EAST SIDE COASTAL RESILIENCY STUDIO FINAL REPORT MAY 2021 Pathway in East River Park. EV Grieve EAST SIDE COASTAL RESILIENCY STUDIO
TEAM FACULTY ADVISOR Francesca Bruce Professor Lily Pollans Christopher Freire Tess Guttieres Tomas Izarra CLIENT Priya Mulgaonkar East River Park Action (ERPA) Colin Ryan Erica Saunders Lynne Siringo Sean Sonnemann Andrew Wasserman
Report Layout Priya Mulgaonkar & Sean Sonnemann Process Timeline Graphic Tess Guttieres & Colin Ryan Cover Photos: ESCR Rendering, NYC New York City Department of Design & Construction Protest at East River Park, ERPA Sandy-related flooding along FDR and East River, Beth Carey, WikiCommons
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 3 EAST SIDE COASTAL RESILIENCY STUDIO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5 Executive Summary 6 Introduction 12 Project Goals & Research 14 Objectives & Methods 17 ESCR Process Timeline 20 Community Concerns & Critical Viewpoints 26 Planning Analysis: What Went Wrong 34 Recommendations 46 Appendix
4 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO Executive Summary The East Side Coastal Resiliency Project (ESCR) is a resiliency initiative undertaken by New York City that aims to protect the East Side of Manhattan from flood risk and sea level rise. The ESCR project area spans from Montgomery Street to East 15th Street and includes our Studio’s area of focus, East River Park. Working on behalf of East River Park Action (ERPA) over the past two semesters, our Studio has sought to understand the shortcomings of the ESCR Plan at present, as they relate to the initial community engagement efforts and the threats of climate change and COVID-19. Further, we aim to identify how our findings might be leveraged in the best interest of affected communities. Finally, we look towards resilience as a more abstract concept, using the ESCR Plan as a case study to surmise how resilience might best be integrated into the planning field at large. Our research and analysis, as framed above, have yielded the following results and recommendations: • Provide greater transparency with regard to the environmental impacts of park construction by way of publishing data from noise and air quality monitoring devices. • Expand existing open space alternatives, or provide direct assistance to residents that promote access to other open spaces throughout the city. • Incentivize contractors for quick project turnover of completed portions of the park, Hold contractors responsible for any delays that prevent re-opening of the park to the public on schedule. • Ensure full community buy-in for new park amenities and reuse of all viable elements of the current park. • Establish a memorial to the current park through documentation of its history using photos, videos, and signage. • Improve project accountability by implementing a community scorecard system to allow local evaluation of the project with financial repercussions for the construction team. • Continue to provide advance notice for closures and disruptions due to construction activities.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 5 I. INTRODUCTION
Scenes of the uneven blackouts that spread throughout New York after Hurricane Sandy struck the city. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Following the City’s immediate response Hurricane Sandy and and recovery efforts, long-term planning efforts CALLOUTbegan to focus intently on future the Rise of Resiliency climate risks, prompting ‘resiliency’ to enter the lexicon of planning in New York Planning in NYC City. In June of 2013, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration released an Hurricane Sandy was a transformative updated iteration of his strategic plan, climate event that had a lasting impact PlaNYC, entitled A Stronger, More Resilient on New York City, marking a turning point New York. The plan recommended in how the municipality perceives climate increasing the resiliency of infrastructure threats. The category one “superstorm” across the city, as well as more specific made landfall in New York City on October community rebuilding and resiliency plans. 29, 2012 as the largest storm to ever hit In addition, the Bloomberg administration the region, and its direct impacts were convened the New York City Panel on far-reaching, disrupting transportation, Climate Change (NPCC): a group of communication, energy, and water scientists, academics, and professionals systems. The storm claimed 44 lives in New in the field of climate change tasked York City, and its associated economic with producing annual projections and damages are estimated at $19 billion.1 reports on climate impacts in New York. Storm surge reached a peak of 14 feet Bloomberg’s successor, Mayor Bill de and flooded 17% of the city’s landmass, Blasio, has continued to incorporate the ravaging homes and businesses, forcing language of resiliency in policy documents, school closures, and causing power including in his strategic OneNYC plan, outages that lasted months in some as well as in major resiliency-focused areas.2 About 300 homes were destroyed planning initiatives. The ESCR Plan is one and some 69,000 residential units were such example of a de Blasio-era resiliency damaged, displacing thousands of New initiative prompted by the devastation Yorkers.3 The extensive physical impact of of Hurricane Sandy and reliant on both Hurricane Sandy affirmed the threat of municipal and federal funding, including a climate change and set in motion a series Community Development Block Grant for of federal and municipal actions that disaster recovery. reshaped local urban planning decision- making for years.
Storm surge during Hurricane Sandy’s landfall in New York City. Source: Carbon Brief.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 7 CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS Climate Risks in NYC Looking ahead, extreme weather events like Hurricane Extreme heat Sandy will become more frequent and intense as climate change accelerates. Other anticipated impacts of climate change include sea level rise and an associated increase in coastal flooding and storm surges, heightened temperatures, and more frequent heat waves, among many others. These impacts pose an unprecedented challenge for New York City, since its coastal orientation and dense development exacerbate its vulnerability to sea Severe rainstorms level rise and extreme weather events. Mid-range sea level rise projections for New York City, as detailed by the NPCC, estimate an increase of 11-21 inches by the 2050s and 18-39 inches by the 2080s.4 High-end estimates project an increase of 30 inches by the 2050s, 58 inches by the 2080s, and 75 inches by 2100.5 Sea level rise coupled with more frequent and intense storms has the potential to inundate large swaths of New York City. As such, resiliency Droughts planning efforts should meaningfully incorporate climate projections, especially as they relate to coastal development.
Warmer winters COVID-19 & Resiliency Planning In addition to the contexts of Hurricane Sandy and climate change more broadly, the COVID-19 Pandemic provides a new lens through which to consider the ESCR Plan. The COVID-19 Pandemic has highlighted the essential functionality of open space and parks, particularly for vulnerable residents and low-income communities of color. With social distancing and outdoor gatherings Sea level rise becoming the new normal as the City looks towards recovery, retention of park space is integral for resident quality of life. Thus, determining a strategy for resiliency planning that centers the current needs of communities will be essential for any long-term climate planning of New York City’s waterfront, including the ESCR Plan.
Coastal flooding
8 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO This was the product of design and History & Context: architecture firms working in conjunction with the LES Ecology Project and The East Side Coastal Community Boards 3 and 6. It was the first plan to respond to the devastation of Resiliency Project Hurricane Sandy. In August of this same The East Side Coastal Resiliency Project year, the Rebuild by Design competition Area I spans from Montgomery Street to began. The BIG U design was presented, East 15th Street, bordering Community after community engagement, as the District 3 (CD3). Impacted neighborhoods winner in 2014. In October 2018 the City include Chinatown, the Lower East Side announced a pivot from the BIG U to the (LES), and the East Village. CD3 is a 1.7 current iteration of the ESCR Plan. square mile district containing roughly What we can take from this brief and 155,000 people. Of the total area in the incomplete picture of proposed plans and district, 0.35 square miles, or 20%, is in the development related to the waterfront 1% annual chance floodplain, with a nearly in the LES is that there has been over a equal percent of the population in the decade of community engagement, and floodplain, at 21%.6 The community district more than one proposed plan that has houses 26 NYCHA developments that been reconfigured. This is a long time to go comprise 23% of total rental units.7 25% of without flood protection for a community the district is Hispanic, 8% Black, and 30% already deeply harmed by one flood event. Asian, with 35% of residents being foreign born.8 Prior to the implementation of the ESCR Project in its current state, several other waterfront plans and community engagement processes were explored within the community. In 2009, O.U.R. Waterfront, a coalition of local community groups, released A People’s Plan in response to the NYC Economic Development Corporation’s (EDC) plans to redevelop the waterfront. The coalition was focused on documenting the concerns of the community, reflecting the potential development. In 2013, The East River Blueway Plan, commissioned by former Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, State Assemblymember Brian Kavanaugh, and the New York State Department of State’s Division of Coastal Resources was released.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 9 ERPA also expressed concerns that the Client Background: East final ESCR Plan required the closure of the East River Park for a minimum of three River Park Action years, resulting in the loss of active and passive open and community space for In 2018, the City announced that the ESCR hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers. Plan would change course from a system According to Tommy Loeb, one of ERPA’s of berms and deployable floodgates along founders, ERPA was formed to support the FDR. Instead, it would involve the the East River Park’s preservation more demolition, elevation,and reconstruction of fervently than the East River Park Alliance East River Park, with the aim of protecting (which some ERPA members considered both the Park and the surrounding to be too lax of an open space defender). community from sea level rise and storm Both initiatives oppose the redevelopment surge. This sudden pivot from the BIG U of the Park. ERPA has also flagged to the current iteration of ESCR Plan was concerns that the reconstruction of the initially met with frustration and outrage Park will not meet the needs of the current by community residents, who felt that community and that critical natural and five years of community engagement in built features will be supplanted despite the design process was essentially thrown community opposition. out without justification or explanation to make way for a new plan. The group is actively working to stop or slow the Plan through legal action. In In 2019, a group of residents formed East November of 2019, the Lower East Side River Park Action (ERPA) in opposition to community delivered 9,000 petitions in the proposed demolition of East River Park. opposition to the redevelopment plan to Members voiced opposition to the revised City Hall, including 2,000 from NYCHA Plan and put forward a set of demands residents. ERPA was an ally during this that included “...a plan that provides process. The New York City Council did flood control with minimal destruction not hear their impassioned demands. As of existing parkland and biodiversity... part of their actions, ERPA has supported a constructed in an environmentally lawsuit against the city’s plan. ERPA is the forward-thinking manner that will give us leader in a legal action from 90 plaintiffs a resilient coastline to help absorb storm that argues that the park’s redevelopment surges.”9 will represent a hazardous action to the environment and health of the residents.
Banner image for ERPA website
10 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO This lawsuit consisted of 42-pages and was introduced by attorney Arthur Schwartz with the nonprofit Advocates for Justice. The lawsuit was filed in February of 2020 and dismissed by a judge in August of the same year. There is an appeals process undergoing. Our Studio was tasked to work with ERPA to inform their advocacy. In response to the outcry that the participatory planning process had been undermined by the City’s decision to change the plan, our project sought to make use of the extensive documentation during the ESCR planning process to understand what went wrong.
Rally and march to save East River Park in 2021, organized by ERPA. Source: ERPA
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 11 II. PROJECT GOALS & RESEARCH QUESTIONS Our studio focused on assessing the major strengths and weaknesses of the ESCR Plan and its development process. We sought to determine how the Plan would affect the equity and accessibility of open spaces within the Project Area, specifically during the reconstruction of the East River Park and in the context of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Furthermore, we aimed to determine how the City could be held accountable to the community’s vision for a resilient East River Park.
Project Goals: 1. Analyze the process of the ESCR Plan’s development and selection as the preferred alternative (in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)). 2. Critique the physical design elements of the ESCR plan, specifically relating to its implementation and phasing. 3. Develop construction mitigation recommendations that improve the ESCR Plan’s potential impacts on public health, social equity, and the environment. 4. Identify key insights and best practices for other neighborhoods and community-based organizations to consider when engaging with the City in future resiliency projects. Research Questions Our Studio developed a set of research questions to guide our analysis of the ESCR Plan. We began with a simple and straightforward inquiry: “What are the Does the ESCR Plan Plan’s flaws and how can the City be held simultaneously respond accountable for promises made during to both the chronic the development of the Plan?” However, threat of storm surges we soon realized that the Plan and its implementation required a more nuanced and the acute threat of evaluation in light of the ongoing COVID-19 Covid-19? Can the Plan Pandemic. As such, we broadened our be improved to better inquiry to include a new set of questions: “Does the ESCR Plan simultaneously respond to both of these respond to both the chronic threat of threats? storm surges and the acute threat of COVID-19? Can the Plan be improved to better respond to both of these threats?” On a more conceptual level, we also focused on exploring the meaning of resilience within the context of the ESCR Plan. Specifically, we asked ourselves: “What kind of resilience does the Plan advance?” That question ultimately provided insights on not only the ESCR Plan but also coastal resiliency projects in general, as discussed later in this report, at What are the Plan’s the end of Chapter VII. flaws and how can the City be held accountable for promises made during the development of the Plan?
What kind of resilience does the Plan advance?
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 13 III. OBJECTIVES & METHODS
Our Studio used a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods, as outlined below. We established multiple research teams to better explore the implications of the Plan, given the magnitude of its available public documentation and third-party coverage, as well as the significant number of stakeholders it involved. As an additional part of our research inquiry, our Studio sought to recognize and reveal the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on both the Plan and the wider community. Though an unanticipated challenge, it ultimately allowed us to develop a set of recommendations that better respond to the unique public health challenges that the wider community continues to face. Our Studio developed five distinct research efforts to more fully understand how the ESCR Plan was formed and how potentially affected communities have responded to it. The objectives and methodologies of these efforts are summarized within this section, while a more detailed review of each effort is presented in the Appendix.
14 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO Comment Archeology Document & Media Our Studio organized, reviewed, and Analysis codified over 1,000 formal comments contained in several of the ESCR Plan’s Our Studio examined academic articles, public records – including Chapter 10 of press reports, Community Board meeting the Plan’s Draft Environmental Impact minutes, municipal publications, and Statement (DEIS), its Record of Decisions technical evaluations to illuminate the (ROD), its Notice of Intent to Request Plan’s community engagement processes Release of Funds (NOI RROF), and the City and its potential impacts on coastal Planning Commission’s Public Hearing resilience. This analysis also incorporated and Special Review Session (07/31/2019) – testimony provided by nearly a dozen to identify opinions and criticisms of the guest speakers who met with our Studio Plan, as well as promises offered in by the to discuss the Plan’s political and physical City in response. Those promises generally dimensions. included specific mitigation measures and community benefits that would be Neighborhood Asset implemented before, during, or after the construction of the ESCR Project. Mapping Our Studio conducted a spatial analysis of parks and public spaces in proximity to the Project Area, to identify alternative open spaces that community members could access during the construction of the ESCR Project. We produced two maps based on that analysis, which together visualize the morphology and pedestrian accessibility of these open spaces.
Frequency of topics of concern among public comments analyzed in the EIS documents for the project.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 15 Park User Surveys Limitations Our Studio designed and administered a Several prominent City agencies and qualitative survey to illuminate usership community groups involved with the patterns within the East River Park, discern development of the Plan refused or were community perceptions of the ESCR Plan, unable to engage with our Studio. This and gauge the impacts of the COVID-19 behavior may have been influenced by Pandemic on public behavior. Our Studio legal concerns over recent ESCR lawsuits digitally distributed this survey to over brought against the City by ERPA. General thirty community based organizations and public animosity towards the Plan and stakeholders groups affected by the ESCR the experience of planning fatigue could Plan – including nearly all the members have been additional motivating factors of the ESCR Community Advisory Group for those who decided to abstain from (CAG) – and ultimately solicited over 75 discussion of it. Lastly, certain groups may complete survey responses. have chosen to abstain from engaging with our work considering political differences and potential competition Formal Stakeholder between East River Park Action and its Interviews adjacent community based organizations. Our Studio conducted a series of targeted interviews with key ESCR Project stakeholders - including City agency representatives, Community Board chairs, and local residents – to better understand how the Project was shaped by distinct engagement processes, decision making mechanisms, and notions of resilience.
A sample of coded survey responses detailing familiarity and opinion of the ESCR plan for the park.
16 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO IV. ESCR PROCESS TIMELINE While construction of the ESCR project is now fully underway, the planning process from project inception to present day has seen many changes over the years. The timeline in this section aims to outline the major events that have shaped the current plan, beginning with the landfall of Hurricane Sandy in 2012 that ushered a newfound emphasis on resilience and flood protection around New York City and the larger surrounding region.
infographics or photos
A rendering of the BIG U plan intended to protect Lower Manhattan from flooding. Source: Rebuild By Design. FEDERAL AGENCY CITY AGENCY ESCR PROCESS PRIVATE AGENCY TIMELINE COMMUNITY RESPONSE PHASE 1 2012 Federal Design Competition NOV. Hurricane Sandy PlaNYC release of "A Stronger, 2013 Hurricane Sandy Rebuild Task Force Set More Resilient New York" JUN. Rebuild by Design competition set
SEP. RBD competition starts, budget earmarked Background research and community engagement process NOV. HUD selects BIG to focus on Manhattan
DEC. City requests RBD focus on Lower East Side 2014
APR. "Big U" final proposal presented to public
HUD announces winners ESCR Project and City $335 million federal funding JUN. project team set to city for East Side
SEP. City announces RFP for concept design
DEC. ESCR concept design start
2015 RBD grantees submit action plan PHASE 2 FEB. amendments to HUD Concept Handoff to City
MAR. ESCR community engagement kick-off
APR. HUD approves action plan amendments
OCT. Draft SOW for DEIS produced CB 3 + 6 community engagement 2016 Workshops, public scoping, input sessions, Waterfront Task Force meetings 2017
JUN. Original project construction start date
DEC.
18 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO 2018 de Blasio administration chooses FEB. alternative design
Value Engineering Report APR. conducted - not released PHASE 3 New Plan Selected
CB 3 + 6 alerted to change in plan OCT. City releases ESCR Final Scope of Work
DEC. 2019 CB 3 + 6 community engagement Open House, Public Review APR. DEIS released Process, public hearings, review of EIS, project updates Borough President public hearing Borough Board resolution passes JUL. Borough President recommendations made
SEP. FEIS released de Blasio announces change in plan, keeping City Council public hearing conducted OCT. at least 42% of park open at all times
NOV. Joint statement from council members 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic shuts MAR. down New York City
ERPA lawsuit against ESCR AUG. dismissed and shortly after appealed
OCT. DDC announces delay in construction 2021 Redacted 2018 Value Engineering FEB. Report released on appeal
ERPA "Save the East ERPA files second lawsuit for full River Park" protest APR. access to Value Engineering report KEY DOCUMENTS
"A Stronger, Rebuild By Value Final More Resilient Design's Engineering Environmental New York" "Big U" Report Impact (2013) (2014) (2018) Statement (2019)
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 19 V. COMMUNITY CONCERNS & CRITICAL VIEWPOINTS
Our research confirmed that community opinions of the ESCR Plan varied widely; while some reflected significant support for the Plan, a majority expressed harsh criticism. Despite this variance, we identified a number of community concerns towards the Plan that were repeated and substantiated by multiple sources. These concerns fell primarily under four intersecting categories: 1) Participation and Transparency; 2) Environmental and Public Health; 3) Design and Construction; and 4) Community Memory. Here, we define these categories and explore concerns of both real and perceived ESCR Project consequences.
1. Participation and Transparency 2. Environmental and Public Health 3. Design and Construction 4. Community Memory
20 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO Participation and “The City fumbled so badly Transparency that now they’re telling Many of the harshest and most frequent residents that this plan is community criticisms of the ESCR Plan their only hope of safety.” related to its participation process and transparency. These criticisms were defined by engagement process failures, broken promises, and questions of equity. The unexpected publication of the ESCR Plan in 2018 was a source of confusion Others have argued that the City has and anger for those who participated presented the ESCR Plan as an either/ in previous public engagements. Some or ultimatum – either the Plan must be community members who were involved accepted as is, or else no flood protection in the original Big U planning process will be offered. One survey respondent lamented a lack of City oversight in expressed this sentiment in dire terms: “... that phase of the Plan’s development. the City fumbled so badly that now they’re According to Tommy Loeb, one of ERPA’s telling residents that this plan is their only founding members, the City failed to hope of safety.” Whether or not there is provide adequate technical guidance: “We truth to this idea, local stakeholders clearly need engineers and architects in there believe that the City failed to develop the from the beginning, to determine which Plan in a participatory and transparent conceptual ideas are doable and which manner. aren’t… but it has to be from day one.” That lack of guidance resulted in promised Public skepticism of the ESCR Plan may investments, such as the installation of be warranted; indeed, the Plan has not retractable flood gates along the FDR, been independently assessed beyond that later proved technically or politically the City’s recently published (and highly impossible to implement. redacted) Value Engineering Report, which has raised additional questions instead of providing concrete answers. As a result, critics of the Plan have questioned the City’s motivation for pursuing it. Some “We need engineers have even suggested that the Plan’s and architects in primary objective is to spur real estate development in exploitable communities, there from the rather than provide resilient infrastructure beginning, to investments along a historically determine which underserved waterfront. conceptual ideas are While opinions of the ESCR Plan have been doable and which mixed, there is a general consensus among aren’t… but it has to members of the public that the planning process failed to respect the visions and be from day one.” voices of those who participated in it.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 21 5
Environmental and Public Health BASKETBALL BASKETBALL
T S H T 0 1 T S H T 0 1 F D R D R I V E
BBQ BBQ Community advocates have expressed significant 10TH STREET STREET 10TH 10TH PLAYGROUND PLAYGROUND concerns regarding the ESCR Project’s potential negative Final Review
STATION STATION impacts on environmental and public health. Many local COMFORT COMFORT COMFORT 10TH STREET STREET 10TH 10TH
residents fear that Site Design PA1 extensive and prolonged construction 10TH BRIDGE STREET throughout the Project Area will not only degrade air 7 7
FIELD FIELD quality and exacerbate asthma but also contribute to
noise pollution in adjacent communities. Residents also
T S H T 6 T S H T 6 believe that the demolition of existing green spaces COURSE CHALLENGE throughout the Project Area will significantly harm local flora and fauna, specifically through the elimination TRACK HOUSE TRACK TRACK & FIELD & TRACK of hundreds of mature trees and the eradication of FITNESS biodiverse natural habitats. One local resident went so far as to state that the Plan is “an environmental disaster in the making.” 5 & 6 FIELDS
Issues of open space accessibility have been another major T S N O T S U O H T S N O T S U O H point of contention for affected communities. Access EMBAYMENT EMBAYMENT PLAY
WATER WATER to large portions of the Project Area will be temporarily LAWN LAWN STREET EXISTING HOUSTON OVERPASS OVERPASS TO REMAIN TO restricted during reconstruction, preventing public access PLAY WATER WATER to active and passive REVIEW FINAL PDC COASTAL SIDE EAST PROJECT RESILIENCY 2019 16, DECEMBER recreational opportunities currently available within it.10 These opportunities support both 3 & 4 3 & 4 FIELDS FIELDS physical and mental wellbeing; if they are significantly restricted, residents will experience a decreased quality
of life. This possibility MAYOR'S YORK CITY NEW OFFICE OF RESILIENCY is especially concerning given F D R D R I V E TENNIS that residents believe there are insufficient open space HOUSE
TENNIS alternatives that can be accessed during the phased DELANCEY ST DELANCEY DELANCEY ST DELANCEY reconstruction of the East River Park. While there are
TENNIS
NEW YORK CITY DEPT. DEPT. YORK CITY NEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DELANCEY ST DELANCEY
DELANCEY ST DELANCEY other parks and green spaces within walking distance of
WILLIAMSBURG BRIDGE BRIDGE WILLIAMSBURG WILLIAMSBURG
TURF the Project Area, these spaces do not offer an equivalent MULTI-USE variety of passive and active recreational opportunities. Additionally, as revealedYORK NEW OF DEPT. CITY TRANSPORTATION by our Studio’s Asset Mapping BBQ BBQ BASKETBALL BRIDGE STREET
DELANCEY analysis, the City’s Open Streets Program does not
T T S S D D N N A A R R G G
LAWN significantly extend through neighborhoods adjacent to
the Project Area. YORK NEW CITY AND OF PARKS DEPT. RECREATION NATURE NATURE EXPLORATION EXPLORATION
& WATER PLAY WATER & As a result of the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, public
JJ A A C C K K S S N N O O S S T T TO REMAIN TO BOATHOUSE BOATHOUSE EXISTING FIRE EXISTING
F D R D R I V E access to nearby green spaces has become more & PARK & LANDING 1 & 2 CORLEARS FIELDS NEW YORK CITY YORK NEW CITY AND OF DESIGN DEPT. CONSTRUCTION HOOK BRIDGE HOOK important than ever before, given the need for social distancing. If the ESCR Plan reduces green space availability during the Pandemic, then the health of ONE ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM
& STAGE & adjacent communities may be jeopardized. This novel W A T E R S T AMPHITHEATER challenge, compounded by preexisting environmental
F D R D R I V E and public health concerns, has only added to community MATHEWS NIELSEN MATHEWS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, P.C.
fears surrounding the Plan’s impacts.
MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY ST ST P I E R 4 2 INGELS GROUP HOOKHOOK FERRY FERRY CORLEARSCORLEARS AKRF-KSE, JV BJARKE
22 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO relating to the Project’s potential negative Design and Construction impacts on environmental and public health. For example, several comments Local residents, community leaders, and in the DEIS reflected fears of industrial independent observers have voiced a pollution and hazardous material exposure number of concerns relating to the design that could result from construction and construction of the ESCR Project. activities along the East River Park Many have argued that Plan’s budget Waterfront. and timeline are unrealistic, considering that the City has historically struggled Beyond these warranted concerns, to prevent cost inflation and adhere to commentators have argued that the established deadlines in past capital ESCR Plan may not provide its promised projects. This precedent, combined with level of protection against flooding and the complexity of the ESCR Project, may storm surges. It is unclear whether the validate concerns that the City will fail to Plan’s defense measures account for sea properly manage reconstruction activities. level rise, especially after 2050.12 It is also Cost overruns and implementation delays difficult to predict whether localized would disproportionately harm adjacent flooding prevented by the ESCR Project communities. Worse yet, the City has not will be redirected towards other low lying determined how it will pay to maintain the communities in the vicinity of the Project reconstructed East River Park. Area. Ultimately, the long-term efficacy of the Project may not become apparent Scrutiny towards the design and until the City experiences another major construction of the ESCR Project was storm surge event. well documented in our review of public comments listed in the ESCR’s DEIS, which enumerated over 200 distinct interim construction concerns.11 Many of these comments intersected with concerns
Samples of local news coverage of the ESCR Plan.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 23 Community Memory Praise of the Plan Interestingly, some of the most personal Though we have focused mainly on criticisms of the ESCR Plan were concerns surrounding the ESCR Project, concerned not with the future but it must be noted that some community rather with the past. Local residents members and City representatives have overwhelmingly have expressed a love supported and even praised certain for the East River Park; many have even aspects of the Project. These aspects of the shared nostalgic memories of their Project include: its significant allocation of relationship with it. It is unsurprising then capital for resilient infrastructure in low- that some residents feel the Plan fails income and historically disenfranchised to commemorate or preserve the Park’s communities surrounding the Project history. These residents fear that they Area; its potential to increase the vibrancy and their families will permanently lose a and accessibility of the East River Park in beloved and memorable green space as the long term; and its capacity to prevent the Park is razed and reconstructed. One or significantly mitigate flooding during of our interview participants - a lifelong storm surges – nearly a decade after resident of the Lower East Side - shared a Hurricane Sandy. poignant reflection on this possibility: “I’ve got two kids. I think they’re not going to Opinions of the Plan are diverse and at have a park for the rest of their childhood. times diametrically opposed. For the City They’ll be gone by the time the Project is to proceed with the development of the done.” ESCR Project in a more sustainable and equitable manner, it must address the The community’s collective fear of aforementioned community concerns. loss has been aggravated by the City’s planned elimination of both longstanding institutions and recent investments in the East River Park. Currently, the reconstruction of the Park would result in the removal of the Lower East Side Ecology Center’s Compost Yard, which has operated since 1990 and is utilized weekly by over 3,500 households.13 Relatively new upgrades to some of the Park’s sports fields and walking paths would also be lost during reconstruction, leading many to question whether the City has wasted taxpayer funds on such short lived investments.
24 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO Community engagement meeting held by BIG during the Rebuild by Design process. Source: Bjarke Ingels Group
Scenes from one of several marches and public events East River Park Action has organized to protest the closure of the park. Source: East River Park Action.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 25 VI. PLANNING ANALYSIS: WHAT WENT WRONG
These community concerns can be better understood in the context of planning efforts that began in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and culminated in the City Council’s approval of the ESCR Plan. In this section we look to qualify and contextualize the aforementioned concerns through a critical analysis of the planning process that resulted in the current plan.
A rendering of the original plan for the ESCR project as part of the BIG U proposal in the Rebuild by Design process.
26 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO The announcement of the Preferred Historic Lack of Alternative in 2018 was thus, for some, a foregone conclusion. The Rebuild By Transparency Design process had resulted in an initial design that both addressed community The City’s dearth of communication concerns and neglected to account and then announcement of the new for site-related technical challenges. Preferred Alternative in October of 2018 Unfortunately, this initial design was so marked the plan’s descent into conflict complex as to be nearly unworkable, and controversy. It exposed a deep leaving city agencies like the DPR, DOT, communications breakdown between City DDC, and DEP to try to adjust the plan agencies, long accustomed to a different to meet various technical, financial, and process framework, and community political needs. For stakeholders not stakeholders, who had until that point included in the Value Engineering Study or looked favorably on comparatively robust Feasibility Analysis, who had volunteered engagement in the planning process. time over many years out of commitment Yet, while the announcement alternative to the Project, it felt like a betrayal, as if clearly marked a turning point in the City reversed both the Plan and the controversy around the ESCR, the rupture climate of collaboration in favor of a radical of community trust long predated it. alternative conceived behind closed Interviews and surveys point to a historic doors. That the document which spurred lack of transparency and empowerment the change remains partly redacted, and in the community, a litany of confused given that the rationale behind the switch messaging, broken promises, and upheaval remains unclear to some, underscores this in the area going back to the days of trust and communication breakdown. Robert Moses. Recent breaks referenced included the rehabilitation of the L train, in which the City defended an unpopular plan as unshakeable until the governor overruled it with an alternative, and the recently completed esplanade in the park, which was promised in three years but completed in ten. Such instances exemplify the power imbalances inherent in the current planning framework, and demonstrate how little recourse or accountability is available to disadvantaged communities. This has sewn a planning landscape with discord The new alternative, though in some ways that is now bearing fruit. building on goals from previous community engagement, was starkly different in its approach and results, and created from a technocratic perspective without consultation or communication with community stakeholders.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 27 is known as the “No Action Alternative,” Flaws in the EIS Process which describes the potential impacts of an unaltered project area.. The other The ESCR Plan’s Environmental Impact three alternatives encompass different Statement (EIS), published in 2019, permutations of flood protections built contains information on the five plan along the border between East River alternatives for the ESCR Project, including Park and FDR Drive. Arguably the most the preferred alternative, which is currently important aspect of the environmental underway. An EIS is required by federal, review process is public engagement. The state, and local City laws to be completed process of completing an EIS requires for government projects that may have a public review period, during which significant impacts on local communities. members of the public may comment In the process of creating an EIS, the lead on the Draft EIS. A summary of these government agency is required to provide comments is included in the Final EIS, detailed analysis of the potential impacts along with the lead agency’s responses to of the project under review on its local substantive comments. community. For example, the EIS for the ESCR project explores potential impacts The EIS contains within it structural flaws regarding neighborhood character, that exacerbated issues of transparency, transportation, natural resources, aquatic participation, and accountability. First, it habitat, local neighborhood open space, does not explicitly compare any of the construction pollution, among many plan alternatives to the Rebuild By Design others. concepts (though the original three plan alternatives appear more in line with that Within the EIS, the City outlines the design than the Preferred Alternative). five different plans that were under This presents a challenge in evaluating consideration. This includes both the how plans have changed from inception Preferred Alternative, the plan that the city through design and technical planning has selected to proceed with, and what phases. Second, it offers a forum to submit public comments, either in person or in NOTICE OF INTENT written form, which the City must address; TO PREPARE EIS yet there is no objective standard for the ways in which comments are grouped, what characterizes a satisfactory response. SCOPING PROCESS
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT EIS
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT EIS
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL EIS
RECORD OF DECISION
28 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO An analysis of the public comments submitted shows that in the process of Social Fissures in the grouping comments for response, many specific questions and nuances are Community elided, pointing to risks associated with As a heterogenous and historically socio- the subjectivity of qualitative analysis. economically mixed area, the Lower East The written responses themselves often Side remains in many ways internally punted answering public concerns until divided. Its many grassroot organizations after forthcoming analyses, plans, or and community groups have at times bids and contractor selection – concerns asserted divergent priorities. None can like those over quality control and the claim to fully represent the neighborhood acquisition of an estimated million tons through the ESCR process. Thus there of fill required for the Project. This begs is no universal consensus regarding the question: what purpose does political- the ESCR Plan, aside from the general environmental theater like the EIS serve if agreement that the City could have better so much critical decision-making resides communicated Plan alterations after the outside its scope? How can the City be end of the Rebuild By Design competition. held to account on promises made and questions unanswered once the process is Although many local residents are upset completed? that the East River Park will be destroyed and rebuilt over multiple years, opinions In addition to the plan’s intersection with of the ESCR Plan itself vary considerably. issues around community trust, several ERPA has dominated headlines and other external influences added to the generally shares its opinions the loudest, subsequent challenges faced by the but it may be a vocal minority, as other plan. Among these were dislocations and residents of the Lower East Side disagree social fissures within the community, the with their priorities. Leaders and advocates emergence of the COVID-19 Pandemic, for communities like NYCHA residents, the custom of political deference, and the who suffered the effects of Hurricane urgent nature of funding and construction Sandy long after other areas recovered, timelines. were concerned that another devastating storm could strike before the Project’s completion. What purpose does political- For these communities who believed environmental theater like the Plan was long overdue, a tight timeline was a top priority. There is the EIS serve if so much community concern that the ESCR Plan’s critical decision-making implementation is moving too slowly, resides outside its scope? placing many of the Lower East Side’s low-income residents, particularly NYCHA How can the City be held to residents, at risk of displacement due to account on promises made flooding. Considering the proximity of and questions unanswered many of the most vulnerable residents to once the process is the waterfront, it’s not surprising that they completed? might prioritize flood protection.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 29 Further complicating matters, however, is the possibility that the Plan could prove Role of COVID-19 inadequate by 2050, based on sea level rise projections by the New York City Panel Finally, the advent of the COVID-19 on Climate Change. These projections have Pandemic introduced a new level of led some to question if the current Plan complication. The Lower East Side has goes far enough to protect the vulnerable lower-than-average per capita access to residents of the Lower East Side, or if the open green space for Manhattan, and Park will need to be elevated again in the demand for that space increased thirty years. significantly as indoor spaces and transit to other areas decreased. For many The conflict wrought by these divergent local residents the park became an all- perspectives has been made apparent by important resource. While stakeholders the disintegration of community forums were able to negotiate phased and by accusations between community construction of the park, facilitating use groups of sectarianism, racism, and even by locals, that space will remain limited corruption. As a result, these groups have through the construction period. Residents been unable to unite behind a common fear construction will take longer than vision for the future of the East River Park. promised, and that open space access per Paired with the customary deference capita could be dramatically reduced for to local community leaders on matters an unknowable period when it is most within their jurisdiction, those who might needed; this has added to friction on the otherwise have pressed objections to project, and few reassurances have been particulars in the Plan did not. Thus, offered. despite concerns raised by many residents and community stakeholders, Communications the Preferred Alternative plan passed rapidly through phases of approval and Breakdown development. The City responded to many Even at the time of publication, the public of these objections submitted formally in face of the plan is marred by these issues, the EIS with vague reassurances. which remain unaddressed. Arguably the most grave, that of transparency, has been acknowledged here and there by Further complicating agency professionals as a “communications breakdown.” Yet, messaging between matters, however, is the agencies and elected leaders, as well possibility that the Plan as between those leaders and their could prove inadequate constituents, was at best inconsistent, by 2050 -- leading to and at worst dishonest, and this ongoing lack of clear, transparent communication questions if the current exacerbates skepticism and opposition Plan goes far enough to to the plan. As recently as January protect the vulnerable 2021, community leaders expressed misinformation to their constituents residents of the Lower around the existence of these underlying East Side, or if the Park studies and processes. That agency will need to be elevated professionals and leaders lament the again in thirty years. breakdown, while failing to rectify it, has been construed by some as disingenuous.
30 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO Many materials and rationales on which So perhaps the most significant hurdle the Preferred Alternative were initially was launching without a sufficient released to the public with hundreds understanding of need, site considerations, of pages so redacted as to be nearly or impacts on equity. Had Hurricane blank (only after public pressure were Sandy struck mere hours later, it would portions of that text un-redacted) and have impacted other communities public-facing explanations of both the catastrophically, communities whose rationales and redactions remain unsaid. resiliency plans remain more modestly Regarding the planning process, no formal funded if they are funded at all. Instead acknowledgement or redress of the of selecting sites for resiliency projects breakdown has been made publicly, and reactively (thus conflating recovery with there has been no messaging or proposal resilience) allocating resources based on as to how such a situation may be avoided vulnerability of communities to storm in future planning efforts. Without a surge would have a more targeted and sincere effort to show the community why equitable impact. Additionally, the BIG U trust should be restored, many will remain plan, though it made good use of breaking skeptical. down and compartmentalizing a larger unified plan, was Manhattan-focused and lacking in a comprehensive approach, to Lessons Learned from the detriment of vulnerable communities Rebuild By Design’s in other boroughs. Plans focusing on “protection” from storm surge rather Engagement Process than on environmental justice create a For several reasons, the ESCR project could focus that is dislocated from the lived be considered flawed from its inception. experiences of those most impacted. The prescriptive requirements of federal funding for projects may have precluded other creative, site-appropriate alternatives. Furthermore, while a competition-based process may have its advantages, it is also susceptible to several faults. Firstly, its architectural approach and resource allocation privileges the recovery and Plans focusing on “protection” protection over long term visioning. It is also liable to reward prestigious from storm surge rather than “starchitects,” and design aesthetics over on environmental justice create otherwise impactful proposals intrinsically a focus that is dislocated from derived from local context and knowledge. the lived experiences of those As an apolitical process, it is divorced from political realities. Such projects also most impacted. tend to depend on large-scale federal funding, precluding incremental local development. All this said, the Rebuild By Design chapter of the process seemed to play out quite well in the ESCR project, until the technical constraints of various sites entered into consideration.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 31 Few Opportunities for Technical Limitations of Community Engagement the Rebuild By Design after Midway Shift Process Planners did not address the issue that, The final BIG U plan was not based on the once the goals and requirements of the actual conditions at the East River Park plan were changed midway through, there site, and thus did not account for existing were few meaningful opportunities for infrastructure or the fact that the park is the community to engage in the design not suitable for flooding. The plan also process of the final outcome. Initially, the incorrectly assumed that existing drainage project goals conveyed to the community in NYCHA properties could handle did not emphasize sea-level rise, so the stormwater drainage. The Community community was not focused on designing Development Block Grants awarded as a for it. The Value Engineering Study, which result of RBD entail certain FEMA design unmasked the technical considerations stipulations that must be met, thus that so fundamentally altered the nature limiting the city’s flexibility with regards of the project, stated it was “reviewed at to what could be built. For example, the 40% design completion.”14 To introduce funding requires that the plan includes these technical constraints nearly halfway a FEMA accredited levee, thus requiring through the design process, proposing a the plan to change. From a broader new alternative missing several elements perspective, this existing and problematic of key importance to the community, and physical and process infrastructure was thereafter providing little opportunity for allowed to dictate future resilience the public to revise the plan, demonstrated responses, proceeding from ‘what is’ rather a fundamental dismissal of their input, than ‘what is necessary,’ departing from time, and energy. By bringing in technical the original project outline in favor of a analysis of site conditions and clearly project less disruptive of this infrastructure, stating goals and processes on day one, but more destructive and disruptive for planners could foster a more efficient, residents. transparent process, avoid surprises, build trust with the community and expedite In addition, the transfer of the plan to the deliverables. city meant that it had to be completed by multiple city agencies, which presented its own set of challenges. Under the best of circumstances it can be difficult for city agencies to work together, tasking multiple agencies with such a massive and public plan led to further To introduce these technical complication. Some city agencies are less adept at interacting with the public, constraints nearly halfway making the simmering tensions more through the design process, pronounced. This further eroded public proposing a new alternative trust in a process that had already left demonstrated a fundamental members of the community exhausted from a seemingly never ending public dismissal of community input. engagement process that in the end did not seem to take into account their input.
32 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO Climate change will also exacerbate the What kind of resilience is urban heat island effect, further increasing temperatures within the city relative to the ESCR plan advancing? rural areas. The Parks Department will be It is important to consider exactly what planting hundreds of trees around the kind of resilience ESCR is advancing. Lower East Side and East Village, greening According to City materials the stated these neighborhoods, and helping to purpose of this project is flood protection reduce ambient temperatures slightly. - specifically, to reduce “flood risk to Analysis of the ESCR process demonstrates property, landscapes, businesses, and that the Plan embraces a restricted critical infrastructure while also improving approach to resilience. The City was waterfront open spaces and access,” restricted to a timeline tied to federal according to ESCR’s website. The choice funding through CDB Grants. This timeline of words here are important, “property, has required a rushed and disappointing landscapes, businesses, infrastructure.” engagement process. Past iterations of This page leaves it up to the reader to the ESCR design were passed up because infer that lives and communities will be of restrictive infrastructure as well. protected from flooding by this project. Contributors to climate change such as the It does, however, note that open spaces FDR drive highway and the Con Ed power and waterfront access will be improved, plant, which relies on unsustainable fuel acknowledging the importance of outdoor sources for electricity, were prioritized to space, though perhaps not to the degree operate uninterrupted during construction. now recognized in a world shaped by Lastly, the multiple levels of government COVID-19. By listing property first, the City involved in the planning process from appears to prioritize physical resilience of inception stifled a rapid implementation of the built environment ahead of the health a resiliency plan. This final aspect delayed and safety of the NYCHA residents that construction while the threat of coastal live closest to the waterfront. storms continues to linger. The ESCR plan does acknowledge the Moreover, the restricted resilience of fact that the effects of climate change the ESCR plan goes hand-in-hand with include more than just sea level rise and the patchwork planning that the City higher storm surges. The plan includes currently pursues. While the LES was construction of new sewer infrastructure, disproportionately impacted by Hurricane to ensure that stormwater, another source Sandy, the City reactively invested in of flooding, completely independent this community to implement resiliency from sea levels, does not cause increased measures. This conflates resiliency with flooding behind the elevated park. recovery, signaling that the City is more interested in patching up holes in the urban fabric than working towards meaningful resilience. Instead, the City should look towards comprehensive The City appears to prioritize planning of the entire city, if not the physical resilience of the built metropolitan area. This would create environment ahead of the a robust system that would allow for a faster recovery across the City after severe health and safety of the NYCHA flooding events. residents that live closest to the waterfront.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 33 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Given the outstanding issues identified through our analysis of community concerns and contextual changes surrounding the ESCR Project due to the unexpected COVID-19 Pandemic, our Studio developed a list of specific recommendations for the current ESCR Project that can be implemented by the City in the near-term. Adequately addressing some of the community desires for a drastically new plan are not feasible nor likely in light of recent court rulings that validated the Project’s legality. We recognize that the City may be implementing or planning to enact some of these recommendations; however, given the City’s unwillingness to meet with our Studio team and the lack of information available on some Project specifics, we are not aware of such actions. Throughout this section we have noted where the City has taken or is planning to take steps that at least partially address community concerns. Considering the severity of ongoing frustrations with the Project from many community members, however, there is clearly more work to be done. and report on noise levels generated by Air Quality & Noise construction vehicles and equipment operations. Pollution In addition to staying within maximum Can’t Do: Construction is a messy process noise requirements, the City has noted that inevitably generates some level that compliance with regulatory air of noise, dust, and (at times) exposure quality standards will be maintained to potentially hazardous material. The during the construction process. However, City cannot completely eliminate the the only way to demonstrate that to risk for potential negative impacts and the community is by publishing data disturbances from work operations detailing air quality sample results. This occurring on the Project site. However, transparency not only demonstrates a they themselves have acknowledged good faith effort to the community, but that “construction of the proposed also confirms that dust mitigation efforts Project would result in significant adverse implemented for the Project are working effects in noise but not in the areas of effectively. Only when armed with data air quality and natural resources with can the community push with justification the implementation of the appropriate for additional mitigation measures to be mitigation measures.”16 implemented. Can Do: The City should be transparent The City also noted that during the about air and noise quality impacts during “excavation and loading of any hazardous construction and keep themselves and waste or MGP-contaminated or petroleum- the construction team accountable by contaminated soil, real-time dust publishing real time (or at least regularly monitoring would be performed through a tabulated) data from noise and air quality Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP).”17 monitoring devices placed throughout the Project site. The City has noted in a recent This plan should also be made available project newsletter that “air, noise, and to the public and real-time air quality vibration monitors are active 24 hrs/day, 7 monitoring should be performed through days/week.” If so, this data should be made all stages of the Project, not just for known readily available to the public. or suspected hazardous waste activities. These monitoring measures would not The Project’s EIS notes that a Construction only be a benefit to the general public, Noise Mitigation Plan is required from the Contractor. This document should be published on the Project’s website when completed for the public’s viewing. The City has also noted in the EIS that some The City should be transparent quieter construction methods (such as the about air and noise quality method of pile installation) were selected impacts during construction to minimize noise impact. They have also and keep themselves and the promised that particularly noisy work will be limited to daytime hours. However, construction team accountable given the rise in the number of people by publishing data from noise working and studying from home, daytime and air quality monitoring noise in residential areas can still be highly disruptive. The City must closely monitor devices.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 35 but also help protect the construction Any additional Open Streets should be team working on the Project who are most placed thoughtfully after an analysis of directly exposed to dust, noise, and other adverse traffic impacts to the neighboring potential contaminants. community. Ideally, the community would also provide input on street locations they felt were desirable for use as open space Open Space Alternatives alternatives. Can’t Do: Open green space is always in high demand in New York City and has The City should continue to explore use of become especially valuable given the alternative open spaces beyond streets and ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic. However, other DPR properties, partnering with DOE, East River Park is a unique space that is DOT, NYCHA, and even private institutions challenging to replicate in a City where that have potential open or green space open space is already at a premium. It areas that could be utilized by the public. is unrealistic to expect a 1:1 replacement School gyms, church basements, and of the Park’s existing open space during plazas are examples of spaces that can construction activities, even with phased allow for passive and active recreation closings. See image below for an analysis space. For any of these alternative spaces of adjacent open space alternatives within to be utilized efficiently, there needs to be close proximity of the East River Park. a robust public awareness campaign to inform Lower East Side residents of these Can Do: The City has implemented a options while the East River Park is closed. Neighborhoods Parks Improvement plan The City has published a helpful map of that upgraded neighboring park spaces park and playground spaces adjacent to and playgrounds within the community, in the community. anticipation of an expected rise in demand for open space that will be caused by the East River Park’s closure. These upgrades consisted of a mix of cosmetic improvements as well as some more substantial enhancements, including the installation of improved lighting to allow for longer operations and the conversion of some asphalt play areas into turf areas. The City should continue to push for the expanded use While these improvements are an excellent of the Open Streets program start, the City should continue to push for the expanded use of the Open Streets around the Park’s vicinity while program around the Park’s vicinity while securing additional open space securing additional open space locations locations for residents to utilize for residents to utilize when portions of the Park are closed for construction. New when portions of the Park are Open Streets could be located adjacent closed for construction. to existing entrances to the park, serving as a familiar destination for residents and offering a chance for the community to witness construction progress firsthand.
36 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO Analysis of open spaces near East River Park.
Diagram: Table of the Can and Can’t Dos?
OR
Open Space Map
Typical Open Street layout per NYC DOT.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 37 Beyond these immediate alternatives, given the Project’s multi-year timeline and robust budget, there are other more costly and creative options that should also be explored. These include the possibility of utilizing the East River for a floating pool or barge park space similar to the floating pool successfully operated by NYC Parks at Barretto Point Park in The Bronx. +Pool, a proposal for a floating swimming pool in the East River that would filter the river water rather than just holding a conventional pool structure, was recently given approval to proceed with due diligence by New York City’s Economic Development Corporation after two years of agency review. Beyond swimming facilities, the East River could also be used A rendering of the floating +Pool proposed for the East River. to house passive recreational opportunities and green spaces while the park is closed. Finally, a supplementary means to For example, the City could follow a support Lower East Side residents during precedent already set by organizations like the East River Park’s closure would be Swale, which has maneuvered a traveling to provide financial support for travel to barge around the city’s waterways to parks and open space located further serve as a “floating food forest” for public throughout the city. If adequate park education and sustainable urban food and open-space alternatives cannot be production. These additions could remain established in close proximity to residents, permanent after construction, providing the City can bring affected community park users links with the waterfront. These members to other parks. This support structures can easily adapt to climate could consist of discounting MetroCards change, floating with rising water levels. for use on subways and buses, reducing Citi Bike membership fees, or providing vouchers and rebates for bike and scooter purchases. If demand is sufficient, dedicated shuttle buses could even be set up to bring LES residents to larger parks in the city, such as Central Park or Randall’s Island, where excess capacity is typically available. While likely not as feasible for more casual park users, this option could prove especially useful for any youth sports teams displaced during construction where additional travel for families or young children could be particularly challenging and costly.
Swale, a barge that serves a source of urban food production and open green space around the city’s waterways.
38 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO One way to help mitigate this concern Project Phasing is to both financially incentivize the project’s contractors to quickly turn over Can’t Do: Given the level of disturbance completed portions of the Park to the in the East River Park required by the public as soon as possible. The City must current ESCR Plan, closures of the existing also enforce any penalties for contractor- open spaces are necessary. The general generated delays that critically impact the contract phasing and schedule are likely Project’s schedule. The need for a shorter already set by DDC in the contracts construction timeline given funding being administered, so there is minimal deadlines and the urgency of securing opportunity to drastically alter the Project flood protection was frequently cited timeline. by the City as a reason for proceeding with the current iteration of the Project. Can Do: Given the level of community Therefore, the City should make every push-back over the Project, there were effort to ensure the Project’s construction concessions made to phase the Project to schedule is maintained and that park avoid a complete closure of the park space. space is turned over to the public as This phased construction is especially quickly as possible. This means the City important given the ongoing Pandemic must not only hold its contractor teams and the renewed value of open space for accountable, but also provide them the community and wider city population. with adequate resources to facilitate However, the community is skeptical of construction progress by prioritizing the Project’s timeline and doubts it will be necessary approvals and permits, resisting completed on time given the City’s track making major design changes during record of previously delayed construction construction, and providing timely projects. information and responses to the Project team.
The ESCR plan has construction divided into four main project areas, an Early Package with some relocation and temporary work, Project Area 1, Project Area 2, and the Parallel Conveyance system work consisting of inland drainage infrastructure improvements.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 39 that recognize the history of the rebuilt Project Design space. New technology such as 360 degree photos, laser scans, and other high Can’t Do: At this stage of the project, it is quality recording systems can allow for a not practical for the City to revert back to virtual version of the existing space to be the original Big U Plan that would have preserved. While no replacement for the avoided the complete destruction of the existing park space, it will at least be an East River Park and required the addition acknowledgment of the loss of a space of fill. It is also important to note that the that is valued by the community. NYC original Big U Plan formulated through the Parks already has a robust Historical Signs Rebuild by Design contest would have also program in place to educate the public destroyed a significant number of trees about the local history behind the sites and park features. A major community and names of parks and playgrounds. This criticism of the current ESCR Plan is that could be expanded for the East River Park it will eliminate much of the Park’s plant reconstruction, recognizing past elements life and some of its amenities, but these that were removed as part of the Project. consequences are not fully unique to the current Plan. In addition to recognizing this loss, the rebuilt Park should include an educational Can Do: The City needs full community program on the ongoing threat of climate buy-in for new East River Park amenities, change and sea level rise, explaining the including its types of sports fields need to rebuild the Park and detailing and other recreational elements that its infrastructure improvements, such can potentially still be adjusted while as the parallel conveyance system and reconstruction details are finalized. At flood barriers that will be installed during the same time, the City should strive to reconstruction. preserve and re-install any elements of the Park that are in good condition and can successfully be stored during construction, especially as one of the community’s complaints was the apparent waste of money spent on recent renovations in The City needs full community the Park that would be lost with the buy-in for new East River Park current Project. This would not only amenities, including its types be a recognition of the community’s appreciation for the Park as it currently of sports fields and other exists, but also a more sustainable way to recreational elements that can re-use features that have not reached the potentially still be adjusted end of their useful life. while reconstruction details are Even if none of the existing features are finalized. worth saving, there should be a greater effort made to recognize the loss of the existing Park throughout the Project. This includes fully documenting the Park’s history and conditions through photos and videos before destruction, as well as incorporating information into the new Park through signage and markers
40 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO Preserving History Against Rising Waters Given the ongoing threat of climate and the level of threat they face from change and the potential for increased climate change. Through this assessment, flooding, communities around the world they have worked with local residents to are wrestling with the same questions as document and record digital models of the Lower East Side. In a world of limited some sites while excavating and relocating time and resources, how do we decide others, all while incorporating valuable what is worth saving? More importantly, feedback and historical knowledge from when faced with advancing coastal community members who live near and and riverine waters, how do we decide understand the sites. While the East River between protecting things in place, Park may not be over a thousand years old relocating or retreating to higher ground, or have as much historical “value” as other or abandoning treasured spaces to be threatened coastal sites, the ESCR Project reclaimed by nature? In Scotland, a group could benefit from a similar attempt to of archaeologists from the University of St. capture what will be lost and understand Andrews has worked with local community the value of community insight and local members on a variety of coastal heritage knowledge. and historical sites threatened by sea level rise. They have utilized community volunteer groups to survey and evaluate thousands of sites, prioritizing actions for them based on their historical value
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 41 Critically, this scorecard system should Project Communication be tied to financial compensation for the contractor team, with financial penalties Can’t Do: The City cannot re-do its roll- or bonuses for negative and positive out of the changed ESCR Plan following performance respectively. This step would the value engineering process, which give the community power to ensure their catalyzed some community members’ feedback carries weight and is not just an distrust and animosity towards the current empty formality. Project. However, the City can take steps to improve communication and transparency The Project must continue to give advance for the Project going forward. notice as much as possible for any closures and disruptions so the community can Can Do: The City is already providing plan accordingly. An additional helpful detailed information on construction step would be to install construction progress and upcoming closures and progress cameras linked to the Project impacts through its Project website, website for the community and wider city weekly email bulletins, and regularly to monitor progress and conditions on site. occurring meetings with both community As mentioned earlier, publishing data from boards and the ESCR Community Advisory air quality and noise monitoring tests also Group. The Project’s website also offers would also enable greater transparency for a concise history of the ESCR Plan, an the Project. Any additional information on overview of its scope, and links to more Project costs, major spending allocations, detailed presentations and environmental and construction progress against the documents related to it. The Project also schedule should be shared routinely with has a dedicated Construction Community the public. Given the extent of redacted Liaison to interface with the community information within the Value Engineering and respond to any construction-related Report and suspicion by some community issues. These efforts are all useful and members towards the Project’s motivation helpful ways to make sure information and background, a greater push for is flowing between the construction transparency can help repair some of the team and the community. The next step, lost trust between residents and the City. however, is to ensure there is improved Project accountability that further empowers the community and moves beyond just communication. The City can take this step by implementing a Community Scorecard The Project must continue system that allows local residents to to give advance notice as evaluate the Project on quality of life issues much as possible for any such as noise, cleanliness, impact traffic impact, and more. This community rating closures and disruptions system can be administered regularly - for so the community can plan example, on a monthly or quarterly basis accordingly. - through both paper submissions and digital systems. A similar system has been used on other major regional projects such as the ongoing LIRR Expansion Project in Long Island.
42 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO rather than merely in the initial design Structural Changes process. Planners must address the fundamental disempowerment of The ESCR Project, in its successes and community stakeholders in the EIS failures, presents many opportunities process, during which the community for improvement in planning on a city- may submit comments to be answered, wide scale. Principal among them may and which at best fosters tokenization be the importance of transparency. rather than substantive participation. At A commitment to participation and the very least, providing clear, thorough, transparency might involve a sincere timely information and technical know- acknowledgment, on the part of the how from the beginning would result City, of the historical context and in marked improvement, since it would missteps around planning. Such an equip the collaborative design process acknowledgment would foster a climate of with full information, foster trust, and avoid honesty and enable long-sought dialogues, contingencies. within and between communities, around However, a more effective (and radical) issues of historic disenfranchisement, move would be to fundamentally shift systemic equity issues in planning, and the City’s planning framework to one process improvements to address such which is comprehensive and integrated. shortcomings in the future. To go a step While embracing such a shift may sound further, therapeutic planning, though not radical, complex, and fraught with conflict, widely practiced, affords communities it is also necessary to address modern the opportunity to heal and empower planning issues (such as climate change themselves in the face of the stark and displacement) at the scale, timescales social change and loss around climate and mechanisms through which they change, while streamlining or unifying manifest. Thankfully, the City may benefit community visions and concerns. By from adoption of a recent comprehensive, building trust through transparency and community-driven proposal: Planning fostering deeper, more honest connection Together: A New Comprehensive Planning within communities, planners may foster Framework for New York City. Rather a broader definition of resilience and than a condemnation of planning or civil overcome resistance to the social change servants, it offers “a recognition that our often necessary in planning for the climate land use processes are predominately crisis in coastal cities. Furthermore, by reactive and as a result, New Yorkers incorporating local voices throughout the with access, resources, and privilege process, planners can minimize pushback will continue to have the upper hand and therefore the added costs of surprise in how decisions are made unless we alternatives, delays and litigation which work together to dismantle and rebuild are partly responsible for the inflated cost the planning process.”18 While the 54- of infrastructure in the United States as page report is too thorough to be compared with other developed countries. summarized here, it recommends the Beyond simply repairing trust, there is Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and also ample opportunity to improve on Sustainability (OLTPS) would oversee the process and project management going new planning cycle, beginning with a forward. The original BIG U proposal hinted “Conditions of the City” report. Essentially at this, principally by recommending beginning planning with a needs analysis, the safeguarding of the collaborative this report would examine “racial and community planning process throughout, socio-economic disparities, access to
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 43 opportunity, displacement risk, short- and long-term risks to the City and its vulnerable communities, the impacts of prior development and budget decisions, RISE TO RESILIENCE and current and projected infrastructure needs, among other areas of analyses.” Rise to Resilience is a coalition Starting from a comprehensive analysis formed by the Waterfront of need and risk would enable a more Alliance calling for regional equitable, sustainable and impactful cooperation and policy-making distribution of resources than the current, to develop comprehensive piecemeal process. Implicit here is the resilience planning for the notion of an equity impact assessment Greater New York Region, or audit, which might complement the especially given the inadequate EIS process. Furthermore, it recommends steps taken over eight years after proactive policy-setting, an analysis of Hurricane Sandy. the city’s zoning resolution, district level targets and land use scenarios. This could Their platform is as follows: invite reforms such as investment in widespread green workforce development 1. Infrastructure and housing in underrepresented communities, and must be safe and resilient to encouraging cooperatives and community future conditions. land trusts. 2. Information needs to be These are vital issues to tackle before transparent and accessible–we they grow in scope and scale through all have the right to know our additional federal investment. As the climate risk. current administration is expected to increase federal spending on sustainability 3. Adaptation strategies must be and infrastructure nationwide, questions based in science and community- of project definition, funding, equity, driven. longevity and accountability all remain 4. Public and private investments prescient. There is, as yet, minimal in resilience must flow to all, but scholarship and no consensus as to how especially those at greatest risk: to distribute these resources: whether low-income communities and projects will be selected in areas of communities of color. greatest need and benefit; whether they will be selected based on a point 5. Well-paying, locally hired, long- system, and how that point system term green jobs are the basis of a would be defined; whether funding resilient economy for all. would correspond to said point system; and so on. A comprehensive planning 6. Solutions need to address both process would be of incredible benefit human needs and protect and under such conditions, as sustainability restore wildlife and their habitats. and infrastructure needs often require improvements at a regional scale, crossing jurisdictions.
44 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO and further displaces and marginalizes Visionary Alternatives those remaining. Furthermore, the historic mistrust of City agencies and leaders The convergence of crises, with the among the community represents a climate crisis chief among them, demand rift that undermines and complicates fundamentally different, visionary solutions planning efforts in the long term, and and approaches. To say that these warrants examination and healing. In solutions are ‘visionary’ is not to say that response, the planning process at its best they are beyond reach or reason, however. offers a widely-accessible and flexible medium through which a community Adopting comprehensive, city-wide can come together, engage with their resiliency-focused planning is advocated experiences, and envision alternatives; as by many, such as the NYC City Council such, it is well-positioned for psychosocially and the Rise to Resilience coalition; such responsive endeavors. approaches to planning have long been considered best practice in urban contexts A therapeutic approach may be valuable around the globe, and are far from for communities experiencing trauma, revolutionary. Centralized, comprehensive loss, or significant change, (all of which planning would enhance coordination are hallmarks of the climate crisis), and between planning agencies, which would can attempt to resolve conflicts and avoid several of the pitfalls of the ESCR restore trust among divergent groups. plan. It may also afford a level of community- driven planning and engagement Implementing an equity audit would be modern planners may only dream a fundamental step for any process that of. By empowering residents to share values equity and environmental justice in deeply, leverage their local knowledge, planning. Integrating equity into planning and advance their own projects, a might invite further and more radical therapeutically informed planner facilitates shifts, like starting from a comprehensive a planning model that avoids many of the analysis of needs, investing in widespread critical failures suffered by the ESCR. green workforce development in underrepresented communities, and encouraging cooperatives and community land trusts. Such steps would not alter the power imbalances involved in planning, but would help mitigate the foundational influences that predispose it to inequitable outcomes, such as the importance of land value and the emphasis on development. Implementing an equity audit would be a fundamental step A less obvious step might be to integrate therapeutic planning. A relatively new for any process that values notion in the traditionally ‘rational’ equity and environmental field of planning, therapeutic planning justice in planning. accounts for much of what is missing from the ESCR’s planning paradigm. While a climate disaster can displace the most vulnerable and rip apart communities, it can also lead to post disaster redevelopment that gentrifies
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 45 APPENDIX
46 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO Citations 1. “Impact of Hurricane Sandy,” Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget, accessed May 10, 2021, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cdbgdr/about/About%20Hurricane%20Sandy.page. 2. Nicole Brown, “Sandy in NYC: A Look at its Size, Strength, and the Damage It Caused,” AMNY, October 28, 2018, https://www.amny.com/news/sandy-nyc-damage-1-14555186/. 3. “Impact of Hurricane Sandy,” Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget, accessed May 10, 2021, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cdbgdr/about/About%20Hurricane%20Sandy.page. 4. Vivien Gornitz et al., “New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019 Report Chapter 3: Sea Level Rise,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (2019): 78. 5. Vivien Gornitz et al., “New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019 Report Chapter 3: Sea Level Rise,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (2019): 78. 6. “Community District Profiles: Manhattan Community District 3,” New York City Department of City Planning, accessed May 8, 2021, https://communityprofiles.planning.nyc.gov/manhattan/3. 7. The Alliance for a Just Rebuilding et al., Weathering the Storm: Rebuilding a More Resilient New York City Housing Authority Post-Sandy, March 2014, https://www.issuelab.org/resources/17494/17494.pdf. 8. “Community District Profiles: Manhattan Community District 3,” New York City Department of City Planning, accessed May 8, 2021, https://communityprofiles.planning.nyc.gov/manhattan/3. 9. “Goals,” East River Park Action, accessed May 12, 2021, https://eastriverparkaction.org/about. 10. City of New York, ESCR Project EIS (2019), 6.2-1, https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/escr/downloads/ pdf/FEIS/ESCR-EIS-Chapter-1.0-Purpose-and-Need.pdf 11. City of New York, ESCR Project EIS: Comments on the Record of Decision (ROD) and Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds (NOI RROF) (2019), https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/escr/ downloads/pdf/rod-noirrof-final-rtc.pdf 12. City of New York, ESCR Project EIS (2019), 1.0-1, https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/escr/downloads/ pdf/FEIS/ESCR-EIS-Chapter-1.0-Purpose-and-Need.pdf 13. Caroline Splvak, “Lower East Side compost yard faces uncertain fate as resiliency project looms,” Curbed New York, January 17, 2020, https://ny.curbed.com/2020/1/17/21069355/lower-east-side- compost-yard-coastal-resiliency-project. 14. Strategic Value Solutions, Inc., “ESCR Value Engineering Study Preliminary Report 2018” (Study, Independence, MO, 2018) I-2 https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/escr/downloads/pdf/escr_value_ engineering_study_preliminary_report_2018.pdf 15. City of New York. “Resiliency and Flood Protection.” Resiliency and Flood Protection - ESCR. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/escr/about/resiliency-and-flood-protection.page. 2019. 16. City of New York, ESCR Project EIS (2019), 10.0-1, https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/escr/downloads/ pdf/FEIS/ESCR-EIS-Chapter-10.0-Response-to-Comments-on-the-DEIS.pdf 17. City of New York, ESCR Project EIS (2019), 10.0-1, https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/escr/downloads/ pdf/FEIS/ESCR-EIS-Chapter-10.0-Response-to-Comments-on-the-DEIS.pdf 18. Corey Johnson, “Planning Together: A New Comprehensive Planning Framework for New York City” (Proposal, NYC, NY, December 2020) 3. http://council.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ Planning-Together-Final-Report-December-16-2020.pd
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 47 Abbreviations BIG Bjarke Ingels Group CAG Community Advisory Group CD3 Community District 3 D/F/A EIS Draft/Final/Amended Environmental Impact Statement ERPA East River Park Action ESCR The East Side Coastal Resiliency Project FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency HUD Housing and Urban Development LES Lower East Side MUP Master of Urban Planning NPCC New York City Panel on Climate Change NYCHA New York City Housing Authority NYC DDC New York City Department of Design and Construction NYC DEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection NYC DOE New York City Department of Education NYC DOT New York City Department of Transportation NYC Parks New York City Department of Parks & Recreation RBD Rebuild by Design RFP Request for Proposal
48 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO METHODOLOGY Given the challenge of understanding and articulating the ESCR Plan’s development, our Studio team established a set of methodologies designed to collect additional information on the Plan’s design elements, engagement process, and community response. While we have summarized those methodologies in Section IV of this report, here we offer a more detailed description of their objectives, designs, and relevant limitations. Comment Archeology Our Studio reviewed over 1,000 formal comments contained in several of the ESCR Plan’s public records - including Chapter 10 of the Plan’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), its Record of Decisions (ROD), its Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds (NOI RROF), and the City Planning Commission’s Public Hearing and Special Review Session (07/31/2019) - to identify opinions and criticisms of the Plan, as well as promises offered in by the City in response. Those promises generally included specific mitigation measures and community benefits that would be implemented before, during, or after the construction of the ESCR Project. We then utilized a spreadsheet tracker to organize and codify these comments according to the following attributes: 1. Commenter type (e.g., resident, elected official, etc.) 2. Relevant subject (e.g., open space, public health, project transparency, etc.) 3. General sentiment towards the ESCR Plan (i.e., positive, neutral, negative, or mixed) Below, we have presented a breakdown of public comments by category, as listed in the ESCR Project’s DEIS. Category Number of Comments Accessibility 65 Adequacy of Proposed Plan 128 Adjacent Utilities 59 Reference to Alternative Plan 27 Cost 15 Ecological/Biological Impact 72 Facilities and Park Amenities 106 Flood Mitigation 40 Interim Construction Concerns 230 Miscellaneous Grievances 22 Open Space 69 Project Transparency 97 Public Health 94 Trees/Landscaping 65
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 49 Document and Media Analysis Our Studio examined a myriad of primary and secondary sources - including academic articles, press reports, Community Board meeting minutes, municipal publications, and technical evaluations - to illuminate the Plan’s community engagement processes and its potential impacts on coastal resilience. This examination included 328 document parts dating from as early as January of 2015, when the Big U Plan was completed. A list of these sources can be found using this link. As part of our document and media analysis, we incorporated testimony provided by over a half dozen relevant guest speakers who met with our Studio to discuss the Plan’s political and physical dimensions. Our Studio guest speakers included the following individuals:
• Ashley Dawson, CUNY Graduate Center, Professor of English • Brian Paul, NYC Council: Land Use Division, Senior Project Manager • Catie Ferrara Iannitto, NYC DCP, Planning Team Leader • Delma Palma, NYCHA, Community Design Architect • E. Melanie DuPuis, Pace University, Professor and Chair of the Department of Environmental Studies and Science
• Kian Goh, UCLA, Assistant Professor of Urban Planning • Naomi Schiller, Brooklyn College, Associate Professor of Anthropology • Trever Holland, Community Board 3, Chair of the Parks Committee Asset Mapping Our Studio conducted a spatial analysis of parks and public spaces in proximity to the Project Area, to identify alternative open spaces that community members could access during the construction of the ESCR Project. Our Studio produced two maps based on that analysis, which together visualize the morphology and pedestrian accessibility of these open spaces. To develop these maps, we utilized QGIS to create a primary shapefile of the Project Area (as described in the FEIS) and a set of secondary shapefiles representing nearby open spaces as well as Open Streets established by the NYC DOT. Given the public health challenges posed by the ongoing Covid-19 Pandemic, we specifically identified community open spaces of at least 100,000 square feet, since these can effectively support social distancing while accommodating a large volume of visitors. We then added two sets of buffers - one of 100 yards and the other of 250 yards - around open spaces of this minimum size, to visualize how accessible they would be to pedestrian visitors. As an additional component of our asset mapping exercise, we geolocated community- based organizations and tenant associations that either were located within the Project Area or participated in ESCR engagement processes, in order to represent the geographical distribution of key stakeholders.
50 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO User Survey Our Studio designed and administered a qualitative survey targeting East River Park visitors, to collect qualitative data on the following subjects:
1. Usership patterns, as measured by frequency of visitation, modes of activity, and methods of access
2. Public understanding of the ESCR Project, as measured by familiarity, opinion, and potential reliance on alternative open spaces
3. Impacts of the Covid-19 Pandemic on public behavior as measured by adjustments in visitation and usage. The survey was designed and distributed through SurveyMonkey between February and March of 2021. After determining the content of the survey, we identified and attempted to contact three dozen recipient groups (including all members of the ESCR Community Advisory Group), through three rounds of survey distribution on 02/01/21, 02/16/21, and 03/10/21. Our hope was that a lead contact at each recipient group would share the survey among their constituent members. The survey’s initial distribution included an English version, while the second and third distributions respectively included a Spanish and Chinese version. We made the survey available in these three particular languages given their popularity in communities surrounding the Project Area. On 03/17/21, we terminated the survey and began to analyze the 75 submissions that we received for it. Below is a full list of the survey recipient groups that we attempted to contact as part of our distribution strategy. Those groups that we were unable to contact generally lacked an identifiable email address that could be utilized for survey distribution.
1. Baruch Houses Addition Tenant 12. Hester Street Collaborative Association 13. Hillman Housing 2. CAAAV (Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence) 14. La Guardia Houses Tenant Association* LES Ecology Center 3. Clemente* 15. LES Ready! 4. Cooper Square Committee* 16. LUNGS Loisaida United Neighborhood 5. East River Alliance 17. Gardens 6. East Village Community Coalition 18. MAS - Jane’s Walk 7. East River Park Action 19. New School Housing 8. Friends of Corlears Hook 20. NYU Housing 9. Girl’s Club 21. OLS Little League 10. GOLES (Good Old Lower East Side) 22. Peter Stuyvesant Little League 11. Gouverneur Gardens 23. Riis Houses Tenant Association
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 51 24. Sixth Street Community Center 31. University Settlement 25. Solar One 32. Village East Towers* 26. Stuy Town-Peter Cooper Management 33. Vladeck Houses* 27. Stuy Town-Peter Cooper Tenant 34. Wald Houses Tenant Association Association 35. Waterside Plaza Management 28. Stuyvesant Cove Park Association 36. Waterside Plaza Tenant Association 29. TUFF-LES * Unable to contact 30. Two Bridges Neighborhood Council
Formal Stakeholder Interviews Our Studio conducted a series of targeted interviews with key ESCR Project stakeholders - including City agency representatives, Community Board chairs, and local residents - to better understand how the Project was shaped by distinct engagement processes, decision making mechanisms, and notions of resilience. Each formal interview incorporated standard consent forms that were completed in advance by our participants. Prior to beginning the interview process, we ensured that all Studio members serving as interview facilitators were certified in Human Subject Research by the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Program. Below is a list of the organizations and individuals that we attempted to contact as part of our interview effort.
1. AKRF Inc.* 7. NYC Department of City Planning* 2. Bjarke Ingles Group (BIG)* 8. NYC Department of Design and Construction* 3. Carlina Rivera, Manhattan City Council District 2, Councilmember* 9. NYC Department of Parks and Recreation* 4. Juan Camilo Osorio, Pratt Institute, Assistant Professor of Planning 10. Stuyvesant Cove Park* 5. Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects* 11. Tommy Loeb, ERPA, Founding Member 6. Nina Watkins, Lower East Side Resident * Unresponsive or unwilling to engage on record
As noted earlier in this report, several prominent City agencies and community groups that were involved in or affected by the development of the ESCR Plan have refused or were unable to engage with our Studio’s formal interview process. Our Studio’s inability to engage with these stakeholders may be evidence of the contention and uncertainty that still surrounds the Plan.
52 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO Limitations
Several prominent City agencies and community groups involved with the development of the Plan refused or were unable to engage with our Studio. This behavior may have been influenced by legal concerns over recent ESCR lawsuits brought against the City by our Studio client: East River Park Action. General public animosity towards the Plan and the experience of planning fatigue could have been additional motivating factors for those who decided to abstain from discussion of it. Lastly, certain groups may have chosen to abstain from engaging with our work considering political differences and potential competition between East River Park Action and its adjacent community based organizations.
FALL 2020-SPRING 2021 53 54 HUNTER COLLEGE MUP - ESCR STUDIO