GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF PLAN The area includes East 125th Street from 2nd Avenue to the Triborough Bridge, and 127th Street at the Harlem River.

Transcription

1 BOROUGH Manhattan MAP ID# M9 COUNCIL DISTRICT 8 COMMUNITY BOARD: 11 NAME OF PLAN: East 125th Street Enhancement Study Community Organization CIVITAS Address 1457 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York Contact Name: Genie Rice, President and Cora Shelton Phone Number: and Fax Number Website TYPE OF PLAN Transportation Plan GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF PLAN The area includes East 125th Street from 2nd Avenue to the Triborough Bridge, and 127th Street at the Harlem River. NEIGHBORHOOD/PLAN BACKGROUND The most prominent features of this important circulation hub are the Triborough Bridge and the Harlem River Drive. Together, these two major elements of the NYC vehicular infrastructure handle a tremendous volume of local and regional traffic. Consequently, the City has surrendered use of the area primarily to vehicles. In the mid-1950's, Louis Cuvillier Park was constructed beneath the entrance/exit ramps for the Triborough Bridge. The park's play equipment and ball courts have since been removed and use of the land was recently transferred to the Housing Police Department for parking. Alleys of trees and a wide sidewalk line the north and south sides of 125th Street between 1st and 2nd Avenues. This pedestrian promenade currently has no destination and therefore is generally unused. At 127th Street and the Harlem River Drive there is on-grade access beneath the Harlem River waterfront. There is no continuation of the existing northbound bicycle lane or pedestrian sidewalk up First Avenue, north of 125th Street. To the south of 125th Street, the Harlem River waterfront is developed as an esplanade with plantings, benches, park lights, and balustrade railing. The area from 125th Street north to 131st Street, which is owned by the Department of Design and Construction, is being used as a holding area for road salt and sand without providing public access. GOALS OF PLAN 1. Enhance the visual character of the 125th Street corridor east of Second Avenue. 2. Provide easy and direct access to the Harlem River waterfront. 3. Improve the overall quality of the pedestrian experience along 125th Street through the East Harlem community RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Triborough Bridge structure should be used to enhance the view along 125th Street and create a colorful and attractive gateway to the community. Improved pedestrian lighting of

2 decorative cast-iron light posts should line 125th Street between 1st and 2nd Avenues. Improved paving, benches, and additional site furniture should be included to encourage greater use. 2. A new ramp and bridge for pedestrians and cyclists should be built along the former Louis Cuvillier Park to provide safe, attractive, and convenient access to the Harlem River waterfront at the 125th Street terminus. 3. An additional ramp and bridge for pedestrians and cyclists should be built to Randall's Island. 4. There should be a direct route for pedestrians and bicyclists from 125th Street to the waterfront at 127th Street. This plan would include significant new plantings of trees and shrubs to buffer the busy traffic of the Harlem River Drive, and lighting, paving, and provision of benches and other amenities along the route. IDENTIFIED STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 1. Identified budget for each recommendation. PARTICIPATORY PROCESS In early 1999 CIVITAS commissioned R. G. Roesch Architecture & Landscape Architecture P.C. to investigate opportunities for improving the eastern end of the 125th Street corridor. Initial public meetings were conducted the summer of 1999 to identify community needs and issues regarding the eastern end of 125th Street. PARTNERS R. G. Roesch Architecture & Landscape Architecture P.C., Community Board 11, Harlem Community Development Corp. Waterfront Park Coalition. OBSTACLES N/A TIMELINE INITIAL IDEA 1998 FORMAL PLAN? YES DATE SUBMITTED: 2000 SUBMITTED TO: N/A CITY ACTION? N/A MODIFICATIONS MADE TO PLAN N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION N/A

3 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

4 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. 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

5 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 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 4.

6 2. 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 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 N/A 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

7 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 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.

8 TIMELINE INITIAL IDEA 1988 FORMAL PLAN? Yes DATE SUBMITTED: In progress 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 N/A

9 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 Clayton Powell, Jr. Boulevard that include this site should be rezoned from C8-3 to a commercial use that prohibits auto-related uses.

10 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.

11 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 N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION N/A

12 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.

13 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

14 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

15 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

16 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.