4. Outreach Process

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

4. Outreach Process Community and Stakeholder Outreach Outreach Process of the initial meetings was to listen to CIVITAS and Mathews Nielsen designed community members and stakeholders, and led an outreach process to engage and allow them to express their desires for community members and stakeholders in a the future of the Esplanade. Small group dialogue about the future of the East River breakout sessions were designed to discuss Esplanade. This process was organized multiple topics, and gather information and to allow community members and feedback concerning the following: stakeholders to voice their concerns about Experiential and Sensory Environment and aspirations for the Esplanade. It also • What is the current experience of the provided a venue for CIVITAS and MNLA to Esplanade? share information gathered in our research • What is the desired experience and how process, as well as gather information from must the Esplanade change? knowledgeable community members and stakeholders. Community meetings were Edge Conditions open to all members of the community and • How do users interact with the water? were advertised through CIVITAS’ outreach • How do users and the Esplanade CIVITASprocess. Stakeholder CIVITAS meetings consistedCIVITAS of CIVITASinterface with the CIVITAScity and FDR Drive? CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS invited city, state, and congressional elected leaders, representatives from city agencies, Upland Connections and leadership from active community • How do users get to the Esplanade and groups and boards. how does this affect their experience A series of four stakeholder meetings and and sense of place? three community education meetings were • How and where does this need to held between April 23, 2014 and September change? 22, 2014. Broad Spaces • Stakeholder Meeting 1: Listening • What uses should be considered for the CIVITASSession CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITASwider spaces along CIVITAS the Esplanade? CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS April 23, 2014 • How should these spaces be • Stakeholder Meeting 2: Key Issues and programmed? Short-term Opportunities • Where should larger gathering areas be May 20, 2014 located? • Stakeholder Meeting 3: Medium and • What are the critical design criteria? Long-term Opportunities June 19, 2014 Narrow Spaces • Stakeholder Meeting 4: Site Speciﬁc • What uses should be considered for the Short, Medium, and Long-term narrow spaces along the Esplanade? Opportunities • How should these spaces be changed or CIVITASSeptember CIVITAS18, 2014 CIVITAS CIVITASredesigned? CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS • Community Education meeting 1: Listening Session The second and third Stakeholder and May 6, 2014 the second Community meeting included • Community Education meeting 2: Key an educational component to provide Issues and Short, Medium, and Long- background to participants about the term Opportunities principles affecting noise attenuation, the June 24, 2014 historic transformation of FDR Drive from a • Community Education meeting 3: Site boulevard to the current controlled access Speciﬁc Short, Medium, and Long-term roadway, and to discuss opportunities Opportunities for solving current problems, addressing September 22, 2014 the need for resiliency, and visioning the transformation of the Esplanade in parts and as a whole. The initial meetings shared information on CIVITAS’ goals for the Vision Plan, the historical background of the Esplanade, and provided participants with information on current conditions. The primary intent

54 East River Esplanade Vision Plan Stakeholders

Stakeholder 2 Stakeholder 1 May 20 Stakeholder 3 Stakeholder 4 April 23 June 19 September 18

Community

Community 1 Community 2 Community 3 May 6 June 24 September 22

Agencies DPR DPR July 22 Nov. 14 NYCDOT NYSDOT CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITASJuly 28 CIVITASSeptember 11 CIVITAS CIVITAS DEC DCP June 6 Nov. 19

April May June July August September October November

Agency Outreach CIVITASIn addition toCIVITAS meeting with stakeholders CIVITAS and CIVITAS• New York State CIVITAS Department of CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS the community, CIVITAS and MNLA also met Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) with key agencies having jurisdiction over the Esplanade or the land and waters adjacent • New York City Department of Parks and to it. The intent of these meetings was to Recreation (NYCDPR) share initial ideas for short, medium, and long-term opportunities for the Esplanade, • New York City Department of City and to get feedback on the feasibility of Planning (NYCDCP) the options presented. It was also an opportunity to garner support needed for • New York City Department of the Esplanade’s transformation from these Transportation (NYCDOT) CIVITASgoverning agencies. CIVITAS CIVITAS andCIVITAS MNLA were CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS able to learn more about agency intentions • New York State Department of for maintenance, capital, and resiliency Transportation (NYSDOT) planning efforts being undertaken at this time. These agencies will play a key role in A recurring challenge expressed by all shaping the future of the Esplanade, and it agencies was the lack of capital funding is important that they have the opportunity available through the traditional city and to both contribute to the process and state budgetary processes. Funding for comment on proposed ideas. Any feasible improvements will need to draw from city, approach to improving the Esplanade will state, federal, and even private resources. require close collaboration and cooperation among city, state and federal agencies, as well as community groups. As part of this feasibility study CIVITAS and MNLA met with the following city and state agencies:

CIVITAS | Mathews Nielsen 55 New York State Department of in more depth in later sections of this report. Environmental Conservation (DEC) It fundamentally introduces the idea that, June 6, 2014 in the shallow waters north of 96th Street, a formerly rich ecological habitat can be The New York State Department of restored, including the re-introduction of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is salt marsh and shellfish reefs that could responsible for the conservation and support a diversity of a marine life and protection of New York’s waterways, simultaneously provide aquaculture uplift including the East River. For this feasibility and water quality improvement. study CIVITAS and MNLA met with the The DEC has indicated that, at present, DEC and other stakeholders to assess the this approach would still be subject to the regulations and process that will govern standard regulatory process regardless of alterations to the shoreline where the whether ecological improvement can be Esplanade meets the East River. Currently, demonstrated. While it is more expensive to regulations prohibit filling in or constructing construct, build, and maintain a structured structures over the top of waterways. Filling edge than a riprap edge, the current CIVITASwaterways decreases CIVITAS aquatic habitat,CIVITAS and regulations CIVITAS would beCIVITAS more likely to CIVITAS allow CIVITAS CIVITAS decking over them creates shade that for a structure that creates shade over the degrades habitat. If a proposed project water versus one that fills it in. will alter the shoreline and extend into the water, mitigation measures are required. The regulations serve the valuable purpose One approach is to extend out into the water of protecting New York’s waterways from in one area of a project site while pulling the being transformed and filled in for both shoreline back elsewhere on site to balance public and private development at the the impact of the encroachment. When expense of rivers and bays. For the public this is not feasible, a project may offset the benefit, however, the process for altering impact by providing mitigation on or off-site. shorelines remains a difficult process with CIVITASBecause of the CIVITAS general lack of uplandCIVITAS area a comprehensiveCIVITAS review CIVITAS of the impacts CIVITAS and CIVITAS CIVITAS suitable for habitat conversion and thus benefits of any proposed project. Rivers, onsite mitigation, offsite options will likely streams, wetlands, and bays are a valuable need to be explored. Finding a suitable resource that must be protected. However, site to use for mitigation is a challenge in the current status of New York’s rivers is a New York City as the number of available snapshot in time, after hundreds of years of sites is low while the regional demand for intervention. The present-day regulations mitigation credits is high, therefore making leave little opportunity to consider historic offsite mitigation very costly. It has been river conditions, ecological function, noted that mitigation costs can triple a biological diversity, water quality, and their project’s overall costs. enhancement, as positive contributors toward mitigation. But the regulatory CIVITASThe discussion CIVITAS of the East River CIVITAS Esplanade environment CIVITAS does CIVITAS appear to be CIVITAS at a CIVITAS CIVITAS focused on the possibility of increasing the crossroads, and the coming years will reveal Esplanade width by extending out into the whether opportunities to enhance ecological river, either with fill or via conventional function in lieu of a traditional area ratio structure. A riprap edge was suggested as mitigation scenario will become possible a potential solution north of 96th Street, and justification for permitting. The drivers of that solution would reduce costs associated change in the regulatory environment are with the maintenance of a vertical bulkhead. likely to come from the need to implement Riprap edges, however, require an angled measures to protect the city from future slope, and the Esplanade’s narrow width storm surge and flooding as well as sea does not allow for this type of construction level rise. without extending out into the river with fill. Due to the narrowness of the Esplanade, it is not possible at this location along the East River to build a riprap edge starting from the current water’s edge and working back toward the upland edge. The concept of creating an ecological edge is discussed

56 East River Esplanade Vision Plan New York City Department of Parks and construction timeline for implementation of Recreation (DPR) the impending permanent improvements to July 22, 2014 the park.

For CIVITAS’ next phase of study, DPR The New York City Department of Parks and indicated that developing cost estimates for Recreation is responsible for maintenance, opportunities is essential for the purposes upkeep, and reconstruction projects along of both planning and assessing feasibility. the East River Esplanade. During the Estimates are also needed to begin outreach process, DPR representatives discussions with political leadership and attended stakeholder meetings and offered other agencies to secure capital funding. valuable insight and comments on the ideas Additional study is needed at Thomas presented. In addition, CIVITAS and MNLA Jefferson Park to clearly determine the met with a larger group representing the technical basis for how a decked structure planning and engineering divisions of the or land bridge over the FDR would work with Department of Parks and Recreation. adjacent grades and vehicular clearances. In this meeting CIVITAS and MNLA shared Next steps should clearly identify types, CIVITASinitial ﬁndings CIVITAS from our CIVITAS analysis, and CIVITASlocations and the CIVITAS cost of pilot projects, CIVITAS as CIVITAS CIVITAS community and stakeholder meetings. well as a means for assessing which pilot Ideas for future opportunities for the projects have enough merit to be pursued. Esplanade were also presented. At this Finally, DPR indicated that improvement point in our process, the initial ﬁndings to Pier 107 on a short term and long term suggested that a much improved Esplanade basis should be a high priority for CIVITAS to was desired by the community, and that study as part of their next steps. long-term improvements to the Esplanade needed to accomplish multiple goals to be

fiscally responsible. Proposed solutions New York City Department of would be financially prudent and best serve Transportation (NYCDOT) CIVITASthe community CIVITAS by improving CIVITAS the quality CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS July 28, 2014 of the Esplanade if they incorporated an infrastructure that protected the community from future sea level rise and flooding CIVITAS and MNLA met with NYCDOT from storm surge. Given the Esplanade’s to share information regarding the deteriorated structural condition, DPR feasibility study, to learn about any planned indicated that their immediate priority is improvements to the FDR, and to better to secure funds for repairs to maintain and understand the jurisdictional division keep the existing Esplanade structurally between City and State DOT. Figure 3.9 sound and viable. Other improvement shows the current division of jurisdictional opportunities to address Esplanade width, responsibility between City and State DOT. CIVITASpossible ecologicalCIVITAS enhancements, CIVITAS and CIVITASAs a general guide, CIVITAS portions of the FDRCIVITAS that CIVITAS CIVITAS flood control may be considered as future are at grade fall under NYCDOT jurisdiction, opportunities if more funding arises. while bridged or structured portions are managed and maintained by NYSDOT. November 14, 2014 This division of authority over the FDR will necessitate close coordination with both In November, CIVITAS and MNLA met again NYCDOT and NYSDOT when implementing with DPR to review short, medium, and any improvements to the Esplanade. long-term opportunities and to discuss next steps. DPR stressed the importance of In our initial research, we learned that this report as a vehicle for the community NYCDOT has plans to improve the bikeway to communicate the problematic lack of connections at the 103rd Street Bridge to parkland in the neighborhoods along the the Esplanade and Randall’s Island. This Esplanade. It was also noted that short- connection will allow bicyclists to easily term opportunities, such a beach or other travel down 106th Street between Central temporary intervention at Andrew Haswell Park and the bridge to either the Esplanade Green Park, might be limited by the or Randall’s Island.

CIVITAS | Mathews Nielsen 57 NYCDOT indicated that major improvements storage is permissible there, the enclosure to the FDR, including those that would would need to maintain a mandated be needed to keep the FDR operational distance below the roadway structure above in light of future ﬂooding and sea level to allow for painting and inspection of the rise, would likely be handled by NYSDOT. highway’s physical supports. The storage Jurisdictional authority of the FDR may, at of combustible materials or fuels in the some point, pass completely to NYSDOT. enclosure below the structure would not be permissible.

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) New York City Department of City Planning September 11, 2014 (DCP) November 19, 2014 NYSDOT indicated that current planning efforts did not include major improvements CIVITAS and MNLA met with the New to the FDR. Moreover, while in previous years York City Department of City Planning’s CIVITASNYSDOT did assumeCIVITAS greater responsibility CIVITAS Waterfront CIVITAS and Open CIVITAS Space Division CIVITAS to CIVITAS CIVITAS for improvements to and planning for share this study of the East River Esplanade sections of the FDR currently under and to learn about any DCP planning efforts NYCDOT jurisdiction, the contemporary that may impact future planning for the fiscal funding environment makes it unlikely Esplanade. DCP made the point that there that it will assume more responsibility for is no requirement for private development these sections at anytime in the near future. to make improvements to the Esplanade There are also no current NYSDOT planning as part of a private waterfront development efforts that would address long-term sea project concession because the Esplanade level rise for the FDR. is physically separated from the adjacent zoning lots by the FDR. This would mean CIVITASThe possibility CIVITAS of utilizing the CIVITAS area below that CIVITAS the developers CIVITAS for the planned CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS the 96th Street overpass as a boathouse for residential development on top of the East East River CREW and other boating entities River Plaza are not obligated to address the is of particular interest to the design team waterfront. City Planning also indicated that and community. NYSDOT was receptive to they are aware of the potential for flooding the possibility of pursuing this initiative, but in East Harlem. It was noted that it may be indicated that the land below the FDR at difficult to achieve flood protection from a that location may be owned by NYCDOT with 100-year storm, but protection from a 10-20 a permanent easement for the structure, year storm may be a feasible benchmark to even though the overhead roadway is pursue. controlled by NYSDOT. In the event that boat CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS What we have heard

Community • Identify feasible and equitable solutions • Think Big! and Small! • Collaborate with community, groups, • More space, more boats, more enjoyable agencies • Improve connections and accessibility • Enhance quality and basic amenities Agencies • Program, program, program • Implement critical repairs • Increase access to the water • Seek multiple funding sources • Evolving post-Sandy regulatory Stakeholders environment • Design to solve multiple issues • Opportunities to inﬂuence resiliency • Coordinate across agencies plans

58 East River Esplanade Vision Plan CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

5. Opportunities and Constraints CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

Fig. 5.1 Existing Typical Section

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

Fig. 5.2 Proposed East Midtown Esplanade

60 East River Esplanade Vision Plan Opportunities and Constraints In community and stakeholder meetings, by the presence of the FDR and, on the participants expressed a strong desire for other side, by the East and Harlem Rivers. improvements to the Esplanade. It was Mathews Nielsen studied a series of options noted that the Esplanade is much too narrow that considered how to increase the width in sections, noisy, and in poor condition. A of the Esplanade. However, no uniform desire for more enjoyable spaces, greater solution can be applied because the 3.4 mile physical width, and more programming long stretch of Esplanade between 60th opportunities was conveyed. and 125th Streets is comprised of variable Boulevard conditions. Multiple options will need to Among many other things, meeting be implemented over time and, while some participants articulated primary concerns opportunities are feasible, they are not as a desire for noise mitigation, flood always desirable or preferred. protection, wider pathways and bikeways, increased planting, better lighting, To assess the varying spatial opportunities, improved railings, restrooms, access to the study area was divided into eight water, programming, cultural events, and segments identified according to their art. All of these elements require space. similar characteristics. In some segments, CIVITASIn the narrowest CIVITAS segments, CIVITAS however, the CIVITASthere are clear opportunities CIVITAS for increasing CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS Esplanade needs to primarily function as the amount of space integral to the a circulation path, while broader spaces Esplanade, while along other segments Elevate have the potential to become activity there are greater challenges to overcome. nodes. A width of fifty feet was proposed This section details strategies for creating as the recommended minimum width additional space, characteristics of for Esplanade improvements based on individual segments and the opportunities achieving parity with the forty-foot wide they present, how regulatory conditions Midtown segment that will tie into this impact opportunities and, finally, how segment at 60th Street. Due to its location opportunities may be prioritized. These directly adjacent to the FDR, a minimum of considerations played a key role in CIVITASa ten-foot bufferCIVITAS is proposed CIVITAS between the CIVITASdetermining the CIVITAS potential for each CIVITAS site CIVITAS CIVITAS Esplanade and the roadway. specific intervention discussed in Section 7.

Enlarging the Esplanade by adding more space presents a regulatory and technical Structure challenge. On one side, expansion is limited

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

Fill

Deck

CIVITAS | Mathews Nielsen 61 Approaches to Increase Space FDR as Boulevard Elevate the FDR At one point, between 1935 and 1966, In portions of Manhattan, the FDR is portions of the FDR drive were configured elevated above the prevailing grade. This as a boulevard. For the purposes of the construction typology has both advantages study, this option was explored for its and disadvantages. The largest benefit is potential to improve conditions on the that pedestrians do not have to cross over Esplanade. Taking into account existing the FDR and the space below the structure conditions, this option cannot be applied can be utilized for parkland. This would uniformly from 60th to 125th Street. First, give nearby residents much greater access sections of the FDR are built as a two level to the Esplanade and reconnect them to roadway, with southbound and northbound the river. The South Street Seaport area roadways stacked on top of one another. is a prime example of this type of design. This condition exists at Carl Schurz Park. Another inherent benefit is that the FDR At other locations, portions of the roadway is elevated above future flood and rising rise up or down to accommodate grade sea levels. The disadvantage lies in the changes. Examples are the RFK Bridge and fact that it is difficult to create parkland CIVITASstructured roadway CIVITAS at Sutton Place.CIVITAS The below CIVITAS the bridged structures,CIVITAS and a CIVITAS large CIVITAS CIVITAS boulevard option would be most feasible proportion of this space is currently dark, FDR 111th St (1937) from 90th to 119th Street. The elimination uninviting, and unable to support plant of parallel access roads, as well as entrance life. In many other locations in Manhattan and exit ramps, would constitute the benefit the space under the FDR is not used of this configuration. In some locations as parkland, but instead as venues for there would be no added width from this vehicle parking, maintenance facilities, or change, but in other locations the reduction construction staging. Moreover, there is no of redundant roadways could potentially add guarantee that parkland below an elevated from 10’ to 40’ to the Esplanade’s width. If highway will always remain as such, and the FDR were redesigned as a boulevard the structures are expensive to build and with a center median, the net area gain for maintain. In the study area, the conversion CIVITASthe Esplanade CIVITASmight be minimal. CIVITAS However, of atCIVITAS grade roadway CIVITASto structured roadway CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS a conversion would provide pedestrians the would likely elevate vehicles and bring them benefit of increased on-grade access to the closer to residential buildings, which is also Esplanade, precluding the need to travel up undesirable. For these reasons, this option and over circuitous bridges. The Esplanade was not perceived as a valuable method would still remain largely severed from for improving connectivity and creating the adjacent communities notwithstanding additional space for the Esplanade. the fact that it would be marginally wider. Other potential drawbacks include longer travel times for drivers on the FDR, reduced FDR 111th St (2014) roadway capacity, and potentially negative CIVITASair quality impacts CIVITAS associated CIVITAS with stop CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS and go traffic configurations. This type of conversion would have to be reviewed by the Federal EPA to evaluate the potential for increased air pollution. Still, this option is easy to imagine, and one need only look to Route 9A on the west side of Manhattan to see how a boulevard would look and function.

FDR South St. (2014) 62 East River Esplanade Vision Plan CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

Fig. 5.3 FDR as Boulevard

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

Fig. 5.4 Elevate the FDR

CIVITAS | Mathews Nielsen 63 Expand into the River currents are fast, and the river depth must Creating more land by expanding into the be maintained for the shipping channel. In river is an obvious solution for overcoming this situation, a robust structure with very the Esplanade’s spatial challenges. For deep piles would be required to reach the centuries the shoreline of Manhattan river bottom and to withstand the expected has been pushed out and pulled back use. The bathymetry and currents in this to accommodate changes in land use, part of the river make conventional bulkhead navigation, and development. While – piles or walls built in the river – difficult to expansion is enticing, the regulatory and build and expensive to maintain. technical challenges are significant. Both of these options would at a minimum On a technical level, expanding into the require review and permitting by the DEC, river requires that it be filled with material Coast Guard, and Army Corps of Engineers. in areas where the bathymetry adjacent Under current regulations the project would to the shoreline is relatively shallow. This first have to demonstrate that there is no approach would require tens of thousands solution that can be achieved satisfactorily of cubic yards of fill material. Procuring on existing land. If expansion into the river CIVITASthis volume of CIVITAS material would beCIVITAS feasible, is permitted,CIVITAS preference CIVITAS would be given CIVITAS to CIVITAS CIVITAS but would be best achieved if it was paired conventionally built structures that create with projects that generate excess fill, such shade but do not fill the river. Filling in as excavation of future phases of the Second the river at the shoreline would only be Avenue Subway line. The opportunity for permitted as an option of last resort, where the intervention of an ecological edge would need can be demonstrated and no other make most sense in areas north of 96th options are possible. In all instances, any Street. Another benefit gained would be impact to the river would require mitigation a reduction in the necessary maintenance to offset perceived damage. Mitigation required by an edge of this type – constructed could occur onsite if there is land available, on land and naturally resilient – versus or off site by purchasing the option to CIVITASconventional bulkhead. CIVITAS CIVITASmake CIVITAS improvements CIVITAS elsewhere. This CIVITASis an CIVITAS CIVITAS expensive approach and could triple project Expansion into the river by building on a costs. decked structure or a cantilevered edge is much more complicated and expensive than creating an ecological edge. Between 60th and 90th Streets, however, the river is deep,

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

64 East River Esplanade Vision Plan CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

Fig. 5.5 Expand into River - Structure

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

Fig. 5.6 Expand into River - Fill

CIVITAS | Mathews Nielsen 65 Expand to the FDR Land Bridges

In an ideal world, the entire space occupied A land bridge is similar to a decked by the FDR Drive would be converted to condition except that the intent is to replace parkland. In today’s world, it is unlikely a traditionally narrow cage-like bridge over that an urban designer or city plan would the FDR with one that is a generous 50’- place a highway along such prime riverfront 70’ wide. The bridge would be designed as real estate. In fact, a number of meeting an extension of the upland park landscape participants proposed removing the FDR experience and include noise mitigation entirely and converting the roadway to measures. This type of construction would parkland. From an urban design and be possible in areas where sufficient ecological perspective, this option is space exists on the west side of the FDR to enticing. However, from the perspective of accommodate gentle transitions in grade. transportation planners, FDR users, and Clearance requirements for vehicles and residents on adjacent avenues where traffic projected soil profile depth for selected volumes would increase, this option would planting types must also be factored into the be unthinkable. Fortunately, there are more design for the construction of land bridges. CIVITASmodest options CIVITAS that offer the possibility CIVITAS for CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS creating additional space.

Deck over the FDR Creating a structure over the FDR to bring Esplanade users to the river’s edge is an appealing option that offers the potential to signiﬁcantly increase Esplanade width and programming opportunities. There are numerous examples of this type CIVITASof construction CIVITAS in New York CIVITAS City and CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS throughout the world. For example, Battery Park is constructed over the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnel and the Esplanade at Carl Schurz Park is built over the FDR. This option is not a solution for every portion of the Esplanade, and could only be implemented in locations where the land on the west side of the FDR is elevated or the ground ﬂoor uses of adjacent buildings are for service or parking functions. This option CIVITASis a logical solution CIVITAS for John Jay CIVITAS Park and CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS Thomas Jefferson Park because a decked connection would create seamless access to the river for thousands of park users. Drawbacks include cost and the potential lack of space needed on the east side of the FDR to transition elevations from the upland and then back down to the water’s edge. If the latter is inadequate, the park user’s relationship to the water’s edge is an elevated experience without the opportunity to be physically right on the water. Depending on the type of construction, a decked condition may require mechanical ventilation or open sided construction to allow for handling vehicle exhaust.

66 East River Esplanade Vision Plan CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

Fig. 5.7 Deck Over the FDR

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

Fig. 5.8 Land Bridges

CIVITAS | Mathews Nielsen 67 125th Fig 5.9 Segment Opportunities and Constraints Street

116th Street

109th Street

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

93rd Street

90th Street

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS 81st Street

71st Street

CIVITAS CIVITAS67th Street CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

63rd Street

60th Street

68 East River Esplanade Vision Plan 125th Segment Opportunities and Constraints Street

Segment 8: East 116th to 125th Street Extend into the river via structure Regulation limits construction into river 116th Street Narrow river width High cost to construct landscapes on structure

Segment 7: East 109th to 116th Street (Bay, 96th Street, Shallow Edge Conditions) Extend into the river via structure 109th Street Extend into river via ﬁll and riprap edge Ecological edge Elevate the FDR Deck over FDR / Land Bridge Regulation limits construction into river High cost to construct structured landscapes on deck

Segment 6: East 93rd to 109th Street (Bay, 96th Street, Shallow Edge Conditions) CIVITAS CIVITAS Extend CIVITAS into the river via structure CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS Extend into river via ﬁll and riprap edge (north of 96th Street) Ecological edge north of 96th Street 93rd Street Boardwalk potential in the bay Elevate the FDR Deck over FDR / Land Bridge (except at overpass) 90th Street Regulation limits construction into river High cost to construct structured landscapes on deck

Segment 5: East 90th to 93rd Street (Water Dependent Infrastructure) Reconﬁgure existing space to improve passage and buffer FDR CIVITAS CIVITAS Marine CIVITAS Transfer Station CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS 81st Street Ferry security Segment 4: East 81st to 90th Street (Carl Schurz Park and Esplanade) Sufﬁcient existing space for a variety of activities and plans Segment 3: East 71st to East 81st Street Extend into river via structure 71st Street Create parkland by decking over all or portions of FDR Existing and proposed buildings over FDR Deep river conditions and swift currents 67th Street CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS Active shipping channel High construction costs to build out over river in deep waters

63rd Street High cost to construct structured landscapes on deck Regulation limits construction into river

60th Street Segment 2: East 63rd to 71st Street (Rockefeller to Hospital for Special Surgery) Only viable option for space is to construct into river via structure Existing and proposed buildings over FDR Deep river conditions and swift currents Active shipping channel High construction costs to build out over river in deep waters Regulation limits construction into river

Segment 1: East 60th to 63rd Street (Andrew Haswell Green Park) Sufﬁcient existing space for a variety of activities and plans

CIVITAS | Mathews Nielsen 69 Fig. 5.10 Node Opportunities

Node: Jefferson Park / MCSM • Continuous Connection Between Park and Esplanade * • Expanded Esplanade • Open Lawn Areas & Gardens • Barbeque Knoll • Fishing Stations • Public Art • Restrooms

Node: Pier 107 • Outdoor Classrooms • Fishing Stations • Restrooms • Kiosk / Vendor Opportunities

CIVITASEcological CIVITAS Edge Development CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS • Salt Marsh Restoration • Aquatic Habitat Enhancement • Riparian Vegetation • Water Access Node: 96th Street • Recreational Boat Access/Boat House • Improved Pedestrian Access • Restrooms CIVITAS• Overwater CIVITAS Boardwalks CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

Existing Node: Carl Schurz Park • Public Art • Improved Seating • Transparent Handrail

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITASNode: CIVITAS John Jay ParkCIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS • Continuous Connection Between Park and Esplanade • Expanded Esplanade • Open Lawn Areas & Gardens

Node: Andrew Haswell Green Park • Open Lawn Areas & Gardens • Terraced Seating * • Waterfront Beach • Park Gateway Improvements Legend • Expanded Esplanade Node • Restrooms Improved Esplanade • Kiosk / Vendor Opportunities Ecological Edge Improved Esplanade Connection * 70 East River Esplanade Vision Plan Segments and Nodes Segments to Rockefeller University and the hospitals Each of the six methods for creating is a key example of this condition. However, additional space along the Esplanade just there are opportunities for these spaces discussed require specific site conditions for to improve in quality. New designs can application. For instance, decking over the limit unnecessary obstacles in pathways, FDR is not considered a viable opportunity mitigate noise, improve planting, and in locations where the upland edge is a reconfigure circulation routes to make the building as opposed to existing open space. most of the limited space. Similarly, expanding into the river via fill is not a viable opportunity in locations where Agency Input the river bottom is deep. To describe the spatial opportunities and constraints As noted earlier in the outreach section of available in any given location the Esplanade this report, CIVITAS and MNLA met with was divided into eight segments according representatives from NYCDPR, NYCDOT, to similar characteristics, opportunities, NYCDCP, NYSDOT, and NYSDEC. The and constraints. Coordination of the design opportunities were positively received, CIVITASof all segments CIVITAS would have toCIVITAS consider the CIVITAShowever, the recurring CIVITAS message CIVITAS is that CIVITAS CIVITAS longitudinal implications of grade change locating and securing capital funding and ensure continued access between for significant public works projects is elevated and at grade segments. The spatial a challenge in the current city and state enhancement options for each segment are budget environment. Additionally, DEC summarized in Figure 5.9. clearly noted that current regulations would restrict opportunities to expand into the river, even if these generated ecological Nodes enhancements. The opportunities and constraints for adding space to the Esplanade, whether CIVITASbuilding structure CIVITAS out further CIVITAS over the river CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS or filling it in, share considerable regulatory challenges and seemingly prohibitive financial costs. These two hurdles will likely limit where structured interventions can happen. It is, therefore, necessary to break down the magnitude of the Esplanade project and future master plan into more manageable segments and activity nodes as a strategy for implementing improvements. Nodes could be created at regular intervals CIVITASalong the CIVITAS Esplanade to provideCIVITAS access CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS to the river, develop broader spaces for activities and amenities, and to borrow existing adjacent landscape to expand the spatial volume of the Esplanade at certain locations. These opportunities exist at John Jay Park, 96th Street, and Thomas Jefferson Park, where the Esplanade can connect with upland parks and into the bay via boating activities. Figure 5.10 show the location of possible nodes, as well as some of the potential programming opportunities that would be possible in these enhanced landscapes.

Due to the aforementioned constraints, there are likely to be linear segments that remain very narrow. The portion adjacent

CIVITAS | Mathews Nielsen 71 Opportunities & Priorities When viewed as a whole, rebuilding the Medium-term (5-10 years) Esplanade can seem overwhelming and It is reasonable to expect that, within the next unachievable. However, the process of five to ten years, significant improvements to transforming the Esplanade will likely span the Esplanade can be planned, designed, and twenty years or more and, in this context, under construction or completed. Priorities the needs and opportunities become more for the medium-term include the further manageable. Moreover, breaking down development of identified nodes, especially the timetable for goals into phases creates in underserved areas where existing nodes a more tangible context for meaningful are undeveloped or in disrepair. This changes, which can then exist in short-term would include locations like the 96th Street (1-5 years), medium-term (5-10 years) and junction and Pier 107. Another priority is to long-term (10+ years) stages. Each stage develop Esplanade segments that increase is imbued with a set of needs and priorities width, allow for safe passage of bicycles specific to each segment and node, and pedestrians, include space for noise and an idiosyncratic plan for sequential mitigation and provide sufficiently sized improvements. beds to support healthy plant life. In this CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAStime CIVITAS frame, the number CIVITAS of programmed CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS activities can be increased, along with basic Short-term (1-5 years) improvements to infrastructure, such as In the short-term, the first priority is to restrooms, drinking fountains, and access undertake critical repairs that threaten to a water supply. One exciting opportunity the structural integrity of the Esplanade delineated in this phase is the creation and could lead to collapse or dangerous of an ecological edge at the shores of the conditions. An unsafe, segmented East and Harlem Rivers. If realized, it would Esplanade, where portions are closed to the serve to improve the ecology of the area public because of safety issues spurred by and be a model for other locations in New disrepair, does not benefit anyone. However, York City. Within the next ten years, another in addition to structural repairs, short-term priority must be determining best practices CIVITASopportunities mustCIVITAS also be implemented CIVITAS to for CIVITASbuilding resiliency CIVITAS into any improvement CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS inspire the community and political leaders to the Esplanade and, execution thereof, to further develop and carry out medium and to guarantee both its longevity and the longer term plans. Short-term interventions community’s safety for the long-term. may be permanent or temporary in nature. Temporary installation of art, landscape, programming, and educational activities Long-term (10+ years) are envisioned as low cost measures that The long-term priority for the Esplanade is encourage use and appreciation of the to create nodes that serve the needs of the Esplanade. Other short-term opportunities community and to connect these nodes with CIVITASare meant to CIVITAS simply improve CIVITAS the day to segments CIVITAS designed CIVITAS to accommodate CIVITAS the CIVITAS CIVITAS day functioning and look of the Esplanade. full range of daily users in a safe, enjoyable Repair of sink holes, removal of empty tree environment. In light of projected sea level pits, simplification of circulation, and basic rise, the future elevation of the Esplanade upkeep such as repainting, are also vital to must be addressed for the long-term to keeping the landscape safe, functional, and ensure that this parkland remains viably beautiful. The short-term opportunities also above the water line. Another long-term include testing pilot projects and concepts priority is to improve all connections to for potential wider range applications and the Esplanade. Connection to the north integration into the medium and long- and south are essential for the continuity term design for the Esplanade. They might of travel. Moreover, the user experience include various sound mitigation designs, between 60th and 125th Streets should be solar lighting options, plant palettes, and on a par with planned improvements to site furniture. This testing period provides the north and south, in terms of both width valuable in situ evaluation of design provided and quality of place. In addition to elements before they are implemented on a the north-south connections, the bridged larger scale. connections to the upland need significant improvement. They are currently narrow, noisy, and, in the case of the northern

72 East River Esplanade Vision Plan bridges, need significant refurbishing. for flooding may or may not integrate the Establishing broad, graceful extensions Esplanade, but if the Esplanade is part of from neighborhood parks to the Esplanade the solution then sea level/flood protection should be a priority. This experience measures must be built into each and every already exists at Carl Schurz Park, and intervention. In fact, the longevity of the can be replicated at other locations along Esplanade itself depends on incorporating the Esplanade. Finally, the restoration of sea level and flood predictions into design functioning river ecology should be a priority elevations, or this waterfront park will be for the East and Harlem Rivers. This would severely impacted in the near future. signify a return to a time when the East and Harlem Rivers were ecologically diverse and the water quality safe enough for human contact.

In the long-term, the threat of sea level rise to the East Harlem community must also be addressed. An appropriate solution CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

S M L CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS 1-5 Years 5-10 Years 10+ Years • Undertake critical repairs • Develop nodes • Rebuild esplanade • Maintain existing resources • Improve water access • Increase nodes + space • Test pilot projects • Provide restrooms/kiosks • Deck over sections of FDR • Enhance aesthetic elements • Implement wayﬁnding • Address sea level rise • Improve connections • Integrate art/sculpture • Design for resiliency • Increase programming • Improve 60th Street entrance • Enhance experience • Simplify design elements • Program activities • Improve connections CIVITAS• Improve CIVITASsafety CIVITAS CIVITAS• Increase space CIVITAS CIVITAS• Provide CIVITAS ADA access CIVITAS • Provide temporary installations, • Separate bicycles/pedestrians • Increase access to water programming, barges, etc. • Build ecological edge • Restore river ecology • Develop boat storage at 96th • Reconstruct Pier 107 Street • Create 96th Street Gateway • Improve Pier 107

CIVITAS | Mathews Nielsen 73 CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

74 East River Esplanade Vision Plan CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

6. Project Feasibility Feasibility Completing a preliminary feasibility analysis Technical Feasibility helped to shape decisions about potential The medium and long-term solutions solutions and served as a guide for the proposed for the Esplanade must be creation of a community-based Vision Plan. technically possible, constructible, The feasibility of specific improvements durable, and achievable with a reasonable to the Esplanade is largely dependent expenditure of resources. Moreover, upon and a function of four components: the solutions cannot solve one problem community support, technical feasibility, and exacerbate another, or ignore other collaboration among governing agencies, problems altogether. For instance, sound and capital funding. Taken together these mitigation may be accomplished by four components can determine whether constructing a wall that blocks vehicular a project advances through design and noise from the Esplanade but, in narrow planning to construction, or whether it linear sections, the same wall may stalls and fails to be realized. Need and compromise the safety of users. Similarly, strong leadership can also drive a project reconstruction of the pier and Esplanade forward through the challenges of design, sections that do not take sea level rise or CIVITASplanning, regulation, CIVITAS funding and CIVITAS ultimately storm CIVITAS surge into considerationCIVITAS will CIVITAS not CIVITAS CIVITAS construction. be long-term solutions. Factors such as currents, wave energy, salinity, material limitations, topography, transportation Community Support needs, and public infrastructure need to be Community support is essential to the considered while evaluating any potential realization of any major project. Community solution. Due to the severe deterioration of support can motivate political leaders the Esplanade and its supporting structure, and private donors, and generate the it is understandable that short-term repairs momentum that moves a project forward. will need to proceed just to keep it from A lack of community support can stall a collapsing. However, long-term repairs project, slowing it down through endless must consider the future longevity and CIVITASdebate and delaying CIVITAS it to the pointCIVITAS where maintenance CIVITAS of the Esplanade.CIVITAS They should CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS interest is lost by both the community and seize upon its capacity to function as both political leaders. The outreach process parkland and urban infrastructure, offering for the East River Esplanade was designed resiliency from storms and flooding while to garner input from the community and providing community amenities. Repairs harness their ideas and hopes for the should also fortify and promote cultural Esplanade, integrating them into the opportunities, restore degraded ecosystems, planning process from the very beginning. enhance recreation, and improve public Many community members expressed a health and the quality of urban waterways. desire to see quick changes. While there Because of cost and spatial constraints, mid are short-term opportunities that can be and long-term interventions must be multi- CIVITASimplemented CIVITAS almost immediately, CIVITAS there functional. CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS are many improvements that will take years to complete. For a transformative and comprehensive reconstruction of the Collaborative Solutions Esplanade to succeed, community support Solutions for the Esplanade will require must be maintained over time and likely the collaboration of community members for decades. It is the hope that with the and groups, elected officials, and city, state, assistance of community based groups and federal regulatory agencies. On one – Community Boards 8 and 11, nonprofit side, the Esplanade is bordered by the FDR. organizations such as CIVITAS, Friend Opportunities that impact the interface of the East River Esplanade, East River between park and roadway will require close C.R.E.W., and other groups – the challenge coordination and collaboration between of maintaining support and momentum will NYCDPR, NYCDOT, and NYSDOT. Likewise, be overcome. interventions that affect the water will, at a minimum, require input from the DEC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Coast Guard. This short list represents only some of the agencies that will, most

76 East River Esplanade Vision Plan Approach

Community Technical Collaborative Funding Support + Feasibility + Solutions +

Project Success CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

likely, need to be involved. For instance, through the effort of political leaders, if sea level rise necessitates changes to $35M is allocated to repair some of the sewer outfall elevations, then agencies deterioration noted in the OMB and NYCDPR such as the DEP would also need to be Marine Report. More funding is needed just consulted. If resiliency from storm surge to keep the Esplanade structurally sound. and sea level rise becomes an integral part These repairs do not include addressing of the Esplanade’s design, then the list of issues of noise, flooding, sea level rise, or CIVITASagencies involved CIVITAS grows to include,CIVITAS among CIVITASmore programming CIVITAS opportunities, CIVITAS but will CIVITAS CIVITAS others, HUD, FEMA, and NYCHA. Therefore, maintain the Esplanade until future, more collaboration is not only needed from a comprehensive plans can be made and regulatory and permitting standpoint, implemented. This is a critical first step, but also within the sphere of design to but it is far from the final step. ensure that all systems and uses linked by proximity to the East River are functionally Funding may come from capital funding coordinated. programs, discretionary funding, participatory funding, grants, private Collaborative solutions must start by clearly investment and philanthropy. Together defining the opportunities to be undertaken these sources can be combined to tackle CIVITASand the challenges CIVITAS to be overcome, CIVITAS all with CIVITASsmall and large CIVITAS challenges – both CIVITAS short- CIVITAS CIVITAS priorities articulated. Without a shared goal term and long-term opportunities. It is not and political leadership, comprehensive feasible to count on one agency or group solutions cannot be achieved. This approach to raise sufficient capital for undertaking also necessitates collaboration among the major long-term challenges presented political leaders at the city, state, and federal by sea level rise. This will require level. Small, short-term interventions may close collaboration and strong political be handled and implemented on a local leadership, and it can also be a way to level. However, large scale interventions maximize an investment opportunity by will require significant collaboration by all addressing multiple challenges with a stakeholders. thoughtfully designed, comprehensive solution that solves many problems at once. Additionally, the long-term viability Funding of solutions, their maintenance costs, and Funding for improvements to the Esplanade a thorough understanding of the lifespan will need to come from many sources, of interventions should be considered. The especially if long-term improvements go end result may be measured by gains to the beyond simple structural and aesthetic river’s ecology, overall resiliency, quality of remediation of existing conditions. Already, experience, and long-term maintenance CIVITAS | Mathews Nielsen 77 cost reductions. A comprehensive solution dollar invested in the Esplanade must calls for evaluation and reconsideration of work to solve multiple challenges. A the current regulatory compliance costs comprehensive approach that combines that limit the range of feasible solutions. the needs of the community and Esplanade, For example, regulations that are intended and elicits multiple funding sources and to protect tidal wetland and shallow marine collaboration, will produce the greatest resources may, in fact, accomplish the outcome for the community and the city. opposite. The costly mitigation process effectively limits the potential of a living Strong leadership, on both a political and shoreline to improve overall the ecological community level, is needed to move the conditions of the waterfront and adjacent project forward in a timely manner. Plans environments. must be developed through collaboration and integrated problem solving. Incrementally built solutions offer the flexibility to Approach implement components of the master plan as funds become available. The alternative Truly feasible solutions for the East River approach is to remain disengaged, with Esplanade cannot be undertaken in a the necessity of emergencies driving the CIVITASpiecemeal fashion. CIVITAS Partial solutions CIVITAS might CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS decision making process. Unfortunately, fail to achieve their goals and, consequently, it may take additional storms, flooding, may create a scenario where solving one and property destruction in East Harlem, problem exacerbates another. Effectively and along the FDR, before the need for addressing issues like sea level rise and comprehensive solutions is recognized and flood protection require a comprehensive funding allocated. strategy so that one weak link cannot render an entire system useless. Given the landscape of limited funding, proposed solutions must work on many levels. Each CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS CIVITAS

78 East River Esplanade Vision Plan