Booked on Planning

Turf War: How a Band of Activists Defeated Trumps Masterpiece

• Booked on Planning • Season 4 • Episode 4

Share episode

Steven Robinson joins us to unravel the captivating saga of how dedicated activists thwarted the massive 1990s Television City development on Manhattan's Upper West Side. Imagine the world's tallest building casting a shadow over a vibrant community, threatening its cultural and environmental essence. Our conversation with Robinson shines a spotlight on the resilience and ingenuity of local groups like West Pride and the Civics, who banded together to preserve their neighborhood's diverse character against a looming monolith of luxury towers and retail chaos.

Show Notes:

To view the show transcripts, click on the episode at https://bookedonplanning.buzzsprout.com/

Follow us on social media for more content related to each episode:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/booked-on-planning/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/BookedPlanning
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bookedonplanning
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bookedonplanning/

Stephanie Rouse:

This episode is brought to you by Confluence. Confluence is a professional consulting firm comprised of landscape architects, urban designers and planners. Their staff of 70 plus includes 39 licensed landscape architects and AICP certified planners. Confluence is comprised of energetic, creative and passionate people who are involved in making our communities better places to live. They assist clients on a wide range of public, educational, institutional and private sector projects. You're listening to the Booked On Planning Podcast, a project of the Nebraska chapter of the American Planning Association. In each episode we dive into how cities function by talking with authors on housing, transportation and everything in between. Join us as we get Booked on Planning. Well, welcome back, bookworms, to another episode of Booked on Planning. In this episode we talk with Steven Robinson about his book Turf War how a band of activists saved New York from Donald Trump's masterpiece. Turf War is Robinson's recounting of the nearly decade-long battle to stop a monolithic development plan that would wall off the Upper West Side neighborhood of New York from the waterfront, jeopardize local businesses and create a hostile environment for the existing residents.

Jennifer Hiatt:

This story was a perfect combination of determination and kismet. The advocacy groups that were able to come together had such diverse backgrounds in protests and advocating. It's hard to see the group being successful without each unique voice.

Stephanie Rouse:

Yes, there were a number of organizations and unique backgrounds that really helped to ensure the development was modified into one that met the needs of the developer and the residents in the surrounding neighborhood. Without their vast skill set and connections they likely wouldn't have been so successful.

Jennifer Hiatt:

It's a fascinating story about what it takes to come together and beat a major developer in a city where development review is a highly political activity. So let's get into our discussion with author Stephen Robinson about his book Turf War how a band of activists saved New York from Donald Trump's masterpiece.

Stephanie Rouse:

Well, stephen, welcome to the Booked on Planning podcast. We're happy to have you on to talk about your book Turf War how a Band of Activists Saved New York from Donald Trump's Masterpiece. Your book profiles the nearly decade-long journey of a group of resident activists to defeat a wildly inappropriate infill development in New York City in the late 80s and early 90s. Can you start off by giving an overview of where and what that proposed development was, and then what the threats were to the neighborhood?

Steven Robinson:

It's worth noting at the beginning that this occurred 40 years ago, and 40 years ago the Upper West Side of Manhattan was quite different than it has become. It was a mixed community that had extraordinary rich diversity of populations and businesses and cultural institutions and really thrived on that level of vitality. And the proposal that was made for Television City was antithetical to that character of the community, of the community. It was intended as a isolated, walled-off, luxurious development on half a mile of Hudson River waterfront, at the edge of this very diverse, mixed and interesting community. More specifically, it was a 18.5 million square foot project which included a wall that rose up to 60 feet high, blocking off the adjacent community from the Hudson River, and that wall was the side of a platform. And on the platform there was the world's tallest building at 150 stories. There was seven residential towers, luxury residential towers and a headquarters for NBC, which was proposed, although not resolved, and there was a private park on top of this platform, at the level of the West Side Highway. Below the platform there was a 2 million square foot shopping mall, which was the largest shopping mall east of the Mississippi River, and a 9,000 car garage, which was about the capacity of Yankee Stadium. All of this development was right up against the shoreline of the Hudson River. There was a very narrow public promenade which was the only public amenity on 62 acres of proposed development.

Steven Robinson:

You asked about the threats to the neighborhood.

Steven Robinson:

The first threat was this cultural divide, basically saying we're going to build this luxury project on the banks of the Hudson River and we're going to separate ourselves from the riffraff of the Upper West Side.

Steven Robinson:

The second was environmental. The environmental consequences of having a two million square foot shopping mall would have devastated the local retail on the Upper West Side and it would have brought 22,000 cars a day through the neighborhood, which was already suffering from traffic congestion. The air pollution from those vehicles would have further exceeded the federal standards for air quality in the community and the shadows cast by the project would have reached in the morning all the way across the Hudson River to New Jersey and throughout the day would have shaded Riverside Park, the Upper West Side Central Park, all the way over to Third Avenue on the east side. There were environmental issues also with mass transit which never would have been capable of handling this increased traffic load, and there was a wastewater problem. The North River Treatment Plant was already over capacity and the design for Television City was to take all of its waste products to the North River Treatment Plant. So it was a devastating combination of social, cultural and environmental threats to the community.

Jennifer Hiatt:

And the book primarily focuses on the advocacy efforts of the group you and others formed first as West Pride and then eventually partnered with other advocacy groups to become the Civics. How did this group come together and decide, in your words, to spend their time, money and emotional energy fighting this development?

Steven Robinson:

side, in your words, to spend their time, money and emotional energy fighting this development. A number of us in the neighborhood had been to the first public presentation of Television City and were appalled. We also knew that this developer was well-connected in the city and that, in fact, the city might approve something like this. So we realized that we had a big uphill battle and in order to fight it, about half a dozen of us got together and formed a nonprofit called West Pride, and we realized that we had to raise money in order to hire engineers and land use lawyers to begin to substantially criticize the project that was being proposed to the city. You know, west Pride really grew out of a cluster of neighbors.

Steven Robinson:

What was interesting was that these neighbors of mine were experienced in advocacy. They were people who had fought against the Vietnam War. They were people who had been active in the civil rights movement, had been active in the women's liberation movement. These were people who had good careers and were also very advocacy minded. So they became my mentors.

Steven Robinson:

I was a young architect and was appalled at what I saw, but had no idea of how to go about fighting it.

Steven Robinson:

And, as I say, they became my mentors and we got out in public and we started raising money and created a very effective opposition. And we did that for five years, believing that once we made our case to the city which we did repeatedly, using largely information gathered from the Freedom of Information Act we would be able to convince the city not to approve this. And that was not to be the case.

Steven Robinson:

The way in which the civic group got together was that there were people in West Pride who were members of the Municipal Arts Society, the Regional Plan Association, the Parks Council, so these people sort of knew each other through their advocacy experiences.

Steven Robinson:

And while West Pride had filed a lawsuit against the city for changing the zoning resolution in order to facilitate the approval of the project, these other groups were filing a lawsuit against the city for not considering the relocation of the West Side Highway, and jointly we designed this alternative scheme on property which somebody else owned. So by the summer of 1990, these six groups, each in their own way but sort of aware of each other, were all fighting this proposal. And in the summer of 1990, it became apparent that we could be much stronger if we joined forces. And it appeared at that time that the project would be certified by the city and once it was certified, it would begin the public review process, and we wanted to have our coalition, as a coordinated effort, to fight the project prior to certification and then during ULURP, if it should occur.

Jennifer Hiatt:

I did really appreciate the almost like kismet of having all of these activists in one spot at that particular pivotal point. It was very fortuitous for this project.

Steven Robinson:

It was extraordinary, and I'm not sure that that kind of advocacy exists in New York now, but it was. You're absolutely right, it was very fortuitous at that time.

Stephanie Rouse:

So you were talking a little bit about some of the review processes and the steps that it takes to get a development in New York City approved, and in the book you point out that there are a number of flaws with the city's development review process and how it's really not set up for timely community involvement. This development benefited because your groups were fighting to be included and were at the table, which seemed unusual at the time. Have you seen improvements to the way the public's included in this process since this development went through?

Steven Robinson:

No, Well, I'm honestly not close to the real estate development process in New York now, but I can tell you back at that time a number of us had been active in the community board, and community boards in New York can be very effective quasi-governmental institutions. The community board plays a role, although it's only advisory, in the review of any development within its purview, within its geographic area. Because we had raised money and gotten this engineering and legal information to fight the project, we had shared that with the community board so that they, as a legitimate arm of city government, could bring this information to the planning commission. We were considered roughnecks. I mean, we were considered, you know, just people outside the system who were trying to cause a problem.

Steven Robinson:

But the community board had some legitimacy. So it was the community board that met with the city planning staff once a week and they met with them from two to four in the afternoon, Wednesdays, when the Trump team was with the same group of city planning officials, from 10 to 12 in the morning. The community board had all this real-time information and it was the community board that invited West Pride to join those meetings. That's how we got a seat at the table. That's how we were able to provide accurate information to our supporters and strategize our opposition. I don't think that those kinds of dialogues are occurring in the New York City review process now.

Jennifer Hiatt:

That's unfortunate that they aren't, because your guys' input was vital to creating a better development.

Steven Robinson:

In a curious way, our participation in those meetings. As you may remember, it was at one of those meetings that we were told that the city was planning to change its zoning resolution with an amendment that we eventually found out through freedom of information would reduce the environmental standards to which television city would be held. And we were able to get access to those amendments. And that's when we filed the lawsuit against the city for changing the rules in the middle of the game and we won that lawsuit. What had happened was the Television City application was being based on those reduced standards, so the city had to stop reviewing the project. And all of a sudden Television City was dead in the water. But it was not because we sued the developer, it was not because we prevailed in our environmental arguments. It was because the city screwed up and we were able to catch it.

Stephanie Rouse:

Yeah, that seemed to be a real turning point in the fight to stop the bad version of the developments and kind of reinforce having the public involved in the process early on.

Steven Robinson:

Yeah, what happened was that after this, judge Gammerman ruled in our favor and Television City was or at that point Trump City was dead in the water. That's when he, through an intermediary, approached us saying shown around, and what right did people who don't own a piece of property have to go designing a master plan on 62 acres of Hudson River waterfront? But we did. What he needed at that time was because of his financial difficulties. He had a non-performing loan with Chase Manhattan Bank from the acquisition. So he needed to show Chase that he could get a plan, no matter what. It was approved by the city and with our plan. That was certainly something that was rational. It was appropriate for the community. It showed a park as a continuation of Riverside Park. It had no regional shopping mall, no 9,000 car garage, all the buildings were set back on the street grid and it was a contextual development that everybody knew the city would approve more or less?

Steven Robinson:

So that's why he came to us to adopt what we call the civic alternative as his plan to get approved, so that he could get out of financial trouble with his lender and within a year of the approval he sold the property. He never intended to build, what we had proposed.

Jennifer Hiatt:

So, and as we're discussing regulations like the Freedom of Information Act or public records requests, even some of the environmental review process that you guys were able to utilize, west Pride was one of the early groups that benefited from such legislation, as it was new kind of at the time and I personally thought you guys wielded them masterfully. But now the same tactics are being used by NIMBY groups across the country. So how would you draw the fine line between advocating against bad development and inauthentic city action and supporting your community versus advocating against any kind of development altogether?

Steven Robinson:

I think that goes to the question of the organic nature of cities and towns and villages across the country. The ones that are growing have a choice. They can either grow in ways which support the character of the community and are healthy for the community, both culturally and environmentally and there are real estate developers around the country who do that or when a proposal is made and residents who know their community better than anyone else get a sense that this could be damaging in some way either damaging environmentally or damaging culturally, or in scale or proportion, or in land use then that is the trigger that I believe can stimulate an opposition to a proposal. Not necessarily kill it completely, but get your voice heard so that a inappropriate development can be either rejected or modified so that it works to the benefit of the developer, who can still make money on it, and the residents of the community who can feel that it's a positive contribution to the way in which they live in their city, their neighborhood, their town.

Stephanie Rouse:

You know, I think one important distinction too is a lot of times the fight is we don't want this at all. Like this, development shouldn't happen, period, there should be nothing here Versus. In this instance, it wasn't about saying no altogether to the development. It was pulling the development scale back and ensuring that uses that were put into these buildings were really what would support the neighborhood and help it thrive, versus just dropping in a massive development that was walled off from the rest of the community. It was really intending to make it a better development for the area.

Steven Robinson:

For us it was really about two primary intentions One was land use and the other was the city's process. In terms of land use, any development that would have privatized a half a mile of Hudson River waterfront and walled itself off from the community was totally unacceptable. So, in terms of land use, that proposal, we had to not modify it. But we had to eliminate it because we did not believe that if it went through a city review process it would be significantly modified, which gets to the second point, which is the city review process, which is very often controlled by political elected officials who are often dependent on financial contributions from large real estate developers. So there's a link there and what we realized we had to do was to somehow break that link so that the decision making process could be based on what is best land use for the developer, for the community and for the environment.

Stephanie Rouse:

And the advocacy efforts evolved over time with this development process and you mentioned already how you ended up teaming up with the developer to help with the building design in the end. You mentioned in the book that newspapers were citing this as a new approach to design, not necessarily just in New York City, but kind of in your work in general. Have you seen the way that advocates work to fight bad development change as a result?

Steven Robinson:

What I have seen occasionally is that a developer primarily whose interests are highest and best use will occasionally come to a community board or come to a neighborhood association and make a presentation, request input and sometimes take that advice and modify a development proposal. That I think is a very healthy process. Don't see it that often. You asked you know about what's happening in New York now or recently, and when I look at the super tolls south of Central Park and when I look at Hudson Yards and I look at some of the development, the towers that are going up in Brooklyn and Long Island City, it's just obvious to me that there is no conversation going on at all, that developers are just really having their way with the land that they own.

Jennifer Hiatt:

So you mentioned that your group did eventually propose development, West Pride and eventually the civics transitioned from purely an opposition group to trying to protect the community from Television City into a full advocacy group.

Jennifer Hiatt:

Originally you were against proposing or maybe not against is the right word, but OK, against proposing your own form of development. So A? How did your mindset shift and how did that ultimately? How did the transformation from working to try and kill a project into proposing a new project on, as you said, land you don't own? How did that transformation process occur?

Steven Robinson:

process occur. I believed for years during this this was my pro bono life and I believed during these years that the environmental and contextual neighborhood problems impacts, negative impacts that we were uncovering and quantifying and presenting to the city would require the city to either reject or drastically modify this proposal. I thought we were on a winning track. I didn't want to put up a target, I didn't want to design an alternative scheme for the site that would detract attention from the fight against what the city was considering. That was my perspective. I was clearly wrong because the civic alternative which, interestingly enough, we had hired an environmental consultant, an engineer named Dan Gutman, and Dan was doing research on the history of the penyards AFT became abandoned, was doing research on the history of the penyards AFT, became abandoned and what he found was that there had been a proposal to take the West Side Highway and demolish it, because it's an elevated highway that goes across the property from north to south. Demolish the elevated, put it underground the way it was done in Riverside Park just to the north, and then build a park over it and then you could have a continuation of Riverside Park along the Hudson and you could move development back toward into the street grid. And he discovered that this had been a prior proposal, one, in fact, which Trump had supported in 1974. So he said why not do this now? Why not do this again?

Steven Robinson:

And he came to us, and he went to the Municipal Arts Society and the Parks Council, the Regional Plan Association.

Steven Robinson:

Everybody said this is a great idea. Let's generate some drawings that would indicate, that would articulate, that would graphically show what this property could be Not only getting rid of the elevated highway, but creating this public park and making it accessible and reducing the scale of development. So that was the birthing of the civic alternative as a competing design, if you will. And when we showed it around to various city officials and state officials, everyone to a person said this is great, this makes a lot of sense, but the city is currently reviewing a developer's proposal, so we cannot publicly support it. The only one who publicly supported it was Ruth Messinger, who was borough president at the time, who is a very brilliant and gutsy woman. Yeah, no, but it was out there in the public. Half a page illustration was shown in the New York Times with a very supportive article by Paul Goldberger, who was the architectural critic at the times. So it was out there and I became a convert. You know I said this makes a lot of sense.

Jennifer Hiatt:

Yeah, that was a really brave action to just stick it out there without talking to anybody. Who just got put in the newspaper big area and you guys were like here's a proposal.

Steven Robinson:

It was because it was consistent with their agendas, it was consistent with their history, it was consistent with their values. You know whether it was the Parks Council, municipal Arts Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, you know this enormous, powerful, nationwide environmental group. It was consistent with each of their intentions and concerns, and so they said let's get behind this, because this represents who we are and what we do.

Stephanie Rouse:

With all that support, I was so surprised that in the end, the bridge stayed, that the highway didn't get relocated and brought down to grade which is so common nowadays that projects are doing that and it just didn't succeed there.

Steven Robinson:

Yeah, it's happening all across the country and it has been and it was happening 40 years ago across the country. Richard Kahn, who was the president of Riverside South Planning Corporation, and members of the board were going to Albany and Washington and fighting for the money to do this, and they were gaining support Allocations were made to move the highway and put it underground. Support allocations were made to move the highway and put it underground. The reason that it didn't happen was that there at the time, and still Congressman Jerry Nadler of the Upper West Side he had a personal animosity toward Donald Trump and Trump had an animosity toward him, and the two of them made it a public argument with these two personalities. And there was a bill in Congress to support the relocation of the highway. And what Nadler thought was that with the highway in place, with that elevated highway, any real estate development that was east of it would have much more difficult time selling the apartments because there was a highway in front of it, and so what he thought was to spite. Trump opposed the bill in Congress and the congressional committee felt that they could not approve this allocation. With the antagonism of the local representative, nadler killed the bill.

Steven Robinson:

The highway remained in place. It didn't have any impact on the success of the eventual development. All it did was prevent the people of New York from getting a world-class park. Because although the riverfront part of the park is wonderful and heavily used, you know there's still a highway going over it, spewing air pollution and noise and shade on the park. There is a partial tunnel built under the eastern edge of the park and someday it is possible that when it comes time to do a structural rehabilitation of that elevated highway, which will probably happen in the next 10, 15 years, maybe someone will remember that it's possible to relocate it at the same cost.

Stephanie Rouse:

So we've talked about one of the keys to this process was having a seat at the table with the city while discussions were making place. How was this made possible, and how can other residents or advocacy groups replicate this in their own communities?

Steven Robinson:

Well, as I mentioned, it was our historic dialogue with Community Board 7 that enabled us at that time to get the seat at the table, because CB7 was a quasi-governmental agency that had regular meetings with the city on this project because it was in their jurisdiction and they were the ones who invited us to join. So I think, in terms of replicating the opportunity to get a seat at the table, it requires advocates to go to the city government and, in whatever way possible, to convince the city government that residents need a seat at the table when a real estate development is being considered by city staff. I think a lot of people are reluctant to deal with elected officials and city staff. It's always, you know, considered a burden when you have to go to city hall to deal with your local government, but I think that's the only way, because it is the city government that has the authority to make decisions about real estate development.

Jennifer Hiatt:

Stephanie and I both work for the city of Lincoln, Nebraska. We are city government people. We are aware that everyone thinks it's a burden to come talk to us Right?

Steven Robinson:

We're deeply aware of that Maybe it's incumbent upon city governments to be proactive and make an opportunity available for residents to participate in real estate reviews. The developers will hate it, but I think that that's the only way I know of, because for advocates to feel opposition to a proposal and just throwing rocks from the outside doesn't usually work.

Jennifer Hiatt:

No, and it elongates the process too, because we're just we have just have people throwing rocks at something and that just delays the process where if we could maybe move public input up to the start and have input along the way, then we could build a better project at the end in less time than having someone show up at a city council hearing and being like we hate this and then city council asking the developer to start all over again.

Steven Robinson:

That's exactly right, Well put. I think that the developers need to be educated so that the advantages that you just mentioned having a shorter review time, having a project that is healthy for the community, which is embraced by the residents or, if not embraced, at least accepted, you know, as something reasonable the inherent opposition between a lot of developers and a lot of residents would be greatly reduced.

Stephanie Rouse:

So what recommendations would you give to cities who are reconsidering their review processes? What would have been helpful as a Westside advocate for the community when you were going through this process.

Steven Robinson:

Well, I think the process that Jennifer just described would be ideal, have the process be participatory for residents from the very beginning and throughout, and it would mean that cities would have to re-examine their development review process with an eye toward generating healthier projects for their community with public input and developer participation. I think that all of this conversation and activism and advocacy is rooted in the distinction between short-term benefit and long-term benefit. It is in the nature of the growth of cities for real estate development to see the short-term benefit of financial gain. It is in the interests of the community at large, as an organic entity, to look at long-term benefits to the community and to the environment.

Jennifer Hiatt:

So always our last question, as this is Booked on Planning what books would you recommend readers check out? Because of course, we recommend our readers check out your book, but what books would you give them?

Steven Robinson:

people often misunderstand Jane Jacobs. She was not advocating, as you know, that every place have the characteristics of her Greenwich Village neighborhood. She was advocating for people to pay attention to the characteristics of what makes their communities pleasant and livable and healthy and fight for those, wherever you are. The second is a book by Roberta Brandes-Gratz. It's called the Living City and Roberta was and is continues to be. She was obviously part of West Pride and a neighbor and colleague of mine, but Roberta is a protege of Jane Jacobs and was a dear friend. The Living City is a terrific book.

Steven Robinson:

The next one is a book called the Well-Tempered City by Jonathan FP Rose, and Jonathan is a friend and he is probably the most active real estate developer in the country in building green developer in the country in building green, affordable housing and he's done it in many cities and he sees all of the social and environmental advantages of building sustainable, affordable residential units with lots of social services often included, such as daycare centers. So his book, the Well-Tempered City, I would recommend. You may remember the Westway proposal along the Hudson River in Manhattan. It would have rebuilt the West Side Highway from the Battery up to 59th Street and it would have created some park and open space along the river. It would have also created an enormous amount of development opportunity. And there's a book called Fighting Westway by William Busby. It's just an excellent tale about how, for 14 years, community and environmental activists fought the city, the state, the federal government and prevailed. And then there's a book called Changing Places by Richard Moe and Carter Wilkie that I recommend. Those are the ones that came to mind pretty quickly.

Stephanie Rouse:

All sound like great books to check out for not only me but also our listeners. There's a few in there that I think I'm adding to my list as well, but, Devin, it's been a great conversation. Really appreciate you joining us today to talk about Turf War, how a Band of Activists Saved New York from Donald Trump's Masterpiece.

Steven Robinson:

Thank you.

Jennifer Hiatt:

We hope you enjoyed this conversation with Steven Robinson about his book Turf War how a Band of Activists Saved New York from Donald Trump's Masterpiece. You can get your own copy through the publisher or click the link in the show notes to take you directly to our affiliate page. Remember to subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts and please rate, review and share the show. Thank you for listening and we'll talk to you next time on Booked on Planning. Thank you.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Jennifer Hiatt

Co-host
Head Shot

Stephanie Rouse, AICP

Co-host