DCP is the agency responsible for setting the requirements for Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS). It is DCP's job to set design parameters to ensure these spaces actually provide public benefits, and this is a role it has taken seriously. What it has not done is follow up with real consequences when developers have not built out spaces according to those designs. The Millenium Hilton is a glaring example of the lack of follow through.
At the Millenium Hilton, the original Special Permit was issued to create a sidewalk widening. Using the space for parking under that original status was an egregious violation that never should have been tolerated. Instead of improving the sidewalk, the result was narrowing the sidewalk as the cars extended beyond the property line. Worse, the sidewalk was further degraded into a poorly configured driveway with the parking garage attendants using cars to force pedestrians out of their way.
Yet for some unknown reason, it seems DCP swept these abuses under the rug when it undertook its landmark study of all the POPS spaces in New York City back in 2000. They must have been painfully aware of the valet parking operation, yet the only indication of any problem was generically classifying the space as "marginal."
It is not clear if there was even any informal discussion between DCP staff and the building owners at the time. Perhaps that was part of the background for what came next. Whatever the case, the problems only became more indefensible.
In 2005, the Millenium Hilton applied to the City Planning Commission for a new Special Permit so that it could pursue additional retail opportunities. As part of its application, it promised to upgrade the space along Fulton Street from a empty sidewalk widening to an attractively designed seating area. The application went through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, which entailed hearings at the local Community Board, which enthusiastically endorsed the improvements to its public space. The City Planning Commission approved the new Special Permit, with explicit references to specific drawings that clearly show improvements, such as curved benches, to make the space inviting and useful for its public users.
As part of this process, a Restrictive Declaration was recorded on the property binding the owner to building out the public seating area it had promised. The inescapable obligation to construct the space for the enjoyment of the public could not be any more clearly established:
