This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/nyregion/billionaires-bruised-egos-and-the-death-of-a-grand-project.html
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Billionaires, Bruised Egos and the Death of a Grand Project | |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| For Barry Diller, the turning point came at a Sept. 5 settlement meeting with the small band of opponents who had tied up his plans for a $250 million park and cultural center in the Hudson River for more than two years. | For Barry Diller, the turning point came at a Sept. 5 settlement meeting with the small band of opponents who had tied up his plans for a $250 million park and cultural center in the Hudson River for more than two years. |
| At the Manhattan headquarters of his company, IAC/InterActive Corporation, Mr. Diller and the film and theater producer Scott Rudin, who he had enlisted to help plan the programming, provided an overview of the pier’s dazzling design, the ambitious performances they envisioned and their outreach to local schools. | At the Manhattan headquarters of his company, IAC/InterActive Corporation, Mr. Diller and the film and theater producer Scott Rudin, who he had enlisted to help plan the programming, provided an overview of the pier’s dazzling design, the ambitious performances they envisioned and their outreach to local schools. |
| But, Mr. Diller said, their grand vision was met by a chorus of petty questions: What would signage at the pier be like? Would VIPs get special treatment at performances? And what would they do about dogs? | But, Mr. Diller said, their grand vision was met by a chorus of petty questions: What would signage at the pier be like? Would VIPs get special treatment at performances? And what would they do about dogs? |
| The talks seemed about to deliver what Mr. Diller had sought for years — a clear path to a go-ahead for the project, formally known as Pier 55, but called “Diller Island” by many. There was even a barge with a pile driver waiting in the river off the 14th Street location, ready to start work as soon as the details could be finalized. | The talks seemed about to deliver what Mr. Diller had sought for years — a clear path to a go-ahead for the project, formally known as Pier 55, but called “Diller Island” by many. There was even a barge with a pile driver waiting in the river off the 14th Street location, ready to start work as soon as the details could be finalized. |
| “We thought he was happy as a clam,” said Tom Fox, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits that had stalled the pier’s progress, who attended the meeting. “I said, we’re grateful for your generosity. It was a well thought out program. The only problem, Why does it have to be in the river?” | “We thought he was happy as a clam,” said Tom Fox, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits that had stalled the pier’s progress, who attended the meeting. “I said, we’re grateful for your generosity. It was a well thought out program. The only problem, Why does it have to be in the river?” |
| Instead, Mr. Diller said, after all the questions, “I ended the meeting so depressed.” He had grown “disillusioned” about the project in the spring, when a federal judge revoked the permit for the pier, stopping preliminary work. When settlement talks began in July, he was “uncomfortable” sitting down with the people who had used the courts to wage a war of attrition against the project. | Instead, Mr. Diller said, after all the questions, “I ended the meeting so depressed.” He had grown “disillusioned” about the project in the spring, when a federal judge revoked the permit for the pier, stopping preliminary work. When settlement talks began in July, he was “uncomfortable” sitting down with the people who had used the courts to wage a war of attrition against the project. |
| That feeling of pique only intensified the message he had been getting from his family — Alexander and Tatiana Von Furstenberg, the grown children of his wife, the fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg. “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. “Then my family said, Don’t you think we should use our resources where they’re wanted?” | That feeling of pique only intensified the message he had been getting from his family — Alexander and Tatiana Von Furstenberg, the grown children of his wife, the fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg. “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. “Then my family said, Don’t you think we should use our resources where they’re wanted?” |
| And so, late on Tuesday afternoon, Sept. 12, Mr. Diller called Madelyn Wils, the president and chief executive of the Hudson River Park Trust, which oversees the development and operation of the park. Mr. Diller explained that he’d had enough: Diller Island was dead. | And so, late on Tuesday afternoon, Sept. 12, Mr. Diller called Madelyn Wils, the president and chief executive of the Hudson River Park Trust, which oversees the development and operation of the park. Mr. Diller explained that he’d had enough: Diller Island was dead. |
| “It was kind of like an out of body experience,” Ms. Wils recalled. She felt like her heart had stopped. “You’re not quite sure you heard what you heard,” she said. | “It was kind of like an out of body experience,” Ms. Wils recalled. She felt like her heart had stopped. “You’re not quite sure you heard what you heard,” she said. |
| With that phone call, Mr. Diller ended a six-year saga that had cost $40 million before construction had started in earnest. The pier had grown from a relatively modest original proposal into a grand project worthy of a billionaire’s ambitions. It was stalled in the courts by a tiny band of activists backed by an opposing billionaire, Douglas Durst of the New York real estate family. And it was a battle as much about shifting personal relationships and hurt feelings as it was about city or state regulations or the delicate environment of the Hudson River estuary. | With that phone call, Mr. Diller ended a six-year saga that had cost $40 million before construction had started in earnest. The pier had grown from a relatively modest original proposal into a grand project worthy of a billionaire’s ambitions. It was stalled in the courts by a tiny band of activists backed by an opposing billionaire, Douglas Durst of the New York real estate family. And it was a battle as much about shifting personal relationships and hurt feelings as it was about city or state regulations or the delicate environment of the Hudson River estuary. |
| Its denouement demonstrates some of the dangers of turning over funding of city infrastructure to individuals with deep pockets but, perhaps, thinner skins. | Its denouement demonstrates some of the dangers of turning over funding of city infrastructure to individuals with deep pockets but, perhaps, thinner skins. |
| “Diller joined David Rockefeller in being another billionaire who couldn’t impose his will on the West Side waterfront,” said Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban planning at New York University, recalling Mr. Rockefeller’s backing of the failed Westway highway project. “Hudson River Park emerged from the failure of Westway. There will be new ideas that emerge from the failure of Diller Island.” | “Diller joined David Rockefeller in being another billionaire who couldn’t impose his will on the West Side waterfront,” said Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban planning at New York University, recalling Mr. Rockefeller’s backing of the failed Westway highway project. “Hudson River Park emerged from the failure of Westway. There will be new ideas that emerge from the failure of Diller Island.” |
| Indeed, the Hudson River waterfront has long been contested territory. Westway, a multibillion dollar plan to build a six-lane highway along the river with hundreds of acres of concrete platforms and residential towers, was defeated in 1985 , after environmental activists sued, saying the project would endanger the striped bass in the river. | Indeed, the Hudson River waterfront has long been contested territory. Westway, a multibillion dollar plan to build a six-lane highway along the river with hundreds of acres of concrete platforms and residential towers, was defeated in 1985 , after environmental activists sued, saying the project would endanger the striped bass in the river. |
| After Westway’s demise, the state and city in 1992 agreed to fund the establishment of the park, but in a controversial move, they said that money for its ongoing maintenance would come from commercial development along the waterfront. It would be overseen by the Hudson River Park Trust, a public benefit corporation. | After Westway’s demise, the state and city in 1992 agreed to fund the establishment of the park, but in a controversial move, they said that money for its ongoing maintenance would come from commercial development along the waterfront. It would be overseen by the Hudson River Park Trust, a public benefit corporation. |
| Ms. Wils who joined the Trust in 2011, said that the government had agreed to build the park, which runs from Battery Park City to West 59th Street along Manhattan’s edge, and poured about $550 million into its creation. But it still needs another $200 million to be complete. Absent additional money from the state or the city, the Trust has long had to scrounge for funds. | Ms. Wils who joined the Trust in 2011, said that the government had agreed to build the park, which runs from Battery Park City to West 59th Street along Manhattan’s edge, and poured about $550 million into its creation. But it still needs another $200 million to be complete. Absent additional money from the state or the city, the Trust has long had to scrounge for funds. |
| Not long after taking over at the Trust, Ms. Wils, along with Diana L. Taylor, the chairwoman of the Trust’s board of directors and the longtime companion of former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, approached Mr. Diller about rebuilding Pier 54, a narrow finger pier where the Trust held concerts and other gatherings, that was slowly sinking into the river. Their plan was to replace it with an amoeba-shaped structure with a loosely estimated $35 million price tag. | Not long after taking over at the Trust, Ms. Wils, along with Diana L. Taylor, the chairwoman of the Trust’s board of directors and the longtime companion of former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, approached Mr. Diller about rebuilding Pier 54, a narrow finger pier where the Trust held concerts and other gatherings, that was slowly sinking into the river. Their plan was to replace it with an amoeba-shaped structure with a loosely estimated $35 million price tag. |
| The proposal touched two areas of Mr. Diller’s philanthropy: parks and the arts. Intrigued, he brought in several of his friends from the world of the arts, including Mr. Rudin and the director Mike Nichols, and he asked a select group of architects to come up with proposals. | The proposal touched two areas of Mr. Diller’s philanthropy: parks and the arts. Intrigued, he brought in several of his friends from the world of the arts, including Mr. Rudin and the director Mike Nichols, and he asked a select group of architects to come up with proposals. |
| On Oct. 29, 2012, as Hurricane Sandy was battering New York, members of the Trust quietly met with Mr. Diller, Mr. Rudin and Mr. Nichols to review plans from Thomas Heatherwick, a British designer, who proposed an undulating pier floating on a forest of piles in the shape of a parallelogram. | On Oct. 29, 2012, as Hurricane Sandy was battering New York, members of the Trust quietly met with Mr. Diller, Mr. Rudin and Mr. Nichols to review plans from Thomas Heatherwick, a British designer, who proposed an undulating pier floating on a forest of piles in the shape of a parallelogram. |
| But changing the shape of the pier required the legislature to approve a technical change in the law governing the Trust. Eight months later, lawmakers voted for the change. But Ms. Wils did not reveal to them that the Trust had been working on a plan with Mr. Diller for two years. | But changing the shape of the pier required the legislature to approve a technical change in the law governing the Trust. Eight months later, lawmakers voted for the change. But Ms. Wils did not reveal to them that the Trust had been working on a plan with Mr. Diller for two years. |
| “They misled the legislature,” said Assemblywoman Deborah J. Glick, a Democrat and frequent critic of the Trust, whose district includes a portion of the park. | “They misled the legislature,” said Assemblywoman Deborah J. Glick, a Democrat and frequent critic of the Trust, whose district includes a portion of the park. |
| Nevertheless, the project was announced with fanfare in November 2014 and quickly won support from the local community board, the mayor and the governor. The cost of the project had climbed to an estimated $130 million. | Nevertheless, the project was announced with fanfare in November 2014 and quickly won support from the local community board, the mayor and the governor. The cost of the project had climbed to an estimated $130 million. |
| The opposition filed its first lawsuit in June 2015. Riverkeeper, an environmental organization, initiated the suit with the City Club of New York, a small civic group. They recruited Mr. Fox and Rob Buchanan, both environmental activists, as joint plaintiffs. They objected to both the secrecy surrounding the planning for the project and on environmental grounds. | The opposition filed its first lawsuit in June 2015. Riverkeeper, an environmental organization, initiated the suit with the City Club of New York, a small civic group. They recruited Mr. Fox and Rob Buchanan, both environmental activists, as joint plaintiffs. They objected to both the secrecy surrounding the planning for the project and on environmental grounds. |
| Mr. Fox and Ms. Wils had once been allies. In a meeting with Community Board 2 in Lower Manhattan in 1992, when Mr. Fox was advocating for the creation of a park along the Hudson to a skeptical audience, he recalled Ms. Wils, a member of the board, intervening. “In the middle of the meeting, Madelyn gets up and says, The man is trying to build a park. Why are we giving him a hard time?” | Mr. Fox and Ms. Wils had once been allies. In a meeting with Community Board 2 in Lower Manhattan in 1992, when Mr. Fox was advocating for the creation of a park along the Hudson to a skeptical audience, he recalled Ms. Wils, a member of the board, intervening. “In the middle of the meeting, Madelyn gets up and says, The man is trying to build a park. Why are we giving him a hard time?” |
| But the two became adversaries. | But the two became adversaries. |
| Mr. Durst, who secretly stepped in to finance the litigation when Riverkeeper dropped out, had also once been an ally. He had served as chairman of the Friends of the Hudson River Park and donated $1 million to the park. But he fell out with Ms. Wils and Ms. Taylor over their development plans and the way they ran the organization. | Mr. Durst, who secretly stepped in to finance the litigation when Riverkeeper dropped out, had also once been an ally. He had served as chairman of the Friends of the Hudson River Park and donated $1 million to the park. But he fell out with Ms. Wils and Ms. Taylor over their development plans and the way they ran the organization. |
| As the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit for the project, the opponents filed and lost one lawsuit after another in state court, suing the Trust, the Army Corps and the state Department of Environmental Conservation. Their strategy was to lob every possible legal argument at the project, until either they won or Mr. Diller cried uncle. | As the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit for the project, the opponents filed and lost one lawsuit after another in state court, suing the Trust, the Army Corps and the state Department of Environmental Conservation. Their strategy was to lob every possible legal argument at the project, until either they won or Mr. Diller cried uncle. |
| The project suffered a blow in March when a federal judge ruled that the Army Corps had not properly assessed the impact of a 2.4-acre pier on a protected fish and wildlife sanctuary. | The project suffered a blow in March when a federal judge ruled that the Army Corps had not properly assessed the impact of a 2.4-acre pier on a protected fish and wildlife sanctuary. |
| The Trust appealed and, at the same time, made technical changes that enabled the Army Corps, at the urging of Senator Chuck Schumer, to issue a new permit. | The Trust appealed and, at the same time, made technical changes that enabled the Army Corps, at the urging of Senator Chuck Schumer, to issue a new permit. |
| The opposition filed an appeal in federal court. | The opposition filed an appeal in federal court. |
| For much of the last six years, Mr. Diller said he had a sense of “equanimity” about the project he had come to embrace, the time it took to gain approvals, the litigation and the rising costs. | For much of the last six years, Mr. Diller said he had a sense of “equanimity” about the project he had come to embrace, the time it took to gain approvals, the litigation and the rising costs. |
| But the price of Pier 55 was mounting, with construction costs rising about 8 percent a year. As the completion date slipped from fall 2018 to 2021, the cost grew to more than $250 million. | But the price of Pier 55 was mounting, with construction costs rising about 8 percent a year. As the completion date slipped from fall 2018 to 2021, the cost grew to more than $250 million. |
| The Trust and other proponents concluded that the only way to stop the legal battle was to negotiate. Mr. Diller said he thought coming to an agreement was wrong, but he joined the talks, which started in July. | The Trust and other proponents concluded that the only way to stop the legal battle was to negotiate. Mr. Diller said he thought coming to an agreement was wrong, but he joined the talks, which started in July. |
| The opposition wanted the Trust to agree that any projects built over the river would be focused on the water. It also demanded that the Trust accelerate work on two reclamation projects and refurbishing Pier 97 at 57th Street, which sits near three towers owned by the Durst family. | The opposition wanted the Trust to agree that any projects built over the river would be focused on the water. It also demanded that the Trust accelerate work on two reclamation projects and refurbishing Pier 97 at 57th Street, which sits near three towers owned by the Durst family. |
| Finally, it wanted assurances that no Diller-owned entity would benefit financially from performances at the pier. Mr. Diller said he never intended to profit from the park nor was the nonprofit he established to operate Pier 55 legally able to. | Finally, it wanted assurances that no Diller-owned entity would benefit financially from performances at the pier. Mr. Diller said he never intended to profit from the park nor was the nonprofit he established to operate Pier 55 legally able to. |
| By the Sept. 5 meeting, it seemed that Mr. Diller’s pier was a given. | By the Sept. 5 meeting, it seemed that Mr. Diller’s pier was a given. |
| Richard Emery, a lawyer for the opponents who took part in the talks, was shocked to hear of Mr. Diller’s sudden decision. “It was pretty darn clear that Barry was getting everything he wanted.” | Richard Emery, a lawyer for the opponents who took part in the talks, was shocked to hear of Mr. Diller’s sudden decision. “It was pretty darn clear that Barry was getting everything he wanted.” |
| He had a different theory on Mr. Diller’s sudden change of heart. Mr. Emery noted that at the meeting, a new wrinkle was introduced: an art installation proposed by the Whitney Museum. | He had a different theory on Mr. Diller’s sudden change of heart. Mr. Emery noted that at the meeting, a new wrinkle was introduced: an art installation proposed by the Whitney Museum. |
| At the meeting, Mr. Emery said he asked the participants why the Whitney wanted to meet him the following day. Mr. Diller, Ms. Taylor and David Paget, the Trust’s lawyer, expressed ignorance. | At the meeting, Mr. Emery said he asked the participants why the Whitney wanted to meet him the following day. Mr. Diller, Ms. Taylor and David Paget, the Trust’s lawyer, expressed ignorance. |
| The next day, officials from the museum told him that they were proposing a large art installation over the water, near the museum and a couple blocks south of the entryway to Pier 55. The location was in the same area where the opposition wanted the Trust to protect the estuary. The museum said it had told the Trust about its plans. | The next day, officials from the museum told him that they were proposing a large art installation over the water, near the museum and a couple blocks south of the entryway to Pier 55. The location was in the same area where the opposition wanted the Trust to protect the estuary. The museum said it had told the Trust about its plans. |
| “They weren’t telling him about something that would affect his project,” Mr. Emery said of the Trust. “He learned about it after the Whitney had met with the Trust many times, which had to be infuriating to him.” Ms. Wils said the museum installation did not lead to Mr. Diller’s decision. | “They weren’t telling him about something that would affect his project,” Mr. Emery said of the Trust. “He learned about it after the Whitney had met with the Trust many times, which had to be infuriating to him.” Ms. Wils said the museum installation did not lead to Mr. Diller’s decision. |
| Mr. Diller says emphatically that he did not learn about the Whitney plan “until after I made the decision to withdraw, so it obviously had no bearing.” | Mr. Diller says emphatically that he did not learn about the Whitney plan “until after I made the decision to withdraw, so it obviously had no bearing.” |
| In the end, his decision seems to have rested on a feeling that his grand gesture was being met with opposition and ingratitude and that by giving in to his opponents — in even minor ways — he was somehow acknowledging wrongdoing. And that he would not do. | In the end, his decision seems to have rested on a feeling that his grand gesture was being met with opposition and ingratitude and that by giving in to his opponents — in even minor ways — he was somehow acknowledging wrongdoing. And that he would not do. |
| In an email he wrote telling his supporters that he was pulling out of the project, Mr. Diller wrote: “I couldn’t in good faith agree to a settlement agreement as I felt we had done nothing wrong and that to give victory to these people was in itself wrong.” | In an email he wrote telling his supporters that he was pulling out of the project, Mr. Diller wrote: “I couldn’t in good faith agree to a settlement agreement as I felt we had done nothing wrong and that to give victory to these people was in itself wrong.” |