertainment would have been free or extremely inexpensive.
So many commenters bemoan that Diller elected to donate his money for this purpose and not for something else.
Well, now there's no donation at all, no pier and a big hole in the park. Is that better? Is the public really served better by selfish, NIMBY interests who don't want anything unless it fits neatly into their definition of what's OK?
As someone who has been involved with HRP for many years, I think it would be great if people even bothered to learn the facts before opining.
But in the Trump era, perhaps that's too much to ask.
22
And how many decades was Diller going to fund this for?
Also, no there was to be a some type of shopping arcade.
It wasn't a public park, it was an event space, only to be funded for 10-15 years.
3
It was to be a public park accessible 100% of the time that featured performances, both free and low cost ticketed, with a 20 year contract via Pier55, Inc. to maintain the space.
3
Yaj, you are totally mistaken.
1) It is public. The "event space" to which you refer is an open-air amphitheater, like the band shell in Central Park. And, again, most events are low-cost or free to the public.
2) There was no "shopping arcade". Perhaps a concession to sell food.
3) Diller agreed to fund it for 20 years. Admittedly not perfect, but hopefully would have given enough time to find a public financing source.
4
AS I read this piece I can't help feeling that this is a Clash of Personalities,
and there is more to it than we are being told. I don't think it's a bad thimg
that it has failed.
Hooray for the RIVER!
4
Opposition for the sake of opposition can kill any good project. Business rivalry also plays a vital role. Your rival is simply interested in killing your project,howsover good it may be - the so-called environmentalists play spoil sport - lawsuits are filed - one court after another. This project can be compared with what happens in deliberations of a cooperative housing society 's annual general meeting. A member may put up a good idea,say sensors for water tanks. But this idea will not get credit for the managing committee of the society ,so give one silly excuse or other - what if sensors do not work,so manually operating water pumps is the ideal operation,forgetting the fact that the watchman of the building has to go to the terrace in the night when municipal water comes,and see to it that the tank does not overflow. The watchman has to travel by lift,and if there is bad luck,the lift may not work due to mechanical problems,or vested interests of the managing committee to award the lift maintenance contract to the firm of its choice,instead of to the branded company. In this cultural project also,silly questions like where will the VIPs keep their dogs,were asked. The brainchild of the project ,gets frustrated,and in the end ,he drops the idea altogether. This is what happened in this project. Those who were opposing the project finally won. Had there been a smart guy,he would have dug up dirt of those opposing the project.
2
The involvement of Thomas Heatherwick serves as a good pointer to a similar debacle in London.
The key fault in both cases is the desire to impose a personal vision on public space which the public ultimately would ultimately have to carry.
London had the additional disadvantage that the person in question was Boris Johnson. He spent a great deal of public money in underhanded schemes to satisfy his narcissism, aided a little by Joanna Lumley.
Diller seems someone of much greater quality, but the same dynamic prevails. He mounted this with just about zero public involvement, and relied on a few people from his very, very well-connected circle to advance his project.
I know I should feel shame for not appreciating what the Laird is doing for us, but I still value my right to ask questions.
Mr. Diller attempted to impose his seigneurial will without facing the public with his ideas.
3
The area in question was in the middle of an important overwintering area for juvenile striped bass in the Hudson River. We can build art and performance venues in other parts of NYC, we do not need to destroy important habitats for important fisheries in order to have such venues.
This may be a loss for Barry Diller, it is clearly a win for the Hudson River!!!
6
Seriously the striped bass? and from kansas.....
there is already a pier there and I am sure the underground portions of the new park could have been adapted to be welcoming to the fish.
that said, are you kidding me? How about all the children and New Yorkers who would have benefited from fresh air on the river? You can make all sorts of arguments. but the fish really? Perhaps you should focus on all the dumping of waste into the Hudson that continues to this day. I am sure that causes the fish more harm then pylons
2
There will be another Hurricane Sandy, that is a given, which might wreck this high minded grandiose water river project. I suggest , given the rapid intensification of hurricanes witnessed this season, they spend money hurricane proofing and upgrading existing parks. Central park could handle any level of wonderful , architecturally magnificent improvement which could also make sure the park does not flood soon. Sandy actually did flood some of NY City, just like Al Gore predicted.
7
says the dude in Ithaca, NY.....
Reading this article, I couldn't help but think of the failed project to bring the George Lucas museum to Chicago.
A great opportunity to bring something great to Chicago, along the wonderful riverfront, and the prospect of jobs and tourists and all sorts of great things...
...brought to a screeching halt by narrow-minded interest groups.
If I were Lucas, I would have told Chicago to take a hike too. And who else will dare to propose something so wonderful?
9
Sounds like a major loss for both riverfront development and the art world.
11
I don't have time to wade through the other 172 and counting comments, but I hope that at least some of them share my sentiment that a park built by Mr. Diller or anyone else would be welcome anywhere in the city, but that building a "venue" for events is not something that serves the common good very well. Most of the coverage I see focuses on the various partisan interests, pro and anti, but not all that much on what would fill the real need for space devoted to use by the public for whatever suits it, recreation, quiet contemplation or whatever. The strong message coming from the proposal was entertainment and, the last I looked, the BIg Apple was pretty well supplied with options in this area. Most residents of any neighborhood with any sort of roots there want a place that feels community oriented and part of its ongoing life. A magnet for the wider public seeking concerts, fairs and other diversions that set down for a day or two and then are gone does little for the people living in the vicinity.
I hope that Mr. Diiler, once he has sulked out his disappointment, will want to offer at least some of his millions to enhance, expand, and improve existing park areas and maybe even create some new ones. If he needs help in how to do it, there are already examples all around the city if he cares to look for them. If not, I or anyone else who has lived here for some years can tell him where to look if he is interested.
6
Yet another reason to tax all income (from all sources) over $500K per year at 70%. And ensure there are no loopholes for the estate tax. These rich nitwits should not be permitted to decide what is or is not in the public interest.
21
Shouldnt you be weighing in on a San Francisco debate instead of a NYC debate?
1
I'm delighted this died. It was inappropriately huge, in an overcrowded, already very heavily touristed area. As others have said, why couldn't Diller spread his wealth around more underprivileged areas? That would have been truly impressive. This whole project was ill-conceived.
15
This sounds like one of those English dramas you can see on TV, replete w class struggles- issues of culture being bought and sold, etc. It is very tough to feel sorry for Mr. Diller, however.
3
Why not? The resentment expressed for Mr.Diller or others with great wealth is misplaced when they want to do something with that wealth for the general good of the populace. What I read in the comments is the overwhelming resentment and anger at people with great wealth regardless of how they wish to contribute for the greater good.
20
I think it's call jealousy.
10
Those with "great wealth" do not deserve to be given the right to determine what constitutes the "public good" simply because of that wealth. Rather they deserve greater scrutiny, and not greater deference. When will this country get over its adulation of greed?
5
I believe it's called envy.
8
Oh, my. A billionaire leaves in a fit of pique that we ‘little people’ don’t appreciate the wonderfulness of himself. Color me surprised.
19
Another billionaire is thwarted in his effort to build a monument to himself. Poor guy! Wah!
16
L,
How do you know that "this island was not itself "art"? Did you see the plans or a model? Are you an architectural critic? Do you have credentials? How exactly is this a vanity project and so what if it was, if it would clean up the piers and give us something beautiful?
10
What I would like to know, but don't, is how much someone as rich as Diller gets to deduct from his taxes when making a "gift" like this. I know that it can be complicated, and that lots of factors specific to the donor contribute to the complexity.
But can anyone give a basic tutorial on the subject ? Just a rough idea - the basics. If all, or a significant % can be written off, then it isn't a gift. The Times has articles like this all the time, but it never seems to examine this issue, which I think is of enormous importance.
I brought this subject up in Times comments about this Diller/Hudson project before.
13
When I visited the High Line a couple falls ago, it was indeed lovely, but so packed with tourists (including me) that I felt I had to walk fast so as not to hold up the mob of people behind. But even during my sprint down its length I couldn't help but notice all the architecturally distinct, multi-million-dollar-condo projects rising on either side of it. The blasphemous thought crossed my mind that the High Line had not been created as a park for people but rather as a "view" to enhance the real estate values of adjacent properties. It would be interesting to know which if any of the benefactors of the Diller Island project had real estate holdings in the general vicinity which would benefit by association with a sparkling new park on the water. Cynical, I know.
21
There has been discussion that the High Line was a luxury real estate "Trojan Horse" and assisted by Bloomberg Administration zoning modifications.
Per a Curbed article about discussion in the blog Jeremiah's Vanishing NY blog "....Manhattan is turning into an amusement park/strip mall for the super wealthy, filled with chain stores and condominiums and no room for anything else. The High Line was a Trojan horse for the real-estate people," she tells Moss, and it's a sentiment that's tough to refute. Moss goes on to outline how the West Chelsea rezoning in 2005 that allowed for the High Line also expressly encouraged the exact type of development we're seeing now, with easy-to-come-by air rights and the possibility for additional height at minimal cost."
13
Bingo. Now you're getting it.
1
Also Bob G - the one with real estate holdings is Mr. Durst. Please reread the history and see that Mr. Durst put up the funds to block this awesome project and apparently one reason is that he wanted more Love and attention to the pier near his properties at 57th street ! Still not sure of his motivations
Why are these questions “petty”: “What would signage at the pier be like? Would VIPs get special treatment at performances? And what would they do about dogs?” Citizens of NYC have put up with enough abuses by the likes of the Central Park Conservancy in the name of “VIP treatment”.
“The pier had grown from a relatively modest original proposal into a grand project worthy of a billionaire’s ambitions.”
That’s because the original proposal wasn’t actually a park or something that would endure say 40 years. “Modest” meaning Diller wasn’t going to spend what it would take to create real park, and had no means to find the funds.
“On Oct. 29, 2012, as Hurricane Sandy was battering New York, members of the Trust quietly met with Mr. Diller, “
Well, technically Sandy no longer qualified as a hurricane by that date in 2012. Wouldn’t matter but in the context of other inventive phrasing in the “reporting”, the “mistake” deserves attention.
Diller should have been serious about proposing a real park in the neighborhood, there’s a big open lot next to his big building at 18th street, that would be a place to start thinking about paying for a real park–it won’t be inexpensive. But it’s on land, therefore many fewer permits needed.
5
But don't you know that any and all open land has been promised to de Blasio's developer friends for so called "affordable housing" for the 1% crowd? The sun has been obliterated by these behemoths.
9
"But don't you know that any and all open land has been promised to de Blasio's developer friends for so called "affordable housing" for the 1% crowd?"
Provide evidence for this claim?
3
CEJNY
Thank you CEJNY for summarizing the situation so well. Selfishness and petty nonsense won or rather everyone of us lost out.
2
Petty questions? What a demeaning bit of smear. The "Diller Island" project was another vanity project for a billionaire that would involve tax breaks for him and big bills for tax payers in both $$$ and loss of air and light as developers lapped up the TDRs the project was being used to creat.
My take, on this project was it was like a miracle except it wasn't water to wine it was water to real estate! It had little if anything to do with park land it was all about how some very wealthy people would get their plaything and billions of dollars in real estate development rights and then leave the city holding the bag for the maintenance of a private park built in the RIVER!
It's just one more example of how city government has become just another vehicle for beillionaires to get more while making sure the rest of us pay for it.
40
Barry, Puerto Rico would probably love a new pier about now. All may not be lost yet. Much nicer place for wintertime concerts anyway.
6
This was never a gift, because it never left the control of Barry Diller. I think it was very unfair for other parties to try to weasel in on its concept and design, but still, one man telling a city to use public space for his sole vision isn't exactly noble. This should be another cautionary tale of having individuals building public spaces. There are a ton of places for Mr Diller to do great work with his money. I'm sure he'll find one and will do great things.
21
I'm sure he will. Just probably not in NYC. He'll probably go somewhere where a project that benefits the public is appreciated. What is a sad loose for us will be a benefit for those who don't live here in NYC.
I'm truly sorry. Let's just amok the assumption that Mr. Diller was completely driven by altruism (sure).
I'm pretty sure the petty questions as often (or obnoxious) or not still need to be answered. Okay, it's his football and when he doesn't like how the game goes he can walk up, take the ball and go home.
Even with the best of intentions, that's what the neighborhood kids called a snowflake.
2
A sad end to this project and a park development that I was looking forward to visiting. The groups that oppose everything have won again.
8
The so called "park" was set to only last 10-15 years.
It wasn't park proposal.
1
what does this comment even mean???
A good example of why young people should become lawyers and bureaucrats rather than seek to be involved with construction per se: "a six-year saga that had cost $40 million before construction had started in earnest."
2
Welcome to NY Barry. It is run by leftists who stand in the way of progress all the time.
8
I doubt you would care for an entertainment arena being built in your neck of the woods. But then again, why should you care about one being built in mine? After all, you could enjoy an evening out at a concert at Pier 55 and then drive home to the quietude of your little hamlet. Those of us who live in the area, however, would have to put up with more vehicular traffic, more pedestrian congestion, more sources of noise and more all-night drunken revelry. Personally, I don't think that's "progress."
14
You clearly live in Manhattan, once of the most populated cities in the world. One of the epicenters of culture and life....and yet you bemoan the tradeoffs of city living: congestion, noise and 'all-night revelry'. In a city with 4am closing times and a pulse that beats 24 hours a day how in the world can you think at any point this city will be quiet, specifically for your precious self, when it is built to eminate noise? The point is to find the quiet. And with that in mind, how can you possibly be against new public open space that offers the opportunity for free and low cost entertainment that gives a break from the overall city cacophony? NIMBY destroys yet another potential positive gain in the city. I hope you're happy.
3
How wonderful it would have been to have had another fantastic green park in NYC, on the River no less.
We thank you for the efforts Mr. Diller, you almost succeeded in what would have been a beautiful amenity for the City and the Public.
The opposition wins, and NYC is left with nothing there...
31
I see you live on the Upper West Side, which has two large and lovely parks for its residents to enjoy, one of which runs alongside the Hudson River. Those who live in the Meatpacking District or the far West Village have only one sliver of a green park running along "the River" and most of us would like to see Pier 55 included in it.
If you would like an open-air concert venue with water views, perhaps Barry could build one alongside the 79th Street boat basin, where many of his fat-cat friends moor their yachts, so you and they can enjoy the extra company and late-night music.
5
It wasn't going to be a public park.
4
Who's "we"?
1
So the Dursts shook down the trust to get a quicker renovation of Pier 97 by funding a few rabble rousers? Pretty sad. Too bad the Dursts weren't contributing to city cultural amenities like Diller instead of just shaking down the Trust.
20
"Billionaires, Bruised Egos and the Death of a Grand Project"?
What was so "grand" about it? More like an egocentric megalomaniacal project!
If Diller and his ilk really care so much about the city and public spaces, let them donate money -- no strings attached -- to build and rehab parks! Oh right, it's really all about him!
Hasn't NYC, and the USA, had enough of "billionaires" calling the shots?
57
If the City or the State could have funded all or any of these projects out of taxpayer dollars, fine - but that clearly was, and remains, an impossibility. The real egocentrics are the people who negotiated this deal to death with petty trivia so that their egos could have a say in its implementation. It didn't seem to me that Mr. Diller's overall concept of a cultural center changed other than for the good and that he was always willing to meet environmental challenges. For generations, NYC has neglected one of its greatest assets - its water front and its adjacent land. I remember when no one would even think about walking on 10th through 12th Avenues, even in day light.
The narrow-mindedness of the negotiators, who seem to be dancing to Mr. Durst's bidding, just made us even more insular than we already are. The real losers are the many arts groups that would have benefited from another readily accessible venue. I know, first-hand, how difficult it is for smaller arts groups to find suitable performance venues. What a loss to the cultural vibrancy of New York!!
13
I think you are confusing charity with philanthropy.
1
the project was indeed GRAND
and beautiful.
and for all - it was to be a public park.
I wish you could see beyond your hatred of those who are successful and wish to give back. Would you rather he and his family just hoards the money?
Q. Who was this really for?
A. Wealthy people like Diller, who would be most likely to benefit from high ticket prices and rentals at this space, and those who would cultivate businesses in the surrounding area - none of which would likely be developed for the area residents but rather for people coming to the venue from outside the neighborhood.
Q. Did the neighborhood want or need this project?
A. It appears the neighborhood residents, when they finally got a chance to learn what was going on in the secret negotiations among the moneyed people behind this, said no.
24
Do your homework! He was not profiting in any way. Just because people are wealthy does not de facto make them part of the evil empire. Mr. Diller and his wife Diane have donated or pledged over $1 billion to a laundry list of non-profits, including the High Line and the Central Park Conservancy, no strings attached. The pier's theaters would have been run as non-profits, similar to the way they operate in Central Park, as part of some kind of public trust. That park, like the High Line, would have been a fabulous asset for the city and now it will just remain an eyesore of a rotting pier. Good work guys.
10
The article clearly stated that Mr. Diller would earn NOTHING from whoever used that arts center.
8
Susan B - as a longtime neighborhood homeowner, I can tell you that the High Line is not a fabulous asset. And 50% of the parks "shows" - anything from fashion shows, product promotions, private parties would have been exactly that - private events, closed to the public. And every dollar Diller donates is a tax deduction. He profits.
18
Have the City and State of NY sue the plaintiffs for the estimated cost of the pier not completed ($500,000,00), plus the lost economic impact of the pier over 10 years ($10,000,000,000) plus damages (3x the actual damages = $31,000,000,000).
8
ummm, under what theory exactly?
6
This contest reminds me of every Godzilla vs. You-Name-It movie ever made. Two behemoths battle it out while the tiny humans scurry for shelter below. Does it really matter who wins if everything is in ruins?
3
Good for Barry Diller. Life is short- give your money to people who will appreciate it.
The CAVE (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) People get nothing, which is what they wanted and deserve, frankly.
The rest of the world will never know what could have been.
31
so, do you spend your money for these parks and projects
or advocate or wish that others do so.... do you lead by example and give small or large amounts, just wondering...
2
This is somewhat frustrating. I have no specific opinion about the pier project, but I have worked on many similar projects where a group of people have a big idea that could impact a lot of people, and I recognize a lot of the pettiness of the opposition. I've seen this with major, necessary government infrastructure projects as well as smaller but still substantial proposals by nonprofits like this one. It really strikes me that Barry Diller, to the extent that he was driving the project, simply gave up far too easily. You MUST take a 5 to 10 year view of these things no matter what stage of the process you are in. The very wealthy are often incredibly supportive of great projects like this, with the high line being a fabulous example, but they also tend to be impatient and demanding. When something is as successful as the high line was, it can be especially frustrating to hit such seemingly irrational opposition. People with the wherewithal to lead things like this need a tremendous amount of fortitude and commitment.
6
Mr. Diller certainly had "fortitude and commitment". The cost was getting out of control. There didn't seem to be any limit to the opposition demands. The Dursts have contribute nothing to the city that doesn't benefit them. Anita Durst has an organization that rents studio spaces to artists. She runs it for profit and her ego. Most of the spaces are rat infested buildings under construction. Selfishness once again prevailed. I say, good for Barry Diller. Sad for the rest of us.
6
The river won. Finally.
17
what did it win? A decrepit sinking pier that NYC or NYS can't afford to rehab? O, Yay?.. I'm not a fan of rampant unregulated private developement, like more condo towers no one can afford just to rescue an eyesore. But this was a hugely generous expensive, entirely non-profit arts project proposed by Diller, Scott Rudin and Mike Nichols in response to a REQUEST for much-needed funds to rehab the pier, and complete constuction of a much loved Park running the length of the Westside, that also provided increasingly rare low cost performance space in a stunning environmentally conscious structure for residents and visitors. Funds were also allocated to provide an estuary. Diller's shown his commitment to the arts and environment in his conritbution to the High Line, the popularity of which, along with the Park, show the public's appetite for opportunities to actively enjoy the River. Now NYC has to find another way to pay to replace decaying dangerous eyesore of pier, let alone finance reminder of Hudson River Park. Now, after 6 yr $40 million pre-construction cost,the whole project is torpedoed and facing crisis of pier collapsing. The solution may not be as carefully thought out, nor non-profit, but private high-rise condos or office bldgs. that limit access and even views of the River. Certainly this will discourage another to donate the millions needed, along with public arts spaces, just to get derision for their generosity, and lawsuits from the Dursts.
9
The mob and social media prevail:
Mr. Diller: "Then my family said, Don’t you think we should use our resources where they’re wanted?" Right on but I have no idea who the loser is, but Mr. Diller is definitely the emotional maturity and sanity winner.
Let's revisit Pier 55 in 1-5-10 years and continue this discussion, shall we?
19
This ain't Andrew Carnegie building libraries. "Diller Island" was a billionaire's ego trip trying to hijack public space.
The city is responsible for Pier 54, and we the people should hold elected officials accountable for using it wisely.
The fact is that the Hudson River and shoreline should not be used at the whim of any individual simply because he has more money than the rest of us.
58
Huh? The reason that the Trust got Diller involved was because the State, City and the Trust would not come up with the money to pay for the renovation of the pier. Perhaps unfortunately, these projects devolve upon billionaires because the public does not want to pay the additional taxes necessary to to avoid the substantial use of private funds.
23
Please don't ascribe the desire not to pay additional taxes to "the public." We know who we can hold accountable for the dwindling budgets our federal, state and local governments must contend with. It's the Dillers of the world, the one-percenters, and NOT the remaining 99% of the public.
2
As a longtime resident of the neighborhood, I am very grateful not to have yet another "amenity". So little thought goes in to the impact something this has on a neighborhood, chiefly drawing more and more tourists to an area already swarming with them. We have the elitist High Line. The elitist Whitney. Seemingly every proposal for a loud outdoor bar gets approved (my apartment has six such establishments in close proximity, blasting music seven days a week). We don't need something else that's just going to draw more people, most of whom seem to arrive by car. The city has allowed a small scale neighborhood to be overrun to the benefit of developers and tourists, with no thought given to the people who helped make this neighborhood desirable in the first place.
42
How on earth is the High Line elitist?
25
The High Line is elitist? It is a magnificent use of a once derelict crime ridden stretch of nastiness. The High Line is free to everyone to enjoy.
20
It is not a park.
It is a tour of VERY expensive buildings adjacent.
Maybe set up by a real estate sales office?
10
Why are people so upset at the idea of a billionaire investing in what is being referred to as "vanity" projects? Most of the great art in the world exists because someone had money to make it happen. We don't care about the patrons of Michelangelo or Da Vinci but we do appreciate the art they were able to create with the financial support. And that's how it should be. It's the legacy that counts for future generations. It would have enhanced NYC's history.
80
@Anne: Why are people so upset? Several reasons. Firstly, because if you don't want to see "The Last Supper" or the "David" you're not compelled to! Whereas Diller Island was going to be unavoidably visible to anyone on the west side of Manhattan in that vicinity, and from NJ as well.
Secondly, we're not in the Renaissance era any longer. The plebes are far better educated now, and we live in a democracy.
Thirdly, this island was not itself "art" nor was it really going to be about art; it was more about ego and commerce. Mr. Diller is not involved in "arts patronage" by any measure; if he wanted to do that, he could give money to many, many arts organizations that are struggling (but there's not a lot of glory in that, is there?).
So, yes, this island was almost the very definition of a "vanity" project.
33
Truly shortsighted. Nothing to do with the renaissance and everything to do with supporting the arts. Clearly you're not a fan and therefore have no qualms denying it to others who might have enjoyed it.
4
I agree entirely. Most of the opposition is by people who create nothing and oppose everything because they themselves are unable to offer anything that benefits the public good. Instead, their big noise in life is to gain attention through negativity and opposition, neither of which requires much responsibility or accountability.
1
read the article.good for diller.getting older .why put up with the headaches.great sweater he has on.
12
Regardless of who won and lost with this project, no mention was much made in this article about the actual contents of this "entertainment center." Having played for years along the Hudson, riding bikes, walking, looking at the water, the wide expanse of sunset views from almost anywhere along the park, and all the incomparable activities that happen on the river, I am incredulous that anyone would want to add another block to all that. To increase pedestrian traffic, for another form of entertainment that had nothing to do with a direct interaction with the view and the environment. Entertainment centers belong within the city, not on the limited acreage of riverfront. Surely, a low-impact use of that pier, like just a pedestrian sit on, play on, walk on, or an open air concert venue, would serve us in much more of an organic, healthy way. Billionaires might be better served giving money where it is sorely needed, than building monuments to themselves.
79
Very well said.
6
If Andrew Carnegie were alive today, would he (and his philanthropy) have been able to fund the over 2000 public libraries that were built.
http://library.columbia.edu/locations/rbml/units/carnegie/andrew.html
19
False equivalence, Carnegie funded and endowed the libraries in near perpetuity.
That's not the kind of "funding" Diller was going to provide.
How dare the peasants refuse my charitable gift?
30
The "peasants" didn't refuse his gift. The self-appointed know-it-alls fixed it so that the peasants now get nothing. Nor do they get the $250 million worth of local jobs this project would have brought during the construction period, either. And that $250 million will stay in the bank, rather than circulating around in New York. Good job, "experts."
2
I suspect that Diller was looking for an excuse to pull out due to the skyrocketing costs. Not that he couldn't still afford it, but even billionaires have limits on what they want to spend on something.
For so many reasons, I'm glad this is not happening. The main one being being we will not disturb the river's ecosystem even more than we already have.
26
It's a damn shame that such a unique space that would have added another dimension to life in New York, funded mostly with private money, will now never be built. That's the bottom line.
15
We need less building and less concrete--not more. We need more wild, untouched spaces.
Did you learn nothing from the floods during Sandy or Harvey in Houston?
25
We need MORE building in Manhattan, the existing building stock is old an overcapacity as it is. It's New York City, not the everglades.
4
Honeybee, I'm going to guess that living in Dallas you don't spend all that much time in Manhattan and don't realize this is a tiny rotting pier that could have been transformed into a magnificent outdoor concert space primarily with private funds, not a barrier island that was going to save Manhattan from a storm surge.
13
After the last burst of National Park creation in the 1970's, the public sector has been largely moribund when it comes to creation and preservation of public space. In Michigan, the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore was created in 1970. Since then, preservation has been by The Nature Conservancy and by several local land conservancies. This is true for much of the US.
In the current political environment, any public space we get, and any nature we preserve, will be the gifts of private individuals and organizations. We had better get used to this, and we had better learn to cooperate with those private individuals who step forward.
Of course, it would also be nice for the public itself to take the care and preservation of its public lands and public spaces more seriously. But don't hold your breath. Most of what we hear nowadays is, "drill it, fill it, mine it, sell it."
4
Sounds like a variation on; 'Find it. Hit it. Quit it. Forget it.'
The media coverage has generally framed this as a billionaire vs. billionaire issue and ignored the land-use issues and the implications of continuing to privatize decisionmaking about public space and parks.
The media has not discussed traffic, trash, pedestrian safety and impact on local residential.
in fact, the Diller Pier Project would not have benefitted the community at all.
The community would benefit from accessible green park space - trees, grass, flowers. But the Diller project was not a park for people - the Diller project was a entertainment "destination" project for luxury real estate interests and tourists.
And given the needs of underserved communities in NYC, there is no responsible justification for the expenditure of millions for a project for tourists and luxury real estate interests.
84
It was Dillers millions that were going to be spent. Not the publics. Now the neighborhood will have nothing since there are no public funds for another project. But you really taught 'em a lesson!!!
Ever hear the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face?"
5
But, Nyalman, it was the public's river that would have been impacted.
5
@Nyalman: You missed the part where the public (meaning we ordinary taxpayers) was going to be on the hook for many of the costs of this "island"! Maybe you should read up on this?
9
Diller's greatest cultural contribution to the world up and the start of his amassing his ill-gotten fortune was the ABC Movie of the Week. Given this artistic brilliance, I'd rather watch 200 reruns of Gilligan's Island than be forced to set a foot on Diller's.
15
How was Diller's fortune 'ill-gotten'?
9
I missed the part of the article that said people were going to be "forced to set foot" on this.
8
The bizarre alliance between the scion of a wealthy NYC real estate family and a short sighted lot of do-gooders should have alerted people to to fact that the public good was the last thing on these peoples' minds in killing Pier 55.
As far as Diller goes...there are worse billionaires you could pick to build something like this. And if not through mega-philanthropy how else are things like this going to happen in this day and age? We don't collect enough taxes or sell enough bonds anymore to fund projects like this. And even if we did, people with the vision to see projects like this through are no longer generally drawn to public service. Wishing we lived in a different era does not make it so. Meanwhile, the space will sit, unused and crumbling, for another decade.
The west side waterfront is a big area. It could accommodate one fancy entertainment venue, especially one that at least had a chance of serving some public interest (which this did). It's not like the guy wanted to build a mansion or a hotel. What do you think would happen if Durst developed it? Or the Trump Organization? It would be developed to serve their real estate interests. At least Diller wanted to build something that had to do with art, entertainment, and technology.
And anyway, where exactly are the plans for the grand, publicly-funded public space alternative to this development? In a drawer somewhere at the City Club?
19
Yawn, there are lots that Diller can purchase on the west side of Manhattan and privately develop for entertainment venues.
2
Looks like there is more than one sociopath in the Durst family.
21
Could The Times reporters, who should care about the objective news and the People, please stop writing such slanted pieces?
How many pieces will you devote to Barry's loss? Why not shine some objective light on the fact that community activism won (and yes, it's a shame that community activists often don't have an equal playing field without being bankrolled by a wealthy supporter).
Why are you the shameless mouthpiece for a billionaire who wanted to create his vanity project at the expense of a delicate marine environment and ecosystem?
Why don't any Times reporters get as worked up over the years of displacement of average New Yorkers and the destruction of our city's character, charm and history?
Are you The Real Estate Developer Times or The New York Times?
58
The NY Times was mostly silent about the displacement of residents, destruction of neighborhoods and the tsunami of luxury real estate enabled by the Bloomberg Administration.
And the amount and extent of NY Times reporting on this is particularly striking given The NY Times cut in coverage of NYC local news.
17
What exactly did community activists win here? They got nothing, and deprived their neighborhood of a new public space, and instead will continue to look at a falling down pier. Sound like real losers. How long until they come asking taxpayers to build something that won't be as good and costs twice as much money and time to build?
43
"No good deed goes unpunished"
attributed to Mark Twain
5
I think reporters Bagli and Pogrebin show their lack of insight when describing Mr. Diller as piqued and thinner skinned than professional city leaders. Whether elected, appointed, hired or volunteering, the challenges that lie in the way of doing something good on a large, sustainable scale are extraordinary. Unfortunately, when those dedicated to doing good step aside, opportunists and profiteers rush in to fill that vacuum. Thank you Mr. Diller for your efforts. I hope you continue to find ways to use your fortune to accomplish real and sustainable good.
18
Hey Dursts, now's your big chance to step in and fix the mess you helped create...by replacing the Diller funds with Durst funds and fixing the waterfront which is (coincidentally) in front of your towers...
Guess that ain't happening so fast, huh?
18
Most people I know who live near this failed pier are pleased . We worry about the HRPT giving another billionaire a piece of the Hudson that should belong to all of of us. isnt the Hudson River a public asset? We worry that the decision for this Diller gift was arrived at through several years of private meetings held by the HRPT. Why wasn't the West Village consulted except at the last minute thru a Community Board that did not properly communicate to the affected neighborhood.Why do friends of billionaires , like Diane Taylor, get to decide what gets built in a community they don't even live in. Because Diller has the money, should we really just surrender to his whims ?
This same West Village Community is now fighting an LPC decision to undo a historic land marking designation made fifteen years ago. Info about this fight can be found at savegansevoort.org. It's another story about the power of money.
27
Diller and his family should be utterly grateful to the people of America for allowing them to prosper safely in a stable democratic nation. After all, in other nations their wealth could be absconded by mafioso or during political change. And they should publicly thank the American people for giving them such low tax rates. After all, we should really tax him and his family 90% like under Eisenhower. But instead they complain. These spoiled rotten parasites (yes, since they pay less in taxes than their secretary) have long lost touch with reality. This article highlights why we are almost at the point of pitchforks and torches.
53
What a red herrring talking about tax rates. The unit of measure for taxes are dollars. But if we are going to talk percentages... the top 1% of taxpayers - those with AGI of $450K or more per year - pay 40% of all federal income taxes collected. We need to cut everyone's taxes and cut goverment spending. Everyone's tax rate should be the same - that would be fair. And the rate should be 10%. If tithng is good enough for god it ought to be good enough for Uncle Sam.
3
An equal rate is unfair as 10% less is negligible for some and burdensome for others. Equal PAIN is fair.
3
Reader, just a reminder that in a debate, when Trump was asked if he had paid no taxes, his response was "that makes me smart."
You are dead wrong about the tax issue. There is no end to the billionaires who got that rich by slithering through the loopholes they paid for by buying politicians.
The idea that wealth unseen in this country's history should be hoarded and husbanded, to be loosed in a farrago of ego driven projects is anathema to the principles that founded this country.
8
New Yorkers,tourists, visitors are loosers. Dursts, trumps, are winners.
Very Sad.
12
Just pathetic...Diller trys to make the city better and "activists" mess it up with their petty stupidity
11
@Tony: Says the man from Michigan! How about if I, an outsider who knows nothing about Shelby Township, tell you how to make it better there? Or would that be petty stupidity?
16
This is a free country, L, and @ Tony can offer his opinion anytime he likes.
1
"Richard Emery, a lawyer for the opponents who took part in the talks, was shocked to hear of Mr. Diller’s sudden decision. " to end the project.
Sounds like he just lost his perpetual cash cow..
29
Would these 'benefactors' pitch in to handle the unfathomable filth and squalor that's overflowing this city? Otherwise, could you imagine the rats haven this pay-per-view green island could have become?...
7
One inhuman Robert Moses a century is more than enough than concerned NYers are willing to stomach.
Barry Diller I made his bones and billions of dollars by browbeating Hollywood to the point that workers in the admin building at Fox wore earplugs in his wing.
Wholeheartedly despised in the Industry and LA, he realized that his best PR move for posterity was move to a city where most people were ignorant of his tawdry conduct and avarice.
He picked the wrong city. NYers didn't just fall off the turnip truck. And they proved it. Better luck elsewhere, Barry. Like Keokuk.
63
Lisa, the Dillers have donated millions to the city of NY most notably the High Line, and the Statue of Liberty Ellis Island Foundation. The money they donated goes toward the upkeep of these magnificent places and have been enjoyed by millions of tourists and locals alike. Sad that people like you don't appreciate it.
8
This is why we can't have nice things.
16
This is why we don't want crummy things.
9
Ummm. We pretty much have a crummy thing now. Rotting piers and nothing for the public at Pier 54.
7
Most of us would rather have wild spaces filled with wildlife.
3
Funny how the real estate tycoon Durst is on the other other side of the coin here, and has no better claim to the high ground, so to speak.
9
Hey Barry. Please come out to the West Coast and refurbish the Redondo Beach Pier. Everyone would welcome your money and your involvement.
8
Build yourself a great, big boat, Barry, and maybe Lesie Stahl will bring her '60 Minutes' team around to do a puff piece on you. A rose you will smell like, Barry, a rose!
9
I'm NOT at all sorry this ego-heavy "look at what I can do with my money!" project has been killed off. I see no reason why NYC's waterfront should be deformed to the specifications of ONE rich guy whose taste, frankly, isn't that great, and for a project that was going to be way over-budget (no surprise there), and which would end up hosting private events that cost $$$ to attend.
Diller Island was an attempt to privatize public space under the guise of philanthropy, but I am not fooled. Look at the High Line, which is a great concept but a horrible reality: JAMMED full of tourists and patrolled by people who keep admonishing you to not step here or not do something. It is the polar opposite of what its concept was; it is NOT a calm, peaceful retreat high above the city streets.
IMO, Diller just wanted to wield his financial power to create something *he* liked, and to hell with whether the rest of us wanted it or not. It's like having someone give you a gift you really don't want, and then you're supposed to thank them lavishly for inflicting you with it.
Mr. Diller, if you're at a loss for what to do with your billions, try splashing some of it out to address the shameful situation of food-insecurity (esp. among children in NYC), and/or for after-school programs to enrich the lives of children. You'd be leaving a far better legacy in NYC.
52
RE: Mr. Diller, if you're at a loss for what to do with your billions, try splashing some of it out to address the shameful situation of food-insecurity (esp. among children in NYC),
If poor people with children are foolish enough to try living in one of the most expensive cities in the world encouraging them with charity is equally foolish. The country is full of afforadable places to live. NYC is not one of them.
2
Re: Reader in Wash, DC.
So are you proposing that families born, raised and living in NYC--families with parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, nieces, nephews and cousins living here--should just pick up and go when their cash runs short in a city whose cost of living is soaring due to the real estate investment industry? Kind of like what the Okies had to do in the Great Depression when their towns were engulfed by the Great Dust Bowl?
Is that what they do in DC?
3
Mr. Diller, please come to Seattle.
2
First World problems...
4
What about signage??? What about dogs??? The progressives got what they deserved -- zero.
7
Yeah, how about answering those questions.
Also another who was going to pay to keep it going after 10 years?
1
What about the city raising the tax rate on those who have such wealth so that it could afford to build its own parks?
43
These "benefactors" usually have something to gain--often it's much more than the public does.
The last time we allowed anything similar we got "THE WALL".
No, not the one near Mexico--but the nearly solid wall of trump buildings blocking the view of the Hudson, complete with private roads, guard-controlled, the last block or two west, making even pedestrian access to the river's edge limited and difficult.
Why was this allowed? Might have something to do with the sympathetic-to -another-billionaire Mayor Mike. You remember him, the one who got the laws changed so he could be mayor for 12 years, not the limit of 8 years.
24
What complete nonsense. The oppositional forces to Mr. Diller's project were driven by ego, and pettiness, the project's failure is rooted precisely, and on par with the type of dysfunction Washington D.C. is gripped with, endless bickering, ultimately the victor here was no one. Mr. Diller, no matter what he presented would have been ardently oppressed, and litigated by a contrarian engagement of hostile, self serving parties, regardless. The comments here are mostly uneducated, uninformed, and commensurately hostile. Mr. Diller, whether you like him or not, is successful as a result of his hard earned track record. Durst is anchored into the archetypal NY landscape and wields a specific aligned power through union affiliations and city hall. This is a loss for NYC, a loss for everyone. Now there is yet another blemish left on the NY cityscape. And for how long, at what cost? Petty, jealous people, who call themselves progressive. Not. If I were Mr. Diller, I would have pulled out years prior.
16
@agc: No, it's not a "loss for everybody" - I am *somebody* and so are millions of other New Yorkers who opposed this vanity project for very good reasons.
What "blemish" is left on the NYC landscape by the ABSENCE of this island? NONE! In fact, the lack of this ugly island preserves the view of the Hudson River for all New Yorkers, and cuts down the inevitable congestion the island would have caused in that area. But Diller doesn't care about that, b/c if you notice, people like this never put these projects right where they themselves would have to look at them or deal with the effects of them on local neighborhoods.
18
There are always naysayers to every project. Sometimes there is a valid objection. Often, however the naysaying is merely a vehicle to cling to the publicity generated.
It is inarguable that the value of an abandoned island in the middle of the river is enhanced enormously when it is put to good public use as another venue for art, performance or other recreation. Given that Diller was willing to commit to that with funds and his time, it is a shame that political and judicial machinery was used to derail this project against the public weal
42
it is not an "abandoned island" - it was a historic pier, and part of an estuary that is environmentally protected. They were constructing a man-made island on top of more than 500 new concrete pilings, all to be sunk into the river bed. It was going to be an environmental disaster.
29
It's New York City! What environment? The waterfront has been developed for two hundred years. The city is land designated for use by people, not animals. Save the conservation efforts for upriver, where it could actually have an impact.
6
Andrew, this comment deserves the retort, "better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Homo sapiens is hardly the only species that calls NYC home, or has a claim to it.
4
“My family essentially had an intervention with me in the last couple of weeks to say, We’ve watched you be stressed and tortured by something that was only meant to be a good thing,” Mr. Diller said.
Are we to believe that Diller pulled out of the development project for this reason alone? Isn’t this the same man who, a few short years ago, proclaimed during an interview at a Bloomberg Markets Summit that he “might leave the country” if Trump were elected president? (He hasn’t.)
Could the real reason be that the budget for Diller’s floating, man-made island had, according to published reports, ballooned from $35 million to $250 million-plus? Blaming a small group of environmental activists and their “petty” concerns as the reason he axed this project is just not believable.
16
maybe Mr. Diller can use a small percentage of the park budget to establish a fund to restore Cooper Union tuition free status.
22
A small percentage say 5% of $250M is $12.5 million Safely invested it might yield $625,000 a year. It would but a drop in a bucket. There are over 800 students at CU. Wishful thinking like this and a desire to spend others' money is why our country is in debt to the tune of trillion$.
3
My father was a Cooper alum. Cooper's president made disastrous entry into a real estate market of which he had no understanding, and the school was fleeced by counterparties with no conscience. Whoever served as lawyers for Cooper should have been suit for grievous malpractice. They were stuck with inflated interest on the properties mortgaged, AND prepayment penalties that precluded Cooper from refinancing the debt to market rate after the crash.
Anything would help, and Diller has billions. One of the three things Cooper teaches is Fine Art. (The others are Architecture and Engineering) Why doesn't Diller endow a museum there?
6
Lets experiment with public property owned, planned and administered by the public. What are our elected officials working on?
4
I live about six blocks south of this failed entertainment project and am happy it finally imploded.
The very small Meatpacking District in which it was to be sited cannot handle the human foot and car traffic that's already been brought in by the High Line, the Whitney Museum and scores of restaurants, clubs, designer clothing stores and hotels. Our neighborhood, which was once home to approximately 200 meatpacking companies and at last count now houses seven, has been transformed into a grotesque three-ring circus thanks to the high-handed and duplicitous maneuvering of uber-arrogant elites like Madelyn Wils, Diana L. Taylor, Barry Diller and his wife Diane Von Furstenberg, and the developers who pushed the conversion of the High Line into a tourist-laden park with the support of the politically handpicked members of our local community board.
The residents of the neighborhood I once loved so much have finally caught a break. That it resulted from the huff of an arrogant billionaire, who was so offended by having to negotiate with the ungrateful little people that he picked up his marbles and left, makes it that much richer.
107
Why should meatpacking, a dirty, space intensive and low skill activity, be done on some of the most valuable real estate in America? How can a neighborhood 'not handle' people coming to visit? Just admit you hate change and get over it, but don't pretend it was better before when it was a slum drenched in animal blood. The redevelopment of the area has made it nicer in every measurable way, both with better quality of life and higher economic productivity.
6
When did you move six blocks south of the project and therefore the meat packing district. Your protest reminds me of people who profess to miss times square as it was in the 70's and 80's. Did you live there in the 70's and 80's? I rather suspect not. I am pretty sure you moved here in the 90's. New York was not a nice place. Remember Ford to New York. Drop dead. Remember carrying a 20 dollar bill to throw at muggers if you were accosted. Remember 2200 murders a year. Remember Central Park and the Broadway Malls. Remember the trains and buses.
Why don't we go back even further when the west side was wharves and warehouses and rail road tracks and the upper westside around the tracks was a shanty town.
The meatpacking district is an amazingly vibrant social interactive area with a museum as a centerpiece. And I couldn't care less about boutique clothing.
All the former meatpackers, I am sure, would protest my comparison, but the city has changed. For the better.
5
Neighborhoods change. The meat packing district started changing in the seventies. Nothing to do with Diller. Your resentment has cost others a loss of another arts space for a public theater and I do not know what else as the article does not provide the information. Yes, it was pettiness and jealousies that ultimately killed it. We all lost. Now there is nothing.
5
This is a cautionary tale for all those who want the government out of all development and expect all future development to rely on the whims and wishes of billionaires. Whimsical planning and wishful thinking didn't deliver... anything...message: we can't rely on whim.
Only time will tell whether this state of affairs will end up being a long-term benefit or drawback.
Start a scholarship college fund instead. A quarter of a billion dollars could be used for a lot of tuition for those in need.
9
Just imagine that money spread over the fixing up of many playgrounds in poorer neighborhoods. Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Diller, and really reach out and help others. This was a vanity project, pure and simple, meant for the wealthy. Cloak it in whatever pretense you prefer. I, too, am glad it's dead.
83
Edmund - Exactly this. Diller Island was to have at least one, possibly two performance venues. Fifty percent of the performances at those venues were going to be private events - many ticketed, probably for profit. But 100% of the maintenance costs after the first 35 million dollar Diller investment were going to be on the public's (HRT + NYC's) dime. Imagine the good Mr. Diller could do with just his original 35 million dollar investment for all the parks in Brooklyn, Queens, SI and The Bronx. How about we build little playground replicas inside 10 parks, and call each one Diller Island, - it would be better outreach than yet another massive Disney-fied environmental disaster/over designed monument to hubris.
18
always great to tell others how to spend their money.
1
Edmund, what a silly thought. Do you believe that you own the money that Diller has, that you get to decide how a private citizen spends his money? PS, having lived through the upgrades to playgrounds in poor areas of NYC, I can only say that, sadly, those playgrounds are destroyed in less time than it takes to build them. But, alas, what a mean sentiment on my part as those that destroy those playgrounds must never be held accountable according to the progressives.
1
imagine if Peter Cooper or Carnegie's dreams had been small timed to death. So many creatives would have suffered.
6
@Kev: You don't seem to understand that what drove Peter Cooper and Andrew Carnegie in their efforts was philanthropy to improve the lives of others less fortunate. Philanthropy truly in the service of others. You may note that the local libraries funded by Carnegie are NOT each called "The Carnegie Library".
IMO, Diller was just trying to put his name on something that would stick out like a sore thumb, an island that would have been the equivalent of a giant sign blinking "how great am I, huh?"
If Diller wants to be effective in the way Andrew Carnegie or Peter Cooper were, he should be spending his money on things that benefit disadvantaged New Yorkers - things like college scholarships, after-school enrichment programs, centers for the elderly, or even funding decent nursing homes.
There's no shortage of things that need doing in NYC & that will cost a lot of money. There IS a shortage of billionaires who will do "the right thing" for the sake of doing the right thing, as opposed to having their name plastered all over a vanity project. The Diller Island project is about ego and about CONTROL - if Diller were being genuinely philanthropic, he wouldn't demand the kind of control he specified for Diller Island.
And hey, if he really wants Diller Island, why doesn't he build it in the Hamptons? I believe we all know the answer to that!
26
Actually, all that money could, and should, have been used to upgrade and maintain the myriad of parks in poor sections of NYC. That NYC didn't make the deal contingent upon at least, say, 25% of the funding going towards these parks is the real shame.
Each of those parks could have been named after a member of the Diller family too.
5
great, what is your philanthropy and why do you believe people should think and act like you do?
I live in Europe and the things you suggest rich people Should be giving to society are things the governments here supply to the people as a matter of course. Personal giving at that multimillion level have always had strings, but then the people holding the strings die and the institutions and their benefits live on.
5
It's all about control, isn't it ? The profit ( if any ) is really secondary.
Public-Private financial ventures can work sometimes, if the public interest is foremost in people's minds. Obviously, the private entity is going to want to make profit down the line, but it must not be at the expense of said public. ( specially in access )
It seems to me that the opponents wanted to make sure that the public would indeed have that access, and that environmental concerns were met.
In the end the main proponent felt that he has lost control. If he truly wanted to spruce up the area, then he would have just donated the money ( tax free ) and allowed the city to organize the rest.
Just my thoughts.
9
If only someone had stopped Bill Gates before he made such a mess of so many urban school districts across the country with his "generous" donations that came with agenda-driven strings attached.
Notice that none of the top private schools or most affluent public districts sold out their kids to a yet another know-it-all billionaire with zero background in the field they claimed as their hobby horse.
I'm glad Mr. Diller pulled the project. He can keep his money; it has no power or place in a democracy. Of course, he could always donate it to existing groups staffed with actual experts who have worked in the trenches of their respective fields for decades to support progress and innovation, but I don't think he'll do that.
54
Charitable giving to the arts has no power or place in a democracy?
18
Yes Gates has an agenda - to actually teach facts, proven science and require promotion of service to our communities.
However these days it seems certain people aren't interested in these things anymore so I can appreciate why they don't like the "agenda"
21
@Phil--they can give to the arts all day long as long as they are not affecting natural ecosystems. Building a man-made vanity island is hardly "charitable giving" to the arts.
@Steve-Gates never attended a public school and did not send his kids to public school. His navel-gazings have about as much relevance to public education as Betsy DeVos'.
3
Mr. Diller last made headlines in the NY Times in 2011, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State
From the archives of the New York Times
"Chelsea Clinton as a corporate director? Really?
Ms. Clinton was appointed last week to the board of IAC/InterActiveCorp, the Internet media conglomerate controlled by Barry Diller.
For her efforts, Ms. Clinton will be paid about $300,000 a year in cash and incentive stock awards. Not bad for a 31-year-old in graduate school."
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/handicapping-iacs-investment-in-...
NYC would be better off handling River Side Development through regular democratic channels, rather than the Egos of Uber-Rich.
72
This would have been yet another "P3" (public-private partnership) that in reality is about privatizing our common resources to satisfy the consciences and aesthetic tastes of the ultra-wealthy. Sure, the Highline may be lovely, but it is not a "park." It is a highly curated space with little room for the community in which it sits. Diller Island would have been the same thing. I'm not at all sorry it is dead.
81
Every great park is "highly curated". Do you think that Olmsted and Vaux didn't have a highly curated vision for Central Park?
10
When we reject their money and vote out the politicians who they buy off, we save our societies from the often troubled or sociopathic personalities needed to become a billionaire.
8
Kaleberg: "Curated" is such an overused and pretentious word. Olmsted and Vaux had ideas and a vision of what they ideally wanted - yet Central Park today is not exactly what they intended.
And you haven't seen *most* NYC public parks, have you? Central Park is not the same as hundreds of local parks - and many local parks are languishing due to financial needs.
8
The failure of Mr. Diller is not some big surprise.
The first thing to realize about the ultra rich in our over-levarged and finance driven economy is that they are the benefactors of randomness and instability. Most of them are monkeys who typed out a sonnet, but they think they're Shakespeare. They, and we, are fooled into thinking they're smart by randomness (Taleb).
With rare exceptions, they aren't that smart, but the too-big-to fail system, and the cult of personality props them up. They are not smarter than you and me. Some of them are complete goofballs.
A monkey may type out a Shakespeare Sonnet once, and show it to you as evidence of his brilliance, but he won't do it again.
If the system didn't reward these clowns so lavishly--or cover their losses when they fail-- most of them would regress to the mean their actual talent.
115
Almost all of the arts in this country =opera, concerts, museums, are underwritten by the rich. They would not exist without the rich. The government does not support the arts. The present government wants to eliminate all government contribution to the arts.
12
Aristotle was revered by his contemporaries, but he was wrong about many things.
Ideas that were in fact accurate could not advance if Aristotle disagreed with them.
His presence on the scene stalled progress because of his cult of personality.
In my opinion, Gates and Zuckerberg are 2 examples of modern Aristotles: wrong and lacking self-awareness to the detriment of millions.
4
Bob, there are dozens of major arts institutions in NYC which would love receiving some of Diller's largesse, and may already. This was of questionable value.
3
This has an odd smell, and it's not just the river.
56
The whole winner-take all, over-arbitraged, over-leveraged system is rotten on the inside .You can't fool the nose. No matter how much perfume you put on decay, your most primitive and emotionally connected sense--your nose--can't be fooled.
3
What a shame the parties involved couldn't come to a mutually beneficial settlement.
I have walked and biked waterfront promenades across the world and NYC is a laggard on this stage.
Unchecked development and skyscraper congestion are plaguing Manhattan but the selfish parties couldn't agree on what would clearly be water access enjoyed by residents and visitors to NYC.
I am disgusted by the holier than thou attitudes of The Trust, The Durst family and all these environmental groups - take a good look in the mirror for now you have nothing!!!
In stead of focusing on ensuring that Mr. Filler would work to ensure the project could some how enhance the water quality in the vicinity and educate people on environmental impact you now have nothing!
Not everything in life has to be a fight!
49
It was a vanity project. A contrivance. Too much of nyc is going this way. Read the brilliant Jerry Saltz on the topic - not every human experience should be hyper-designed and forced on the public eye. And the thing looked dated before construction even started . So glad it's stopped.
18
Look at Hong Kong as an example.
So true. "When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers" - West African proverb.
2