(click to enlarge graphic)TO THE MEMBERS OF COMMUNITY BOARD 12:
The most recent publicly presented version of the PlaNYC Phase I plan for Upper Riverside and Fort Washington Parks contains many worthwhile improvements. These include repair and enhancement of park entrances, improved lighting, new gardens, additional comfort stations and water fountains, repair and addition of playing fields, new facilities and accessible bathrooms for disabled people, new access to historic markers and the long-overdue return of a children's playground. However,
§ BECAUSE the latest plan contains a previously unmentioned truck garage that can be located elsewhere (ex., under the highway) instead of encroaching on centrally located open space,
§ BECAUSE the proposed separation of bicycle and pedestrian paths is too brief to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists and introduces two dangerous merge points (including a blind spot for northbound cyclists north of the ball fields), after the separation encourages cyclists to speed up,
§ BECAUSE the newly proposed, but unenforceable, "pedestrian only" path bisects the single largest open space in the park between 159th and 162nd Streets,
§ BECAUSE preservation and restoration of natural and open areas was the single most desired improvement in the Ft. Washington & Upper Riverside Parks PlaNYC Survey Results, and the proposed plan calls for a significant expansion of paved areas that will encroach on every natural and open area in the park,
§ BECAUSE the proposed, new 11 ft. wide roadway that will run along the western perimeter of the ball fields would destroy a unique feature and experience of the park and what one CB12 board member called "arguably the most beautiful spot in the park,"
§ BECAUSE we believe that the so-called "desire line" to the west of the ball fields represents a desire to walk along the river on natural ground rather than a desire for asphalt to be laid,
§ BECAUSE all of the key improvements in the Stantec plan that the community wants can be accomplished without destroying the unique nature of the park,
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED [now over 1,200] RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY, urge Community Board 12 to reject the current proposal and further urge the Board to demand from the Department of Parks and Recreation a plan that respects open spaces, and that does not diminish the landscape, beauty and essential nature of the Park.
Because 100% of the petitions were signed face to face, we wish to share more information that we learned from our neighbors about their specific concerns:
In the southern region of the park our neighbors are opposed to an excessively wide greenway. In the central region, our neighbors are opposed to the construction of a second paved path. In the northern region, our neighbors are opposed to the extension of pavement along the river south of the Dyckman Marina. How do we know? That is why they signed the petition and that is what they told us.
In Upper Riverside Park, the current plan calls for widening the existing path by an unknown amount between 2 and 8 feet. That widening is not illustrated on the plan, and the 6-foot margin of additional hardscaping is significant when the grassy area between the path and the river in some places is only 6 to 10 feet wide. The margin actually equals all of the green space in some areas. If we are honest, there is no way to tell what unexpected contingencies may arise during the construction phase, and planned green space may be unavoidably lost. This is not merely an unlikely supposition, but a real possibility, as demonstrated by the planned dog run on 143rd Street which was lost to a margin of error in the plan during the reconstruction of the Riverside Drive just a few years ago. Rather than leaving it to chance, Petition signers would like to know exactly how much wider the expanded path would be.
In the Parks Dept. survey, the single most desired physical improvement was the preservation and restoration of natural areas, supported by 62% of respondents. Fewer than 43 people chose expanded bike paths or separate walking and bike paths as a top three choice. By contrast, 1,181 petition signers universally oppose additional asphalt paths in the mid-park cluster. By opposing new asphalt paths by a 28 to 1 margin, the community has made its desire known.
In the northern neighborhoods of the park, community members are almost without exception opposed to the laying of asphalt on the path that runs south of the Dyckman marina. Most residents would like that path to remain essentially unchanged. However, when asked about the possibility of changing the surface to an ADA- compliant natural material such as a hard packed earth surface or Fibar, engineered wood fibers that knit together to form a surface that meets all the access rules of the Americans With Disabilities Act, support for the creation of Manhattan's only ADA accessible hiking trail is nearly universal. While the creation of transportation alternatives is a worthy goal, neighborhood residents feel that the routing of a transportation corridor through the park is incompatible with the use of this area as a park and question the need to reroute the Greenway through this natural area.
Given the importance the Parks Department places on paving over "desire" lines in so many areas of the Park, and given that "access to the water" was the fifth most desired Physical Improvement in the Park Survey, it is astonishing that the only access to the water in the plan is the ramp we recently suggested at the Dog Beach. Fishing is one of the most common active sports practiced in the park. The treacherous climb down the desire lines and jerry-rigged stairs to the shelves that jut out from the riprap is difficult for even the "temporarily able bodied." Although these shelves are currently only occupied by fishermen, staircases built into the cliffs along the riverbank would also provide additional kayak resting points, and access for people who just wanted to be close to the water. Additionally, fishing is the only active sport currently unavailable to disabled persons in the park solely due to the lack of access. It is incumbent upon us to provide this access through the addition of an ADA-compliant fixed or floating fishing dock, common in our state and national parks, to our park. Such docks would be completely in the character of Ft. Washington Park, as demonstrated by the derelict pilings in the water near the ADA ramp at the foot of 158th Street as well as along the waterfront south of the marina.
We dispute several of the provisions within the resolution before you tonight.
First
While there was significant outreach during the survey phase of this project, no similar promised public outreach occurred for public comment on the plan and the "significant public discussion" consisted of fewer than a score of community members on average. The "onsite scoping meeting" was held on the coldest day of the year, three days before Christmas, with no significant public notice. We bring you here the documentation that proves that the public rejects this resolution. More than 120 times the number of members of the public at the onsite scoping meeting, and more than 120 times the number of members of the public at the Parks committee meeting that produced this resolution have voted through this petition to reject the resolution before you now.
Second
The revised plan incorporates only minor changes in response to public feedback, for example, shaving one foot of hardscaping off the width of the unwanted path west of three fields. and the ramp between the riprap at the Dog Beach.
Third
Is a less pastoral view available to all a greater public good or a false choice? By paving the grassy field south of the mid park cluster for a new pedestrian path, the DPR would be taking something now available for shared uses and specifying its use for designated purposes. Even if there were to be no net loss of green space, compartmentalizing it will deaden its impact for all.
Fourth
While we agree that we are adamantly opposed to the installation of additional asphalt paths in the park, and while we strongly believe that additional paving destroys the natural character and essential nature of the park, we will no longer tolerate being called a minority. More than twice as many people signed our petition to reject this resolution as even responded to the Department of Parks-PlaNYC survey. 93% of petition signers reside in park adjacent neighborhoods of Harlem, Washington Heights and Inwood. Petition signers are equally distributed throughout the boundaries of Community Board 12. 1181 petition signers and 332 Park survey respondents clearly demonstrate that a majority of the community opposes the replacement of green, grassy and natural spaces with asphalt.
If the Community Board will truly represent the desires of the community tonight it will send the resolution back to the Parks Committee to demand that DPR submit a plan that respects open spaces, that does not diminish the landscape, beauty, and essential nature of the park, and respects the desires of the majority of the community.
The only question left for the Friends of Fort Washington Park is whether our inaugural press release is headlined "Community Board 12 Rejects Public Sentiment in Approving Park Plan" or "Community Board 12 Champions Upper Manhattan's Green Spaces."
Thank You.
No comments:
Post a Comment