BOROUGH Manhattan MAP ID# M8 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9 COMMUNITY BOARD: 11 NAME OF PLAN. Community Organization: Community Board 11 and CIVITAS

Transcription

1 BOROUGH Manhattan MAP ID# M8 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9 COMMUNITY BOARD: 11 NAME OF PLAN Community Organization: Community Board 11 and CIVITAS Address 55 East 115th Street, New York, NY Contact Name: Cora Shelton, CB 11 and Genie Rice, CIVITAS Phone Number: CB 11: Fax Number Website TYPE OF PLAN 197-c Plan (groundwork) GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF PLAN The area stretches from 96th Street between 5th Avenue and the East River up to the tip of the East Harlem Triangle above 139th Street NEIGHBORHOOD/PLAN BACKGROUND The built environment in East Harlem is distinctly low rise (three to six stories) with the significant exception of large tracts of public housing, built as towers-in-a-park (fourteen to 22 stories). The blanket zoning for most of East Harlem, unchanged by the last major amendment to the Zoning Resolution, is R7-2. Although this zoning designation is compatible with the existing tower-in-apark construction of the New York City Housing Authority, it has no relevance to the balance of the East Harlem cityscape. GOALS OF PLAN 1. Reflect the mid-block lower scale context while permitting slightly larger buildings on appropriate avenues. 2. Stimulate new development. 3. Keep and attract middle-income residents where incentive exists now RECOMMENDATIONS The overall intent is to redistribute the FAR in East Harlem to reflect the mid-block lower scale context while permitting slightly larger buildings on appropriate avenues. Zoning changes that would allow for this include: 1. Designate zoning along specific side-streets with low-rise context. 2. Designate areas with slightly larger tenement buildings with appropriate zoning. 3. On the principal commercial avenues: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Avenues, change zoning to encourage more residential development IDENTIFIED STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 1. Pursue zoning changes through the Department of City Planning. PARTICIPATORY PROCESS

2 PARTNERS Manhattan Community Board 11 and CIVITAS OBSTACLES TIMELINE INITIAL IDEA 2000 FORMAL PLAN? NO DATE SUBMITTED: 2001 SUBMITTED TO: Department of City Planning CITY ACTION? Department of City Planning is reviewing the plan MODIFICATIONS MADE TO PLAN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

3 BOROUGH Manhattan MAP ID# M10 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9 COMMUNITY BOARD: 11 NAME OF PLAN Community Organization CIVITAS Address: 1457 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York Contact Name: Genie Rice and Debbie Quinones Phone Number Fax Number Website TYPE OF PLAN Comprehensive Community Plan GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF PLAN The one and one-half mile long Madison Avenue corridor between East 94th Street and East 125th Street. NEIGHBORHOOD/PLAN BACKGROUND The 31 block long corridor on Madison Avenue lacks pedestrian and commercial activity. It contains several major housing projects with buildings that are set back from the street; largescale institutions which provide little interaction with the street; and significant areas of vacant land that occur in the northern section of the study area. The bulk of the commercial uses involve ground floor retail facilities that front on to Madison Avenue. These tend to be fragmented and fail to provide any continuous retail usage. The major landowners along the corridor are: city government (Housing Authority, Housing Preservation and Development) and institutions. Residential uses are dominated by the Carver, Lehman Village and Taft housing projects between 99th and 115th Streets. Hospital facilities, schools and churches are also dominant uses in the area, including: Mt. Sinai Hospital, North General Hospital, Cardinal Cooke Medical Center, New York College of Podiatric Medicine, Hunter College campus schools, PS 171, JHS 13, PS 108, PS 79, Manhattan Country School, St. Bernard's School, La Scuola And Lycee Francais de New York, the Russian Orthodox Church, Edward the Martyr; the Bethel Gospel Church, and the Upper Madison Avenue United Methodist Church. Other important institutions in the study area include the New York Academy of Medicine, Museum o the City of New York, El Museo del Barrio, and the International Center of Photography. GOALS OF PLAN 1. Improve the visual character of the Madison Avenue corridor. 2. Focus new development on housing construction and additional community service provision and retail uses. 3. Make the area safer for local residents. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Landscape/Urban Design A. New buildings should be sited along the street line without setbacks.

4 B. An extensive street tree-planting program should be initiated and temporary "greening" of vacant sites should be undertaken where redevelopment is not yet contemplated. 2. Land Use and Transportation A. Retail uses should be developed along Madison Avenue in the 2,000 feet of avenue frontage that is vacant. B. Mixed-use developments should provide for ground-floor retail uses on the Avenue. C. Consideration should be given to extending the Economic Development Zone Boundary along Madison Avenue, south of 116th Street. D. Vacant sites/buildings fronting on to Park Avenue should be considered for community facilities. E. New development should provide opportunities for individual home ownership. F. The proposed improvements to the Metro North Station at 125th should be supported. G. The city should examine ways to relieve traffic congestion resulting from Mount Sinai parking and service needs. 3. Community Services and Programs A. Indoor recreation facilities are required for teenager use. B. Mount Sinai and North General Hospitals should consider the creation of a health museum. IDENTIFIED STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 1. Set up a local community organization (such as a sub-committee of CB 11) to implement key recommendations. Members should include representatives from CB 11; community-based organizations, the Housing Authority; Mount Sinai; North General and other major institutions; City agencies; the School District; and CIVITAS representatives. 2. Coordinate the work of relevant federal, state, and city agencies in order to encourage mixeduse and mixed income development on vacant parcels. 3. Develop a list of funding sources and agencies for technical assistance, grant proposals, etc. 4. Working with banks to foster necessary assistance and training for local residents. 5. Organize a Youth Forum/Conference, which would focus on issues raised by the survey. 6. Address issues to capitalize on potential increased tourism in the area. 7. Seek funding and identify work programs in order to establish a summer job program for students in the area. PARTICIPATORY PROCESS The Upper Madison Avenue Study was initiated by CIVITAS in June During the course of the work program CIVITAS organized a number of community workshops in East Harlem attended by representatives of the major institutions, the Housing Authority; Mount Sinai; North General; the Department of City Planning, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development; and the NYC Housing Authority. Progress report sessions were also held with Community Board 11, and included meetings with the City Properties Committee, the Task Force on Comprehensive Planning, the Youth Committee, and the Economic Development Committee. Local residents' issues and needs were identified through meetings and questionnaires. A resident survey was conducted during the summer of The random survey was conducted by bilingual teenage interviewers in five housing complexes along Madison Avenue. PARTNERS Buckhurst Fish, Hutton, Katz & Jacquemart, Inc.; The New School; CUNY; Raymond Plumey; CB 11; the Housing Authority; Mount Sinai; North General; the Department of City Planning, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development; the NYC Housing Authority OBSTACLES

5 TIMELINE INITIAL IDEA 1991 FORMAL PLAN? NO DATE SUBMITTED: SUBMITTED TO: Manhattan Borough President s Office CITY ACTION? Manhattan Borough President s Office and community residents planned for a HS/ community facility, however lack of funding has stalled the project. Some possible pilot projects to retrofit NYC Housing Preservation and Development sites with a commercial component. MODIFICATIONS MADE TO PLAN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Mount Sinai has constructed a Science Building along Madison Avenue between 98th and 99th Streets. The design was altered to include street level windows and a store, which unfortunately was inaccessible to those coming from the street. Instead, it was only accessible from inside the Science building.

6 BOROUGH Manhattan MAP ID# M14 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 COMMUNITY BOARD: 9 NAME OF PLAN: Harlem on the River Plan Community Organization West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc. & Community Board 9 Address 271 West 125th Street, NY, NY Contact Name: Cecil Corbin-Mark Phone Number: ex. 303 Fax Number Website TYPE OF PLAN Comprehensive Community Plan GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF PLAN The Harlem on the River plan is located within Community Board 9. The plan focuses on four blocks bound by Broadway on the east and the Hudson River on the west. The area is also bound by 133rd Street to the north and 125th Street to the south. NEIGHBORHOOD/PLAN BACKGROUND The plan for the Harlem Piers area called "Harlem on the River" was established through a community-driven planning process. The plan includes elements that were identified by the community workshop participants, steering committee members, design professionals, project sponsors and consultants. The area has a number of active uses that includes auto related uses, meat packing and wholesale establishments, light industrial uses and a bus depot. Little recreation takes place along the riverfront except for local residents who fish during the warmer months. The bulkhead along the Harlem Piers is in poor condition. A portion of the bulkhead collapsed (between St. Clair Place and 125th Street). That area was fenced off to protect the public and to allow the City to make repairs to the bulkhead. The Fairway market is an active business located at Marginal Way and 13 1 " to 133rd Streets. Fairway is leasing a portion of riverfront from the City on a month to month basis for accessory parking and they are working to negotiate a long term lease for the parking. GOALS OF PLAN -Develop the Harlem Piers area as a local and regional resource; -Transfer jurisdiction of the riverfront property to the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation to create a park along the riverfront for passive recreation. -Promote a vibrant wholesale and retail marketplace with family entertainment, art, cultural and environmental education uses; -Improve traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns to minimize conflicts and increase safety and increase parking opportunities for businesses in the area;

7 -Establish connections to a newly formed bus stop plaza to take advantage of the proposed ferry and alternative transportation services; -Preserve natural resources, habitats, and view corridors; -Use special lighting to highlight the unique character of the area, especially the viaducts; -Preserve and promote the architectural and historic character of the area; RECOMMENDATIONS Economic Development Attract wholesale/retail uses as well as family entertainment, art, and culture. Retain existing businesses that enhance wholesale, retail, family entertainment, art and cultural uses and work with auto-related and industrial businesses to relocate to side streets in the area. Cluster new commercial uses along 12th Ave. between St. Clair Place and 132nd Street. Develop a restaurant, outdoor cafe, and merchants market along Marginal Way and the riverfront. Expand commercial development along 125th Street Explore and evaluate hi-tech and research business opportunities between 12th Avenue and Broadway. Parks and Open Space Create a riverfront park with connections to Riverside Park north and south Close Marginal Way from St. Clair Place to 133rd Street to increase the width of the proposed park Rebuild 3 piers (for fishing, recreation and water-dependent recreational uses) Create a learning garden Develop a bikeway/walkway at river's edge as a crucial link to the Greenway from Battery Park to the Capital Region of New York. Transportation Re-route traffic away from Marginal Way to 12th Avenue and St.Clair Place. Create approximately 240 public parking spaces above the MTA surface bus staging area and underneath the viaducts Install a new bus stop plaza at 125th Street and St. Clair Place Use one of the piers for possible ferry service Explore the creation of a commuter train station at 125th Street and 12th Avenue Arts, Culture and Education Use artists to design streetscape improvements Create an environment center with a garden Promote cultural diversity Build on Harlem's historic and jazz heritage Reach out to local educational and cultural institutions in the area to develop linkages and opportunities Urban Design and Streetscape Improvements Visually connect 125th Street and Broadway to the riverfront Create a series of gateway intersections along 125th Street and 12th Avenue Use lighting to punctuate key places and viaducts Install a sculpture on Pier 171 to serve as a focal point for pedestrians

8 Environmental Restoration Enhance natural resources along the waterfront Use pollution prevention and green building design standards Install native plants and streets trees Move parking spaces and roadways away from riverfront History and Architecture Preserve and replicate the area's historic and architectural character Establish building height limits west of 12th Avenue Prohibit development along the riverfront area Bring alive the story of Manhattanville, an early working class industrial community and one of New York City's first ports IDENTIFIED STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION PARTICIPATORY PROCESS As part of the consensus-building process, the Harlem on the River Steering Committee reviewed ten plans developed by the community planning teams. Seven objectives emerged as common elements among the plans. These elements became the "planning and design framework" the consultants used to develop a composite plan. The composite plan was then presented to the community and steering committee for final review and input. PARTNERS Harlem on the River Steering Committee, 125th Street Business Improvement District, Harlem Community Development District, West Harlem Environmental Action, Convent Gardens Community Association, 144th Street Landmarks Block Association, Hamilton Heights Homeowners Association, Community Board 9, Morningside Gardens. OBSTACLES No direct ones. Indirectly, site-specific recommendations might not get implemented because of actual development that may have taken place. Implementation is often governed by the availability of funding for a specific project. The community board wanted to conduct an analysis of recommendations and what actually got implemented and had plans to do so in cooperation with DCP, however their planning liaison left before they could complete the study TIMELINE INITIAL IDEA 1993 FORMAL PLAN? YES DATE SUBMITTED: 1999 SUBMITTED TO The Department of City Planning CITY ACTION? DCP has sent the plan back to the community board with its recommendations and the plan is currently being modified. MODIFICATIONS MADE TO PLAN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

9 BOROUGH Manhattan MAP ID# M11 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8,9 COMMUNITY BOARD: 11 NAME OF PLAN: New Directions: East Harlem Triangle, Randall s and Wards Island Community Organization: Manhattan Community Board 11 Address 55 East 115 Street, New York, NY Contact Name: David Givens Phone Number: Fax Number: Website: TYPE OF PLAN 197-a Plan GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF PLAN The mainland of Manhattan Community Board #11 is bounded to the south by 96th Street, to the west by Fifth Avenue, 142nd Street to the north, and by the Harlem and East Rivers to the east. The community district also includes Randall s and Wards Island. NEIGHBORHOOD/PLAN BACKGROUND In 1967, the community district was formed by bringing two neighborhoods of East Harlem and a Manhattan Island under one jurisdiction. El Barrio/Spanish Harlem (East 96th Street to 125th Street) along with the predominately African-American northern section known as the East Harlem Triangle (East 125th Street to East 142nd Street) was merged to form Manhattan Community District 11. The merger of these two areas was due more to expediency than to any shared culture or outlook. Also included in the district are Randall s and Wards Islands in the East River, opposite the stretch from East 103rd to East 125th Street. During the 1930s, the islands became accessible via the Triborough Bridge. Shortly after, Robert Moses set about converting them into parks, joining the islands by means of landfill. In 1951 the area became further accessible from East Harlem via a footbridge at 103rd Street. GOALS OF PLAN 1. Increase housing opportunities for all income groups. 2. Strengthen existing retail and business corridors. 3. Rehabilitate all vacant residential buildings by the year Strengthen educational and employment opportunities. 5. Strengthen cultural resources and recreational space 6. Improve the quality of life. RECOMMENDATIONS The plan contains 137 recommendations; the following selection is listed under various categories. I. Land Use and Zoning: A. Land Use Recommendations 1. Develop parks and other open spaces as close to youth oriented institutions as possible, including schools, day care centers, housing developments and youth community centers.

10 2. Develop a comprehensive and capital strategy plan to redesign all City parks and land under the jurisdiction of the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation north of East 120th Street. 3. As the City redesigns playgrounds and parks, it should provide adequate street lighting and sidewalk repair around the park. It should seek local agencies and institutions to adopt parks. B. Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) 1. The Department of City Planning must cooperate with CB #11 to expand the notification to affected and nearby agencies, businesses, community-based organizations, institutions and related parties. II. City-Owned Vacant Property: A. Disposition of Vacant City-Owned Lots 1.Small lots adjacent to owner-occupied homes, including cooperatives and condominiums, should be targeted for special programs and in-fill housing. 2. Small lots adjacent to active commercial uses should be marketed to the adjacent commercial property owners with a program similar to AHOP and with a mandatory two-year time frame. 3. East Harlem's qualified community-based organizations should be given first priority for development and preference over outside developers. Developers should have a consistent record of quality and must agree to Community Board 11's concern about local employment. III. Housing and Urban Renewal: A. Housing Recommendations 1. Promote a wide range of housing including middle-income housing by rehabilitating vacant buildings and constructing new mixed-income development on existing vacant lots. Construction of small homes should be part of a home ownership program. Neighborhood-based housing development groups and institutions must be given priority and support these efforts. CB #11 encourages the NYC Housing Partnership homes development. 2. Identify and renovate all occupied and vacant City-owned buildings through programs such as the Neighborhood Entrepreneur Program (NEP), the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP), the Tenant Interim Lease (TIL) and other useful rehabilitation programs. 3. The City should repossess property purchased at city auctions where the buyer failed to fulfill the purchase contracts for improvements and reclaim these buildings for local development. B. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development 1. HPD must never consolidate any of their buildings without consultation with CB #11. There should be adequate prior notice given to tenants and block associations. Consolidated buildings must have gas, electricity and water turned off, windows sealed, doors and other openings sealed with cinder blocks. The City should monitor consolidated buildings on a regular basis to prevent squatting and other illegal activities from occurring. 2. All HPD occupied and unoccupied buildings should be transferred to private ownership by the year Owners could include occupants (as in cooperatives and condominiums), notfor-profits, or private ownership. C. Relocation Protection 1. If a tenant prefers, all relocation must be in the East Harlem community and to equal or better housing. Relocated residents are to be given priority in returning to the new rehabilitated housing development. D. New York City Housing Authority 1. Current NYC Charter does not mandate a review of NYCHA services by Community Districts because of NYCHA's federal agency status, but CB #11 should have an advisory relationship because in East Harlem 40% of the population is housed by NYCHA. E. Urban Renewal Areas 1. The City in consultation with CB #11 should review all currently designated urban renewal areas in East Harlem to determine whether their status has encouraged or deterred development. If a negative assessment is determined from this review, the City should revise or re-designate the sites or land currently located in Urban Renewal Areas. F. Lighting

11 1. The City must enforce night lights requirements at entrances to all buildings. IV. Economic Development: 1. The largest employer in East Harlem is the health care industry. The City, State and federal government must assist the area's medical institutions in the development of health care services and products and promote them as primary markets, regionally and nationally. The State and federal government must protect against the programs that will have an impact on this industry. 2. It is the goal of CB #11 that all projects that require City approval and/or public monies should hire at least 25% of their employees from the East Harlem community. East Harlem's Employment and Economic Development Committee would be responsible for monitoring and compliance of this employment requirement. V. Waterfront: 1. The City should develop the East Harlem Beach Esplanade (East 125th to 142nd Streets). The City must commit design and capital funds to implement this project. 2. The City and the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone Development Corporation should conduct a study that examines the feasibility of ferry service from the East 107th Street Recreation Pier or waterfront area adjacent to the East River Plaza near 116th and 117th Streets. 3. The City should develop the area under the FDR Drive at Stanley Issacs Park (First Avenue and East 96th Street) for waterfront-related uses that would attract people to the Esplanade. B. Randall's and Ward's Islands 1. The City should assess the impact of City services currently sited on Randall's and Ward's Islands and restrict any future non-recreational use on the island. City agencies that are considering utilizing the Randall's and Ward's Islands for non-recreational uses should coordinate planning efforts with the Department of Parks, other City agencies, and CB # The City should continue to host major sporting events at Randall's and Ward's Islands. The City should develop further the islands' potential for a park, a sports complex and appropriate sports-related or public revenue-producing events. VI. Transportation and Infrastructure: A. Public Transportation 1. The NYCTA should improve public transportation to the east side of the Community District. B. Streets and Traffic Flow 1. In the hope of eliminating bottle necks created by cars exiting and entering the Harlem River, East River, and FDR Drives, work should be done on design and improvement of certain street and on ramps. C. Sidewalks 1. The City should expand the tree planting program along East Harlem's sidewalks. D. Parking 1. The NYCTA should relocate the 97th St Cross-town bus stop at the NE corner of East 97th St and Second Avenue to accommodate medical emergency vehicles making the left turn off Second Avenue into 97th St, and another left turn up the drive to the Emergency Room. E. Street Lighting 1. Metro North Transit Authority must install vandal proof lighting in all of its pedestrian underpasses. VII. Institutional & Historic Resources: A. Institutional Resources 1. The NYC Board of Education should construct a High School within School District The City must expand sites and programs for after school and evening educational, athletic and social programs for East Harlem youth, and build a state-of-the-art youth center, like a Boys and Girls Club, in the Upper Park Avenue area. B. Historic Resources

12 1. The NYC Landmark Commission should continue to identify and designate some of East Harlem's notable structures and neighborhood blocks that reflect East Harlem's unique history and tradition. This must be done in consultation with the affected building owner(s). 2. The City should propose landmark designation for notable structures and assist in maintenance of historic districts and buildings such as Sylvan Court, the Black National Theater, Kelly Temple, El Museo del Barrio, La Marqueta, and Elmendorf Reform Church. VIII. CrossRoads: A. 106th and Lexington Avenue - The Cultural Crossroad 1. The City should designate the Julia de Burgos Latino Cultural Center as a Cultural Institution Group funding category thus allowing this cultural institution to receive private and public funding. 2. The City should promote the cultural and art activities at this Crossroad. The City should promote tourism and attract people from outside the community to this Crossroads. Stronger ties with Fifth Avenue institutions and facilities must be established so that visitors to the Museum of the City of New York, El Museo del Barrio and Central Park are informed that they have only a short walk to this Crossroad. IDENTIFIED STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION PARTICIPATORY PROCESS Residents of Manhattan Community District 11 began the 197-a Plan process over a decade ago. In 1988, the planning consulting firm, Buckhurst Fish Hutton Katz and Jacquemart working with the community board and the City of New York prepared a study called East Harlem: A Development Strategy. In 1990, a convention called the El Barrio Convention was held, sponsored by the community board, East Harlem Interfaith and the East Harlem Renewal Agency, bringing together community-based agencies and planning groups to develop a set of planning principles. The recommendations of the El Barrio Convention were presented to NYS Assemblyman Angelo Del Toro, who proposed a wider coalition subsequently convened as the East Harlem/El Barrio Coalition for Community Planning and Development. This Coalition met weekly for three months and drafted a document called The Will to Plan: East Harlem's Comprehensive Housing Program which called for a total of 2,850 mixed units of housing, new and rehabilitated, over a five year period. This housing plan was adopted by the community board in March of 1992, but was never incorporated in the Mayor's Ten Year Housing Plan. In 1991, Columbia School of Architecture and City College collaborated in a study called the A Phillip Randolph Village Study, which examined the vacant land including the Millbank-Frawley Circle Urban Renewal Area. In 1992, the community board began preparations for the 197-a Plan and requested and received the assistance from the Manhattan Borough President, Ms. Ruth W. Messinger, resulting in the agreements on the housing section for the plan. In 1993, the New York City Department of City Planning (NYC DCP) prepared a report titled Neighborhood Land Disposition Plan: Northern East Harlem which recommended land disposition strategies. Unfortunately, this study did not include the southern portion of El Barrio/Spanish Harlem-East Harlem. Many of its land-use suggestions are included in this 197-a Plan. In 1993, an Upper East Side civic organization, CIVITAS, commissioned Buckhurst, Fish, Hutton, Katz and Jacquemart for a Madison Avenue Study, which involved a significant amount of public participation and concluded with the first in-depth look into Madison Avenue from 96th Street to East 125th Street. In the same year the East Harlem Neighborhood Based Alliance conducted a study of East Harlem, which resulted in the publication of the Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan. This plan

13 also involved significant public participation and defined clearly the myriad of social and economic issues facing East Harlem life and residents. In 1993, Manhattan Community Board's Chairperson asked the Hunter College Graduate Program in Urban Planning in cooperation with the Manhattan Borough President's Office to synthesize all prior studies and reports for a 197-a Plan. Hunter College assigned a planning studio to assist the community board, which resulted in report titled East Harlem: At the Crossroads. This report was presented to the community board in November of 1994 and was later reviewed by all CB 11 Committees. Comments and recommendations were submitted to the newly formed Manhattan Community Board a Plan Committee chaired by Mr. George Calvert. In April of 1995, CB 11's 197-a Plan Committee convened a Housing Roundtable and studies all the above-mentioned documents and met regularly through the summer and spring and held public meetings that were open for walk-in ideas and suggestions from any source in the community. The Manhattan Community Board a Plan Committee specifically requested the advice of all city agencies, in particular, the New York City Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) and targeted community leaders knowledgeable in specific areas relevant to the 197-a Plan. The advice from the city agencies and community leaders was presented at the Manhattan CB a Plan Committee meetings. The committee met weekly to complete the plan, incorporating new comments and suggestions as they arose. From September to December 1995, the Manhattan Borough President's representative, Mitchell Silver, met regularly with the community board to update and produce a final draft of the 197-a Plan recommendations. In January of 1996, the Manhattan Borough President's Office mailed six hundred copies of the final draft 197-a Plan recommendations to entities in East Harlem. On February 2, 1996, the 197- a Plan Public Hearing was held. Over sixty community residents and agencies attended the public hearing. The input and suggested changes to the 197-a Plan recommendations were carefully reviewed by the Manhattan CB a Plan Committee. A final draft on the 197-a Plan recommendations were mailed to all fifty members of Manhattan CB 11. PARTNERS State Assemblyman Francisco Diaz, Jr., Susana I. Leval (El Museo del Barrio), Maria Dominguez (El Museo del Barrio), Jesse Masyr (Attorney), Manley Finlator (Metro North Association), Gustavo Rosado (El Barrio's Fight Back), Theresa Gibson (Tiano Tenants Association), Willie Soto (Community activist), Birdie Glenn, Rev. Walter Wilson, Rev. T.J. Gordon (Bethel Gospel Assembly), Mitchell Silver (Manhattan Borough President's Office, Northern Manhattan Office), Department of Housing, Preservation and Development, New York Housing Authority, Department of City Planning, CIVITAS,. Hunter College; East Harlem Neighborhood Based Alliance. OBSTACLES The community board recently lost the chairman of the 197-a planning committee the community board is also losing its district manager and is currently short-staffed. TIMELINE INITIAL IDEA 1988 FORMAL PLAN? Yes DATE SUBMITTED: In progress

14 SUBMITTED TO CITY ACTION? MODIFICATIONS MADE TO PLAN On September 26, 1996, Community Board 11 submitted the completed East Harlem 197-A Plan was submitted to the NYC Department of City Planning for review and implementation. Their review and careful response stimulated a series of open meetings in 1997, under Board Chairperson Mr. Harry Rodriguez. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

15 BOROUGH Manhattan MAP ID# M15 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8,9 COMMUNITY BOARD: 10 NAME OF PLAN: The Village of Harlem Community Organization: Community Board 10 Address 215 West 125 th Street, NYC, New York Contact Name: Daniel Perez Phone Number (212) Fax Number Website TYPE OF PLAN 197-a Plan GEORGRAPHIC AREA OF PLAN Manhattan Community Board #10, commonly known as Central Harlem, is located in Upper Manhattan. Its boundaries are Central Park on the south, Harlem River to the north, Fifth Avenue on the East, and Fordham Cliffs to the west. NEIGHBORHOOD BACKGROUND/PLAN BACKGROUND Harlem is a largely African-American residential community with other ethnic groups comprising approximately 15.5% of the population. Increasingly, Central Harlem has been the focus of internal and external development pressures in the form of community revitalization and gentrification. Government agencies, nonprofit organizations and private developers are some of the parties involved in the latest wave of redevelopment in Harlem. GOALS Improve the overall quality of life for Harlem residents. Increase employment and business opportunities for Harlem residents. Ensure that land use and zoning patterns enhance existing neighborhood fabric. Increase the availability of sound and affordable housing for Harlem residents. Create a safe and healthy community. Ensure that services address the needs of the residents. RECOMMENDATIONS The following is a partial list of recommendations included in the plan: Land Use and Zoning Adopt contextual zoning designations to ensure that new construction will promote an appropriate street wall height and scale for Central Harlem and ensure or exceed Quality Housing standards. The vacant lots on 155th Street between Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and Frederick Douglass boulevards should be developed as a local shopping center. This development should not include auto-related uses. The blocks along 155th Street between Bradhurst Avenue and Adam

16 Clayton Powell, Jr. Boulevard that include this site should be rezoned from C8-3 to a commercial use that prohibits auto-related uses. Enact state legislation to give community boards the opportunity to review to review all actions that involve land use within the District. Housing The City's Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) should preferably use the Tenant Interim Lease Program and Homeworks for housing development, and as alternative measures, Community Board 10 will consider with critical support the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) and Neighborhood Entrepreneur Program (NEP). Establish a program to stabilize rather than demolish brownstones with structural defects Increase the availability of quality housing for moderate- and middle-income individuals and households as well as senior citizens that currently live in Central Harlem. Economic Development Refine the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone Development Corporation's (UMEZ) current strategy to seed small locally based entrepreneurs. Intensify its outreach to encompass more locally based entrepreneurs Support pedestrian and commercial activity along the Malcolm X Boulevard corridor by addressing retail vacancies and poorly maintained storefronts. Promote commercial uses that serve to strengthen and complement 135th Street as a prominent entertainment and cultural corridor within Harlem. Promote the use of the Malcolm Shabazz Vendors Market by local street merchants; encourage the use of local school yards (PS 197) for weekend only open-air markets. Provide ongoing support of programs designed to prepare local students for higher education and specialized labor skills. Urban Design, Historic Preservation, Arts and Culture Recommendations Enhance streetscapes with street furniture-trees, flowers, and benches-particularly along the wide sidewalks and median strips of boulevards such as Malcolm X Boulevard. Identify and designate locations, such as the State Office Building Plaza, to install public art (i.e. sculpture and monuments to reflect the heritage of Black Harlem and its influence on African American culture. These locations would present opportunities for showcasing a pilot, permanent and revolving projects. INDENTIFIED STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION Incorporating local organizations in the plan development and implementation process. PARTICIPATORY PROCESS The plan started with a planning studio at Hunter in which students gathered information on the area and then handed the information over to the land use committee of Manhattan CB 10. The community board verified the information and set about developing the plan. A number of public hearings were held and local community organizations and city agencies were consulted in the development of the 197a plan. PARTNERS Community Board 10, Office of the Manhattan Borough President, Hunter College Department of Urban Planning OBSTACLES The main obstacle has been resistance to implementation of the contextual zoning recommended in the plan by The Real Estate Board.

17 TIMELINE INITIAL IDEA 1993 FORMAL PLAN? YES DATE SUBMITTED: 1999 SUBMITTED TO: NYC Department of City Planning CITY ACTION? NYC Department of City Planning has sent the plan back to the community board with its recommendations and the plan is currently being modified MODIFICATIONS MADE TO PLAN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

18 BOROUGH: Manhattan MAP ID# C4 COUNCIL DISTRICTS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 COMMUNITY BOARDS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 NAME OF PLAN: Comprehensive Manhattan Waterfront Plan Community Organization: Manhattan Borough President s Office Address: One Centre St., 19 th Fl., New York, NY Contact Name: Jennifer Hoppa or Wilbert Woods, NYC DCP, Waterfront & Open Space Division Phone Number: / TYPE OF PLAN: Waterfront Revitalization and Access Plan GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF PLAN: Manhattan s waterfront NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN/BACKGROUND: For more than 300 years, commerce and industry dominated Manhattan s waterfront, helping make New York the nation s largest, most economically important and most international city. The great heyday of New York as a port city has long since passed and one unfortunate result has been the shortsighted failure to capitalize on the waterfront s enduring advantages and appeal. More than a dozen City, State and Federal agencies now control various parts of the waterfront. In some cases, several of these agencies have developed worthwhile plans for portions of the waterfront; however, these plans have not been made to fit into a larger vision for the borough. The multiplicity of agencies involved on the waterfront also produces a jurisdictional jumble that contributes to many of the waterfront s current problems: its intermittent disrepair and decay; the unnecessary use of the prime waterfront locations for such eyesores as bus garages and parking lots; the granting of leases to private users that do not sufficiently protect public access to the waterfront; and, most tellingly, the lack of a coordinated effort to exploit the waterfront s rich and varied potential. GOALS OF PLAN: Develop a continuous waterfront esplanade around Manhattan with public access. Redevelopment of the waterfront for water-related commercial, educational, and transportation activities. RECOMMENDATIONS: The following is a sample of site-specific recommendations posited by the plan: Lower Manhattan (Community District 1) - Planning for Battery Park improvements should provide for a clear pedestrian link between the park s esplanade and the newly redesigned Whitehall Ferry Terminal. - If structurally and financially feasible, at least a portion of the Battery Maritime Building should be devoted to public, cultural, and commercial uses that would complement the redevelopment of Piers 9-12 and reconstruction of the ferry terminal.

19 East River Waterfront (Community Districts 3, 6, and 8) - Improve pedestrian access to East River Park as part of the FDR reconstruction. - Implement ISTEA-funded improvement of the 35 th Street Pier to accommodate a ferry landing and public access (ferry services are currently provided at East 34 th Street). - Using private and/or public funding sources, create a waterfront gateway along the Queensboro Bridge corridor by redeveloping spaces on the north side of 59 th Street between Second Avenue and the East 60 th Street Pavilion Park and esplanade. Upper East River/Harlem River Waterfront (Community Districts 11 and 10) - To improve access from East Harlem to Randall s Island recreational facilities - Work toward obtaining construction funds to implement plans for a park and esplanade between 125 th and 142 nd Streets (Harlem Beach). Northern Manhattan Waterfront (Community District 12) - Implement Department of Parks and Recreation access plans for Fort Washington Park as funds become available. - Construct a link between Fort Washington and Riverside Parks. Hudson River Waterfront (Community Districts 9 and 7) - Consider Scenic Landmark designation of the portion of the Riverside Park above 135 th Street. - In planning for the Harlem Piers, recognize their importance as a major catalyst for the economic revitalization of the neighborhood. - Support plans for a bicycle/pedestrian path through Riverside Park. Hudson River Waterfront (Community Districts 4 and 2) - Pier 76, currently excluded from the Hudson River Park, should be included in the park. - The poor condition of the sanitation facility detracts from the overall Greenwich Village waterfront area. DOS should maintain the structure and clean the entrance area on a regular basis. - Any long-term uses proposed for Pier 40 should be water-dependent or water-enhancing. Residential, office and hotel development, mega-stores, and parking do not represent a desirable strategy for generating revenue from the Pier. IDENTIFIED STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION: - Change current City leasing and concession policies to generate greater revenue for waterfront improvements while reinforcing a commitment to reopening the waterfront to public access and appropriate water-enhancing and -dependent uses. - Refining the City s new waterfront zoning regulations to strengthen the goal of public access and appropriate use. - Creating a waterfront open space fund similar to the East Rive Esplanade fund to fund the maintenance of new waterfront open space. - Create an enforcement entity to guarantee waterfront improvement completion and availability. - Consider issues of security in areas of waterfront development. PARTNERS: The plan involved hundreds of people, including members of all Manhattan s waterfront Community Boards (1-12), as well as representatives from a broad range of public agencies including the Department of City Planning (DCP), the Economic Development Corporation (EDC), the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Department of Transportation (DOT), environmental and civic organizations including the 125 th Street Local Development Corporation, Chelsea Waterside Park Association, Citizens for a Hudson River Esplanade, CIVITAS, Environmental Action Coalition, Federation to Preserve the Greenwich Village Waterfront and

20 Great Port, Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, Parks Council, and Regional Plan Association, and the maritime industries. PARTICIPATORY PROCESS: This plan grew out of the work of the Manhattan Waterfront Task Force, an effort initiated in 1990 by the Manhattan Borough President s office and consisting of representatives of Community Boards, civic organizations and public agencies with waterfront interests. A draft plan was released in February 1992 and circulated widely among local elected officials, businesses, and community groups and the input received was subsequently incorporated in the updated version of the plan. Community boards played an active role in providing information for the plan. OBSTACLES: 1. Long term leases have already been issued for non-water dependent or water-enhancing issues. 2. Finding Sites to relocate city services on the waterfront 3. Securing capital funding to make all waterfront improvements and to make connections to the continuous esplanade throughout Manhattan. These factors along with the multiplicity of agencies involved on the waterfront make it a difficult and long process to execute projects. 4. Maintenance dollars are lacking. TIMELINE INITIAL IDEA: 1990 FORMAL PLAN? Yes DATE SUBMITTED: 1995 SUBMITTED TO: Department of City Planning CITY ACTION? Adopted April 16, 1997 MODIFICATIONS MADE TO PLAN: City Council modified and adopted the 197-a plan as modified by the City Planning Commission. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1. Construction is ongoing at Stuyvesant Cove, Harlem Piers, and Hudson River Park. Plan provides a rationale to acquire funding for different projects and serves a defense against certain developments. 2. Bikeway connections are in place between Hudson River Park and Riverside South, with planning underway for connections to East River Park. Fort Washington Park has been linked to Riverside Park and planning for improvements to the bikeway is in progress. 3. The plan provides a rationale to secure funding for various projects and serves as a defense against certain developments. NEIGHBORHOOD/PLAN BACKGROUND The proposal for Stuyvesant Cove has grown out of its unique character and situation. Its natural curved shoreline, a break in the straight linear shoreline to the north and south, presents an opportunity to explore the possibilities of a back-water on the edge of the city, sheltered from the busy commercial district by quite residential communities and medical complexes. GOALS OF PLAN 1. Development of easily accessible public park and open space at the waterfront 2. To encourage water-dependent uses that are compatible with the open space goals of Community Board 6 3. Consistency with planning goals of the Department of City Planning and the Borough President

21 RECOMMENDATIONS The 197-a plan proposes a waterfront park between East 18th and 23rd Streets as part of Stuyvesant Cove, a small bay that extends along the East River waterfront between East 16th Street on the south, East 24th Street on the north and Avenue C on the west. The site contains a gas station, a 515-car parking garage, a 36-slip marina, and surface parking for approximately 428 cars under the FDR Drive and 297 cars along the water's edge. Most of the property is owned by the City and leased for these uses. Based on the goals above, the plan presents a detailed design and programmatic proposal with the following major elements: Develop a 1.9-acre park at the Stuyvesant Cove site. Reconfigure the existing conditions of the site to allow for the most generous waterfront space possible, including the realignment of Marginal Road, either under the FDR Drive's Avenue C viaduct or to the west of it; and the elimination of parking on the pier and along the bulkhead. Enhance the riverbank and build up the "rocky outcrop". Create a pedestrian esplanade and bikeway to extend the length of the park and connect (both north and the south) to the continuous esplanade/bikeway planned for the entire borough. Remove or relocate the service station at the 23rd Street entrance. Create an open plaza entrance to the park at 23rd Street with views to the water. Redesign the existing marina. Moor a lawn barge and a sand or beach barge to the redesigned pier area. Provide suitable plantings throughout the site. Enhance connections and entry points to inboard communities and open a means of egress from Waterside Plaza to the south (to 23rd Street). As opportunities allow, develop economic components to generate revenue to fund the ongoing maintenance of the park. The study proposes: a rooftop restaurant on the Skyport garage building and, possibly, a recreational facility there, continued parking within the Skyport garage (and possibly elsewhere on the site); an ecology center and café, a kayak boathouse with concessionaire. IDENTIFIED STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 1. Develop a reconstruction plan for the waterfront with the State Department of Transportation when it abandons its waterfront staging area used for the FDR Drive reconstruction. 2. Develop northbound FDR Drive exit roadway alternatives along Avenue C, and implement the realigned roadway as an integral part of the Stuyvesant Cove project. 3. Work to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) proposal with the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) to implement the park construction, including parking alternatives. 4. Recognizing the fiscal constraints faced by the City, CB 6 voted strongly to pursue federal ISTEA funding, and all other sources of private or public funding for park elements that would reduce the amount of commercial development insisted necessary for the financial support to pay for the park. PARTICIPATORY PROCESS Since the 1970s, the residents of Manhattan Community Board 6 have envisioned a park at Stuyvesant Cove. The immediate impetus to prepare plans came as a community response to the now-defunct Riverwalk, a large residential and commercial development proposed for construction on platforms at this East River site. Community and citywide pressure to halt the project resulted in moves to prepare alternative plans that were more acceptable to the community and to the city. Following the withdrawal of the River Walk proposal, Community Board Six took the initiative to form a Stuyvesant Cove Ad Hoc Committee. The committee comprised of only board members, but representatives of groups and interests from the community at large. The committee set about defining the scope of the open space study, which

22 became the subject of an RFP issued by the Board. In designing the project, the requirement for public participation was high among the priorities and the ability to work with the public was one of the criteria used in choosing the consultants, Heintz/Ruddick. The committee held regularly scheduled meetings, all of which were open to the public with notification through the Board's regular channels and beyond. A number of presentations were held while the consultants did their studies. Various design proposals were outlined and public reaction was aired. Through this process of give-and-take, the design elements were refined to those presented in the draft report. The Open Space Study was the subject of a public hearing before the Board on June 9, 1993 and, as always, the public was offered every opportunity to speak and comment on its findings. The Board officially adopted the study on June 16, PARTNERS Manhattan Community Board 6, New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC), local elected officials OBSTACLES Construction of the park was delayed by Con Ed plans for their plant along the river. TIMELINE INITIAL IDEA 1990 FORMAL PLAN? YES DATE SUBMITTED: 1995 SUBMITTED TO: Department of City Planning CITY ACTION? MODIFICATIONS MADE TO PLAN The original plan called for the inclusion of both an environmental center and a commercial component to cover the security and maintenance expenses of the park. The original proposal for a rooftop restaurant on the Skyport garage building was found to be structurally infeasible. A second proposal to have the restaurant located on the pier was not approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC). The final proposal called for the inclusion of a non-profit environmental center that would be held responsible for security and maintenance of the park. This proposal was included in the RFP. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The park is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in the fall of 2001.