Yeah, so instead of trying to get as close to Greenwich Village as possible, we should emulate the most failed development models of the 50s and 60s, building upper class Cabrini Greens.
It's clear you want to distract from Pier 27 as much as possible, because even you may be coming to realize that there's no way to argue that this is a good and suitable development for a major urban site, other than a blind and religious love of its architect. Pier 27 is a superblock of the kind that we outgrew decades ago. It means that a single use, a single income will dominate three entire blocks of the city. Our waterfront revitalization was supposed to be about tying the waterfront to the city. This doesn't bring the urban grid to the waterfront. It perpetuates the anti-urban existing development pattern. The only possible benefit is a bit more money for the developer, a pretty building for postcards (and I mean, come on, this building's okay but it's no TD Centre or New City Hall), and more money for aA. Honestly, guys would support tearing down New or Old City Hall if it meant another commission for Peter Clewes?
Oh, and AP, where'd you get that definition? Did you get it somewhere reputable? Did you pull it out of your head and try to make it official with the italicized 'noun'?