BOROUGH Manhattan MAP ID# M7 COUNCIL DISTRICT 7 COMMUNITY BOARD 9. NAME OF PLAN: Sharing Diversity Through Community Action

Transcription

1 BOROUGH Manhattan MAP ID# M7 COUNCIL DISTRICT 7 COMMUNITY BOARD 9 NAME OF PLAN: Sharing Diversity Through Community Action Community Organization: Manhattan Community Board 9 Address 565 West 125th Street, New York City, New York Contact Name: Ernestine Welch Phone Number: Fax Number Website TYPE OF PLAN 197-a Plan GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF PLAN West 110th Street and West 155th Street mark the southern and northern borders of Community Board 9, while the Hudson River represents the district's Western boundary and a linear Park along the Fordham cliffs (comprised of the Morningside Park, St. Nicholas Park, and Jackie Robinson Park) delineates its eastern boundary. The districts eastern boundary is more specifically defined by Manhattan and Morningside Avenues from W.110th to W.123rd Streets: St. Nicholas Avenue, from W.123rd to W.141st streets: Bradhurst Avenue, from W.141st to W 145th Streets; and Edgecomb Avenue from W.145th to w.155th Streets NEIGHBORHOOD/PLAN BACKGROUND Each neighborhood within Manhattan CB 9 has a distinct character. In the southern portion of the district, Morningside Heights is home to several major academic and religious institutions. This area has strong commercial corridors along Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue, and two large housing complexes. Manhattanville, located in the middle of the district, contains the City College campus, two large housing projects, an industrial area, the North River Pollution Control Plant and Riverbank State Park. Hamilton Heights, the northernmost section of the district, is primarily a residential area with historic neighborhoods such as Sugar Hill. GOALS OF PLAN -Create a racially, socially and economically balanced and sound community -Expand and revitalize the area's economy. -Improve the overall health, safety and well being of the residents. -Strengthen the existing housing stock -Strengthen the existing transportation and park systems. -Improve the overall environmental quality, safety and cleanliness of the district. RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use and Zoning Revise zoning designations to reflect the existing built context Use vacant city- owned property as a catalyst for neighborhood revitalization Ensure that the number and location of the community facilities do not alter neighborhood character

2 Urge large institutions to recognize and address concerns when undertaking development projects. Housing Increase the number of affordable housing units Promote homeownership Stabilize the existing housing stock Encourage an income distribution mix of housing units. Address the housing needs of the "special needs" population Reduce the number of vacant apartments. Parks and Open Space Restore, upgrade and maintain Riverside Park. Maximize the use of Riverbank State Park Revitalize Morningside Park Upgrade and improve St. Nicholas Park Increase recreational opportunities Attract more park events to celebrate community life Reclaim smaller parks for community use. Create more scenic landmarks Implement greening projects to improve quality of life. Implement the Greenstreets Program in CD9 Transportation and infrastructure Improve public transportation Reduce the number of pollution producing facilities Increase the availability of off-street and on-street parking spaces. Improve traffic conditions Address hazardous conditions Environment Reduce odors from North River Sewage Treatment Plant Improve Operations and Odor control Systems Limit the additional hook- ups above 100th Street. Mitigate the poor air quality. Historic Preservation Preserve and protect historic resources Designate and expand historic districts and individual landmarks. Economic Development Strengthen existing commercial corridors Limit commercial encroachment in the residential zones Capitalize on the abundance of industrial buildings within the Harlem Piers area Improve the condition of facades along the commercial corridors. Increase job opportunities for local businesses and residents Develop a strong tourism industry Harlem Piers Balance economic growth with community development Improve waterfront public access Strengthen the Harlem Piers with uses that enhance the waterfront Increase community participation and collaboration in the planning process Improve public safety Encourage various modes transportation. Stabilize the Harlem Piers bulkhead.

3 Uniformed Services Promote public safety Promote a cleaner community Health and Human Services Improve access and the availability of health and human services Promote a rational of health and social service facilities Provide more day care facilities. Youth and Education Increase educational and recreational opportunities for youth Seniors Expand housing opportunities for seniors Develop intergenerational community linkages Provide more service for seniors Improve communication and centralize information and resources Improve home care services for seniors Improve the mobility of seniors. IDENTIFIED STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION N/A PARTICIPATORY PROCESS Community Board 9 officially started its 197-a planning process in 1991 when it solicited technical assistance from a number of sources. In January 1991, Elliot Sclar, professor of urban planning at Columbia University, was hired by Community Board 9 to develop the framework for the 197-a plan. In June 1991, Sclar submitted a report to CB9 that outlined key recommendations that CB9 should pursue as part of its 197-a plan. In 1992, Harry Schwartz, a private planning consultant took the 197-a planning process further using Sclar s recommendations and research as the foundation for his work. Through a series of public forums, Schwartz helped the Board draw up a vision for their 197-a Plan. In 1993, Rex Curry, a consultant with the Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development (PICCED), advanced the 197-a plan by producing a draft in June 1994 that addressed youth issues and opportunities. In 1994, the Manhattan Borough President s Office (MBPO) assumed a formal technical assistance role and worked with the Board to produce a draft plan that synthesized the work produced by Sclar, Schwartz and Curry. The MBPO worked with the Board s 197-a Planning Committee and produced a comprehensive draft in January That draft was passed onto to a graduate-planning studio at Columbia University to supplement the Board s January 1997 draft. The Columbia University planning students worked closely with Board members from January to April In May, a draft was produced titled, Sharing Diversity through Community Action. That draft was passed onto the Board to be modified and prepared for submission to the Department of City Planning. From June 1997 through June 1998, the Board modified the plan with technical assistance by the Manhattan Borough President s Office. PARTNERS Ernestine Welch; Carlotta Damanda; Genevieve Eason; Joselyn Fernandez; Peter Marcuse; Joyce Miller; Sadie Winslow; Ira Bowles; Susan Joseph; Gwendolyn Giles; Carolyn Kent; Kieth Mitchell; Maritta Dunn; Daniel O Donnell;

4 Congressman Charles Rangel; Senator Frantz Leichter; Senator David Patterson; Assemblyman Keith Wright; Assemblyman Edward Sullivan; Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields; Former Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger; Councilman Stanley Michels Mitchell Silver; Tanya Bowers; Elliot Sclar; Rex Curry; Edwin Marshall; Jackie Spann Urban Technical Assistance Project (UTAP), Lionel McIntyre, Anthony Borelli, Danielle Harris and Vicky Chan. OBSTACLES N/A TIMELINE N/A INITIAL IDEA 1990 FORMAL PLAN? YES DATE SUBMITTED: 1998 SUBMITTED TO: NYC Department of City Planning CITY ACTION? N/A MODIFICATIONS MADE TO PLAN N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION N/A

5 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.

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 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.