“Where We Can All Come Together:” Public Space in Arverne and Edgemere

by

Judah Y. Asimov

©2020 Judah Y. Asimov

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in City and Regional Planning School of Architecture Pratt Institute

February 2020

“Where We Can All Come Together:” Public Space in Arverne and Edgemere

by

Judah Y. Asimov

Received and approved:

______Date______Thesis Advisor Signature

______Thesis Advisor Name

______Date______Thesis Advisor Signature

______Thesis Advisor Name

______Date______Chairperson Signature

______Chairperson Name

2 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ...... 4 Chapter 1 ...... 5 Issue Statement ...... 5 Goals and Objectives ...... 6 Methodology ...... 6 Literature Review ...... 8 Chapter 2 ...... 16 The Rockaways ...... 16 RISE: Rockaway Initiative for Sustainability and Equity ...... 17 An Introduction: Arverne and Edgemere ...... 18 Area History ...... 19 The Public Realm and Built Environment ...... 21 Area Demographics ...... 26 Key Findings ...... 28 Chapter 3 ...... 29 Introduction ...... 29 Site Selection ...... 30 Site 1: The Vacant Lot ...... 32 Site 2: Demapped Street ...... 35 Site 3: Commercial Street ...... 40 Key Findings ...... 44 Chapter 4 ...... 46 Introduction ...... 46 1. Public spaces should engage and strengthen the community ...... 49 2. Public spaces should be multi-purpose sites that are inclusive, welcoming, and accessible to all residents ...... 55 3. Public spaces should feel safe and secure ...... 58 4. Public spaces should be maintained and foster a sense of community ownership ...... 61 5. Public spaces should celebrate neighborhood history and character ...... 65 6. Public spaces should incorporate green infrastructure ...... 66 Conclusions ...... 69 Sources ...... 70

3 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all the Pratt GCPE faculty for their support throughout my graduate school career. In particular, I am indebted to my advisors, Beth Bingham and John Shapiro for their guidance, feedback, and constant encouragement. I would also like to thank all of the young people, community members, RISE staff, and issue professionals who shared their opinions and expertise with me. I am particularly thankful to Jeanne DuPont and Ana Fisyak who were always willing to answer questions and repeatedly acted as sounding boards for my many thoughts and ideas.

I am also deeply grateful to my family for encouraging me to pursue graduate school and acting as my thesis editors in the final phase of the thesis process. Lastly, I would like to thank my partner, Joe, who is always my number one cheerleader, editor, and supporter from start to finish.

4 Chapter 1 Issue Statement

Today, roughly 121,500 year-round residents live in the eleven-mile long Rockaway Peninsula (NYC Planning 2019). Demographically, the Rockaways is largely divided between a wealthier western end, with a higher White population, and a lower- income eastern end, in which a majority of the population are people of color. The client for this study, the Rockaway Initiative for Sustainability and Equity (RISE), is primarily focused on the eastern end of the Peninsula. This study will focus on two particular neighborhoods on the eastern end of the Peninsula, Arverne and Edgemere.

Arverne and Edgemere are rapidly growing. Between 2010 and 2017, the population grew by 14-percent compared to 5-percent in New York City overall (ACS 2013-2017). Superstorm Sandy and the recognition of the area’s vulnerability in the face of climate change have not put a damper on this growth. Yet, Arverne and Edgemere have few natural resources aside from the beach and waterfront. There are poor transportation connections, few services, and most job centers are located far away. These qualities, plus the area’s deep vulnerability to rising sea levels, do not make Arverne and Edgemere seem like natural choices for new development, particularly affordable housing development. But, as New York City’s housing affordability crisis deepens, these neighborhoods have one feature that is irresistible to developers and City decision makers: large tracts of vacant, often City- owned land. There is a historical development pattern in the Rockaways, in which minimal attention is paid to the conditions and quality of the public realm and the shared spaces that link together to form a neighborhood. Many of the developments that do exist remain islands in this larger and persistently poor-quality built environment.

The result of this inattention to the public realm is that residents are left with few spaces for communal gathering and interaction on the eastern end of the Rockaway Peninsula. There are few local businesses and commercial streets. There continues to be a significant number of vacant or underutilized lots. The pedestrian infrastructure, like sidewalks and curbs, is nonexistent or in poor repair. Regular tidal flooding and pools of leftover storm water runoff also affect the usability of public spaces. Connectivity is a problem as the street layout involves many difficult and confusing intersections and roads. These conditions have resulted in a dearth of developed and active public spaces. However, to successfully provide new communal gathering places, it is important to understand how existing public spaces are being used and the role they play in the social life of the community so as to employ locally appropriate criteria for creating active public spaces.

5 Goals and Objectives

The primary goal of this study is to evaluate public spaces and explore their role in the social and civic life of the Arverne and Edgemere neighborhoods of the Rockaways. Through concrete recommendations, this study aims to advance a vibrant and active public realm that will provide opportunities for resident interactions and empowerment. To reach this goal, the objectives of this research include:

• Assessing socioeconomic conditions • Evaluating the current state of public spaces • Understanding how residents use public spaces • Exploring how improvements to public spaces can provide more opportunities for residents to interact and congregate Methodology

The research for this thesis uses a mixed methods approach to observe and characterize its goals and objectives. The first part of this research analyzes existing conditions of the study area of Arverne and Edgemere. The analysis focuses on the neighborhoods’ history, the physical conditions of the built environment, and the demographic makeup of neighborhood residents. In terms of demographic factors, this study considers age, gender, race, and income to get a full picture of who resides in Arverne and Edgemere and how the residential population differs and is changing within the study area. As part of this study’s research on physical conditions, it focuses on public spaces and vacant lots and examines environmental challenges to provide context for both the physical and demographic conditions of Arverne and Edgemere. This study will also characterize the area’s history and how it influences the existing conditions today.

The second part of this study focuses on three public spaces selected based on criteria developed by the author using public space literature and residents’ and stakeholders’ input. The three sites are:

• A vacant lot that a local community-based organization and the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) plan to activate into a plaza • Rockaway Freeway between Beach 62nd and 67th Street, a demapped and vacant street that residents have commandeered as a gathering place • A commercial street between Beach 67th and 69th Street, one of the only commercial streets in Arverne or Edgemere

The author used the Gehl Institute’s Stationary Activity Mapping tool to catalogue and record observations concerning how people use the sites and how they interact with each other in them. Research was conducted over the course of the summer and early fall 2019 when foot traffic in the study area was at its heaviest.

6 Observations were made over a minimum of nine fifteen-minute periods. Observation periods were spread over different times of day, ensuring that each site was observed at least three times in the morning, three times in the afternoon, and three times at night. Areas of focus included the number of users, the duration of their stay, their activities, and what areas of the site they were using. The goal of this observational research component was to try to uncover usage patterns. The author also observed, catalogued, and analyzed current conditions at each site. One purpose of this research was to catalogue existing amenities and maintenance conditions.

The third part of this study focuses on the perceptions and priorities residents and key stakeholders have regarding public spaces in Arverne and Edgemere. One element was a workshop using James Rojas’ Place It! interactive model building methodology, yielding an understanding of user perceptions and ideas around public space in general and the three sites in particular. Participants included eighteen high school students in RISE’s afterschool program who were regular users of all three sites. Participants were split into three groups with a facilitator and note taker. Participants in each group were given found materials like string, coffee filters, and plastic Easter eggs. Using these materials, participants completed three exercises. Individually, each participant built a model of his or her favorite childhood memory. Then, working as a group, participants built a model of their ideal public space. Finally, participants, again working in groups, were asked to redesign one of the three case study sites based on the qualities identified in building their ideal public space. Each group presented their design to the rest of the participants and explained their choices.

The final element was a series of in-depth interviews with stakeholders, decision makers, and residents. The goal of this piece of the methodology was to explore the opportunities and challenges interviewees see in the study area with regard to public space. The following people were interviewed:

• Ana Fisyak: Deputy Director of Planning and Development, RISE • Betsy Jacobsen: Senior Project Manager, DOT • Daris Garnes: Arverne resident and volunteer, RISE • Emory Lee: Former resident and Senior Vice President, Insight Civil Engineering • Gerard Romski: Counsel and Project Executive, Arverne by the Sea • Jeanne DuPont: Executive Director, RISE • Prerana Reddy: Rockaway resident, RISE Board Member, former Director of Public Programs at the Queens Museum

7 Literature Review

Defining Key Terms The built environment can be understood to encompass every element of a neighborhood that is shaped and influenced by humans. This includes all buildings, infrastructure, and open space. It comprises elements of a landscape that are influenced and shaped by zoning ordinances, the building code, and land use regulations (Pfeiffer and Cloutier 2016). There is a growing understanding among planners that the built environment can influence communities by helping to shape the behavior, health, perceptions, and interactions of residents (Dempsey 2009; Doyle et al 2006; Frank et al 2006; Pfeiffer and Cloutier 2016; Raman 2010).

Public space is considered part of the built environment. Public spaces can be understood as areas that are open and accessible to the general public, although they are not necessarily publicly owned. Public spaces are flexible and can be used in many different ways. The idea of public space is a physical concept, while the public realm is a political concept that encompasses both physical space and the politics of public spaces (Mehta 2014; Varna and Tiesdell 2010).

The History of Public Space Through Western history, across Ancient Greek, Roman, and medieval societies, streets, plazas, and squares were seen as some of the most important components of a city or town’s civic life. They were not just for utilitarian circulation, infrastructure, and the movement of goods. In the medieval city, residents lived and worked in close proximity, necessitating frequent social interactions and familiarity with neighbors. Streets were often the center of these interactions. Today, most modern Western cities are considerably more spread out and most streets have been redesigned to serve the needs of drivers over pedestrians. One of the results is an increase in cars, but a decrease in pedestrians. The pedestrians that do exist in modern cities are often spread out over large distances. This results in fewer opportunities for residents to interact with other people (Gehl 1971; Mehta 2007).

Modern public space theory can be divided into two general camps. The first is more pessimistic and views public spaces as in decline; these theorists view modern public spaces as inauthentic and dull. This decline is seen as driven by the privatization and proliferation of overly controlled public spaces due to the public sector’s general retreat from effectively building and managing them. At fault are the social, political, and economic factors that contribute to increased individualism and a declining public culture (Aelbrecht 2016; Carmona 2010; Mehta 2014; Varna and Tiesdell 2010). Some theorists further argue that public spaces are becoming more homogenous as they are standardized and developed with less attention to local concerns and conditions (Carmona 2010).

8 The second camp is more optimistic. These theorists posit several points. First, they argue that the pessimistic camp is unrealistically venerating historical public spaces by exaggerating the level of openness, diversity, and democracy seen in them. Second, they assert that public spaces respond to the wants and needs of society and thus, new forms of public life require the evolution of new forms of public space that differ from what existed in the past. These new forms straddle the line between public and private; examples include transit stations and malls. These theorists argue that these new private or semipublic areas provide an abundance of new and diverse spaces (Aelbrecht 2016; Carmona 2010; Mehta 2014; Varna and Tiesdell 2010).

The Importance of Social Interactions and Activities Social activities can be understood as encompassing all activities that require the presence of others. These activities include conversations, meetings, greetings, and a host of other interactions. Social contact is generally a more superficial type of social activity. Social contact can be seen as a “resultant act,” meaning that it develops in connection with other activities and often occurs spontaneously. The most common form is passive contact, which involves seeing or hearing other people in close proximity (Gehl 1971). Passive contact or other low intensity social activities are important because they can be a way of establishing contact between strangers, which can grow into other more active social activities like conversation. (Aelbrecht 2016; Gehl 1971). Social interactions among strangers tend to be unplanned and risky, so they rely particularly on spatial and social context clues (Aelbrecht 2016).

The spectrum of civic or social mixing is a tool that can help explain the process of how social contact can facilitate friendships or a shared sense of community. This spectrum ranges from “no contact” at the lowest level to “friendship” at the highest level. Between these levels are “passive contact,” “chance contact,” and “familiar stranger.” “Chance contact” involves non-personal interactions such as asking a passerby for the time. The idea of a “familiar stranger” entails recognizing someone after repeatedly seeing him or her or interacting with him or her, but not knowing their name (Gehl Institute 2016).

Social interactions are a fundamental human need. Aside from their role in building social cohesion, on the individual level, a lack of or poor social interactions and social relationships are correlated with lower self-reported health (Boniface et al 2015; Cyranowski et al 2013; Lamu and Olsen 2016). Social support can be understood as the extent to which an individual views friends, family, and acquaintances as ready to provide help and support in a time of need (Cyranowski 2013). In particular, frequent social interactions and feelings of social support are seen as enhancing mental health and wellbeing (Boniface et al 2015; Cyranowski et al 2013; Farber and Li 2013). Lack of social interactions and support can produce feelings of loneliness and distress, which can negatively impact health (Cyranowski 2013).

9 A sense of community among neighborhood residents is built over time through a sense of shared backgrounds, culture, experiences, and repeated social interactions. Social cohesion can be understood as the “social order in a physical or non-physical social setting,” or in simpler terms, the social glue holding a community together (Dempsey 2009). Social cohesion is facilitated by many factors, including the development of strong social networks, meaningful social interactions, community participation, trust among neighbors, perceptions of safety, and attachments to place (Raman 2010; Dempsey 2009). Evidence of a socially cohesive community includes a strong local culture and pride exhibited by residents. Ideally, all social groups should feel able to take part in a community’s public life. But, if social cohesion is too strong a community can become closed and overly inward looking (Dempsey 2009). An important caveat for research that examines social interactions at the neighborhood level is that, although residents may not have frequent social interactions at the neighborhood level, they still might interact with people outside their immediate neighborhood. There has not been sufficient research to understand how or if one’s wellbeing is affected if social interactions and engagement take place only outside of the neighborhood (Pfeiffer & Cloutier 2016).

The Importance of Public Space Public space can help to satisfy humans’ needs for nature, external stimulation, knowledge, exercise, and contact. As communal spaces, public spaces can host unplanned and serendipitous activities (Gehl 1971; Madden 2018; Varna and Tiesdell 2010). Public spaces with greenery and plants often provide environmental benefits by absorbing storm water runoff, increasing biodiversity, and lessening the urban heat island effect. The increase in foot traffic caused by an active public space can generate economic benefits for nearby businesses (Madden 2018; Varna and Tiesdell 2010). From a political perspective, public spaces, as neutral territory, are important arenas for the exchange of information and protest (Varna and Tiesdell 2010). Public spaces are particularly important for children and seniors. Seniors are often among the most frequent users of public space, which can provide an area for exercise. For seniors who live alone, public spaces offer the opportunity for contact and interaction with other people (Gehl 1971). Public spaces provide opportunities for children to play and recreate (Madden 2018).

Public Spaces are Social Spaces Planning theory and research stress the importance of public spaces in promoting and supporting public life and social interactions among residents. A public space alone cannot create social interactions or contact. It also cannot determine what kinds of interactions occur or the quality of those interactions. Public spaces provide opportunities and the possibility of people meeting (Aelbrecht 2016; Gehl 1971; Jacobs 1961; Madden 2018; Mehta 2007; Whyte 1980). As shared spaces, public areas are a key element of the “civic commons” where unplanned interactions can occur between a variety of different people (Aelbrecht 2016; Gehl 1971; Jacobs 1961; Mehta 2007).

10 In her seminal work, the Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs argues that these passive interactions “are the small change from which a city’s wealth of public life may grow” (Jacobs 1961, 72). Without active spaces, these kinds of unplanned and organic interactions, which can become the basis for deeper connections, are less likely to occur. Thus, public spaces are of vital importance to the social and psychological health of communities (Gehl 1971; Jacobs 1961; Mehta 2007). Supportive public spaces can, in the long run, facilitate social cohesion and lead to greater social engagement (Chitrakar 2016; Dempsey 2009; Mehta 2007; Pfeiffer and Cloutier 2016; Raman 2010; Farber & Li 2013).

For social contact and interactions to occur, it is not enough to create a public space. The public space must be well-used and lively, because the most used public spaces are the most social ones (Gehl 1971; Whyte 1980). When a public space is of poor quality, only necessary activities, like walking, are likely to occur. When a public space is of high quality, optional activities will also occur, like sitting, eating, and playing. Optional activities are the kinds of activities that are most likely to lead to social interactions and contact. People are also likely to spend more time in a high- quality public space. The longer the duration of these activities, the more likely they are to become social (Gehl 1971). When a site has a high proportion of people in groups, it means people have made the choice to come and meet at the site (Whyte 1980).

Some new urbanists have gone so far as to argue for a form of physical determinism: that urban design choices and physical spaces can create or facilitate a sense of community. There is strong evidence that the physical environment can facilitate social interactions, but existing empirical evidence shows the physical environment does not have the ability to shape whether interactions lead to the development of a community, which depends on a variety of factors including more complex social relationships (Talen 2000).

Characteristics of Active Public Spaces: Physical Design A resident or visitor to any city will notice that some public spaces are more active than others. Some areas are key community gathering places, where residents congregate and linger. Others are totally empty save for those who must use them to reach a nearby destination. Among the many factors that play a role in determining these different activity levels, a key driver is the site’s physical design (Chitrakar 2016; Dempsey 2009; Farber & Li 2013; Gehl 1971; Mehta 2007; Pfeiffer and Cloutier 2016; Raman 2010;). The physical design of a site can influence how many people use a site, how long they use it, and what activities develop in the site (Gehl 1971).

One of the most important elements of site design is seating. If people do not sit in a site, they are unlikely to spend much time in it. Sitting is also an important requirement before many kinds of social interactions can occur. Seating is often either installed at random or to fit an architect or designer’s vision for a space. There are several different kinds of seating. Primary seating describes objects

11 whose primary purpose is for seating, like chairs and benches. Secondary seating describes objects with a primary purpose beyond seating, for example stairs and low walls. To ensure there are more seating options, site elements like ledges, stairs, and walls should be designed to ensure people can sit on them (Gehl 1971; Whyte 1980).

People are likely to only sit down for any length of time if seats are comfortable and oriented in a positive way (Gehl 197l; Madden 2018; Whyte 1980). This includes ensuring the design of the seat itself is comfortable for different populations, particularly seniors. This involves ensuring the physical orientation of the seat allows users to be in the sun on a cold day or in the shade on a hot one. People often prefer to sit along the edge of a site because it allows them to sit in a way that offers a good view of the whole space and solid back support, like a wall or fence. Seating should also be socially comfortable; for example, people should not be forced to sit too close together, but there should be space for groups of people to sit together. Rather than attempt to ensure all these conditions are met, chairs should ideally be moveable so people can decide how and where they would like to sit (Gehl 1971; Madden 2018; Whyte 1980).

Beyond seating, the layout and design of a public space are important factors in whether it will be well used or not. In general:

• The overall layout of a public space should be designed to build gathering points and encourage interactions, rather than for aesthetic reasons (Madden 2018). • Public spaces should not be overly controlled. There should be opportunities for messiness and “loose spaces” where unplanned and temporary activities and interactions can occur (Aelbrecht 2016). • Public spaces should not be too wide open; they should be intimate, allowing people to view the entire site. If a site is large and wide open, it can feel cold and impersonal. A smaller, narrower site designed to a human scale can feel warmer and more personal. If it is a large site, it should be divided into multiple smaller sites (Gehl 1971; Mehta 2014). • Sites should be easily visible; as people will not use a site they cannot see. Thus, public spaces should not be below or above ground. (Aelbrecht 2016; Gehl 1971; Madden 2018). • To attract people into a public space, the site boundaries should be flexible and engaging. The entrance points should also be accessible (Whyte 1980; Madden 2018). • Public spaces should be designed to invite people into them. Successful paths and nodes must follow user desire lines rather than leading to places people do not want to go (Aelbrecht 2016; Gehl 1971; Madden 2018). • The most used sites also tend to be flexible and supportive of multiple uses, including social interactions (Aelbrecht 2016; Gehl 1971; Madden 2018). • Paths, edges, and nodes are important spaces for social interaction, as they often attract a variety of users, uses, and activities (Aelbrecht 2016).

12 Another crucial element of whether a site will be well used is the surrounding uses. When choosing a site for a public space it is important to choose a well-used area, for example a plaza will be busier if it is located in an area with heavy foot traffic. Sites with retail areas in close proximity tend to have more foot traffic and be busiest (Whyte 1980; Madden 2018). To attract people into a public space, the site boundaries should be flexible and engaging. The entrance points should also be accessible (Whyte 1980; Madden 2018). Another important factor is the surrounding sound level; if it is too loud users will not be comfortable and cannot hold a conversation (Gehl 1971).

Characteristics of Active Public Spaces: Program and Management Beyond physical features, people are attracted to public spaces with other people using them. Rather than looking for a secluded or empty site, most people are more likely to choose an active site with other people already present (Gehl 1971; Whyte 1980). Theorist Jan Gehl argues, “activity is infectious.” Once one person begins an activity; others will join in (Gehl 1971, 75). To attract people to a site, decision makers must go beyond physical design and ensure that they are providing activities and programming. In particular, people are drawn to human activities. People are likely to disregard music played over loudspeakers, but crowds will form around live musicians or street performers. Performers can also produce social interactions by acting as a conversation starter between members of the crowd (Aelbrecht 2016; Gehl 1971; Madden 2018; Whyte 1980).

Researcher William Whyte refers to this process as “triangulation” and defines it as the “process by which some external stimulation provides a linkage between people and prompts strangers to talk to each other” (Whyte 1980, 94). Triangulation does not need to be produced by live performers, it can also be produced by physical objects like a sculpture or an art installation. Similarly, food also attracts people to a site. The placement of tables, clustered together, can encourage social interactions and conversation between people as they eat (Madden 2018; Whyte 1980).

Characteristics of Active Public Spaces: Perceptions of Safety and Ownership One of the most important determinants of whether a public space will be active is whether people feel safe and secure in it. If a space does not feel safe, users are unlikely to return (Gobster and Westphal 2004; Jacobs 1961; Madden 2018; Keith, Shafer, et al. 2018). There are different ways users understand and think about safety. Users can be concerned about whether the design of the space itself is physically safe; for example, whether children can fall in water features, whether it is protected from cars, or whether seniors can safely navigate it. Users can also be concerned about their safety from other potential users of the space, depending on whether the site is a center for gangs, crime, drinking, drugs, and the homeless (Gobster and Westphal 2004).

13 Beyond public spaces, peoples’ sense of how safe they are in their neighborhood affects their social interactions, willingness to be physically active, and overall sense of wellbeing and happiness. Although there are many other larger societal factors that affect how safe residents feel in their neighborhood, the built environment can play an important role (Doyle et al; Handy et al 2006; Pfeiffer and Cloutier 2016; Raman 2010). Jacobs argues the importance of having “eyes upon the street” to guarantee neighborhood order and safety (Jacobs 1961, 35). Physical features involve windows facing the street, more lighting, and fewer spaces hidden from view. Land use features include a substantial quantity of stores and public places that draw people to them during both daytime and nighttime (Jacobs 1961; Mehta 2014).

Other research shows that residents tend to feel more secure in environments where there is less vandalism and fewer buildings that are vacant and deteriorating (Mehta 2014; Pfeiffer and Cloutier 2016; Raman 2010). Research has shown that issues of safety and security, along with maintenance, are of particular importance in communities of color (Keith et al. 2018), most likely, because these communities have experienced considerably more disinvestment compared to wealthier White neighborhoods.

Safety from cars is also important, when traffic and vehicular access is limited; it allows more opportunities for active public spaces to develop (Gehl 1971; Mehta 2014). According to Whyte, an important indicator of whether a space feels secure is the proportion of women. If the proportion of women in a public space does not reflect their share of the general population, it is generally a sign that they do not feel physically safe in the site (Whyte 1980).

Perceptions of ownership can also affect whether people use public spaces. Research on the Indianapolis Greenway system found that while the trails go through both neighborhoods with high White and Black populations, lower-income and Black residents were disproportionately likely to live near the trail. Yet, these residents were less likely to use the trail compared to higher income and White residents. The author posits that this discrepancy may be caused by perceptions that greenways are for higher income and White residents, which leave Black and low-income residents feeling less welcome, even though the greenway system goes through their own backyards (Lindsey, Maraj, et al. 2001).

Variations in Public Spaces Under the overarching term public space, there are numerous variations and typologies. As defined by Oldenburg, third places, as opposed to first (home) and second (work) places, are informal social and community gathering places. Even though third places are often privately owned cafes, bars, and restaurant, residents often feel a collective sense of ownership (Oldenburg 1989). Building off of Oldenburg’s third places, Aelbrecht identified additional types of informal social setting dubbed fourth places. Fourth places are anonymous and flexible in between

14 spaces like thresholds between public and private spaces. Aelbrecht argues that these sites are often home to passive contact like people watching (Aelbrecht 2016).

Franck and Stevens developed a typology of public space based on their adaptability. Meant to be viewed on a continuum based on the “looseness” and “tightness” of a space, loose spaces are appropriated by users and adaptable and amenable to multiple different often unplanned and sometimes unintended uses and functions. In contrast, usage of tight spaces is constrained and controlled. Loose spaces can be planned open spaces or leftover spaces like vacant lots and sidewalks. Tight spaces are often corporate plazas or malls (Franck and Stevens 2007).

Perhaps among the most comprehensive, is the classification system designed by Carmona based on function, perception, and ownership. Carmona identified twenty different types of spaces within the four categories of positive spaces, negative spaces, ambiguous spaces, and private spaces (see Figure 1). These four categories represent a scale ranging from public to private, with those in between representing ambiguousness between public and private (Carmona 2010).

Figure 1: Carmona’s Urban Space Types

Source: Carmona 2010

Conclusions Since antiquity, public spaces have served a crucial role in the social and civic lives of human settlements. Today, although there are disagreements over the state of public spaces, there is a resurgence in interest and understanding of their importance. By providing a venue and opportunities for social interactions, public spaces play a part in fulfilling the basic human need to have contact with others. Yet, not all public spaces are created equal. There are a variety of design, management, and programming features, ranging from visibility to the presence of live music, that play a role in whether a site will be a dynamic space or a dead zone. Together, these insights will influence and determine the direction of further chapters of this research.

15 Chapter 2 The Rockaways

The Rockaway Peninsula is an eleven-mile long barrier island in southeastern Queens bounded by Jamaica Bay to the north, Nassau County to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the south, and Lower New York Bay to the west.

Figure 2: Map of the Rockaway Peninsula

Source: Google Maps 2019

The Rockaways is characterized by its close proximity to the water. The ubiquity of the waterfront and relatively low-density built environment are profoundly different than most other parts of New York City. The Rockaways’ only land connection is to Nassau County, as the rest of New York City is separated by Jamaica Bay. The Rockaways’ physical isolation and social separation engenders a profound sense of localism. In fact, the Rockaways twice tried to secede from New York City in 1915 and 1917 (Kaplan and Kaplan 2003). Today, while connected by bridge to mainland New York City, the Rockaways have retained a strong independent and small-town feel, as manifested by its two Rockaway focused newspapers.

In 2012, Superstorm Sandy’s storm surge and wave action resulted in widespread damage, with flood depths of greater than 12 feet (NY Rising 2014). Almost the entire Rockaway Peninsula, save for the inland areas of Far Rockaway, are within the 100-year floodplain, meaning they are vulnerable to storm surge during a 100- year flood event (floods with a 1 percent chance of occurring every year). Due to climate change, the number and intensity of storms is projected to increase, and by 2070, the floodplain is projected to grow, leaving even fewer areas unaffected (USACE 2018).

16 Figure 3: One Percent Annual Chance (100-year) Flood Hazard Map

Source: USACE 2018

The Rockaways’ comprise land that was historically marshland and barrier islands (NY Rising 2014). Today, much of the peninsula is located at or slightly above sea level. This, combined with the area’s flat topography and high watertable, make it vulnerable to regular flooding during normal high tides (Resilient Edgemere 2017). As sea levels rise due to climate change, tidal flooding is projected to only worsen (Resilient Edgemere 2017).

Much of the Rockaways, including Arverne and Edgemere, do not have a fully built- out storm sewer system. This results in regular street flooding during minor rain events, which will only increase in frequency and severity due to climate change (EDC 2013). Arverne is especially vulnerable to street flooding and ponding, the pooling of standing water after a rain event, because its interior is at a lower elevation than its edges. This results in water being trapped and gathering in standing pools on the streets for long periods of time after heavy rain (NY Rising 2014). RISE: Rockaway Initiative for Sustainability and Equity

As mentioned, the client for this research is RISE. Known as Rockaway Waterfront Alliance before its September 2019 rebrand, RISE was founded by Jeanne DuPont in 2005. RISE began as a coalition of neighbors intent on fostering a sense of appreciation and connection between the community and the local waterfront. Today, RISE is a non-profit 501C3 headquartered at the RISE Center with eight employees and an annual reach of 5,000 residents. RISE’s current mission is to

17 “inspire all generations of Rockaway residents to care for their environment and community” (RISE 2019). RISE’s main focus areas are health, civic engagement, and youth development.

A key part of RISE’s civic-engagement focus is on caring for and activating new and existing public spaces through plantings, clean ups, and community events. Since Superstorm Sandy in 2012, RISE has hosted regular plantings of native and salt tolerant grass, shrubs, and trees along the beach. From RISE’s perspective, their planting and clean up days serve a dual purpose: they engage community members in meaningful volunteer work and also build up a critical protective buffer of green infrastructure against future storm surge and wave action (RISE 2019).

Project Underway is another of RISE’s key civic engagement initiatives. Begun in 2015, Project Underway is a community re-envisioning initiative that aims to transform Rockaway Freeway, an underutilized roadway under the elevated A-train tracks, into a safe and active public space. RISE believes that this roadway, spanning five miles from Beach 108th Street to Mott Avenue, has the potential to serve several roles. It can be a public space, a safe place for pedestrians and bikers, and a shared resource that will connect different communities along the Rockaways (RISE 2015). An Introduction: Arverne and Edgemere

A profound divide in the Rockaways is between the east and west side of the Peninsula. The western side is wealthier, with a median household income of roughly $69,000, and a higher proportion of White residents (65 percent). In contrast, the eastern side has both a lower median household income ($44,000) and a lower proportion of White residents (43 percent) (ACS 2017). The majority of RISE’s focus is on the eastern side of the Rockaway Peninsula. Within the eastern side, RISE’s public space initiatives are focused on the adjacent neighborhoods of Arverne and Edgemere (see Figure 4). The boundaries of the two neighborhoods are relatively undefined, but for the purposes of this research, Arverne is defined as roughly from Beach 80th until Beach 59th Street. Edgemere is defined as from Beach 59th Street until Beach 32nd Street.

18 Figure 4: Arverne and Edgemere

Source: Google Maps 2019 Area History

The current physical and social dynamics of this part of the Rockaway Peninsula cannot be effectively understood without comprehending the area’s history. For much of the Rockaways’ history, it served as a summertime vacation destination with only a few year-round residents. The Rockaways were a playground for the wealthy before the late 19th Century, when it became reachable by train and was transformed into a local summer destination for middle and working class New Yorkers. The large estates sold off their land to developers, who built hotels, amusement parks, rooming houses, and rows of bungalows that were rented each summer to families. By the end of the 1920s, the boardwalk was completed and was second in length only to that of Atlantic City (Architectural League 2014).

During this period, the Rockaways’ year-round population was quite small. In 1917, there were only 1,000 year-round residents, eventually rising to 45,000 by 1939 (Architectural League 2014). The year-round population was dwarfed by the population of summertime residents, which peaked at 225,000 in 1947. The number of summertime residents quickly began to fall as a result of changing travel tastes beginning in the 1950s. White families left New York City for the suburbs and the increasing presence of cars and highways made other, further vacation destinations accessible. As middle-class incomes rose, and the highway system made long distance travel more viable, vacationers gravitated toward modern hotels with amenities like pools, private beaches, and golf courses instead of the crowded bungalows with shared bathrooms and showers that characterized the Rockaways (Kaplan and Kaplan 2003).

19 As the number of summertime renters dropped precipitously, two major trends transformed Arverne and Edgemere’s built environment and demographics. First, there was an influx of poor people of color. These new mostly Black and Puerto Rican families were brought there by the New York City Welfare Department as part of new racist and callous policies that aimed to cut benefits and eligibility. This part of the Rockaways was both out of sight and had a large amount of available real estate. The Welfare Department actively placed the neediest families and a disproportionate number of people struggling with alcohol and substance misuse to the Rockaways. Due to the drop in summer renters, the owners of the many bungalows and rooming houses were glad to take the Welfare Department’s money. To convert their buildings into year-round residences, owners performed the bare minimum work necessary to winterize them. Hardly any insulation was put in and only makeshift heating systems were added. Multiple large families found themselves squeezed into homes that had formerly housed just one family. (Kaplan and Kaplan 2003).

The second major trend was the development of multiple large low-income housing complexes in the Rockaways. This was part of a larger countrywide building boom caused by the growing housing crisis beginning in the 1940s as soldiers returned from World War II and Blacks moved north. In addition, generous federal funding was available due to the Housing Act of 1949. This act, and those that followed it, established a paradigm in which federal funding would be given to cities to buy blighted land and design plans for redevelopment. Robert Moses, who quickly became the architect of the City’s efforts, viewed the Rockaways as the perfect site for the hi-rises he envisioned. The Rockaways had lots of available space and little leverage to resist Moses’ plans (Mahler 2012). Over two decades, the City built numerous public housing complexes in the Rockaways. Although making up only 0.05 percent of Queens’ population, the Rockaways quickly became home to more than 50 percent of its public housing (Kaplan and Kaplan 2003). Most of these new developments were concentrated in Arverne, Edgemere, and Far Rockaway.

Yet, Arverne and Edgemere were not hospitable places for some of the neediest and most vulnerable families in New York City. Although the City steered large numbers of low-income people of color here, the level of investment from the City did not rise to meet the new demands. Arverne and Edgemere, like much of the Rockaways, never developed the infrastructure to support a large number of year-round residents. Garbage collection and the sewer system never responded to the growing population, consequently there was frequent flooding and sewage and trash piled up in the streets. During the 1950s, there was also a growing public health crisis as the Rockaways had the highest rate of tuberculosis in Queens and the second highest rate of infant mortality. Economic prospects were extremely limited as the number of summer visitors continued to drop and the long and difficult commute to the rest of the City made it hard to reach jobs. Local businesses also began to close and there were few grocery stores (Kaplan and Kaplan 2003).

20 In the 1960s, another decision by the City had an enormous impact on the built environment and public realm of Arverne and Edgemere. In 1963, the Department of City Planning undertook a large-scale survey of the Rockaways and recommended that Arverne and Edgemere undergo the urban renewal process. In 1964, a ninety block, 310-acre area along the beach was designated as the Arverne Urban Renewal Area (AURA) (Kaplan and Kaplan, 2003). The plan called for 6,500 apartments, which would include 1,500 low-income units (Architectural League 2014). In 1969, the City estimated that 1,700 families lived in the AURA. These families were 89 percent Black and almost entirely welfare recipients. By 1971, the buildings were demolished, and the residents forced out. But the process of developing the area quickly stalled. President Nixon announced a moratorium in 1973 on federal housing subsidies for the construction of low and middle-income housing. New York City also experienced a fiscal crisis, necessitating austerity and a decrease in the City’s budget. This crisis, coupled with the moratorium on the funds necessary for the project, effectively put a stop to any redevelopment plans for the area (Kaplan and Kaplan 2003). The result was that, for decades, Arverne and Edgemere were left with a roughly 310-acre area of vacant land separating the community from the beach.

In 2006, the City designated three companies, L+M Development Partners, the Bluestone Organization, and Triangle Equities as the developers for Arverne East, the last remaining piece of the AURA. Yet, thirteen years later, Arverne East remains vacant. Arverne East is about 81 acres and located along the beach from Beach 56th Street until Beach 32nd Street. One of the largest areas of City owned vacant land in New York City, Arverne East is a wasteland of debris and overgrown vegetation. It lacks basic infrastructure like streets, lights, sewers, and sidewalks. The City wants the developer to build the infrastructure and the developer insists they cannot afford to pay the more than $100 million price tag. Consequently, the main barrier to the project’s execution is that the developer does not see the project as profitable enough to sustain the costs of rebuilding this infrastructure. (Tarleton and Silberblatt, 2014). If this standoff ends any new development will significantly change the built environment and social fabric of Edgemere. The Public Realm and Built Environment

Arverne and Edgemere are largely residential neighborhoods with few commercial areas (see Figure 5). The public realm in the study area is in relatively poor condition. When asked to characterize the public realm in the area, one former resident described it as “disconnected” (Emory Lee, Personal Communications, 2019). Some of the issues that contribute to the fragmentation and inaccessibility of the public realm include many dangerous intersections, large areas without sidewalks, trash strewn public spaces, and regular tidal flooding. In total, over 15 percent of the area of Arverne and Edgemere is marked vacant with a wide variation in size, condition, and ownership. The large number of unmaintained vacant lots in the study area drives some of these maintenance issues. (DCP 2019).

21 Figure 5: Area Land Use

Source: DCP 2019

Open Space Judging from the land use map, it would seem that the study area is rich in open space at 53 percent of the land area. But, a closer examination shows that there is little useable open space. On the Jamaica Bay side, much of the waterfront is inaccessible, including the two large peninsulas jutting into Jamaica Bay. The larger peninsula, Rockaway Community Park, also known as Edgemere Landfill, is closed to the public. The smaller peninsula, Dubos Point, is open to the public, but is essentially vacant, with overgrown plants, abundant trash, and no paths or resources. The areas along Sommerville and Thursby Basin marked as open space are actually vacant or fenced off from the public. The only area of the Jamaica Bay waterfront that is maintained and regularly open to the public in this area is Bayswater Park, located just slightly east of the study area boundaries.

On the ocean side, the beach and boardwalk stretch throughout the entire study area. This is an amazing resource and one of the key things that define Arverne and Edgemere. But, as a public space, there are several drawbacks and limitations. The beaches in this community do not have the amenities and concessions that exist farther west. Furthermore, the beach itself is a seasonal resource that is relatively empty outside of the summer, save for surfers. It is inaccessible to the elderly and disabled who cannot easily walk on the sand. In addition, the beach is viewed as dangerous to many residents. Just in the 2019 summer season, seven beachgoers drowned. Anecdotally there are a high percentage of residents who cannot swim, leaving many families afraid to visit the beach (Jeanne DuPont, RISE Executive Director, Personal Communications, 2019). Physical barriers also limit access to the beach, particularly in Edgemere where areas of the beach are blocked off from public access to allow endangered piping plovers to nest. In addition, to reach the beach in Edgemere, residents must walk through Arverne East, which, as previously

22 mentioned, is a large and deserted area of vacant and overgrown land that serves as another physical and psychological barrier. During interviews with community members and stakeholders, one of the important issues that arose was that, although there are several playgrounds in the neighborhood, there is a lack of flexible or multipurpose open spaces that residents of all ages and abilities are welcome in and can use year-round for passive activities like sitting, relaxing, experiencing nature, and meeting with friends.

Key Housing Developments The public realm in Arverne and Edgemere is further fragmented by multiple large housing developments that divide it and act as segregated islands surrounded by smaller, mostly one to two family houses (see Figure 5). Going from west to east, Arverne by the Sea forms the single largest housing development in the area. Built on a 19-block site of vacant land, the development fundamentally changed the neighborhood of Arverne. The $350 million project, stretching from Beach 62nd to Beach 81st St, broke ground in 2002. When completed, there will be roughly 2,300 residential units varying from multifamily condominiums to attached two- and three-story townhouses (Urban Land Institute 2018). Along with the residential units, the developers built a YMCA; over 300,000 square feet of retail space; and a 50,000-square-foot Stop & Shop (Nathan 2014). The developer was also required to build a K-8 charter school and contribute $3 million to developing Thursby Basin along Jamaica Bay into a public park. Thus far the developer has not fulfilled either of these promises (Jeanne DuPont, RISE Executive Director, Personal Communications, 2019).

Arverne by the Sea is entirely made up of market-rate housing. The first homes to sell in 2004 were priced at $395,000 to $495,000. But within a few years, units were selling for between $559,000 and $1.2 million. In the most recently completed building, the luxury Tides complex, a studio apartment rents for $1,200 per month (Urban Land Institute 2018). This is far above the median rent in the study area (about $800 per month) (ACS 2013-2017). Although project executives have described the development as “the bridge” between the divided eastern and western ends of the peninsula, the development is a segregated island of higher income homes separated from a largely low-income community (Nathan 2014). One former resident described Arverne by the Sea as “a gated community without gates” (Emory Lee, Personal Communications, 2019).

Arverne by the Sea is, in effect, segregated from the larger community by its layout, urban design, and architecture. The style does not match the surrounding architecture. The townhouses come in various sizes and floor plans, each one is named for a different non-local holiday destinations like “Jamaica,” “Grand Bahama,” “Freeport,” and “Baja.” Even the curving nature of the streets, and the street names and signs in Arverne by the Sea are different than in the surrounding community, giving the neighborhood a distinct footprint that clearly separates it from the rest of Arverne (Blanchfield n.d.).

23 Going east, the next large development is Arverne View, a 1,093-unit Mitchell-Lama housing complex (L+M Development Partners n.d.). Built in 1974 on vacant land, Arverne View is located on Beach 59th Street from Rockaway Beach Boulevard until the Boardwalk. Arverne View marks another break in the built environment of the neighborhood, the 13-acre superblock complex of 11 mostly hi-rise buildings is surrounded by fence and physically blocked off from non-residents.

Going further east there are three large New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) developments. The largest development is Ocean Bay. Considered two developments separated by Beach Channel Drive, the larger Ocean Bay Bayside has 24 buildings and roughly 4,000 residents in 1,400 units. The smaller Ocean Bay Oceanside has seven buildings and about 800 residents in 420 units. Further east in Edgemere are the Beach 41Street Houses, which are made up of four buildings with roughly 1,600 residents in 710 units (NYCHA 2019). Together these three developments tower over the mostly small buildings and houses that make up the rest of Edgemere’s housing landscape. With a population of over 6,500 residents, these three NYCHA developments make up roughly 36 percent of the population of Edgemere.

Key Nodes and Paths Urban theorist Kevin Lynch argues that breaking down neighborhoods into their key components can help illuminate how residents and visitors understand and experience an area. Paths and nodes are two of the key components identified by Lynch. Paths are linear channels or routes along which people move. The most important paths are in close proximity to or made up of a series of important nodes or landmarks (Lynch 1960). As mentioned previously, Arverne and Edgemere are not very walkable because the quality of street infrastructure is so poor. There are also few streets that reach from the western end of Arverne to the eastern end of Edgemere. The three mains paths in the study area are also the main east/west streets: Beach Channel Drive, the Boardwalk, and Rockaway Freeway.

Of the main paths, Rockaway Freeway stands out as a main pedestrian artery that runs down the center of the neighborhood. Residents use it to reach multiple important destinations, including the subway stations, the YMCA, Stop & Shop, Arverne by the Sea, and Arverne View. As one resident described it, “everybody walks under the El” (Place It! workshop participant, 2019). Rockaway Freeway is below the elevated A-train tracks, which unlike other streets, provides natural shade on hot days and protection from rain or snow. Unlike in other neighborhoods the solid construction of the subway trestle blocks out most of the sound of passing subways. In an area with few directional indicators, one Arverne resident describes using it as a “directional anchor” (Daris Garnes, Personal Communications, 2019).

Although it is a key pedestrian corridor, Rockaway Freeway is not very pedestrian friendly and is owned by several different public and private entities (see Figure 6). In Edgemere, there is no sidewalk, necessitating that the many pedestrians who use the street share it with fast moving cars that are often unaware of pedestrians. In

24 Arverne, Rockaway Freeway is closed to cars. But, the streets are not well maintained and there is no signage indicating that the area is open and accessible to pedestrians. These issues are particularly acute beginning at Beach 62nd Street and going west into Rockaway Park. Along this stretch, Rockaway Freeway is demapped and part of it is privately owned by the developers of Arverne by the Sea. Maintenance is a particular problem in this area. Arverne by the Sea uses a portion of it, from Beach 67th to 69th Street, as a parking lot, making it especially inhospitable to pedestrians. As mentioned previously, as part of its Project Underway initiative, RISE has advocated for making pedestrian and bicycle improvements and closing the entirety of Rockaway Freeway to cars.

Figure 6: Rockaway Freeway and Key Sites

Source: Google Maps and DCP 2019

Similar to paths, nodes are important focal points or junctions in neighborhoods, often where multiple paths converge (Lynch 1960). In Arverne and Edgemere, public transportation stops are the key nodes. A majority of residents (52 percent) commute to work by public transportation and the mean travel time to work is almost an hour (55 minutes), indicating that public transit is a key part of most residents’ lives (ACS 2013-2017). The A-train line runs through the center of the neighborhoods and the subway stops mark almost a sort of geographic center of the neighborhoods. These are key areas in a divided neighborhood where residents of all the different developments are drawn together.

25 Business Conditions There are few local businesses in Arverne and Edgemere. In particular, two major events led many area businesses to close. First, the 2008 recession, forced many out of business. Then, in 2012, Superstorm Sandy devastated the remaining businesses, many of which were still trying to recover from the recession. But, even before Superstorm Sandy, local businesses were only meeting about 30 percent of consumer demand (Hester Street 2019).

Regardless of the challenges to businesses, Arverne and Edgemere are home to vibrant, entrepreneurial local microbusinesses. Examples include Last Dragon Pizza, which sells and mails frozen pizzas online to customers; the Rockaway Ice Lady, who sells ices on the boardwalk; the Cradle NYC, which is a Nigerian food cart run by a former participant in RISE’s afterschool program; and across the street from the RISE Center, a man sells jerk chicken and other Caribbean staples from his backyard. These qualitative findings are augmented by a 2016 survey of Rockaway residents that found over two thirds (68 percent) of respondents are dissatisfied with neighborhood commercial options, and almost half (45 percent) of respondents are interested in starting a business. Similarly, almost half (46 percent) of respondents would move their business to the Rockaways if they could (Hester Street 2019). Area Demographics

Arverne has roughly 11,200 residents compared to 18,100 in Edgemere, resulting in a total combined population of roughly 29,300 residents. Of those residents, 54 percent are female, 46 percent are male, while the neighborhoods’ median age is 33 years old (ACS 2013-2017).

Race and Ethnicity The resident population of Arverne and Edgemere is majority people of color (see Figure 7). More than half of residents identify as Black (56 percent), with Hispanics and Latinos comprising 29 percent, and Whites comprising only 7 percent. Although the racial and ethnic mix remains relatively stable throughout the neighborhoods, there are some slight variations. The area centered on Arverne View has the highest Black population (67 percent). Edgemere has a slightly higher Hispanic and Latino population (33 percent) compared to Arverne (23 percent) (ACS 2013-2017).

26 Figure 7: Racial and Ethnic Composition

Source: ACS 2017

Median Household Income Median household income is roughly $40,000, significantly below that of New York City ($58,000). But, there are significant economic divisions within the area. In general, incomes are considerably higher in Arverne ($59,000) than Edgemere ($30,000), mostly driven by the presence of Arverne by the Sea (see Figure 8). Median household income is lowest in the eastern-most part of the study area ($27,000) and the area around the Beach 41st Street Houses and the Ocean Bay Bayside NYCHA developments ($26,000) (ACS 2013-2017).

Figure 8: Median Household Income

Source: ACS 2017

27 Key Findings

This chapter aimed to explore and understand existing conditions in Arverne and Edgemere. Compared to the rest of New York City, residents of Arverne and Edgemere tend to be lower income and predominately Black or Hispanic and Latino. Incomes vary and are significantly higher in Arverne compared to Edgemere. This research shows that many of the issues that plague the neighborhoods today are because they were originally seasonal and vacation communities with a very small year-round population. After the area ceased to be a popular vacation destination, the City deliberately placed a large number of low-income residents of color in the neighborhoods. These disenfranchised communities never received the resources and infrastructure to support the growing year-round population. This legacy continues today, as there are few active and accessible public spaces in the area. Most of the areas marked as public spaces are closed off or abandoned. Arverne and Edgemere are also characterized by many large housing developments that disrupt the public realm and operate as segregated islands and barriers to public access.

The future of these neighborhoods is uncertain. Their population continues to grow significantly faster than in the rest of New York City. With abundant space available, the De Blasio administration has homed in on the Rockaways and Arverne and Edgemere as good places for low-income housing. Yet, the specter of Arverne and Edgemere’s extreme vulnerability to climate change and sea level rise will make the neighborhoods uninhabitable in the long-term without major interventions.

28 Chapter 3 Introduction

Having outlined the predominant theories of public space in Chapter 1 and analyzed Arverne and Edgmere’s built environment, demographic, and historical conditions in Chapter 2, this chapter focuses on three specific public spaces. These three case studies were selected in order to gain a better understanding of the current conditions of public spaces and how public spaces are being used in Arverne and Edgemere. Based on observations of these three sites, lessons can be extrapolated to other similar sites.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the author observed each of the three sites for at least nine 15-minute observation periods. To ensure that the author was able to observe the sites during different times of the day, there were at least three observation periods in the morning, three in the afternoon, and three in the evening. Three of the nine observation periods also took place on the weekend. During each period, the author recorded the following data:

• The number of users • The gender of each user • An estimate of each user’s age • Where users were located • How they were using the space

An adapted version of the Gehl Institute’s Stationary Activity Mapping tool was used to record these observations. The goal of this tool is to gain a snapshot of how a site is being used. The focus is on people spending time in the site, so data about people passing through the site is not recorded (Gehl Institute 2019).

To get a better understanding of user perceptions of the sites and ideas for how to improve them, the author also hosted a model-building workshop using the Place It! Methodology developed by James Rojas (see Chapter 1 for more details). The 18 workshop participants were high school students in RISE’s afterschool internship program, most of whom are neighborhood residents and all of who are regular users of the sites. Participants were split into three groups; each of the three groups focused on one of the three case studies and did three exercises using found materials.

In the first exercise, participants used the found materials to build a representation of their favorite childhood memory. The first exercise was a warm-up to get the members of each group comfortable with one other and with building models out of the found materials. In the second exercise, participants built a model of their ideal public space. The second exercise helped participants think about what they value in a public space. In the third exercise, participants redesigned one of the three case

29 study sites based on their vision of an ideal public space. At the end of the workshop, each group had five minutes to explain how and in what ways they redesigned their site. Site Selection

Each of the three case study sites was carefully chosen based on several criteria. The criteria were developed based on the priorities of RISE, key findings from the literature review, and the existing conditions research. The author also spoke to some of RISE’s employees and adult volunteers about sites they use within Arverne and Edgemere.

The first criterion was for the site to be at least physically accessible to different populations and in a kind of neutral ground for the community’s socio-economic and housing differentials. This is a strong priority for RISE. When asked to describe the key elements of a great public space, the first element described by RISE Executive Director Jeanne DuPont was “open to anyone” (Jeanne DuPont, Personal Correspondence, 2019). Ideally to measure openness, the author would have interviewed a large segment of the population about public spaces where they feel comfortable. Due to time constraints, the metric used for openness was for the site to be open to public access and not be surrounded by a specific housing development.

The second criterion was that key paths and nodes anchor the sites. This criterion is important to ensure that the public space has a heavy pedestrian flow and the potential to be a key community gathering place. Proximity to the study area’s key nodes and paths ensures that there will be a steady stream of potential users for the site. As defined by the author, the key nodes and paths are the neighborhoods’ public transportation stops and Rockaway Freeway.

A key element of RISE’s mission is to focus on Rockaway residents rather than to concentrate on day-trippers visiting the beach. Thus, a third criterion in selecting the three sites was that residents mostly use them. Because most day-trips visit the Rockaways on the weekend or during the week, the criterion chosen was for the site to be active during the week and during the morning and evening, when most users will be residents. If the site is still active at these times of day, it indicates that the users are not just visitors. Along the same lines, the fourth criterion was that each site is not a seasonal destination and is active year-round.

The fifth criterion is for each site to have the potential for intervention. The focus of this research is on ways to activate and develop more community gathering places. Thus, it is important to not only focus on sites that already have a potential user base, but also have the potential to be redeveloped. The selected sites have that possibility. For example, they are vacant, partially undeveloped, or in an area still being developed. They are also loose spaces (see Chapter 1), meaning they are

30 relatively unconstrained and controlled and can be appropriated by users for multiple purposes (Franck and Stevens 2007).

The sixth and final criterion was for the site to be in RISE’s key focus area. As mentioned in Chapter 2, this includes the boundary area where Arverne and Edgemere converge. That was important because the goal of this study is to provide RISE actionable and useful recommendations and guidance about sites in which they will be interested and able to focus.

Figure 9: Site Selection Criteria

Source: The Noun Project

Below, each site is discussed beginning with background information and site conditions, followed by observational research results, and then research results from the Place it! workshop.

31 Site 1: The Vacant Lot

Site Description and History

Figure 10: Vacant Lot

Source: Google Maps 2019

Referred to in this research as the Vacant Lot, the first site is a vacant lot on Rockaway Beach Boulevard from Beach 59th Street to Beach 62nd Street (see Figure 10). Several hubs of activity surround it. Arverne View, one of the main population centers in the neighborhood, is across the street. The entrance to the Beach 60th Street subway station opens onto the site and it is directly south of Rockaway Freeway. There is a Q52 bus stop across the street and right next to the Q52 bus stop, there is also a busy Queens Food Stamp Center.

The site is separated into two lots by a sidewalk that leads to the subway station. The larger western part of the site, from Beach 62nd Street to Beach 60th Street is owned by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and is inaccessible due to the irregular ground and tall weeds. Ownership of the smaller eastern part of the site was transferred from HPD to DOT (Jeanne DuPont, Personal Communications, 2019). The vaguely rectangular site is mostly earth and grass with a small paved area close to the subway.

RISE has slowly begun to develop the site. In 2017, as part of an initiative called Art Under the Elevated, RISE received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to commission three pieces of public art to be placed under and adjacent to Rockaway Freeway. One of the selected artists was Kevin Sudeith, who carved horseshoe crabs, seagulls, and other Rockaway centric imagery into a boulder to create modern “petroglyphs.” This sculpture was permanently installed on the site (see Figure 11).

32 In 2018, DOT and the Design Trust for Public Space collaborated with RISE to build a green infrastructure installation modeled on a dune. Dubbed a “dune planter,” the installation includes seating on the edge of a metal planter filled with gravel, sand, and native plants (see Figure 11). The plants receive water from the downspout of the adjacent Beach 60th Street subway stop. In 2019, DOT approached RISE about continuing the project. DOT provided RISE a maintenance agreement to develop and activate the site. RISE hired a landscaping company to level the ground, remove weeds, and plant grass. DOT installed a shipping container on the site, which can be used in the future for programming or a small concession. RISE hosted several musical performances on the site in the late summer and hosted a community planting of native salt tolerant plants to fulfill the landscaping plans developed by DOT. RISE also hired a local NYCHA resident to do day-to-day site maintenance. RISE is hoping to continue developing and activating the site. Eventually, the goal is to redesign the HPD owned portion of the site as well.

Figure 11: Vacant Lot Images

Source: Judah Asimov 2019

Observational Research Results In July and August 2019, the author observed the site for nine fifteen-minute periods. The author’s observational research took place after the shipping container was delivered and the grass was planted, but before the site was landscaped. In total, only 12 people were observed using the site. Although a considerable number of people walked past or through the site on their way to somewhere else, very few of them stopped to linger on the site. In fact, during several of the observational periods, no one stopped on the site at all.

Of the users observed, a strong majority were male (83 percent), even though 54 percent of neighborhood residents are female. As mentioned in Chapter 1, a low proportion of women is often evidence that a site is perceived as unsafe (Whyte 1980). A rough estimate of user ages showed that over half (58 percent) were between the ages of 25 to 64, a quarter were children (25 percent), and only 17 percent were seniors. Of the observed users, almost all of them (92 percent) used the site for short intervals of less than five minutes. Most of the users seemed to be briefly pausing at the site on their way to the subway.

33 The observed users interacted with the site in only two ways, either standing (83 percent) or sitting on the dune planter (17 percent). In terms of activities, a majority used the site to hang out (58 percent), most often as they sat, stood in silence, or scrolled through their phones. The other most common activities observed were talking on the phone (17 percent), playing (17 percent), and smoking (8 percent). The playing observed was centered around the Rockaway Petroglyph sculpture. It involved children running around, touching, and climbing on it. This site did not seem to be a very social place. No social interactions were observed and most users were alone.

All of the observed users were clustered towards the eastern most paved part of the site near the subway’s main entrance. Most users were observed in three key areas. One-third of users (4) were observed standing on a ledge on the subway staircase that overhangs the site (see Figure 11). This area may be particularly desirable because it is shaded and in closer proximity to the subway entrance in case a subway arrives. A quarter of users (3) were observed sitting on the dune planter. The dune planter has three seats. All the users observed sitting on the dune planter were in the same seat facing Beach 59th St. User preference for this seat may be because it gives a sense of security, as it provides a good view of most of the area. As mentioned in Chapter 1, users tend to prefer seating that allows them to feel secure (Gehl 1971). The other key area is directly in front of the subway entrance. The author observed several users pacing or leaning on the staircase.

Workshop Results During the Place It! workshop, six participants focused on this site. All reported that they were familiar with the site. Most participants characterized the site as a pass- through area that currently offers no incentive for spending time in it. They mentioned several issues with the site’s current design. Participants described not feeling sufficiently protected from cars and street noise. This is reinforced by the fact that the author observed, on several occasions, National Grid or New York City Transit vehicles driving onto the sidewalk and into the site itself. Participants also reported that the site needs better lighting.

Participants were asked to redesign the Vacant Lot to be in line with their vision of an ideal public space. Working together, they re-envisioned the site with the aim of creating a flexible and accessible space for all residents, with a playground for kids; benches and a resting area for seniors; bathrooms and a food pantry for the homeless; and a dog run. Participants also added a large sign at the entrance to make it more welcoming. They also argued that having food trucks and concessions were critical, as they would give residents a reason to visit the site, could supply free food for the homeless, and create revenue to support the upkeep of the site. To protect the site from cars, participants envisioned a green wall made of edible plants like basil. Other important site elements included a solar powered phone charging station, a Wi-Fi hotspot, and an awning/umbrella for shade. Asked to describe their vision for the Vacant Lot in any three words of their choice, the group supplied four: welcoming, diverse, safe, and hospitable.

34

Figure 12: Vacant Lot Model

Source: Judah Asimov 2019 Site 2: Demapped Street

Site Description and History

Figure 13: Demapped Street

Source: Judah Asimov 2019

35 As previously mentioned, Rockaway Freeway is closed to cars all throughout Arverne, but can be viewed as several distinct parts. The second site is the demapped stretch of Rockaway Freeway located between Beach 62nd and 67th Street (see Figure 13). This stretch was chosen for two reasons. One of RISE’s key public space initiatives is Project Underway, which is focused on re-envisioning Rockaway Freeway as a pedestrian path and key community gathering place (Ana Fisyak, Personal Communications, 2019). Preliminary observations showed that this was a particularly well-used stretch of Rockaway Freeway, as it is between several important anchors. It is in close proximity to both the Beach 60th and Beach 67th Street subway stations and a key path to Stop & Shop, one of the only grocery stores in the area. To the south of the site is Arverne by the Sea. There is a homeless shelter, nursing home, and multiple two to three story houses just north of the site.

Rockaway Freeway in Arverne used to be a roadway, but along with the rest of the land in this part of the AURA, it was transferred over to Arverne by the Sea. Arverne by the Sea demapped the existing streets to redesign the street grid, except they did not redesign Rockaway Freeway. Instead they left it closed off and vacant. The City currently still owns Rockaway Freeway from Beach 62nd to 67th Street, but Arverne by the Sea has a contractual right to close on the site. The transfer is expected to happen in 2020 (Gerard Romski, Personal Communications, 2019).

Large cement barriers on Beach 67th and 62nd Street block the site to cars (see Figure 14), although from time to time cars were observed illegally parking in the entrance of the site directly in front of the barriers. The key physical feature of the site is the subway trestle, which shades it from above. Rockaway Beach Boulevard marks the southern edge, but a metal railing and the fact that it is several feet higher above ground than the Demapped Street block access to Rockaway Beach Boulevard from the Demapped Street (see Figure 14). The elevation difference is because the ground level in Arverne by the Sea chose was raised to reduce flood risk. The northern edge of the site is fenced, but over time large holes have been cut into the fence where Beach 66th and Beach 65th Street meet it. Thus, pedestrians trying to exit this stretch of Rockaway Freeway must either walk from Beach 62nd to Beach 67th Street or exit going north on Beach 66th or 65th Street.

There are several streetlights along the Demapped Street, but due to the elevation difference and trestle, the site feels dim and tunnel-like even during the day. The fence and railing also make the area feel enclosed, with few ways out. The site is also not well maintained. The ground is often strewn with trash, such as cigarette butts, dog poop, broken bottles, and stolen shopping carts from Stop & Shop. There are downspouts that snake up the trestle to the subway tracks located on every other column. The downspouts frequently drip water and weeds have sprouted below them (see Figure 14).

36 Site Demographics Although this stretch of Rockaway Freeway is unmaintained and abandoned, it is a busy thoroughfare and many people can be observed walking along it. In 2015, RISE surveyed 210 users of Rockaway Freeway to get a better understanding of who they are and why they use it. The results showed that locals mostly use Rockaway Freeway. The survey found that 89 percent of respondents live, work, or go to school in the area. Nearly a majority (49 percent) of those interviewed use Rockaway Freeway daily. The survey also showed that more than three-quarters of respondents use Rockaway Freeway to walk or run (76 percent), while almost a third of respondents use it to bike (32 percent). In addition, the survey results showed that 45 percent of respondents use Rockaway Freeway as a path to reach the store. A majority of users of Rockaway Freeway described themselves as Black (53 percent), 20 percent described themselves as Hispanic or Latino, and 9 percent described themselves as White. Three-quarters (75 percent) of the respondents report having an income of less than $50,000 and about a third (32 percent) reported incomes of less than $15,000.

Figure 14: Demapped Street Images

Source: Judah Asimov 2019

Observational Research Results In August 2019, the author spent ten fifteen-minute periods observing how people use the site. In total, 57 people were observed spending time in the site. Similar to the previous site, the majority of observed users were male (54 percent). An estimate of user ages showed that roughly two thirds were adults ages 25-64 (66 percent), almost a quarter (23 percent) were young adults 15-24, 7 percent were kids (5-4), and 4 percent were seniors (65+).

In its current form, this site does not have seating; unsurprisingly almost two thirds of users (65 percent) were observed standing. A few users (3 percent) were observed lying down or sitting on moveable seating options like walkers or wheelchairs (2 percent). The remaining third (30 percent) were observed using a variety of interesting secondary seating options (see Chapter 1). Examples included the curb, a large boulder, fire hydrants, the cement jersey barriers, and an overturned shopping cart from Stop & Shop.

37 Users were more apt to linger for long periods in this site. In total, 58 percent of users spent more than five minutes in the site and almost a fifth (19 percent) spent more than fifteen minutes in this part of Rockaway Freeway. The fact that users spent long periods in this site may be because it seemed to be a very social place that was being used almost like a front porch. Nearly half of observed users (49 percent) were seen talking with someone present. Other common uses were hanging out (26 percent), smoking (14 percent), talking on the phone (9 percent), and playing (2 percent).

At this hyperlocal social space, users tended to cluster where Beach 66th and Beach 65th Street meet Rockaway Freeway. Beach 66th Street is a residential street characterized by small one to three story houses, while Beach 65th Street is home to a homeless shelter, the Core Beach Residence Shelter, and a nursing home, the Horizon Care Center. When many of the users either entered or left the site, they were observed coming and going into residences along these two streets or into the Core Beach Residence Shelter. Further underscoring the site’s hyperlocal user base, the author frequently observed social interactions between users as people stopped as they met someone they knew, or small groups of people met and merged into larger groups.

As the site is partially enclosed and abandoned, it is also used for activities that would not be permitted or would be discouraged in other more visible public spaces. The number of users observed smoking (14 percent) was considerably higher than that of the two other sites. Several of the users observed were smoking marijuana. In addition, although the author only observed one person drinking, the large number of broken bottles on the site indicates that it is frequently used as a drinking spot. The author also observed users playing loud music on several occasions.

Workshop Results During the workshop, six participants focused on the Demapped Street. When discussing the site’s current condition, participants were most concerned with safety. Some participants brought up seeing drug deals, fights, and lots of broken glass. While some participants described feeling safe, others described feeling unsafe when using this part of Rockaway Freeway. The other major issue discussed was that the change in elevation, the railing, and the fences makes the Demapped Street feel like a barrier between the newer wealthier Arverne by the Sea and the rest of Arverne to the north of the site.

When asked to redesign the Demapped Street as their ideal public space, the group decided their main goal was to create a site that would bring communities together rather than divide them. They identified food as a way to connect different people and designed space for several local food businesses with seating centered around the food. They envisioned the entire length of Rockaway Freeway one day being like the boardwalk, in that it is both a path and a gathering space with a series of food concessions. Beyond food, the participants quickly identified that they needed to

38 give people a reason to linger. They designed a stage that would have regular programming such as live concerts and parties. They also viewed adding more art as a way of drawing people to the site.

One participant brought up a fear that improving Rockaway Freeway would spur gentrification and displacement. Participants agreed that the site needed to be designed in a way that geared its amenities towards the existing community rather than tourists or newer residents. One way they identified to accomplish this is through the art on the site. The participants agreed that the art needed to be by local artists and envisioned creating a mural or graffiti wall on the trestle columns. Anyone would be allowed to add to the mural, providing a much-needed interactive space for local artists. The art installation would be temporary, allowing the theme to regularly change.

Participants identified the trestle as a strength of the site as it protects users during rain and provides shade during the summer. With a roof already in place, participants saw a potential for the site to be used all year-round. They designed plastic walls that could be raised and lowered to enclose the site in winter and create a kind of “heated tent.” The participants imagined that this would allow programming to continue during the winter and even suggested that the food vendors should sell hot cocoa. Participants also believed that the site should use green infrastructure to protect the community from flooding. They envisioned dunes, made up of native grasses and plants, which would both protect the area from flooding and facilitate better drainage. Similarly, they designed a garden with edible plants that could also serve as green infrastructure. Asked to describe their site in three words, the group chose artistic, connected, and inclusive.

Figure 15: Demapped Street Model

Source: Judah Asimov 2019

39 Site 3: Commercial Street

Site Description and History

Figure 16: Commercial Street

Source: Google Maps 2019

The site referred to as a Commercial Street stretches along both sides of Rockaway Beach Boulevard from Beach 67th to Beach 69th Street (see Figure 16). Centered around the Beach 67th Street subway station, it was designed and built by the developers of Arverne by the Sea to be a hub for the area. Rockaway Freeway, which is used as a parking lot for the businesses, marks the northern boundary of the site. This site was chosen because it is one of the few commercial streets in the area. Retail is important because public space literature frequently identifies the presence of nearby retail as an important criterion for an active public space (Mehta 2014; Whyte 1980).

The commercial strip includes 10,000 square feet of retail in the form of fourteen businesses, eight of which are local. The north side of the street was developed first in 2012 (Gerard Romski, Personal Communications, 2019). This part of the site is made up of two one-story gray and blue buildings with several businesses inside. Most of the businesses are restaurants. There are two chain restaurants, Subway and Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins, and three non-chain restaurants: Batsey’s BBQ, Boardwalk Pizzeria, and Thai Kitchen by the Sea. There are also two banks: Chase and Bank of America. The remaining businesses include Mickey’s Dry Cleaners, Impressions by Theresa (a beauty salon), PSEG, and Breakwater Surf Company. On the eastern corner of the street, local Congressman Gregory Meeks has an office, but during the author’s observation it was always closed with the shades down. Aside from the businesses, there is also a bus stop on the Q52 Select Bus Service route.

40 Although the bus stop does not have a shelter, it does have a three-seat metal bench (see Figure 17).

The eleven different businesses on the north side of Rockaway Beach Boulevard form a cohesive whole as the facades of each of the stores have the same blue awnings and white signs (see Figure 17). Between the buildings, the public space portion of the plaza has few amenities besides landscaping. The landscaping is largely decorative; there is no seating for pedestrians, for example. There are a few tables and chairs on the site that Boardwalk Pizzeria brings out in the afternoon and evening. When it opened this summer, Batsey’s BBQ also began leaving picnic tables outside of its restaurant all day long.

The southern side of the site has three businesses that are part of the Tides, the newest portion of Arverne by the Sea. The 126-unit market-rate rental building opened in 2018 and is marketed as a luxury development with multiple private amenities including a parking lot, pool, and gym. The completed building is only phase 1 of the Tides development. Phase 2 is already under construction with phases 3 and 4 set to follow it. Currently, an empty lot takes up half of the southern side of the street. These newer businesses include a wine shop called Vino by the Sea, a restaurant called Cuisine by Claudette, a coffee shop called Locals, and a members only surf equipment storage business, which is also run by Locals. There are also two vacant storefronts. Unlike the businesses on the other side of the street, the ones in the Tides are on a landscaped terrace above ground with metal benches and tables (see Figure 17). To reach them, a pedestrian must climb the stairs up to the terrace.

Originally the developers of Arverne by the Sea intended to build another retail street, but they decided there was not enough demand. Counsel and Project Executive Gerard Romski describes the existing businesses as “doing well.” Since 2012 only one business has closed, and all available units are leased. The closed business was a Checkers restaurant, which closed due to what Romski characterized as “internal issues.” Romski stated that more retail will be built with the next phases of the Tides, probably in the form of restaurants. Romski said that the Arverne by the Sea team is fairly selective about which businesses move in. Asked to describe what they are looking for, he said something “fairly upscale” (Gerard Romski, Personal Communications, 2019).

41 Figure 17: Commercial Street Images

Source: Perkins & Eastman & Judah Asimov 2019

Observational Research Results In July and August 2019, the author spent nine fifteen-minute periods observing how people use the site. A total of 245 people were observed using the site. Unlike the previous sites, the majority of observed users were female (56 percent), which more closely matches the study area’s gender demographics (54 percent female). An estimate of user ages showed that roughly three quarters of observed users were adults ages 25-64 (75 percent), 13 percent were young adults 15-24, and 3 percent were seniors.1

More than a quarter (27 percent) of all users observed on the site were waiting for the bus. Hanging out (17 percent), eating/drinking (16 percent), talking with someone present (16 percent), and participating in a commercial activity (15 percent) were all observed at roughly the same frequency. Almost two thirds (64 percent) of users spent less than five minutes in the site. Only 12 percent of users lingered for more than fifteen minutes. However, the high number of users waiting for the bus largely drives these usage patterns. Users who were talking with someone they knew or eating or drinking tended to stay significantly longer.

Almost two thirds (63 percent) of observed users were standing, while the remaining third (37 percent) of users were observed sitting. About a quarter (27 percent) of users were seen using the tables and chairs provided by the businesses. The rest were either sitting on the public bench (8 percent) by the bus stop, using secondary seating (1 percent), or moveable seating (1 percent).

There are several key locations on the site where people clustered. There was often a crowd of people waiting for the bus, particularly in the afternoon and evening. The area on the terrace in front of the businesses in the Tides was another gathering point. Unlike the bus stop, where people tended to silently wait for the bus, people on the terrace were eating, drinking, and talking with each other. The little seating area between Boardwalk Pizzeria and Thai Kitchen by the Sea was also well used, except the equipment is only put out in the afternoon and evening. Another hub of activity was the area outside Breakwater Surf Company. Unlike the other businesses in which activity was concentrated inside the stores, Breakwater Surf Company

1 Age and gender estimates only include 127 of the total 245 users observed.

42 used the area outside of its store to show surfboards and other merchandise. They also sometimes had a popup tent and employees stationed outside that often engaged pedestrians passing by, resulting in small social interactions.

Workshop Results During the workshop six participants focused on this site. All reported that they were familiar with it. They mentioned several issues with the site’s current design. Participants described the site feeling very crowded at certain times of the day. They also felt like the site does not feel particularly inviting for non-Arverne by the Sea residents, particularly the businesses in the Tides.

Participants were asked to redesign the site in line with their vision of an ideal public space. Working together, they re-envisioned the site with the aim of creating a more welcoming place that is accessible to non-residents of Arverne by the Sea and provides more room for people to gather. Their design included features that are accessible to people who do not spend money at the businesses and live in the Tides, such as a public bathroom, a water fountain, and rooftop pool.

Similarly, they wanted to make the businesses more welcoming by adding directional signage, more seating out front, and by designing the facades to have color, bigger signs, and more storefronts. To make the businesses in the Tides more welcoming, they proposed changing the architecture so that the storefronts were lower and at eyelevel. To make the bus stop more inviting, they suggested a charging station, a lounge area, and protection from the sun and rain. They wanted to see more seating throughout the site, but particularly near the bus stop.

The participants wanted to redesign the site with additional green space. The site currently has a lot of landscaping, but instead of decorative lines of bushes and trees, the participants proposed grass or a garden with places to sit that could be used as a gathering space. The participants also proposed the addition of several new businesses including a drug store and smaller grocery store or bodega with healthy and affordable food. There other idea was to create a bookstore or Internet café that could host book clubs, events for families, and act as a place for people to hang out and gather. Participants were concerned about flooding and proposed raising the site higher. Asked to describe their site in three words, the group said convenient, modern, and comfortable.

43 Figure 18: Commercial Street Model

Source: Judah Asimov 2019 Key Findings

This chapter focused on three specific case study sites. The first site, the Vacant Lot, is a vacant city-owned lot that RISE is beginning to develop into a public plaza. Maintenance remains an issue, and observations and discussions with users illustrate that the site is underutilized with few reasons for residents to do more than pass through it on their way somewhere else. Few users were observed, those that were observed were alone, and thus no social interactions were seen. Most users seemed to be male, potentially indicating that the site does not feel welcoming or safe to women (see Chapter 1). Place it! workshop participants suggested the need to make the space more welcoming and inclusive, they also felt it needs to be more secure from cars, and they added that programming and food could provide residents more of a reason to visit the site.

The second site is the Demapped Street, which is part of Rockaway Freeway from Beach 62nd to Beach 67th Streets. The site is closed to cars, but hostile architecture and the lack of maintenance make the site not particularly inviting or pleasant. Yet, observations showed that the site is being regularly used by residents in the immediate vicinity as a hyperlocal space for social interactions, discussions, and recreation. Roughly half users were in groups and a majority spent more than five minutes using the site. Similar to the Vacant Lot, most observed users seemed to be male. Users sat on a variety of objects including overturned shopping carts and the curb. Participants in the Place it! workshop argued that for the site to be used more widely, it needed to be made more inviting and accessible. They also stated that residents need to be given a reason to spend time there. They suggested public art and food.

44

The third site is the Commercial Street between Beach 67th to Beach 69th Streets. A plaza in name only, this site is one of the few commercial streets in Arverne and Edgemere. There are 14 businesses, mostly related to food. There are few amenities beyond passive landscaping and a limited number of tables and chairs. Observations showed that the bus stop was busy and well used. The tables and chairs that are on the site are key gathering places and areas of social contact, but most users stayed on the site for only five minutes or less. Place it! workshop participants indicated that, although open and accessible to the public, parts of the site, built by Arverne by the Sea, do not feel welcoming or inclusive to non-Arverne by the Sea residents. Workshop participants also suggested that the site should have more community gathering places and amenities.

45 Chapter 4 Introduction

The effects of climate change make the long-term future of Arverne and Edgemere, and the Rockaways in general, uncertain. This must be acknowledged before discussing recommendations for physical and societal developments. Although predictions of when and how much sea levels will rise are uncertain, by the end of this century or as early as the 2080s, sea levels may rise by three feet. The New York metropolitan region could see sea levels rise by as much as six feet by early in the 22nd century. In these scenarios, the Rockaways will be devastated and potentially unlivable. If sea levels increase by three feet, tidal flooding will regularly impact Arverne and Edgemere, and if they increase by six feet, most of the Rockaway peninsula will be underwater (RPA 2016). In addition, the Rockaways’ vulnerability to storm surge and wave action during hurricanes and storms will only increase (EDC 2013).

Whether these catastrophic scenarios are realized depends on more than the accuracy of the science behind them. Ultimately, the political response to climate change in New York City, the United States, and the entire world will determine the fate of Arverne and Edgemere. The possibilities are endless. One potential response involves hard infrastructure such as floodwalls and levees. To protect the Rockaways and other vulnerable communities from sea level rise and storm surge, the Army Corps of Engineers has developed a plan relying on these measures. Yet, from a political standpoint, the feasibility of the plan is in doubt. Not only is it estimated to cost $4 billion, but with limited resources, there are many other areas of New York City that are more likely to receive these resources first due to their perceived higher economic and societal value (Ferre-Sadurni 2017).

Another potential response to sea level rise is managed retreat and the eventual abandonment of most of the Rockaways. Although careful to avoid this loaded term, HPD in its Resilient Edgemere Community Plan has already begun advocating for some of these measures. HPD proposes both limiting future residential development and beginning a narrow long-term buyout program to relocate homeowners from especially vulnerable areas in Northern Edgemere along Jamaica Bay (HPD 2017). At the same time, the City is advocating for more affordable housing to be built in Arverne and Edgemere, including on Arverne East. The incoherence of the City’s overall housing policy towards the Rockaways reflects an unwillingness to absorb the long-term threat the entire peninsula faces due to sea level rise.

The recommendations outlined below start with the assumption that the future human habitability of Arverne and Edgemere is in doubt and will depend on advocacy and political forces beyond the scope of this research. This research recognizes that there is a high likelihood of continued flood damage and the eventual need for managed retreat as sea levels rise. This uncertainty makes large

46 and expensive publicly funded capital projects inadvisable. But, as detailed earlier in this study, Arverne and Edgemere are hyper local neighborhoods with a high percentage of low-income residents of color, many of whom live in public housing. These residents have endured repeated cycles of disinvestment and, at present, have no choice but to remain in Arverne and Edgemere. In light of this reality, the area’s uncertain future cannot result in the City disinvesting in the quality of life of residents today.

This study’s recommendations reconcile these seemingly divergent truths through the mantra of “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper.” Also known as tactical or guerilla urbanism, this strategy relies on community led, human centered, short-term, and cost-effective interventions. This strategy involves a series of easily achievable and locally driven interventions and experiments that can eventually transform entire neighborhoods without falling prey to slow and costly City led capital projects (Project for Public Space n.d.). This study’s recommendations are meant to be achievable in no more than ten years and focus on the many challenges facing residents today.

Recommendation Guidelines New York City, in its push to develop vacant lots in Arverne and Edgemere, has not learned from the increased segregation and destruction of the public realm caused by the construction of large housing complexes, like the Arverne View and the many NYCHA developments in the study area. Instead, it has given developers almost free rein to redesign and rebuild the public realm in Arverne and Edgemere. The result is a series of segregated developments and a fragmented public realm. Arverne by the Sea illustrates the pitfalls of this kind of development. The portions of Rockaway Freeway passed over to Arverne by the Sea have been demapped and abandoned. Arverne by the Sea’s decision to raise Rockaway Beach Boulevard and not Rockaway Freeway further isolated the space under the trestle and created a barrier between Arverne by the Sea and the rest of Arverne. Arverne by the Sea’s plan to turn Rockaway Freeway from Beach 62nd Street to Beach 67th Street into a parking lot will, in the short term, result in the loss of a naturally occurring social space and continue to segregate Arverne by the Sea from the larger neighborhood. In the long run, this land use decision will inhibit the conversion Rockaway Freeway into one continuous community space running from Beach 108th Street to Mott Avenue.

City agencies like HPD that are focused almost exclusively on housing and real estate, must coordinate more closely with other agencies like DOT and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks) to prevent the continued destruction and privatization of the public realm. Neighborhood residents must also have a greater role in the decision-making process to ensure key local spaces are not lost. As detailed in Chapter 1, the goal of the following recommendations is to advance a vibrant and active public realm that will provide opportunities for resident interactions and empowerment. A great public space can achieve this goal by drawing residents to spend time in it.

47 To ensure that residents’ priorities around public space and the public realm are understood, this research outlines neighborhood-centric guidelines to achieve great public spaces in Arverne and Edgemere. Each guideline includes concrete recommendations, which should be viewed as strategies to achieve the overall goal outlined within each guideline. The guidelines and recommendations are based on observations, the Place it! workshop, and interviews with residents and key stakeholders.

Figure 19: Guidelines and Recommendations for Public Spaces in Arverne and Edgemere

Source: The Noun Project 2019

48 1. Public spaces should engage and strengthen the community

A recurring theme that emerged during the demographic analysis, interviews, and Place it! workshop was the problem of social fragmentation in the Rockaways. As one workshop participant put it, “We are all one community, but we’re kind of separate” (Place it! workshop participant, 2019). There are myriad fault lines, such as those between the eastern and western side of the peninsula and within Arverne and Edgemere in terms of income, race, ethnic group, and even between residents of different housing developments.

These divisions are profound; they are connected to the Rockaways’ history, but are bigger than the Rockaways and rooted in city and countrywide legacies of racism and classism. Fully addressing these divisions necessitates a number of different large-scale actions beyond the scope of this thesis. However, one issue that repeatedly came up in this study is the lack of central civic spaces where residents of Arverne and Edgemere can come together. As one Place it! workshop participant said, “There aren’t a lot of spaces where all people go. It would be cool if there was a space in our community where we could come together” (Place it! workshop Participant, 2019).

RISE launched Project Underway because it believes that a redeveloped Rockaway Freeway can fill that void. As RISE’s Deputy Director of Planning and Development described it, Rockaway Freeway can become a “civic connector,” a civic commons where residents can interact and build connections (Ana Fisyak, Personal Communications, 2019). RISE’s vision is of a network of active public spaces connected by a multimodal pedestrian and bicycling corridor. The model for Rockaway Freeway is the boardwalk. Like Rockaway Freeway, it spans from almost one end of the Rockaways to the other, is a public space, and a key path that connects multiple communities. However, Rockaway Freeway has strengths that the boardwalk does not have. It is centrally located and connected to important key nodes: the subway stops. It is also protected and shaded from the elements by the subway trestle. Unlike the boardwalk, which is ground zero for millions of summertime visitors, Rockaway Freeway has the potential to be an area that caters to and is focused on the needs and desires of longtime, year-round residents.

1.1 Create a community visioning process for Rockaway Freeway As part of this study, the author observed several sites along Rockaway Freeway. Located in close proximity to one another, the case study sites could one day become part of an interconnected public space centered on Rockaway Freeway. Only one of the three sites seemed to be a highly social place. If Rockaway Freeway and the spaces along it are to fulfill RISE’s potential vision as a civic connector, it will involve a lot more than closing the site to traffic. Several pieces of Rockaway Freeway have been closed to cars in a piecemeal way with little community input. The result is that these spaces are abandoned with little activity aside from

49 pedestrians walking. What is missing is a clear process that outlines residents’ visions and goals for Rockaway Freeway

In its Access to Opportunity report, DOT not only advocated closing Rockaway Freeway to cars throughout all of Arverne and Edgemere, it also envisioned creating a new public space along Rockaway Freeway (DOT 2019a). This was a public acknowledgement that DOT is in agreement with the potential RISE sees in the area. Yet, the development and execution of a vision for the corridor should not be left to DOT alone. Senior Program Manger Betsy Jacobsen, in discussing DOT’s work in the area, admitted that DOT does not have a vision and is not planning to develop a vision now or in the near future for Rockaway Freeway. She described DOT’s focus as trying to understand and map out physical conditions along Rockaway Freeway and the adjacent areas of publicly owned land. The next phase will be mapping other conditions like light, sound levels, and the height of the columns (Betsy Jacobsen, Personal Correspondence, 2019). Yet, without a sense of urgency and process that involves residents and local stakeholders, like HPD and Arverne by the Sea, there is the potential that more areas of Rockaway Freeway will be blocked from public access and developed into parking lots.

To ensure its vision is achieved and to prevent the further destruction of the public realm, RISE should consider beginning a community visioning process for the future of Rockaway Freeway. RISE should consider having the stated goal of the process not to be about creating a public amenity, but developing a civic commons for the area. Prerana Reddy, a RISE Board Member, who, in her former role as Director of Public Programs at the Queens Museum, helped to spearhead the development of Corona Plaza, described how their goal was to create a “big social laboratory.” To bring about this vision, they engaged the public at every stage of the development process. As Reddy characterized it, leaving the visioning process to DOT or the City will result in perfunctory community outreach in the form of badly timed public meetings that will only engage a non-representative slice of the community (Prerana Reddy, Personal Correspondence, 2019).

Community engagement and inclusion in the process is even more important because of common community fears that capital projects will result in gentrification-fueled displacement. As one Place it! workshop participant described, “It’s important to have community input because Rockaway is being gentrified” (Place it! workshop participant 2019).

A model for RISE to consider emulating is the Claiborne Avenue redevelopment process in New Orleans. The Claiborne Avenue Corridor runs through many majority Black neighborhoods like the Treme and the 7th Ward. Historically, Claiborne Avenue was the physical and social center of New Orleans’ Black community. On the physical side, it was home to a wide grassy median and a grove of 300 tall oak trees. On the social side, it was home to over three hundred thriving Black owned businesses. But, in the 1960s, the area was razed and replaced with an elevated highway. In 2017 a planning process began to improve conditions along

50 the corridor to right this historical wrong. Originally it seemed like the highway would be razed. However, residents recognized that removing the highway and building a huge public greenway would be expensive and likely result in speculation and displacement. Through the planning process, a consensus emerged that money and attention should be focused on supporting the existing community and the vibrant culture that continued to flourish after the highway was installed (Reckdahl 2018).

Rather than limiting its focus to how to develop a beautiful public amenity, the process focused on the community surrounding the corridor and how it could be preserved and revitalized through sustainable and equitable development. The holistic process focused on a wide range of issues identified such as infrastructure needs, housing affordability, flood protection, preserving existing culture, public safety, education, workforce development, and economic disparities. Eight hundred residents participated through public meetings, charettes, focus groups, and street engagement. Resident’s input was solicited along every step of the process ranging from shaping the study orientations, the issues addressed, the opportunities identified, the goals set, the scenarios developed, and the solutions proposed (City of New Orleans 2014). A similar process would help to build a gathering space rooted in a community-led vision for Rockaway Freeway based on residents’ needs and wants.

1.2 Start a kitchen incubator program Another issue that came up repeatedly during this research was the importance of providing food in building a successful public space. During the Place it! workshop, all three groups incorporated food businesses into their site redesigns. Participants described the need for more food options in the area and, in line with Whyte’s theory that food is a way to spark social connections (see Chapter 1), also described providing food as a strategy to bring people together. Participants were clear that they wanted to see locally owned and run food businesses serving culturally appropriate food geared towards residents, not tourists and beachgoers. As described in Chapter 2, there are few existing local food businesses in Arverne and Edgemere; but there are many local entrepreneurs who are interested in starting them.

Although residents have repeatedly stated that they want more food options in Arverne and Edgemere, there continue to be few of them. This is likely due to several barriers. As in most low-income communities, the risks and cost associated with starting a business are difficult for many residents to overcome (Hester Street 2019). There are also several issues unique to the area. The relatively low-density environment and small number of residents has resulted in few areas with the necessary concentrated consumer demand to support food businesses.

51 To help aspiring entrepreneurs, RISE should consider advocating for a kitchen incubator program. A kitchen incubator serves food entrepreneurs by providing members space and training to start or grow their businesses. A kitchen incubator is particularly beneficial to low-income entrepreneurs as it helps alleviate the risks and costs associated with starting a business. The workforce development and management necessary to run a kitchen incubator is likely outside of RISE’s mission and beyond its capacity, a liability that could be addressed by partnering with Ocean Bay Community Development Corporation (OBCDC). OBCDC is a longtime nonprofit focused on improving socioeconomic conditions and providing social service to residents of the eastern end of the Rockaways. OBCDC is advocating building a kitchen incubator in Edgemere focused on NYCHA tenants, longtime residents, new business owners, and home-based entrepreneurs (Hester Street 2019). Partnering with OBCDC would create more job opportunities for residents, support local entrepreneurs, and could also help activate public spaces, like the three case study sites, along Rockaway Freeway.

The three case study sites along Rockaway Freeway, and the whole corridor in general, receive significant foot traffic due to their close proximity to the subway stations. As part of their partnership, DOT and the Design Trust for Public Space developed the El-Box. The El-Box is a 20-foot long shipping container outfitted for storing, warming, and selling pre-prepared food. Before it was brought to the Vacant Lot site, it was located under the south side of the Brooklyn Bridge. DOT partnered with the Old Seaport Alliance and operated the space as a food concession. DOT waived the usual fees and most of the legal and insurance requirements to give local food vendors a 29-day slot to operate the El-Box (Design Trust for Public Space 2019). Although the physical kitchen incubator would be located elsewhere in the neighborhood, the El-Box could provide seasonal opportunities for participants in the kitchen incubator to test out and experiment with their local businesses in one of the area’s most highly trafficked environments.

There are several benefits to this model. The kitchen incubator would be based in a physical building, thereby negating the difficulty of operating a working commercial kitchen in the public spaces like the case study sites. The El-Box model is predicated on the idea that food concessionaires are using it as a staging area for dishes that either need minimal preparation or can be partially prepared off-site. As it would be operated in conjunction with an entrepreneurship program, the costs could be partially offset by grant funding, so that the food concession would not need to be fully sustained by sales. Each participant could be given a set amount of time to experiment and test out selling different dishes. If the participants are successful, they can choose to open their own brick and mortar restaurants or stores. This model is a way to provide food to residents even in an area that may not have the buying power to sustain self-sufficient businesses.

52 New Orleans’ Claiborne Avenue Corridor can serve as a precedent for the food incubator model. One of the key goals identified during the visioning process was creating more opportunities for small food businesses. The strategy that they developed focused on creating a program around building local residents’ capacity to start microbusinesses by providing technical assistance and services (City of New Orleans 2014). Their vision was to create a market of food stalls run by local entrepreneurs operated out of brightly painted shipping containers under the elevated highway (Rechtdahl 2018).

1.3 Develop resident driven art installations During the Place it! workshop, a need for more community art emerged. In particular, the group that focused on the Rockaway Freeway site made art the centerpiece of their proposal. The group suggested a communal graffiti installation for local artists and residents. This proposal can be characterized as a wish for residents to have a more active and hands-on role in producing art. This idea is supported by Whyte, who argues that art is an important way to draw people into a site, spark connections, and encourage social contact between public space users (Whyte 1980).

Figure 20: Art Under the Elevated

Source: RISE 2017

RISE has significant experience producing art installations aimed at engaging the local community. In 2017, RISE received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for a project titled Art Under the Elevated. RISE solicited an open call for three art installations along Rockaway Freeway. The art pieces included Rockaway Petroglyph by Kevin Sudeith, a carved boulder with birds, horseshoe crabs, and other Rockaway-centric images, which is currently on the Vacant Lot site (see Chapter 3). Rockaway Field Guide by Jonathan Chesley, Alexandria Donati, and Andrea Parker was a series of photographs that formed a guide highlighting plants and found objects in Arverne East. Projected Swimmers, by Jessica Findley, involved a one-night projection of recordings of the youth in RISE’s programs on the trestle at Beach 59th St (see Figure 20).

Although the first phase was successful, RISE should consider incorporating more resident input into future phases of Art Under the Elevated. During the first phase, none of the artists were from the neighborhood. In addition, there was no requirement that artists engage, feature, or solicit feedback from community

53 members. Sudeith informally engaged community members who passed him as he carved his boulder, the other artists engaged youth in RISE’s programs, but not residents in the wider community.

The Queens Museum’s efforts to develop and activate Corona Plaza provide a useful model for creating an active community hub through art, programming, and events. Prerana Reddy, former Director of Public Programs at the Queens Museum, described the Queens Museum’s goal as to use “art as a strategy to transform an ignored place” into a neighborhood commons. A key driver of the Queens Museum’s philosophy around Corona Plaza is that public plazas should not just be pretty parks with chairs and decorative tables. Instead they view Corona Plaza as a place for freedom of expression and public demonstration to address the needs and desires of the marginalized (Prerana Reddy, Personal Communications, 2019).

Reddy argued that the way to do this is by developing something that the community actually wants. Instead of an art professional, the Queens Museum hired a part time community organizer who was rooted in the local community. The Queens Museum also held brainstorming sessions and surveyed local residents about what kind of art and programming they wanted to see on the plaza. They also had meeting where residents identified issues they saw in the community. After the Queens Museum classified the issues, they identified artists to address those needs through art installations (Prerana Reddy, Personal Communications, 2019).

Instead of having residents simply attend art unveilings, the Queens Museum used art to engage marginalized residents and encourage social interactions while shifting perceptions around Corona Plaza. Examples included Mudanzas, which translates to “Moving Service” and was designed to humanize and give a voice to the truck drivers who used Corona Plaza as an informal parking lot. The artist created videos highlighting the drivers’ stories and took photographs of their favorite landscapes in their home countries. The video was then projected onto the trucks, in effect turning the trucks into galleries. All of the Queens Museum’s installations sought to make the physical space of the plaza reflect the lives of residents (Taylor 2019).

RISE recently secured another grant from NEA for Art Under the Elevated II, which will allow it to commission three art installations along Rockaway Freeway in 2020. RISE should consider using this initiative as a pilot to incorporate some of the strategies pin-pointed by the Queens Museum to incorporate the community more fully into the design and execution of the second round of Art Under the Elevated. RISE also has two more pending grants that, if they are received, could potentially provide more funding to hire a community organizer and develop further arts installations and programming.

54 2. Public spaces should be multi-purpose sites that are inclusive, welcoming, and accessible to all residents

During the Place it! workshop, a key goal that emerged was designing flexible inclusive spaces that provide opportunities for multiple kinds of users. These groups would include women, seniors, young people, and the homeless. But currently, participants also described not feeling welcome in many of the public spaces in Arverne and Edgemere. Observations of the case study sites reinforced this, as the author observed few seniors and a low proportion of women, except in the Commercial Street. There are several strategies that can be pursued. There are messaging and design cues that can make public spaces feel more welcoming and accessible to residents. Another way to accomplish this goal would be to build a sense of ownership through programming and events.

For example, the Rockaway Freeway site has large jersey barriers that block the entrance to it, which keep cars from entering, but also give a visual “keep out” cue to pedestrians. Participants in the Place it! workshop also described feeling unwelcome in parts of the Commercial Street site. They especially felt that the southern part of the site in the new Tides development was exclusionary. When pressed on why, participants focused on the kinds of businesses and the visual cues they received from the site design. Unlike the older northern part of the site, the businesses above ground are on a terrace and screened by vegetation. This gives pedestrians a visual cue that the businesses are catering to residents of the Tides. It also harkens back to the prescriptions of Gehl and other urban design theorists who argue that, to be inviting, sites should be visible and in people’s sight lines (Gehl 1971).

2.1 Activate public spaces through programming As illustrated in Chapter 1, there is a consensus among public space theorists that people are drawn to human activity (Aelbrecht 2016; Gehl 1971; Madden 2018; Whyte 1980). Hosting regular programs and events is a way to attract and make people feel welcome while creating opportunities for social interactions and contact. During interviews and the Place it! workshop the need for more events and activities came up repeatedly. To develop the sites into active, vibrant community gathering places, participants stated that there needs to be a reason for people to visit and spend time in them. They suggested events like live bands and parties. Reflecting on what kind of events she would like to see, one resident described board game tournaments, family days, plant giveaways, yoga, and roller skating (Daris Garnes, Personal Communications, 2019). Events specifically geared towards seniors or children could also help to make these key users groups feel more welcome.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, RISE already hosts regular events focused on engaging residents, beautifying the community, and strengthening community ties. RISE should consider building on this strong foundation of community events and focusing them on public spaces such as the three case study sites. RISE could begin

55 by moving some of its events and programs from the RISE Center to these sites. For example, RISE could host its annual Hip Hop Halloween or Rockaway Earth Day event on Rockaway Freeway, the Commercial Street, or the Vacant Lot site. Using RISE’s successful planting on the Vacant Lot as an example, RISE could host clean ups and plantings along the Demapped Street and the Commercial Street. RISE could also host programs such as the RISE Exercise class on those sites. RISE should consider hosting its bi-annual craft markets outside in some of Arverne and Edgemere’s underutilized sites.

Figure 21: RISE Programming Examples

Source: RISE 2019

RISE should also consider hosting some new events and activities outdoors in public spaces. For example, RISE should consider hosting events and dinners that showcases local cooking. Food can attract diverse people, showcase the diversity of residents, and help create opportunities for social contact and interaction. An increase in food events would also give local microbusinesses an opportunity to promote their businesses and perfect their skills (see recommendation 1.2).

2.2 Develop more welcoming signage In the place of barriers and other hostile architecture, RISE should consider advocating for more welcoming and positive signage around public spaces, particularly around entrances. To understand how signage can make people feel welcome, the Center for Active Design performed a photo experiment in which they showed participants the same park entrance. Half saw an image with a large, colorful, and prominent sign at the park entrance, while the other participants saw the park entrance without the sign. Participants shown the park image with the sign were significantly more likely to say the park was inviting and used often by others (Center for Active Design 2018).

These findings match closely with recommendations from the participants in the Place it! workshop, who advocated for welcoming, inclusive, and prominent signage. The workshop participants focusing on the Vacant Lot identified a need for a prominent entrance or gateway that invites people into the site. The participants focused on the Commercial Street also advocated adding more signage, and designing the facades to have color and be more inviting. This could also apply to the Demapped Street, which does not have any signage.

56 RISE could also consider developing positive signage to make public spaces feel more inclusive and welcoming. In another of the Center for Active Design’s photo- experiments, they showed half the participants a traditional park sign focused on rules and things visitors should not do. The other half were shown signs with a positive and whimsical message. Respondents shown the more positive signs were more likely (by a factor of 11 percent) to say they were proud of their community (Center for Active Design 2018). As a precedent, RISE could consider Charlotte, North Carolina’s “Can-Do” signage. With the goal of changing residents’ relationship with public space, Charlotte began experimenting with positive signage with messages like “You Can! High Five a Friend ” or “You Can! Have a Ball” (see Figure 22). Charlotte also began a social media campaign to encourage residents to post photographs and share their favorite things to do in public spaces (Center for Active Design 2018).

Figure 22: Can Do Signs

Source: Candosigns.org 2019

Another way to make sites more welcoming and inclusive is through wayfinding. Wayfinding is the system for providing information and cues that allows people to navigate their way through a place. By helping residents navigate public spaces and emphasizing that a site is open to all, wayfinding can make them more inviting and welcoming (Center for Active Design 2018). A set of bold, bright, and colorful visual and graphic navigation standards could not only help to make residents feel more welcome, but it could also create an identity for a series of Rockaway Freeway centered public spaces.

Similarly, removing physical barriers and adding bright, eye-catching lighting can help make the tunnel-like Demapped Street more inviting. For example, Dutch artist Herman Kuijer used LED lights to transform two formerly dark underpasses into visually inviting gateways to the city center of Zutphen in the Netherlands (see Figure 23) (Archlighting.com 2019).

57

Figure 23: Marstunnel Underpass

Source: Archlighting.com 2019 3. Public spaces should feel safe and secure

After observations of the three case study sites, interviews, and the Place it! workshop, several safety issues emerged, which are barriers to the wider use of the sites and public spaces in general. The first issue involves a lack of physical safety from cars. This was echoed in the Place it! workshop, which found that the Vacant Lot does not feel safe from cars. Due to the fact that there are no parked cars along the northern part of Rockaway Beach Boulevard, there is no barrier between the Vacant Lot and the fast-moving cars and traffic on the street. On several occasions, the author observed New York City Transit or National Grid trucks driving over the sidewalk and parking in the site, which only reinforces pedestrians’ sense of insecurity.

Beyond the Vacant Lot, Rockaway Freeway is a key pedestrian corridor (see Chapter 2), but in Edgemere pedestrians and bicyclists are forced to share the space with cars. The lack of a sidewalk and clear separation from cars is a safety issue and inhibits use of Rockaway Freeway. One community member described the need for a clear separation between the space for pedestrians, bicycles, and cars (Daris Garnes, personal communications, 2019).

The second issue involves safety from other users. During the Place it! workshop, one participant described their perception of how the Rockaway Freeway site is being used: “The actions that people do under the El are more or less illegal.” Although some users were smoking marijuana and there were signs of alcohol consumption observed during the stationary activity mapping phase of this research, the author did not see the “drug deals and fights” that some Place it! workshop participants described as common. But, whether or not these behaviors

58 regularly occur, there seems to be a perception that the Rockaway Freeway site is not safe. The design choices by the developers of Arverne by the Sea help reinforce perceptions that this part of Rockaway Freeway is not safe. The railings, fence, changes in elevation, and jersey barriers creates a dark, enclosed, and cave like space with few ways for a user to escape in the case of an emergency. In the Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, Whyte describes the paradox of defensive design choices like these. They are meant to keep a space from being attractive to “undesirables” like the homeless and addicts, yet the result is they drive away other users. In fact, Whyte argues that “undesirables” prefer empty secluded spaces (Whyte 1980).

3.1 Improve lighting conditions RISE’s 2015 survey of users of Rockaway Freeway, many of which were collected on the Rockaway Freeway site, found that the most popular design change was installing better lighting; almost three-quarters of respondents (73 percent) requested it. A review of scholarly research by the Center for Activity Design, showed a consensus that bright and well-lit public spaces are more inviting, feel safer, and may even reduce crime (Center for Active Design 2018).

DOT should prioritize installing better lighting within the Rockaway Freeway case study site and the rest of the street as well. Although the installation of this design will need to be carried out by DOT or the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), RISE should consider making lighting a central piece of its advocacy around Rockaway Freeway. There are several opportunities to raise awareness of lighting conditions in the area. RISE should consider ensuring that art pieces commissioned for the space (see recommendation 1.3) involve lighting. RISE could also draw attention to the issue by holding charettes and surveys with neighborhood residents with the goal of further elucidating what good lighting means to them. RISE could engage lighting experts like, Leni Schwendiger, a renowned expert focused on lighting and night design, who was the 2015 Design Trust fellow responsible for redesigning lighting as part of a pilot-program under the Gowanus Expressway (see Figure 24). Schwendiger leads Light-Walks to raise awareness around lighting conditions. Activities like these could raise awareness around lighting issues along Rockaway Freeway and Arverne and Edgemere in general.

59 Figure 24: Pilot under the Gowanus Expressway

Source: Design Trust 2019

3.2 Improve pedestrian conditions To improve both the physical and perceived safety of pedestrians, DOT and Arverne by the Sea should make several design changes to the streets and roads with particular emphasis on the edges and boundaries of public spaces. Based on the input from participants in the Place it! workshop, in the Demapped Street, the fencing and barriers should be removed to make users feel less isolated and trapped. The edges of the Vacant Lot site, where it meets Rockaway Beach Boulevard, should have a physical and visual separation from the street. DOT often uses stone blocks to separate pedestrian space from car space, but participants in the Place it! workshop were clear that they did not want something like that. Participants described a desire for a green wall or “shrub fence,” something that makes clear that the site is for pedestrians, but does not make the site less welcoming to them. Potential design options include a boundary of trees, planters with shrubs, or tall grasses. Beyond design, many of the cars that enter the actual site belong to NYCT. RISE should consider starting a dialogue with the local station personnel, as NYCT and the MTA should be partners—not obstacles—to enhancing and activating the Vacant Lot.

Beyond the three case study sites, there is an opportunity to close the rest of Rockaway Freeway in Edgemere to cars, which would provide the opportunity to expand the three case study sites into one large connected public space. As part of DOT’s multi-year transportation study of the eastern end of the Rockaway Peninsula, DOT’s traffic analysis showed that the volume of cars and traffic along Rockaway Freeway and Rockaway Beach Boulevard/Edgemere Avenue does not necessitate two parallel routes in such close proximity. The study recommends closing Rockaway Freeway to cars all through Edgemere to Beach 35th Street in the long-term. Building on the existing closures, all through Arverne and into Rockaway Park, this would create public space, while also ensuring pedestrians and bicyclists have a safe, weather protected, and central path from one end of the study area to the other. It would also improve access to the subway within Arverne and Edgemere (DOT 2019).

60 Building off of its Project Underway initiative, RISE should consider spearheading a campaign to advocate for these changes. As DOT is a large bureaucratic organization that is constantly limited in terms of staff time and funding, it is important that RISE make the case to DOT and show decision makers that these initiatives are important and worth investing in. A key strategy that RISE should consider is clearly connecting its campaign to DOT’s central mayor driven priority, pedestrian physical safety, as encapsulated in the Mayor’s Vision Zero initiative, to eliminate traffic injuries and fatalities (Betsy Jacobsen, personal correspondence, 2019).

In making its case, RISE should also lean into the assets it can bring that DOT cannot. While DOT is in the process of mapping and modeling streets and spaces in the area, due to distance and staffing, it has not done much qualitative research around resident perceptions and impression (Betsy Jacobsen, personal correspondence, 2019). RISE should consider continuing to collect this information through more surveys and charettes in the model of its 2015 Rockaway Freeway survey. DOT states in its report that closing Rockaway Freeway to cars will take more than six years. In this timeframe the Mayor, DOT Commissioner, and most of the local political representation will change. Without, RISE’s continued pressure there is a possibility that this vision will be forgotten or pushed aside when new political leadership comes in with new priorities (see recommendation 4.3). 4. Public spaces should be maintained and foster a sense of community ownership

One of the key issues that emerged during the Place it! workshop was that the participants perceive their neighborhood is gentrifying around them with emerging businesses, public spaces, and amenities that they do not feel are built to serve them. The issue is compounded by the fact that participants feel like their neighborhood is not only being changed by new residents, but also by summertime day trippers who are beginning to infiltrate Arverne and Edgemere. There was a strong sentiment that community spaces need to be designed for and by long-term residents.

Maintenance is one of the key issues facing public spaces in Arverne and Edgemere. The Demapped Street and Vacant Lot are both strewn with litter like bottles, bags, and paper. There is also larger debris like television screens and mattresses on the Rockaway Freeway site and the undeveloped part of the Vacant Lot. These sites are not unique; many of the streets and vacant lots in the area are filled with similar debris. Research shows that litter and lack of maintenance can affect residents’ community pride, trust in government, and perceptions of social cohesion (Center for Active Design 2018).

4.1 Democratize RISE’s partnership with DOT As mentioned in Chapter 3, DOT approached RISE in 2019 about collaborating to design and activate the Vacant Lot. This was a new and unique model for DOT. As part of its management agreement, RISE was paid by DOT to help design, build, and

61 manage the site. The design process, including the site layout, interventions, and the plant selection, was carried out by DOT with RISE’s input. RISE’s executed DOT’s design, which included leveling the site, planting grass, removing weeds, adding soil, and mulch. RISE hired a landscaping company to do the large-scale landscaping work, like leveling the site and planting grass. RISE remains responsible for watering and maintaining the site. Aside from maintenance, RISE held several activation events including musical performances. The culmination of the partnership was an event in which RISE staff, community members, and DOT staff came together to landscape the site.

During an interview with Betsy Jacobson, Senior Project Manager and project lead, the author asked her to reflect on some of the ways the partnership between RISE and DOT could be improved. Some of the issues identified by Jacobson had to do with the distance of the Rockaways from DOT’s offices in Lower Manhattan, making it is difficult for DOT employees to regularly visit the site. Further, DOT’s procedures and bureaucratic systems are designed for large-scale multi-million dollar projects rather than smaller site-specific ones. This results in red tape and onerous bureaucratic requirements that discourage employees and organizations from entering into this type of partnership (Betsy Jacobsen, Personal Communication, 2019).

There was a tight timeline for this project; the design and installation of the site all took place in one summer. The tight timeline was because DOT to have successful projects to showcase at the end of a citywide partnership with the Design Trust for Public Space. The project focused developing and activating public spaces adjacent to and under elevated infrastructure (Jeanne DuPont, RISE Executive Director, Personal Communications, 2019). The abbreviated timeline had both positives and negatives. On the positive side, it meant that tangible site improvements were quickly achieved. However, on the negative side, the timeline left almost no time for community participation in the design process. It also required RISE to scramble to meet DOT’s ever-changing timelines. DOT’s legal team’s delay in executing a maintenance agreement between DOT and RISE for several months resulted in RISE missing out on most of the summer to actually program the new site, and it created a demoralizing pattern of stops and starts (DOT 2019).

A useful model for evaluating the partnership between RISE and DOT is urban planning theorist Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation. The lowest levels of the ladder, considered forms of nonparticipation, are therapy and manipulation. At these levels, community members are not involved in the decision-making process. Instead, decision makers try to educate them about their views and plans. The middle rungs of the ladder, considered tokenism, are informing, consultation, and placation. Informing and consultation give community members an opportunity to have a voice and be heard, but no promise that their wishes will be followed. Placation is considered allowing the community to advise, but not have any decision-making power. The highest rungs, described as citizen power, are partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. Partnership is defined as giving

62 citizens an opportunity to negotiate and make tradeoffs with decision makers. Delegated power entails the community having the majority of decision-making power. The topmost rung, citizen control, involves community members having full managerial power (Arnstein 1969). Currently the relationship between DOT and RISE is somewhere between placation and partnership due to RISE’s lack of decision-making power over the design process.

DOT is making a positive step by experimenting with new local partnership models. But, several changes are needed to build on the partnership and move it towards the level of citizen power and true community ownership. Most importantly, DOT should cede more of the design and visioning role to RISE. Although the professional experience held by DOT employees is important, as a community-based organization, RISE better represents the local residents who know the site best and will ensure whether any design is successful. RISE should consider building a more community-led design process, involving workshops and community builds. Participants in the Shore Corps Urban Planning Internship (see recommendation 4.2) could lead this process. This process can ensure a sense of ownership over the site by the community. From an operational perspective, DOT and other agencies should institutionalize and develop a legal framework to expedite management agreements like this. A key goal should be developing a model of a longer-term agreement that would provide the necessary funding guarantees to allow RISE to make the staffing and programmatic decisions necessary to ensure the partnership’s success.

One could argue that the existence of such a relationship is problematic in that it is the responsibility of DOT, as a public, taxpayer funded agency to maintain public spaces. However, leaving maintenance to large underfunded government agencies like DOT or NYC Parks results in unmaintained or poorly maintained sites, particularly in low-income and disenfranchised communities that lack a strong political voice. Examples abound in Arverne and Edgemere, from Parks Department sites that are vacant, to HPD owned lots that have become dumping grounds for construction waste, and DOT owned streets with cracked and sloping sidewalks. Due to funding and staffing constraints, DOT must rely on community groups for programs and maintenance (Betsy Jacobsen, Personal Communications, 2019). Although not ideal, partnerships, like those between RISE and DOT, can build community ownership and ensure sites are regularly maintained.

4.2 Develop a landscaping and maintenance training program for residents For the last several years, RISE has employed local residents to landscape and maintain its public garden, and now the Vacant Lot. Employment focus areas include weeding, planting, watering, mowing, and garbage collection. So far, these employment relationships have developed informally. The first paid landscape and maintenance person employed was a resident of Arverne View who by chance met RISE’s Executive Director and slowly became more involved in gardening and maintenance. Once she received a fulltime position elsewhere, a new landscaping and maintenance person, who lives in NYCHA Ocean Bay, was recommended to RISE

63 by a volunteer. Neither person had maintenance or gardening experience. Instead, they worked with RISE staff to learn the tasks required.

If RISE does decide to move forward on some of the recommendations outlined in this study, particularly continuing to take on the maintenance of more public spaces and vacant lots in the area (see recommendation 4.2) or green infrastructure development (see recommendation 7.1), its maintenance needs will increase. At the same time, lack of employment opportunities, particularly in NYCHA, is a key issue in the community. RISE should consider building off of its successful employment of residents and formalize this model.

This formalized new program, referred to here as the RISE Maintenance Apprenticeship, could target low-income residents, particularly in Arverne View and NYCHA. The short-term goal of the program would be to train under-employed adults (18+ years old) in landscaping and maintenance, with an emphasis on maintaining green infrastructure installations. Participants would also be responsible for putting out and packing up street furniture every day. To be successful, the program would need to involve more formalized instruction, casework, and training. The long-term goal of the program would be to create a pipeline to a future where former participants begin their own successful landscaping businesses based in the Rockaways. The administration and one-on-one training necessary are potentially beyond RISE’s capacity and outside of its mission. Another opportunity would be partnering with an organization already focused on adult work readiness, such as OBCDC. In this second scenario RISE would only provide the job placements and on the ground workplace oversight, while another partner would perform the training and case work.

4.3 Develop a community-driven, youth-led design process RISE’s Shore Corps program is a paid service-learning internship for high school students. It focuses on environmental stewardship, civic engagement, community development, and youth leadership. During the school year, Shore Corps participants take part in RISE programming one evening per week and help lead RISE community events—such as beach clean ups on select Saturdays. Students are eligible to take part in the Shore Corps program all four years of high school. Each year they focus on a different curriculum and set of projects (RISE n.d.).

RISE should consider creating a formalized urban planning and design curriculum. Through the program, participants would have the opportunity to gain hands-on planning experience in the neighborhoods where they live and go to school. Participants would learn about the basics of urban planning, but also lead design- builds. During the design-builds, the community, led by participants, would have the opportunity to help both design and build site street furniture and other site amenities. This would be an opportunity for participants to build their leadership and physical design skills, while it would be another opportunity for the community to take a hands-on role in the design process. Through these design-builds, RISE can develop furniture, particularly benches and seating. Participants could also build

64 green infrastructure installations (see recommendation 6.1) for public spaces in the area. Rather than use standard issue street furniture, the participants would have the opportunity to build furniture tailored to the context and needs of specific sites. Participants could interview users about how and what kind of street furniture users want. This community-oriented and driven design approach could help to build a sense of community ownership and make public spaces more welcoming.

There are several precedents of similar programs. In Chicago, Territory is a design studio program for high school students. Participants learn about community planning, urban design, and public art. For example, participants designed, planned, and built a people’s spot, which is similar to a temporary parklet. To design it, they hosted charettes and were joined by community volunteers to help build it (Territory 2019).

There are inherent difficulties in the design-build model. The major issue is the City’s reluctance to allow non-standardized designs of street furniture due to fears surrounding lawsuits. In Chicago, Territory got around this issue by ensuring that their people’s spot was built to permit. There may also be opportunities to collaborate with the City or established design firms to build street furniture. Future research is needed to determine the limitations of the design-build model. 5. Public spaces should celebrate neighborhood history and character

A key part of RISE’s mission is to foster a sense of appreciation, pride, and ownership among residents of the Rockaways. One barrier is that many residents believe that people who do not live in Arverne, Edgemere, and Far Rockaway have a negative impression of the eastern end of the Rockaway Peninsula (DCLA 2019). As one resident said, “I still hear people talk about where I live over in Arverne as horrible and unsafe” (Daris Garnes, Personal Communications, 2019). RISE should consider measures to combat this negative narrative.

5.1 Celebrate Arverne and Edgemere through youth programs RISE’s Living Classroom program is a hands-on learning program for grades ranging from pre-k through 12th grade. The program offers local schools regular field trips to the RISE Center. During these field trips, RISE educators lead lessons focused on environmental issues including climate change, marine debris, local ecology, and renewable energy. During the spring and fall, lessons are often taught outside along the shoreline (RISE n.d.).

One of the stated goals of the Living Classroom program is to build an appreciation of the Rockaways among local youth. RISE should consider using the Living Classroom program as a way to activate public spaces in Arverne and Edgemere beyond the waterfront. RISE could host some of the lessons in public spaces, such as on the Vacant Lot. RISE should also consider building lessons focused on the history of Arverne and Edgemere. These lessons would raise awareness and appreciation for the history and culture of the area, while also activating public spaces.

65 5.2 Develop signage to highlight local history and culture RISE should consider developing new signage to increase awareness and celebrate the Rockaways’ rich history and culture. Signage could focus on historical events and places. Signage could also highlight important buildings and community anchors like the RISE Center or the Rockaway Boardwalk. Participants in RISE’s youth programs could be involved in developing the signage, thereby passing on information they learn through participating in RISE’s programs. RISE could consider either working with the City or developing its own eye-catching signage to celebrate key historical moments. For example, along the Bradenton Riverwalk, in Bradenton, Florida, local artists created fourteen public art panels that illustrated the history of the city (Center for Active Design 2018).

RISE could also move beyond physical signs and revamp its Rockspot program. The Rockspot program was established in 2010 to promote access to and appreciation of the local community. Working in collaboration with local residents, RISE identified sites of significant historical and cultural interest. RISE developed a map highlighting all the key sites and a phone number that people could call. Once they dialed the phone number, they could enter the site code and listen to audio recordings about each site. While funding lasted, RISE also hosted guided bike and walking tours of each site (RISE n.d.). Bringing back its Rockspot tours could also serve as a way to foster more community pride, interest, and knowledge about the Rockaways’ history and culture.

Another way to celebrate the character of the area is through a community notice board. By prominently placing a community notice board in public places like the Vacant Lot site or the Commercial Street, RISE would be celebrating the already rich social and cultural fabric of the area. There are several areas of chain link fence that are already being used informally in this way. One example is next to the Beach 60th Street subway stop, where residents use zip ties to hang notices and flyers for events, local programs, and informal businesses and services. 6. Public spaces should incorporate green infrastructure

As mentioned in Chapter 2, street flooding and ponding are regular issues that impact Arverne and Edgemere daily. During the Place it! workshop, participants showed a desire for the case study sites to incorporate more plants and green infrastructure to both beautify the sites and to protect the community from flooding. Although the Commercial Street already has significant greenery, participants requested landscaping that could be interacted with, a combination planter and bench might fit this requirement. Similarly, when RISE partnered with DOT to conduct a survey of users of the Vacant Lot, the number one request was more plants (57 percent of respondents) (DOT 2019a).

66 6.1. Develop more green infrastructure installations Small-scale green infrastructure can both provide more green-space and counteract some of the ponding issues that regularly impact residents in Arverne and Edgemere. Green infrastructure is a storm-water management strategy that attempts to replicate the natural process after a rainfall event in which precipitation nourishes plants while the excess is gradually filtered back into the ground instead of flowing over impermeable surfaces until it reaches a drain (Ioby n.d.). Some grassy vacant lots are already fulfilling this role, but strategic design and placement can ensure public spaces serve a dual role as community gathering places and protection against street flooding.

RISE should consider creating a network of small-scale green infrastructure installations using local salt-tolerant plants suited to the reality that Arverne and Edgemere are also subject to flood surge from the ocean. RISE can install these installations in areas prone to ponding during heavy rain. Building on its previous s, RISE can build these installations all along the downspouts from the elevated A- Train above. RISE can integrate the installation of these planters into both the Shore Corps Urban Planning Internship (see recommendation 4.3) and the Living Classroom workshops (see recommendation 5.1), thereby creating an educational and community-driven process.

Figure 25: An Example of a Green Infrastructure Installation in Long Island City

Source: Design Trust 2019

In the last several years, RISE has been involved in the design and execution of two green infrastructure installations. These two pilot projects can serve as a precedent, while illustrating several pitfalls to avoid if they are reproduced. In 2018, the Design Trust and DOT installed the dune planter on the Vacant Lot site (see Chapter 3). In 2019, the downspout from the subway was reconfigured to drain into the planter,

67 with the goal of catching and absorbing polluted runoff. The large dune planter is made of metal filled with sand and native plants like beach grasses. It is also meant to be evocative of the Rockaways’ natural beach environment. RISE’s main responsibilities include planting the grasses and maintaining the installation. Participants in RISE’s Living Classroom and Shore Corps programs installed the plants. Although the aim was to make a replicable design, the costs are prohibitive for adoption on a large scale. The planter cost roughly $32,000 (DOT 2019a).

In 2016, RISE partnered with a local architecture firm, Combo Colab, to create and install a pilot green infrastructure installation called the Blueway Islands (see Figure 26). The pilot installation used recycled blue plastic barrels to create a combination of a bench and planter using native plants. The installation was positioned to absorb storm water coming off of the downspout from the subway tracks. The high school participants in RISE’s afterschool program worked with Combo Colab to build the planters. The Blueway Islands project is a better example of a community-led green infrastructure installation that is easily replicable by RISE. However, issues emerged. The site selected was in an informal parking lot used by some residents. Although RISE perhaps rightly felt that its green infrastructure installation was a better use of the space, it did not receive buy-in from those using the site for parking. The result was that users of the site slowly destroyed the installation with their cars and returned it to parking. Going forward, RISE should more carefully consider the sites it selects and work with current users to ensure they are involved in and approve of the green infrastructure installations.

Figure 26: Afterschool Program Participants constructing the Blueway Islands

Source: RISE 2016

An issue that has emerged with both pilot installations is maintenance of the site. Without regular maintenance, the installations are filled with trash, either thrown by people passing by or filtered into it by storm water. Similarly, without

68 maintenance, the planters become bushy and overgrown. This can impact the aesthetics of the site, and when combined with seating, make it less desirable as the plants take over the seats. To ensure future installations are maintained, RISE should consider deploying participants in the RISE Maintenance Apprenticeship program to maintain the sites (see recommendation 3.2). Conclusions

This study explored the role of public spaces in the social and civic life of Arverne and Edgemere with the aim of developing actionable recommendations for a more vibrant and active public realm, increasing opportunities for resident interaction and empowerment. Chapter 1 focused on defining key concepts and theories in public space literature. Based upon these theories, this study concluded that the most effective and appropriate role for public spaces is to provide an arena for social interaction, contact, and civic life. Chapter 2 explored the existing historical, social, physical, and economic conditions in Arverne and Edgemere and concluded that the neighborhoods are divided along physical, economic, and racial lines. Chapter 3 focused on evaluating three specific public spaces, based upon the current conditions of the sites, how people are using them, and user-generated recommendations to improve them. This chapter concluded that the first site, the Vacant Lot, is little more than a place for residents to pass through on their way somewhere else. The second site, the Demapped Street, is unmaintained and abandoned, yet it acts as a hyperlocal space for residents in the immediate vicinity to interact and socialize. The third site, the Commercial Street has few amenities and users described parts of the site as exclusionary. Chapter 4 focused on actionable recommendations rooted in ongoing community-centered and -driven processes, with the goal to activate, design, and re-envision public spaces through the use of art, concessions, and programming, and with improvements in lighting, signage, pedestrian conditions, and green infrastructure.

Limitations and Areas for Future Research This study focused on three specific case study sites. Future researchers should consider expanding the scope of their research to encompass other public spaces in Arverne and Edgemere. Because this study focused on RISE, it concentrated on case study sites within close proximity to RISE’s building and key focus areas. Further research should consider public spaces in other parts of Arverne and Edgemere, particularly in close proximity to the many NYCHA developments in Edgemere. Although the opinions of the participants in RISE’s high school programs made up a key part of this research, their opinions are not necessarily representative of the general population. To develop a deeper understanding, further research might survey residents more broadly, from diverse socioeconomic and demographic backgrounds, about how they use and prioritize public space.

69 Sources

Aelbrecht, P. S. (2016). ‘Fourth places’: The contemporary public settings for informal social interaction among strangers. Journal of Urban Design, 21(1), 124– 152. Archlighting.com. (2016). Green Light Guide. Retrieved from https://www.archlighting.com/projects/light-guide_o Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. Blanchfield, C. The Risk of Resilience: Arverne by the Sea. Avery Review. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from http://averyreview.com/issues/3/the-risk-of-resilience Boniface, S., Scantlebury, R., Watkins, S. J., & Mindell, J. S. (2015). Health implications of transport: Evidence of effects of transport on social interactions. Journal of Transport & Health, 2(3), 441–446. Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary Public Space, Part Two: Classification. Journal of Urban Design, 15(2), 157–173. Case Study: Arverne by the Sea. (2014, September 11). Urban Land Institute. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://casestudies.uli.org/arverne-by-the-sea/ Center for Active Design. (2018). Assembly Civic Design Guidelines. Chitrakar, R.M. (2016). Meaning of Public Space and Sense of Community: The Case of New Neighborhoods in the Kathmandu Valley. International Journal of Architectural Research, 10(1). City of New Orleans. (2014). How We Can Move Forward: Charting the Future of the Claiborne Communities. Livable Claiborne Communities. Retrieved November 18, 2019, from https://www.nola.gov/city/livable-claiborne- communities/8_lcc-study_final-meeting-booklet/ Cybriwsky, R. (1999). Changing patterns of urban public space: Observations and assessments from the Tokyo and New York metropolitan areas. Cities, 16(4), 223–231. Day, K. (2006). Active Living and Social Justice: Planning for Physical Activity in Low-income, Black, and Latino Communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 88–99. Dempsey, N. (2009). Are Good-quality Environments Socially Cohesive?: Measuring Quality and Cohesion in Urban Neighborhoods. Town Planning Review, 80(3), 315–345. Design Trust for Public Space. (2019, September). El-Space Toolkit. Retrieved from http://designtrust.org/media/files/DesignTrust_El-SpaceToolkit_v5.pdf Doyle, S., Kelly-Schwartz, A., Schlossberg, M., & Stockard, J. (2006). Active Community Environments and Health: The Relationship of Walkable and Safe Communities to Individual Health. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 19–31. Farber, S., & Li, X. (2013). Urban Sprawl and Social Interaction Potential: An Empirical Analysis of Large Metropolitan Regions in the United States. Journal of Transport Geography, 31, 267–277.

70 Ferré-Sadurní, L. (2017, July 13). Could the Rockaways Survive Another Sandy? The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/nyregion/rockaways-beaches- hurricane-sandy.html Franck, K. and Stevens, Q. (2007). Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life. Routledge. Frank, L. D., Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Chapman, J. E., Saelens, B. E., & Bachman, W. (2006). Many Pathways from Land Use to Health: Associations between Neighborhood Walkability and Active Transportation, Body Mass Index, and Air Quality. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 75–87. Gehl, J. (1971). Life between Buildings. Island Press. Gehl Institute (2016). Public Life Diversity Toolkit. Retrieved from https://gehlinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/20160301_Public-Life- Diversity-Toolkit-V2_HighQuality-1.pdf Handy, S., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2006). Self-Selection in the Relationship between the Built Environment and Walking: Empirical Evidence from Northern California. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 55–74. Hester Street Collaborative. (2019, February 05). Edgemere, Queens. NYC Office of Environmental Remediation Place-Based Community Brownfield Planning. Retrieved November 18, 2019, from https://hesterstreet.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-05_OER-Rockaway_Report_FINAL.pdf Housing on the Edge: A Brief History of Arverne. (2014, April 14). The Architectural League. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://archleague.org/article/housing-on- the-edge-a-brief-history-of-arverne/ Ioby. (n.d.). Green Infrastructure. Retrieved from https://ioby.org/campaign/green- infrastructure Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House. Keith, S. J., Larson, L. R., Shafer, C. S., Hallo, J. C., & Fernandez, M. (2018). Greenway Use and Preferences in Diverse Urban Communities: Implications for Trail Design and Management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 172, 47–59. Kaplan, L., & Kaplan, C. (2003). Between Ocean and City. Columbia University Press. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. The MIT Press. L+M Development Partners. (n.d.). Arverne View. Retrieved from https://lmdevpartners.com/projects/arverne-view/ Madden, K. (2018). How to Turn a Place Around: a Placemaking Handbook. Project for Public Spaces. Mahler, J. (2012, December 3). How New York City’s Coastline Became a Place to Put the Poor. The New York Times. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/nyregion/how-new-york-citys- coastline-became-home-to-the-poor.html. Mehta, Vikas. (2007). Lively Streets: Determining Environmental Characteristics to Support Social Behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), 165– 187. Mehta, Vikas. (2014). Evaluating Public Space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53–88.

71 Nathan, E. (2014, April 14). Arverne Rebuilds: Water’s Edge, Arverne-by-the-Sea, and Arverne View. The Architectural League. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://archleague.org/article/arverne-rebuilds-waters-edge-arverne-by-the- sea-and-arverne-view/. New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. (2019). Far Rockaway Queens Neighborhood Arts and Cultural Inventory. Building Community Capacity. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. (2017). Resilient Edgemere Community Plan. New York City Department of Transportation. (n.d.). WalkNYC. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/walknyc.shtml New York City Department of Transportation. (2019, March). Final Report. Access to Opportunity: A Transportation and Housing Study in the Eastern Rockaways. Retrieved November 10, 2019 from https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/easternrockaways-access-to- opportunity-final-report.pdf New York City Department of Transportation. (2019, August 01). Beach 60th Evaluation Report. Pilot Project Evaluations. New York City Economic Development Corporation. (2013, June 11). Chapter 16: South Queens. A Stronger More Resilient New York. Retrieved November 15, 2019, from https://edc.nyc/sites/default/files/filemanager/Resources/Studies/Stronger_M ore_Resilient_NY/Ch16_SouthQueens_FINAL_singles.pdf Pfeiffer, D., & Cloutier, S. (2016). Planning for Happy Neighborhoods. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(3), 267–279. Project for Public Spaces. (n.d.). Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper Formation of Public Spaces. What is Placemaking. Retrieved from https://www.pps.org/article/lighter-quicker-cheaper Raman, S. (2010). Designing a Liveable Compact City: Physical Forms of City and Social Life in Urban Neighbourhoods. Built Environment (1978-), 36(1), 63–80. Reckdahl, K. (2018, August 20). Together under an Elevated Expressway. Next City. Retrieved November 1, 2019, from https://nextcity.org/features/view/a- divided-neighborhood-comes-together-under-an-elevated-expressway Regional Plan Association. (2016, December). Under Water: How Sea Level Rise Threatens the Tri-State Region. Retrieved November 15, 2019, from http://library.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Under-Water-How-Sea-Level-Rise-Threatens- the-Tri-State-Region.pdf Tarleton, J., & Silberblatt, G. (2014, April 14). Anti-Fragile: The Uncertain Future of Arverne East. The Architectural League. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://urbanomnibus.net/2014/04/anti-fragile-the-uncertain-future-of- arverne-east/. Taylor, J. K. (2018). Re-envisioning Community Spaces in Corona, Queens, New York City. City, Culture and Society, 14, 14–21. Territory. (n.d.). Home Page. Retrieved from https://www.territorychicago.org/.

72 US Army Corps of Engineers New York District. Integrated Hurricane Sandy General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Atlantic Coast of New York: East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay. Retrieved from https://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Portals/37/docs/civilworks/projects/ny/coa st/Rockaway/RockawayJamaicaBayRevisedDraftGRREIS083018.pdf?ver=2018- 08-31-093656-900 Varna, G., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the Publicness of Public Space: The Star Model of Publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 575–598. Whyte, W. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Project for Public Spaces.

73