waterfront parks report

8/13/2019 Waterfront Parks Report

1/24

Spring 2007


2/24

CreditsTis report is the culmination o a year-longseries o meetings by a workgroup convenedby Regional Plan Association (RPA). Public park managers, conservancy representatives,non-prot parks advocates, developers, design pro essionals, and agency representativescame together to discuss management andmaintenance issues o water ront parks and public spaces citywide. Te primary goal othese discussions was to learn rom each othersexperience and assess the opportunities andlimitations o different management modelsand unding streams. But out o these site-spe-cic discussions, RPA has assembled essentialbackground in ormation and identied somespecic city-wide policy recommendations thatcould help ensure that this new generation o water ront parks and public spaces meet the promise o a revitalized water ront. Te workgroup meetings and this report were supportedthrough the leadership and generosity o the J.M. Kaplan Fund. Additional support was provided by the New York State Departmento State with unds provided under itle 11o the Environmental Protection Funds. Temeetings were graciously hosted by the HudsonRiver Foundation. While RPA has greatlybeneted rom the discussions and insight othe members o the work group, the reportsrecommendations and any errors or omissionsare our own. Many thanks to the members othe workgroup:

Colleen Alderson, NYC Department oParks and Recreation

Jeff Baker, New York City CouncilCommittee on Water ronts

Bob Balder, GenslerMicaela Birmingham, New Yorkers

or Parks

Michael Bradley, Riverside SouthDevelopment CorporationAlex Brash, National Parks

Conseravtion AssociationAl Butzel, Friends o Hudson River Park Joan Byron, Pratt Center or

Community DevelopmentDon Capoccia, BFC PartnersMajora Carter, Sustainable South BronxBetty Chen, GIPECHelen Chin, West Harlem

Environmental Action, Inc. ( ormer)Kate Collignon, NYC Economic

Development CorporationChris Collins, Solar OneLinda Cox, Bronx River AllianceCarter Craft, Metropolitan

Water ront AllianceCurtis Cravens, New York State

Department o State/BrowneldsAngela DAiuto, North Shore Water ront

Conservancy o Staten IslandCandace Damon, Hamilton Rabinovitz

Alschuler, Inc.Julia Day, Project or Public SpacesCarmen Diaz, Audubon Partnership or

Economic Development LDCNoreen Doyle, Hudson River Park rust

Elizabeth Ernish, Brooklyn Borough HallMeg Fellerath, Brooklyn Greenway InitiativeMurray Fisher, New York Harbor SchoolConnie Fishman, Hudson River Park rustPeter Fleischer, GIPEC ( ormer)Tom Fox, NY Water axiLisa Garrison, Hudson River Foundation /

New York City Environmental FundAmy Gavaris, New York Restoration ProjectMarilyn Gelber, Independence Community

FoundationJasper Goldman, Metropolitan Water ront

AllianceTamara Greeneld, Partnerships or ParksLaura Hansen, JM Kaplan FundBonnie Harken, Nautilus InternationalNate Harris, Partnerships or ParksClay Hiles, Hudson River Foundation / New

York City Environmental FundSteve Hindy, Brooklyn Brewery Ron Hine, Fund or Better Water rontJennifer Hoppa,

NYC Dept. o Parks andRecreationTessa Huxley, Battery Parks City Parks

Conservancy Pat Jenny, New York Community rustKeith Kerman, NYC Dept. o Parks and

RecreationMarcie Kesner, Kramer Levin Nafalis &

Frankel LLPHilary Kitasei, Henry Hudson

Parkway ask ForceAjamu Kitwana, Youth Ministries or

Peace and JusticeAlyssa Konon, NYC Economic Development

CorporationMarianna Koval, Brooklyn Bridge Park

Conservancy Ruth Kuhlmann, Greenacre FoundationErik Kulleseid, rust or Public Land

( ormer)Andrea Kussack, Mertz Gilmore

FoundationJoshua Laird, NYC Dept. o Parks and

RecreationRobert Levine, RAL Design AssociatesSpencer Levine, RAL Design AssociatesPaula Luria Caplan, Bronx Borough

Presidents OfficeStephen Marks, Hudson County Division

o Planning Timothy Marshall, E M Associates, LLCKim Mathews, Mathews NielsenEmily Maxwell, Partnerships or ParksVince McGowan, Battery Park City Parks

Conservancy Massiel Medina Ferrara, Hudson County

Division o Planning Kimberly Miller, Municipal Arts Society

( ormer)Menaka Mohan, Sustainable South BronxNicholas Molinari, NYC Department o

Parks and RecreationCatherine Nagel, City Parks Alliance

Signe Nielsen, Mathews NielsenGreg OConnell, Pier 41 AssociatesTodd Poole, Bay Area EconomicsMike Pratt, Scherman FoundationMary Price, Partnerships or ParksMilton Puryear, Brooklyn Greenway

InitiativeSteven Ridler, New York State Coastal Zo

ManagementDavid Rivel, City Parks FoundationKC Sahl, Van Cortlandt and Pelham Bay PMichael Samuelian, Te Related

Companies, LPTracy Sayegh, Phill ips Preiss Shapiro

( ormer)Jason Schwartz, Partnerships or ParksPaul Seck, Michael Van Valkenberg

AssociatesJohn Shapiro, Phill ips Preiss ShapiroClaude Shostal, Brooklyn Bridge Park

ConservancyMichael Slattery,

Real Estate Board oNew York David Snetman, ransportation AlternativAndy Stone, rust or Public LandDennis Suszkowski, Hudson River

Foundation / New York CityEnvironmental Fund

Matthew Urbanski, Michael VanValkenberg Associates

Joe Vance, Joe Vance ArchitectsCarol VanGuilder, Real Estate Board o

New York Donna Walcavage, Donna Walcavage

Landscape Architecture + Urban DesiMeg Walker, Project or Public SpacesBethany Wall, Riverside Park FundJae Watkins, UPROSENancy Welsh, NYSDOS Division o

Coastal ResourcesStephen Whitehouse, Starr WhitehouseToya Wiliford, Independence Community

FoundationCraig Wilson, Te New York League o

Conservation VotersWilbur Woods, New York City

Department o City PlanningElizabeth Yeampierre, UPROSENioka Young, New York Community rust

( ormer)

Te report was written by Robert Freudenbeand Robert Pirani with the assistance oNicolas Ronderos, Cara Griffin and JenniCox o the RPA staff and a series o reseasociates: Joy Sinderbrand, Manami KamikBonnie Hulkower, and Victor orres. Specassistance on the water ront parks invento was provided by Carter Craf and Loren a( ormer) rom Metropolitan Water rontAlliance.

Report designed by Jeff Ferzoco, RPA


3/24

Contents

2 Introduction3 Summary of Recommendations

4 City-wide Context 8 Waterfront Park and Public

Space Management Issues 10 Current Management Funding

Models 16 Recommendations 21 Appendix


4/24

2 On the Verge: Growth and Management of NYCs New Waterfront Parks and Public Spaces

SectionOne

From large regional parks to neighborhood streetends to pedestrian- riendly greenways, the cur-rent water ront revival will likely be rememberedas a time on par with the great park movements othe 1860s, 1930s and 1960s.

Tere are close to 700 acres o water ront parks and public spaces in more than 50 projectsnow being planned or under constructionthroughout the City (over 2,800 acres whenincluding Fresh Kills Park in Staten Island).Nearly 60 miles o water ront access is beingadded through parks, greenways and esplanades.1

Tis extraordinary legacy is ueled byavailable properties, a robust real estate cycle,and the desire o the public and elected leaders toreclaim access to the harbor. Te City and Statedeserve enormous credit or pursing this agenda.But, or every ambitious plan and initial capitalinvestment, there is also the ar less glamoroustask o managing a new public space.

raditionally, the New York City Depart-ment o Parks & Recreation (Parks & Recreation)has been the agency responsible or keeping New

York City parks clean and sa e, and offeringrecreational and cultural programs. Funding oroperating the parks and delivering these serviceshas come rom the Citys general operating unds,supplemented in many cases by private Friendsgroups that donate unding, in-kind services, and volunteer hours.

Te management model or many o thecitys new water ront parks and public spacesis undamentally different, both in terms onancing and in terms o jurisdiction.Discussions about the nancing o these new water ront parks are occurring in the generalcontext o a Parks & Recreation operating budgetthat has yet to recover rom the cuts in the early

1990s. New York City was recently ranked 21stamong major US cities on operations expenditures per capita by the rust or Public Land.2 While Parks& Recreation has received additional and signicantoperating unds recently 3, organizations such as NewYorkers or Parks and others have argued that thecurrent budget does not allow the agency to meet itsmanagement goals.

Given this short all, Parks & Recreationhas been directed to nd additional, site-specicresources to support existing and new water rontmanagement responsibilities. Parks departmentshave long sought revenues rom private concessions, permits, and philanthropy to help ll unding gapsat existing parks. But todays new parks seem to berequired, i not to pay or themselves, to at least tohave some associated revenue stream. Based on theaverage costs o currently operating and uture Cityand State parks, new water ront parks will requirearound $135,000 an acre each year or management,maintenance, security and creative programming.5

Agency personnel, non-prot organizations,and private developers are creating innovative ways

o addressing this unofficial mandate in water rontsacross the City. Tis has resulted in a number odifferent and innovative public/private management partnerships. In many ways, New York City is aleader in this national trend. But while each projectmust ultimately address its own specic needs,it is unclear whether this site-by-site process willultimately result in the best city-wide water ront park system.

As with most City services, any decit tends tobe elt particularly in neighborhoods with limitedaccess to the budget process and ewer options or private philanthropy to l l the gaps. Te New YorkCity Parks Foundation, Partnership or Parks, anda variety o non-prot programs have sought to

level this playing eld but, not surprisingmost lucrative partnership opportunities aneighborhoods with greater nancial reso

aken to its extreme, this can be seen as lto a two tier system o parks: those witresources and those without. Moreover, many o these new genera water ront public spaces are not conceiveas traditional parks and may not be managby Parks & Recreation. Some public spacassociated with public or private water roredevelopment; maintenance o these pubspaces will not be central to the organizatmission o the public or private landownenew water ront greenways - key links in water ront park system - cross multiple plines. Managing this wonder ul connectilargely on the City Department o ransption (NYC DO ), which has traditionally more concerned with moving vehicles tha pedestrians and bicyclists. Ensuring that new breeds o water ront public spaces hsame permanence, public character, and vassociated with traditional parks is o con Tese thorny issues are now being grap with by public park managers and other aofficials, non-prot parks advocates, com

leaders, developers, and design pro essioTere is a wealth o experimentation and eence now being developed throughout theon the opportunities and limitations o dimanagement models and unding streamnew breed o water ront parks has challetraditional assumptions about parks and pspaces. In some cases differences in opin what constitutes appropriate uses o parkresponsibility o government and taxpayethe role o the private sector in providingservices has resulted in considerable cont

o compile and learn rom these largely sby-site arrangements, RPA convened a wogroup o savvy and experienced pro ess year-long process o presentations and disions, together with the analysis o essenbackground in ormation, has enabled us identi y specic management models and wide policy recommendations. Tese propindividually or together, will help ensure new generation o water ront parks and pspaces meet the promise o a revitalized

ront. While the recommendations presenin this report are directed primarily to theand City agencies, in most cases they are applicable to State-owned and managed pand public spaces.6

Introduction

150

225

$300 million

86 90 95 00 05 08

City Funding for NYC Parks Department: Adopted Budgets, 1987-2007(Adjusted, 2006 dollars. 2008 based on Proposed 2008 Executive Budget)

Courtesy: New Yorkers or Parks, 20074

New York City is in the midst of one of the greatestexpansions of parks and public spaces in its history.


5/24

3Summary of Recommendations

Ensure equitable fundingfor management of allwaterfront parks Te surest, most direct route toward ensuring public control, improving parks maintenance andmeeting the demands generated by new water-

ront parks is to increase the management budgeto Parks & Recreation as well as other agenciesmanaging public spaces on the water ront. A specic und separate rom Parks andother agency operating budgets - should be

established to pay or expensive and critical repairrequired by shoreline bulkheads, piers, and othermaritime in rastructure o water ront parks and public spaces.

Capture revenue from licens-es or leases on or adjacentto parkland Te City should generate revenue received

rom licenses or leases on parks and adjoining public property or the maintenance and manage-ment o public spaces. Te publics ability to gauge the costs and

benets o prospective agreements and en orcetheir provisions should be addressed throughbetter per ormance standards in the guiding RFPand by ensuring Parks & Recreations jurisdictionon public access sites.

Assess feasibility of wa-terfront Park ImprovementDistricts (PID) Te easibility o new water ront PIDs shouldbe assessed by the City, Local DevelopmentCorporations and non-prot partners in water-

ront areas with prospective new development,an ability to pay an assessment ee, appropriatezoning and use, and an economic and physicalconnection between the park and adjoining property.

Create public access throughzoning Te City should amend the 1993 Water rontZoning text to extend the trans er o ownership provisions established in the Greenpoint-Williamsburgzoning to other water ront areas. Te Department o City Planning and Parks &Recreation should collaborate to develop overallWater ront Master Plans in specic water rontareas to create a programming and design vision,consider upland access areas, streamline governmentapproval processes and identi y areas or rezoning. A water ront improvement und should be created to provide incentives or landowners to meet the goalso these plans.

Make non-prot managementpartnerships work better In general, standard costs such as in rastructure,insurance, utilities, and security, as well as non-recurring capital expenditures are best handledby City agencies. Non-standard elements, such as programming, maintenance o non-standard items,and supplemental care are well suited or localnon-prot groups.

Parks & Recreation should assist non-protorganizations managing space on the water ront,especially in lower income areas, by leveraging bulkdiscounts on supplies, providing roving horticultur-ists, training or local staff, and allocating undingthat can be matched by volunteer hours. A park administrator jointly responsible toa community based non-prot and to Parks &Recreation should be established in the mostimportant water ront areas to help coordinate thesearrangements.

Promote common waterfrontpark design and performancestandards. Parks & Recreation should develop a specic

SectionTwo Summary of

Recommendations

set o design standards or water ront puspaces to help ensure that materials and dare sustainable and well-suited or waterlocations and that those organizations ressible or construction can accommodate PRecreations requirements be ore time anmonies are invested in non-con orming e

Help greenways and road-ways connect us to thewaterfront. Parks & Recreation, NYC DO , EDC, other public and non-prot partners shoulcreate nongovernmental greenway stewaentities that could coordinate stewardshipagencies along a single route. As warrantentities could be directed by new park adtrators and overseen by a City Greenway D within the Mayors office. Roadways adjacent to water ront parkbe subject to park-appropriate design stanand the same maintenance standard o thadjoining park.

1 Regional Plan Association, See City Wide Context on p. 4 ormore details

2rust or Public Land 2006 report Te Excellent City Park

System3

Te City has proposed adding $41.8 million to the FY08budget or Parks & Recreation or a total o $269 million incity unds (see table 1 on p. 6 or details)

4 SOURCES: NYC Office o Management and Budget,Expense, Revenue, Capital Reports, Adopted Budget FiscalYears 1986-2007, and Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2008.

5 See Parks Financing Matrix on p.6 or details.6 Several other recent or upcoming studies a re addressing other

aspects o this issue including New Yorkers or Parks ReportCard or Parks and Citizen Budget Commissions report

ocusing on capital, operating and revenue budget in relationto Parks & Recreations nonprot partners.


6/24

City-wideContext

2

1

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

ExistingPublicSpace

ProposedPublicSpace

Case Study Marker(see section 5)

Staten Island

Brooklyn

Queens

Bronx

M a n h a

t t a n

4 On the Verge: Growth and Management of NYCs New Waterfront Parks and Public Spaces

There are nearly 700acres of waterfront parks and publicspaces in more than 50 projects now beingplanned or under construction throughoutthe City (over 2,800 acres when includingFresh Kills Park in Staten Island). Closeto 60 miles of waterfront access is beingadded through parks, greenways and espla-nades. 7 As the City develops its waterfrontand creates more parks and public spaces,its important to look at the context ofwhere they will be located and how largethey will be, as well as the numerous costsassociated with managing and maintainingthem.

SectionThree


7/24

Stadium - will result in over 40-acres o water ront parks and nearly 2 miles o water ront esplanade.Te development boom in ueens occurring alongthe stretch o the East River rom Newtown Creekto the ueensborough Bridge alone will result in 19acres o new parkland and over 1 mile o water rontesplanade. Additional parkland is being created or preserved in Flushing, Bayside and along the oceanin Rockaway. Finally, Staten Island is undergoing thesingle largest trans ormation o land into water ront

park with the creation o the 2,200-acre Fresh KillsPark, in addition to the Stapleton rezoning and other water ront projects.

Management Costs 10Te 25% increase in water ront public space areas will impose signicant new management obligationsand costs on public and private landowners. RPAexamined the costs associated with a variety o newand established city and state water ront parksin order to assess the scope and magnitude o theexpenditures associated with water ront parks and public spaces. Because o the way Parks & Recreationspreads management responsibilities and costs acrossindividual parks, it was not possible to generateestimated costs or individual water ront parkssolely managed by Parks & Recreation. Te examplesshown are managed by State Parks, other publicagencies, or designated non prot organizations. Tenumbers should not be read as commentary on theadequacy o unding or any or all o these parks, butrather as a point o in ormation or the recommenda-tions that ollow. Te costs o managing these spaces are certainlymuch higher than a typical park.11 As outlined inthe next section, water ront parks and public spaceshave extraordinary and costly management needs.In addition, the management o some o these new parks have raised the bar, creating a higher standard

or the care o parks city-wide.Types of CostsFor purposes o this report, management costs re erto all costs associated with the on-going operationo a park or public space. Tis does not includecapital costs: long term xed investments requiredto bring a park to an operational status. Examples otypical capital costs include: the purchase o land andequipment, the preparation o land or use as a park,the construction o acilities and amenities such asbenches, restrooms, and railings.12

Non-recurring Maintenance Costs: Expen-ditures applied to major repairs and replacemento items with extended li etimes (capital items).Examples include replacement or repair o docking,bulkhead, benches, drinking ountains, lighting, pavement and railings. (For the purpose o thisreport, this cost typically is derived rom budgetscontingency costs line item).Average cost/acre/year: $15,000

Recurring Maintenance Costs: Expendituresapplied to the upkeep, repair and replacement onon-capital items and everyday operations. Examplesinclude: cleaning, horticulture, landscaping, non-

managerial operations, utilities and insuraAverage cost/acre/year: $55,000

Administrative Costs: Expenditures applto the management and administration o parks. Tis includes: salaries o park manand supervisors and associated administrsupplies.Average cost/acre/year: $34,000

Security Costs: Expenditures applied to t protection o the park and its users. Secu parks can range rom the ree servicesCity police to specially assigned parks po paid private security officers.Average cost/acre/year: $18,000

Programming Costs: Expenditures dedicato the acilitation o park activities that a park users. Programming may be done byParks department or by an associated non prot organization. Costs include staff sa

undraising activities and associated actiAverage cost/acre/year: $13,000

Given these costs and an increase o nearacres o water ront parks and public spato $100 million a year o additional undrequired to meet new management and opneeds o these parks and public spaces.

5

Current and prospectivesystem of waterfront parksand public spacesNew York City has more than 1,700 parks, playgrounds and recreation acil ities acrossthe ve boroughs. Parks properties range romswimming pools and skating rinks to wetlandsand woodlands, o which 28,000 acres aremanaged by the New York City Departmento Parks & Recreation (Parks & Recreation).8 Currently, there are about 9,000 water ront acreso park and recreational areas located throughoutthe city, managed primarily by the City and StateParks Departments.9

Including the development o the 2,200 acreFresh Kills Park on Staten Island, close to 2,900acres o water ront parkland, esplanade and other public spaces are being planned or are underconstruction as a result o over 50 projects in development. Nearly hal o these projects (20) aretaking place along Manhattans water ront whereapproximately 330 acres o park and esplanadeare being developed new or added to existing park at places l ike Hudson River Park and alongthe East River between South Street Seaport andEast River Park. In Brooklyn, the re-zoning othe water ront in Greenpoint-Williamsburg isexpected to result in 1.6 miles o new water ront

esplanade and nearly 40 acres o new parkspace, in addition to the Boroughs new 74- acreBrooklyn Bridge Park and 24-acre Bush erminalPiers and Park. Brooklyn is also beginning to seethe development o the new 14-mile Brooklyn Water ront Greenway, connecting ueens andthe Shore Parkway.

In the Bronx, the 1.5-mile long South BronxGreenway and 8-mile long Bronx River Greenway will connect existing parks and help acilitatethe creation o new parkland at places like HuntsPoint Riverside Park, while a number o otherconstruction projects - including the new Yankee

5City-wide Context

7 Te number o acres o water ront parks and milesesplanade reects new parks now being planned orconstruction. Te gure does not include the acres oimprovements and new or re urbished esplanades aexisting parks, many o which have seen signicainvestment. Tis inventory was conducted in cooper with Metropolitan Water ront All iance.

8 New York City Department o Parks and Recreatio www.nycgovparks.org

9 Tis gure includes existing city and state parkland200 eet o tidal waters edge as shown on the offibasemap rom NYC DOI .

10 RPA analyzed the operating budgets o a numbering and uture water ront parks and public spacedown expenditures into non-recurring maintenancrecurring maintenance, administrative, programmand security. Parks were also evaluated by in termmaintenance, amenities and ownership.

11 Parks & Recreation average expenditures per acre was $27,000 or FY06

12 It is worth noting that the City ofen undertakes caexpenditures as a means o making up or de ernance. Tis analysis does not account or such pra


8/24

$, per acre, per year

Park Size 1Area(acres)

TotalOperatingBudget &Security ($)

TotalOperatingBudget &Security

Non-recurringmaint.costs

Recurringmaint. costs

Admin.costs

Program-mingcosts Security

StuyvesantCove (FY07) Manhattan

S 1.9 $197,000 $103,800 $5,000 $51,000 $32,800 $15,000 0

HudsonRiver Park (FY06) 4 Manhattan

L 102 $11,310,000 $111,000 $4,900 $44,100 $34,800 $6,500 $20,600

BrooklynBridge Park (Proposed) 5 Brooklyn

L 74 $14,057,000 $190,000 $7,000 $124,400 $18,600 $13,600 $26,100

BatteryPark (FY07) 6 Manhattan

M 24 $2,192.000 $91,000 $47,000 $36,500 $3,700 notincluded

$4,1

BatteryPark CityPark (FY07) Manhattan

M 35.27 $8,939,000 $253,000 $1,400 $146,400 $41,700 $27,100 $36,900

RiverbankState Park(FY06) Manhattan

M 28 $6,820,000 $244,000 $34,000 $38,900 $103,800 $13,000 $53,600

RiversideSouthPhase I/II(FY06) Manhattan

M 16.8 $1,217,000 $73,000 $12,500 $29,200 $3,300 $9,200 $18,300

RobertoClementeState Park(FY06)Bronx

M 22 $2,400,000 $109,000 $15,600 $17,700 $47,200 $5,900 $22,700

SwindlerCove/ShermanCreek(FY07) Manhattan

S 7 $524,000 $75,000 $0 $42,400 $11,600 $16,900 $3,900

GantryPlazaState Park(FY06) Queens

S 2.5 $240,000 $96,000 $13,400 $15,400 $46,100 $4,800 $16,300

HarlemPiers(EDC Proposed) Manhattan

S 2 $256,000 $128,000 $22,600 $55,000 $33,200 $17,100 $0

Average peracre/year

$135,000 $14,900 $54,600 $34,200 $12,900 $18,400


9/24

Notes from this Table:1 Te distinctions between park

sizes are based on the ollowingsmall is a park up to 5 acres insize; medium is a park greaterthan 5 acres and less than 50 acrlarge is a park 50 acres or mor

2 A park is considered 1 i it is o wild and maintained grounds with little or no development o

acilities; a park is considered it has mostly maintained ground

and/or some acility developmea park is considered 3 i it hasintensively maintained grounds or intensive acility developmen

3 Te distinction between parkamenities are based on the olloing: A is the baseline or ever park; AA is A + horticulture+ amenities (restrooms, drinking

ountains, etc); AAA is AA+ security + programming.

4 Te acreage or the park is an estmate o the total land area currein use as park and that draws upothe operating budget. Te programming gure includes a $100,000contribution rom the Friends oHudson River Park Conservancy

5 Te acreage or the park is anestimate o actual park property will require maintenance and donot include underwater acreage nthe ootprint o residential devement. Figures or unding are emates o the uture completed pand do not cover expenditures the portions o park currently op

6 Figures or Battery Park includeunds raised through the Bat-

tery Conservancy, classiedunder recurring maintenance.

OwnershipMaint.responsibility

Maint.Funding

Maint.Spectrum 2

ServiceComponent 3

Public(City -EDC)

Non-prot Off-site revenue + match-ing City funds + eventrevenue + donations

3 AA

Public(City+State)

PublicAuthorityTrust & DOT(bikeway)

On-site commercial &programming revenue +permit fees + grants &donations

2 AAA

Public(City Parks)

PublicAuthority& Conservancy

On-site commercialrevenue

3 AAA

Public(City Parks)

Public(City Parks) &Conservancy

Public funding + dona-tions

3 AAA

Public (BPCA) Public AuthorityConservancy

Assessment fees + on-site commercial revenue+ donations

3 AAA

Public (State) State Parks State Parks funding 3 AAA

Public(City Parks)

City PARKS Maintenance fund/endowment fromdevelopment

2 AA

Public (State) Public agency Various public funding 2 AA

Public(City Parks)

Non-prot Public funding + On-siterevenue + event revenue+ donations

2 AAA

Public (State) Public (State) Surrounding develop -ment

2 A

Public(EDC)

Unknown Unknown 2 A

Park Management Cost Comparisonfor Select NYC

WaterfrontParks


10/24

Te management o water ront parks and publicspaces generally revolve around the same concernsas upland parks: sa ety, cleanliness, maintenanceo the landscape and xtures, and special programming and interpretation. However thereare important distinctions that stem rom a water ront location and heavier usage, distinc-tions that add signicant additional managementresponsibilities and costs.

Maintenance/ServicesFrom the initial capital investment to the everydayrecurring maintenance costs, water ront parkscan require greater unding when compared toupland parks. O most concern are the expensiverepairs required or docks, bulkheads, and relieving plat orms. But special needs also include corrosionby salt water, pollution and damage rom ooding.

Additionally, water ront parks tend to beheavily-used places. Teir linear nature creates arelatively large perimeter, with many edges exposedto oot or vehicle traffic or to the water. Both condi-tions require costly hardscaping elements and special plantings.

SecurityAs with any park, the security o a water ront park isessential to its success. Tis is o particular concern

or water ront parks at the periphery o neighbor-hoods, and away rom residences and pedestriantraffic during the evenings and winter months.

ProgrammingPark programming offers visitors opportunities tocelebrate a parks unique resources and location, o -ten weaving innovative connections between varioususers and the surrounding neighborhood through private partnerships. For water ront parks this ofeninvolves water based themes and activities includ-ing such activities as shing and kayaking- which canbe more expensive than traditional activities.

Liability & InsuranceBecause o their proximity to the water, water ront parks present added layers o liabi lity concerns as well as insurance needs. Te design and program-ming o the water ront park can help minimizerisk and exposure. Water ront park managers aceadditional questions regarding insurance including what type to purchase and what scenarios should beconsidered given the proximity to the water.

EquityBattery Park City Parks, Hudson River Park,Riverside South all have dedicated sources o

unding that supplement or replace general unds.Tis unding, which is derived rom nearby new water ront development, has enabled these parksto set new standards or management desired at all water ront public spaces. Such private, dedicated

unding is more difficult to achieve in lower incomeand industrial neighborhoods ound along the water ront.

Accountability/Control/PrivatizationSome water ront public spaces are under jurisdiction o public or private entities w primary mission is not park managementand programming. Tis can result in publicspaces that are not welcoming or even hos visitors. Te lack o outside visitors can rethe dedicated public space eeling like pr property and/or being physically appropriother uses.

ConnectivityTe water ront presents a natural opportunto establish a connected network o greenalong the citys edge. Being part o such enhances the utility o each individual paextending their experience to other neighbhoods. It also adds special management cabout through pedestrian and bicycle traffiadditional entrances, common eatures, ashared costs. Particular challenges to conoccur because o the way the city laid itsand rails along much o the water ront. Ca connected network will entail nding soto this challenge.

Design & SustainabilityNew water ront parks present opportuniti

or excellence and innovation in design. design must account or in-water opportuand the special maintenance needs noted Tese new parks can uniquely address citysustainability concerns about energy use, protection, and stormwater management.

Maritime Use & HarborAccessParks and public spaces need to accommo public vessels, rom kayaks and marinasships and erry landings. Tese parks ofenthe working water ront o barges, tugs, aships, presenting opportunities or integrthese critical maritime uses with public acAll o this can raise costs and liability co

Habitat & EstuaryTe water ront is also home to many imposh and bird species that depend on the Hestuary. Construction, maintenance, or prming in particular in-water activities - raddressing impacts and regulatory constrTat may include expensive on- or off-sitemitigation.

8 On the Verge: Caring for NYCs Emerging Waterfront Parks & Public Spaces

SectionFour Waterfront Park and Public

Space Management Issues


11/24

9Section


12/24

All city waterfrontparks rely to acertain degreeon the generaloperating budgetand park personnel. Butbecause current budgetlevels cannot support allpark needs, those parksthat rely solely on thebudget for maintenance

and management tend tohave fewer amenities tooffer users; those withpublic private partner-ships tend to have moreresources. With thesupport of the City andState, the number of

these arrangements hasproliferated in recentyears. Te management o other water ront public spaces can involve a number o actors andlegal arrangements. State and City water ront policies, and the underlying public trust doctrine,ensure a public interest in water ront access in

these areas. Tis public interest is guaranteethrough leaseholder agreements, restrictivedeclarations, and other legal agreements.

Many water ront parks and public spabenet rom the presence o nonprot conorganizations that provide a variety benetincluding und-raising and programming Given this topics extensive coverage in otreports, including an upcoming study by thCitizens Budget Commission, this report w

ocus on the unding by conservancies.Described below are the major ways a

means that New York Citys water ront paand public spaces are managed and undegeneral strengths, limitations, and some spexamples are also noted.

Case Studies are labeled hecross-re erenced on the ma page 4.


SectionFive Current Management

Funding Models

ConcessionsDescription: Any business that generatesrevenue on parkland is considered a concession.Tis includes the ull spectrum o businesses,

rom hot dog vendors to Yankee Stadium. Parks

& Recreation has a long history with conces-sions. Tey generally all into two categories:ood service and recreation. In 2002 , Parks &

Recreation estimated the total revenue generatedby all the concessions or the agency was $61.5million rom about 500 concessions.13 Examples: Food service concessions range

rom pushcarts to restaurants such as avernon the Green, Ca e on the Green, and the LoebBoathouse. Recreational concessions include icerinks, indoor tennis bubbles, stables, marinas andmuch more.Strengths: Generates revenue that, in somecases, can be captured on site. Tis is ofen doneby working the concession through a non prot

riends group. Provides services and program-ming or park users. Brings vitality and visitorsto parks.Limitations: Commercial activities candiminish the park experience and can price somemembers o the public out o the park. Long-termagreements can lock uture park administratorsinto outmoded uses and create monopoly situa-tions. Putting private uses on public lands raisesissues o accountability and governance.

1

Concession Stand at Hudson River Park13 New York City Department o Parks and Recreation

website: www.nycgovparks.org


13/24

11Current Management Funding Models

Swindler CoveWaterfront: Sherman Creek (HarlemRiver)Size: 5 acresOwnership: Parks & Recreation

Management/Operations: New York Restora-tion Project (non-prot)Maintenance Financing: public, non-protParks & Recreation jurisdiction: mapped parkland, responsible or capital improvements

Swindler Cove Park is situated on 5-acres o a ormer

illegal dumping ground adjacent to the Harlem Riverin the Manhattan neighborhood o Inwood. Te park was created by the New York State Departmento ransportation (NYS DO ) - to meet a Statemitigation requirement - and by the non-prot groupNew York Restoration Project (NYRP) who wantedto re-establish public access to this one-time rowinglaunch. NYRP worked with NYS DO to designand raise unds or the construction o the park.In addition to restoration o one-acre o wetlands, park construction included a oating boathouse, anenvironmental center and the Riley Levin ChildrensGarden. Upon completion in 2003, Swindler Cove was turned over to Parks & Recreation which enteredinto a 20-year contract with NYRP, designatingthe group as the official caretaker o the park. Tecontract essentially establishes NYRP as a voluntaryconservancy - there is no exchange o money, andno concessions are written into the contract. Ascaretaker, NYRP is responsible or operations,maintenance, undraising and management othe endowment und or the childrens garden.o encourage use o the park by rowers, the parks

boathouse is leased by NYRP to the New YorkRowing Association which operates and maintainsthe boathouse while also providing programming,including use by PS 5, IS 218, and other schools inHarlem and the South Bronx.

Brooklyn Bridge Park(construction set to begin 2007)Waterfront: East RiverSize: 74 acres (parkland)Ownership: Parks & Recreation

Management/Operations: BBPCMaintenance Financing: non-prot, revenuegenerating usesParks & Recreation jurisdiction: Own,maintain

Set to stretch 1.3 miles along Brooklyns water ront - rom Jay Street to Atlantic Avenue Brooklyn Bridge Park is an 85 acre, city parks-owned project that will convert industrial piersinto a public area o lawns, recreational acilities,beaches, coves, restored habitats, playgroundsand landscaped areas. In 2006 the park gainedapproval o the land title trans er o the piers

rom the Port Authority to the BrooklynBridge Park Development Corporation. Planning or the park has been underway orover 20 years, and in 2002, the city and the statesigned an MOU providing or the creation oBrooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation(BBPDC) to plan, design and build the park. TeMOU also stipulated that there be community

input in park planning, that all open space be protected as parkland in perpetuity and that the park be a nancially sel -sustaining. o meetthis latter requirement, commercial developmentincluding residential, hotel, ca and small retail, will comprise 8.2 acres or approximately 10% othe parkland. Tese revenue generating develop-ments will be claimed solely by Brooklyn BridgePark to cover yearly operations and maintenancecosts. Leasing is just one o several revenuestreams considered or the park. Also in develop-ment is revenue received rom land transaction,condominium surcharges and Payments In Lieuo axes (PILO s).

Te Brooklyn Bridge Park Conser- vancy (BBPC), a non-prot group, wasstarted to ensure the creation, adequate unding, proper maintenance, public support, and citizenenjoyment o Brooklyn Bridge Park through partnership with government, developmento programming, and active promotion o theneeds o the park and its constituents. TroughBBPC, a Maintenance and Operation budget was developed by Matthews Nielsen to identi yall potential costs o running the park and helpensure that the park stays sa e, clean and green.

Leases or licenses on oradjacent to park propertyDescription: Leasing parkland or nearby property to private entities or private uses, thenusing revenue or services rom these developmentsto pay or park management. For New York CityParks, such agreements involve a license ratherthan a lease.Examples: Legislation creating Hudson RiverPark designated a number o public piers (e.g.Chelsea Piers, Pier 40, and Pier 57) or develop-

ment and mandates that lease revenues be used or park maintenance. Te master plan or BrooklynBridge Park has proposed leasing land or residen-tial development to pay or park maintenance. Anumber o City Parks license users through a non prot affiliate, such as the Bryant Park RestorationCorporation. NYRP - in contract with Parks &Recreation - leases Swindler Coves boathouse toNew York Rowing Association.Strengths: Presents opportunities to capturelarge and stable sources o private revenue or that park. Provides services and programming or park

users. Brings vitality and visitors to parks.Limitations: Works best in parks that are bin areas more attractive to private developeand private development. Can diminish theexperience by adding commercial activitieuses can appropriate nearby public spaces,them unction or eel like private space.

Hudson River Park (over 50% complete)Waterfront: Hudson RiverSize: 150 acres (when compleOwnership: Hudson River Pa

rustManagement/Operations: Hudson RiverPark rustMaintenance Financing: non-prot publicbenet corporationParks & Recreation jurisdiction: Board oDirectors o Hudson River Park rust

Hudson River Park - a series o connecte playgrounds, open space areas, boathouse piers and recreational venues - stretches

rom the Battery to 59th Street on Manha West Side. Comprised o 550 acres (abou which are underneath the Hudson River) was created in 1998 by the State Hudson RPark Act. Te Act also established the HudRiver Park rust, a public benet corporat with board members appointed by the StaCity and the Manhattan Borough Presiden

rust is responsible or the design, constroperation and maintenance o the park. Itoperations are unded by revenues genera

by permitted commercial uses in the parkconcessions, events, sponsorships, permit private grants and donations.

Te rust works in partnership with theNYS DO to maintain the Hudson River way, the bicycle path that runs through thCapital repairs, liability and design o theare the responsibilities o NYS DO . HudRiver Park is responsible or the design, ction and maintenance o the rest o the paincluding the piers and bulkheads. Since tis governed by the rust and not by the CiDepartment, it has greater reedom to disitsel with unique landscape architectureand materials. Hudson River Parks indepand revenue generating capabilities have ait to create a high quality public environmdistinguished by world class design. Perm public access is guaranteed by virtue o tlaw that created the park. Te Friends o HRiver Park, a civic organization, helps chaappropriation o unding or this water public space. Tough the creation and desithe park has involved the input o local coties, there remain differences o opinion oacceptability or extent o commercial actthe park.

1 2 3


14/24

Public spaces on otherpublic propertyDescription: A number o water ront publicspaces are owned by public agencies whose primary mission is not managing or providing programming or such types o spaces. Mosttypical are spaces under the jurisdiction o NewYork Citys Economic Development Corporation(EDC). Tis water ront access is created as a resulto agreements with the developers pursuant to the

Citys water ront revitalization program. Tesesites are sometimes maintained by the responsibleagency. More ofen they are maintained by privateand non-prot non-governmental organizationsoperating under lease agreements with the public

agency. In some cases, EDC provides a portion othe revenue required to manage the site throughadjacent leases.

A particular case is the water ront street endsunder the jurisdiction o NYC DO . As with theCity Greenstreets program, these mapped citystreets are owned by NYC DO , designed andbuilt by Parks, and maintained by NYC DO and volunteers.Examples: EDC/Community EnvironmentalCenter Stuyvesant Cove; NY Waterway at Pier79; General Growth Properties - South StreetSeaport; Waterside owers Plaza; ManhattanAvenue Street End; Swindler Cove (originallyNYS DO property)

Strengths: Provides more space or publithat does not necessarily draw rom the PDepartment budget. Lease arrangement gutees a steady income stream or maintenaLimitations: Tese public spaces can be iso

rom adjoining parks. Management and e programming that draw outside visitors caless o a priority. Te lack o park status imlack o permanence to the public space; thinuence unding and public perception.

Stuyvesant CoveWaterfront: East RiverSize: 1.9 acresOwnership: NYC EDCManagement/Operations:

CEC Stuyvesant Cove, Inc.Maintenance Financing: public, non-protParks & Recreation jurisdiction: none

Situated between the FDR Drive and the EastRiver, rom 18th to 23rd Street, StuyvesantCove is a 1.9-acre park operating on propertyowned by the NYC EDC. In 2001, afer localcommunity organizers and Community Board 6heavily lobbied the agency to turn the space intoa park, EDC used an RFP process to choose thenon-prot Community Environmental Center(now CEC Stuyvesant Cove, Inc.) (CEC SC))to provide maintenance or the site as part o a30-year lease with two ve-year renewal options. Under the lease arrangement, in exchange or paying a nominal rent, CEC SC was responsible

or constructing an environmental educationcenter (Solar 1), coordinating all on-site program-ming, and maintaining the entire passive use park including paths, benches, and plant li e. Te park received startup unds rom thecity, state, and ederal government and, or eacho the rst ten years o operation, EDC will provide up to $100,000 o expense and revenuematching unds. Tese unds are derived romthe revenue o a parking garage located directlynorth o the site on EDC-owned property. As amajor incentive to recruit volunteers to per ormmaintenance in the park, volunteer labor hourscount toward the EDC grant match. EDC isresponsible or all security and quality o li eissues and its property management divisionhandles day-to-day oversight and the bulkhead.Te park is neither under Parks & Recreation jurisdiction nor mapped or zoned as a park. In addition to EDC, unding is also providedby Stuyvesant own/Peter Cooper Village,Stuyvesant Cove Park Association as well romsmaller oundations, events, and individualdonations. In-kind volunteer labor is provided bythe SCPA Park Angels, the Center or WorkerEducation and a new internship program withthe nearby Manhattan Comprehensive Night and

Harlem Piers (ongoingconstruction)Waterfront: Hudson RiverSize: 2 acresOwnership: NYC EDC

Management/Operations: Parks & RecreationMaintenance Financing: Future unded steward-ship entity Parks & Recreation jurisdiction: Own, manage,maintain i trans erred

Tis narrow, 2-acre water ront strip between St.Clair Place/125th Street and 132 Street in HarlemsManhattanville neighborhood was once a site orcommerce and recreation, though most recentlyhas served as a parking lot. City Planning and EDChave worked closely with the community, including with the non-prot West Harlem EnvironmentalAction (WEAC ) to develop and advance the plan

or the area. Construction began in early 2006 ondocking and recreational piers as well as a landscaped water ront open space. Additionally, the project wil linclude a new West Harlem link o the Manhattan

Day School. Fundraising efforts have secured initial unds

or the construction o Solar 2 - an 8,000-square-oot green building that will house a ca , kiosk,

bookstore, museum, display area, offices and arentable 100-person-capacity room.

4

5


Right: Stuyvesant Cove Bottom: Harlem Piers

Water ront Greenway. EDC is committedmaintenance o the site until it is built outParks & Recreation will assume responsibmaintenance, provided maintenance undsecured. WEAC is exploring opportunitigenerating maintenance unding rom tho adjacent property with the hope o takin a matching grant program similar to Stusant Cove Park. Fundraising opportunities piers are limited by the act that the majoorganizations in the immediate area are prtax-exempt, presenting a challenge not amany other water ront parks in the city.


15/24

South Bronx Greenway (Under construction)Waterfront: Bronx Rivers and LISSize: 1.5 mile water ront perimeter (6miles total green streets)

Ownership: NYC EDC, NYC DO , Parks &Recreation,Management/Operations: BDMaintenance Financing: Future unded steward-ship entity (through Sustainable South Bronx andTe Point CDC)Parks & Recreation jurisdiction: Owner andmanager o associated parks.Te movement to create the South Bronx Greenwaystarted when the Hunts Point community realizedthat they would need to come together to plan or permanent public space on the water ront to avoidalternate and possibly industrial uses. Workingtogether as partners, local organizations (includingTe Point CDC and Sustainable South Bronx) andthe City viewed the water ront as a ulcrum, not

only or public space, but also as an opportunity tospur economic development, create jobs, establisha job training program, and institute healthiertransportation in rastructure, including a greenway.Tis greater vision was ormalized in the Hunts PointVision Plan - issued by the Mayor in 2005 - whichadvanced the communitys wish or a greenway by

eaturing it as one o the plans recommendations.

Brooklyn WaterfrontGreenway (Under construction)Waterfront: East River; New YorkHarbor

Size: 14 miles long Ownership: NYC EDC, NYC DO , Parks &Recreation, Port Authority o NY/NJ, BrooklynNavy Yard Development Corporation, BrooklynBridge Park Development CorporationManagement/Operations: NYC EDC,NYC DO , Parks & Recreation, Department oSanitation, Port Authority o NY/NJ, BrooklynNavy Yard Development Corporation, BrooklynBridge Park Development CorporationMaintenance Financing: Future undedstewardship entity (through Brooklyn GreenwayInitiative, UPROSE)Parks & Recreation jurisdiction: Ownerand manager o selected portions o the greenwayand associated parks.

Planning or the Brooklyn Water ront Greenwaybegan in 1993 when City Planning identied theBrooklyn Water ront rail as a priority route inits 350-mile Greenway Plan or NYC, progressing

urther with a 1998 design and summary reporto a 4.7-mile Water ront rail. Building onthese proposals, a greater vision or the greenwayemerged rom residents, elected officials, andother greenway advocates. oday, the preliminary route o the 14-mileBrooklyn Water ront Greenway runs romGreenpoint to Sunset Park. Te bulk o thegreenway is being planned by non-prot organiza-tions, the Brooklyn Greenway Initiative in CB 1,2, and 6 - in association with RPA- and UPROSEin CB 7 (Sunset Park). Much o the planning or the greenwayhas involved community interaction and thecoordination o the greenways numerous Cityagency owners. oday, planning is in its second phase, bui lding on work completed or CB 2 and6 and addressing design, unding and implemen-tation or CB 1, the Navy Yard and areas in RedHook. Additionally, BGI and RPA will developa stewardship plan or the maintenance o thegreenway.

Waterfront GreenwaysDescription: Tese landscaped on and off-street pathways or pedestrians, bicycles, andother human powered devices offer a sa e and pleasant means o accessing the water ront, as well as a measure o continuity. Many o the 350miles o greenways identied in the New YorkCity Greenway Plan14 are integral to new andre urbished water ront parks and redeveloping water ront neighborhoods. Greenways have proven

enormously popular with the public or bothleisure and commuting; the most popular - theHudson River Park Greenway - is estimated toattract 10,000 people on a nice summer day.15

Individual greenways ofen cross parcels oland under the management o different city,

state, and ederal agencies, private leaseholders,and individual businesses and property owners.Management o greenway segments has generally

allen to each particular landowner, or the most part the Citys Departments o ransportation,Sanitation (DSNY), and Parks & Recreation.Tese agencies typically address the managemento the greenways in the context o the rest o the property they are responsible or, such as a park ora street.Examples: Manhattan Water ront Greenway;Hudson River Park Greenway; ueens E. RiverGreenway; Shore Parkway Greenway; HutchinsonRiver Greenway; Beach Greenway and the proposed greenways: South Bronx Greenway, BronxRiver Greenway; Brooklyn Water ront Greenwayand the Sunset Park Greenway/Blueway.

Strengths: Provides popular new venue or walking or biking. Connects water ront partractions to each other and adjacent neighborLimitations: Determining and al locatingmanagement responsibility or greenways public property among city agencies and plandowners, al l o which have distinct staand capabilities, none o which have adeqresources or new responsibilities. Determconsistent sa ety, design and maintenancestandards - especially paving, lighting, andcrossings - that can meet a variety o agenrequirements.

6 7


Right: Brooklyn Greenway Bottom: SouthBronx Greenway-Hunts Point Riverside Park

Sustainable South Bronx and Te Point CDhelped to secure Congestion Mitigation anAir uality Improvement unding to conda easibility study and create a design ogreenway. EDC -as government sponsor the grant- hired Matthews Nielsen LandscArchitects to produce the South Bronx Gr

Master Plan, which was unveiled by the Mall 2006. Since the plan was ormed with commbuy-in and local non-prot organizations winstrumental in securing the unding or ning, those organizations are also determibe responsible or the maintenance o theorder to ensure that local residents can conto play a vital on-going role in the project

14 A Greenway Plan or New York City, 1993: http://wgov/html/dcp/html/bike/gp.shtml#overview

15 Hudson River Park rust


16/24

Riverside Park South (Anticipated 2007 completion)Waterfront: Hudson RiverSize: 27.5 acresOwnership: Parks & Recreation

Management/Operations: Parks & Recre-

ationMaintenance Financing: Payment rom private developmentParks & Recreation jurisdiction: Ownerand manager; contracted to provide maintenanceand provide Park En orcement Patrol officers.

Located on the eastern shore o the HudsonRiver between 59th and 72nd Streets on the

ormer New York Central Rail Yard, RiversidePark South is a development- unded park,built as a requirement o the construction o 16high-rise, residential condominiums adjacentto the site. Te project is in its ourth and nalconstruction phase and when complete this Parks& Recreation-owned property will comprise27.5 acres serving as a continuous link betweenRiverside Park to its north and Hudson RiverPark to its south.

Te park came about through an agreementbetween the Parks & Recreation, Riverside SouthPlanning Corporation (instituted to implementdetails o the master plan), the community andthe developers that specied responsibilities or planning, design, construction and maintenanceo the park. Under the agreement, developers areresponsible or building and designing sectionso the park, which are then conveyed to the Cityas parkland. Maintenance and programming

o the park is run by the Parks & Recreation inreturn or ees paid by the buildings owners. oorganize the trans er o these ees, the agreementcreated a homeowners association and mandatedthat building owners are responsible or the costo parks maintenance in perpetuity. As newbuildings are constructed, the owners o thebuildings enter into the agreement and pay parksmaintenance ees. Te contract or these ees isrenegotiated annually. Also included in the agree-ment is the requirement that Parks & recreation provide security and regulations en orcementthrough its Parks En orcement Patrol officers.

Greenpoint-Williams-burg Rezoning (under construction)Waterfront: East RiverSize: 1.6 miles long

Ownership: Private or trans er to Parks & Recre-

ationManagement/Operations: Private or trans er toParks & RecreationMaintenance Financing: Private developer/ownerParks & Recreation jurisdiction: Own, manage,maintain i trans erred

In May 2005, the City Council approved a rezoning plan or the 1.6-mile stretch o water ront and uplandareas between the Pulaski and Williamsburg Bridgeso Greenpoint and Williamsburg, Brooklyn. In addi-tion to new housing and industrial opportunities, the plan has created opportunities or a continuous and publicly accessible esplanade and new public spacesalong the water ront, including a 28-acre water ront park at Bushwick Inlet.As part o the rezoning, an innovative new provision was created that allows water ront developers theopportunity to trans er title o water ront public ac-cess areas - including the walkway, areas on piers andsupplemental access areas they are required to build- to the City o New York. Should the developers or property owners choose to trans er title, they mustabide by the ollowing:

rans er must be made in accordance with guidelinesestablished by the City Planning and Parks &Recreation; Tey must establish a maintenanceaccount and capital reserve or uture repair; Teymust guarantee adequate water ront public accessthrough upland connections; Design and construc-tion specications or the water ront public accessareas must be reviewed and approved by Parks &Recreation. rans er shall be made prior to certicateo occupancy or any part o the development In return or the trans er, owners and successorsare no longer liable or personal injury, maintenance,repair or reconstruction o water ront access areas,and in the case o this plan, a monetary incentiveexists or those taking part in the trans er. Teseincentives serve to encourage developers to designand build parks that benet the public and areconsistent with other City owned public space. Parks

Privately Built & ManagedPublic SpacesDescription: Under the Citys 1993 Water rontZoning rules16, residential or commercialredevelopment o individual private parcelsrequire developers to build, maintain, andoperate specied public access areas, including a water ront walkway and pedestrian connectionsto public streets or parks as a condition o their permit approvals. Responsibility or maintenance

and repair o these areas alls to the owners o the property. Prior to 1993 the City and State agenciesmade similar arrangements with other water ront property owners. Tese are memorialized inrestrictive declarations. More recently, speciczoning provisions have encouraged the trans er othese public spaces (and responsibility or liability)

rom private ownership to City ownership, whilerequiring private unds or maintenance.

Examples: Riverside South, Long Island CityCostco; Castle Hill Beechwood Propertiesin Soundview; Beard and Van Brunt Street Warehouses in Red Hook; Silvercup Studios(in development); Greenpoint-Williamsburg water ront (in development); .Strengths: Can ensure a connected network o public spaces along the water ront as developmentoccurs there. Provides private source o unding

or management o public spaces outside o Parks& Recreations budget.Limitations: Sites can suffer rom privatizationby locked gates, missing amenities and usurpa-tion by adjacent commercial activities. Parksdeveloped and maintained by private owners can

lack connectivity to other public spaces or parklands. Many o these public spaces arbuilt according to the design guidelines usParks, potentially undermining their qualitand limiting any opportunity to become mas NYC park land. En orcement o develoagreements can be lacking. Te zoning provdoes not apply to industrial sites or to low residential development. Dependence on dopers timetable across an entire water roninevitably leads to gap sites where develhas yet to occur.

& Recreation and City Planning are curre working with Donna Walcavage, LandscaArchitect + Design and the landowners todevelop a master plan or designing and mthese water ront access areas.

8 9


Top: Riverside Park South Bottom:Williamsburg Waterfront

16 1993 Water ront Zoning text Article VI , 62-4 0


17/24

Park Improvement Districts(PIDS)Description: PIDs are a type o special assess-ment district whereby an assessment on residencesand businesses beneting economically rom their proximity to a park is dedicated to park manage-ment. Tere are no PIDs in New York City. Manyo the citys Business Improvement Districts usetheir unding to improve the quality o publicstreets; Bryant Park and Union Square BIDsdirectly benet public parks. Battery Park CityConservancy, which is unded through an assess-ment o adjoining residential properties, is anotheranalogous example. Other Business ImprovementDistricts, such as the 34th Street Partnership,

provide landscaping services or the parks in theirdistrict. Te Citys Zoning Resolution includesa Special Park Improvement District mappedalong the East Side o Central Park; howeverthis provision was never implemented. A relatedmeans o capturing revenue associated with newdevelopment was recently established at HudsonYards, where Payments in Lieu o axes rom thedistrict are directed or specic purposes.Examples: Bryant Parks Business ImprovementDistrict (BID); 34th Street Partnership; Union;

Square BID; Battery Park City Parks Conser- vancy; ueens West residential assessment ees.Strengths: PIDs can help capture the valueassociated with well-maintained parkland romthose properties and people that most directly

benet rom it.Limitations: Implementing a PID would lirequire considerable political approvals, ba system that taxes residents and businesseCreation o a BID requires approvals romCity Planning Commission, City Council, the affected landowners. It is unclear whetthe political cost is worth the potentially smamount o revenue that would be created. can only work in communities where residand businesses have adequate resources, ra

questions about creating a two tier park syDepending on how the unding is allocatecan generate accountability concerns.

Battery Park CityParksWaterfront: Hudson RiverSize: 35 acresOwnership: Battery Park CityAuthority (BPCA)

Management/Operations: Battery Park CityPark Conservancy (non-prot)Maintenance Financing: Payments romadjoining real estate, private donationsParks & Recreation jurisdiction: Mapped parkland; contracted to provide Park En orce-ment Patrol officers

Constructed on landll rom the original Worldrade Center excavation, Battery Park Citys high

rise residential units and its 35 acres o parklandand open space are owned by the Battery ParkCity Authority (BPCA). BPCA was created bystate law in 1968 as a public benet corporationand charged with the mission to plan, create,

coordinate and maintain a balanced communityo commercial, residential, retail, and park space.o help pay or maintenance o the parks and

open spaces, BPCA charges a ee to developersand residents including base and supplementalrent ees, payments in lieu o taxes (PILO s) andcivic acility payments. BPCA also accepts privatedonations and has the ability to sell bonds orrevenue. In 1988, BPCA entered into a managementagreement with the non-prot Battery Park CityParks Conservancy (BPCPC) it had previouslyincorporated. Te contract authorized BPCPCto undertake all responsibilities related to theoperation, maintenance and repair o the parksand open spaces, including horticulture, masonry, programming, permitting, design and overall park administration. BPCPC relies on BPCA or

unding raised through the maintenance and lease payments derived rom the adjoining real estate.

10



18/24

Te stewardship o the citys water ront parksand public spaces is a difficult challenge. Well-endowed public parks like Battery Park CityParks and the Hudson River Park have creatednew public expectations and set high standards

or managers. While the FY 07 and preliminaryFY 08 City budgets have included substantialincreases in the overall city Parks Budget17,meeting these higher expectations and standards with only general operating unds is difficult inot impossible to achieve.

O course, some o the new water ront publicspaces are not under control o the City or StateParks Department. While management undingis still a challenge or these public or privatelyowned sites, so is ensuring that this mandated water ront access is managed rst and oremost

or the public.Addressing these unding and jurisdictional

issues will require action both on-site and at thecity-wide level.

Water ront parks and public spaces reectthe diversity o the city itsel . Teir steward-ship can and should reect that diversity.Tis includes enhancing the ability to engagea variety o private partners to add vitality,

services, and unding to each individual park. Tis vertical management structure should allow orbetter coordination between agencies and partners,enabling them to drill down and address site specicissues. Many o the ollowing recommendationssuggest ways improve these partnerships, throughnew practices geared to this new breed o park.

But while these site specic partnerships canaddress site specic problems, they do not removethe responsibility o the city as a whole to provide oressential park services. Underlying any o these ar-rangements is the undamental partnership betweena park and the public at large.

Te citys parks and public spaces are at theirbest when they strive or Olmsteds ideal o ademocratic meeting space, open to all. A totaldependence on private unding or park management will create a two tier park system: uality spaces orthose who can pay to play, and other, less desirable

acilities or those who cannot; Potential new parks judged not on their merits and/or the need or parkservices but on the parks ability to generate its own

unding.Te very rst recommendation and the underly-

ing goal o all the other proposal in this report is toensure that no water ront public space ails to meetminimum management standards. It is clear that

private partnerships can and should continue to provide valuable services and unding or water ront parks. Ways o ensuring that these partnerships may work to address equity issues are highlighted below. While the recommendations presented in this reportare directed primarily to the City and its agencies,in most cases they are also applicable at the Statelevel or State-owned and managed parks and publicspaces.

Recommendation 1

Ensure equitable fundingfor management of all

waterfront parks Relying solely on local and/or private unding ornew water ront public spaces with a site by siteapproach can exacerbate disparities between theservices and impacts aced by different neighbor-hoods and parks. Such money is easier to generatein residential rather than industrial neighborhoods,and in wealthier rather than poorer neighborhoods.Tese approaches can also raise concerns about who pays and who is being served by the parks,in particular the distinctions between local andcitywide or regional visitors.

While many o the proposals below strive

to address these inefficiencies, one overrirecommendation serves as the oundationrecommendations issued in this report thesurest, most direct route toward improv-ing parks maintenance is to increase theParks & Recreation general operatingbudget. An increase in the operating budo Parks & Recreation as well as opera

unding or public spaces managed by NEDC and DO - would enable these agento keep the open spaces clean and sa e wcompromising equity or the public characthe Citys parkland. Adequate investmentmaintenance o parks ensures that ewerdollars will be needed to be spent on exprepairs in the uture.

Te last two years have seen a signicaincrease in Parks & Recreation budget. NYorkers or Parks and others have recommgeneral goal o one percent o the Citys ing budget or parks.18 Moving toward this leo unding would help ensure that everyhas sufficient resources or its stewardshdition to any effort a park can undertake tsupplementary private unding. Such a bexpenditures should be sufficient, as a mito cover costs associated with garbage an

removal, adequate lighting, care o standxtures, and providing a sa e environmeBecause many water ront parks requireadditional signicant unding or repairsshoreline bulkheads, piers and riprap,a specialfund separate from the operatingbudget - should be established by theCitys Ofce of Management and Budgetfor the various managing entities to usefor repairs to these structures. NYCEDC has already taken a leadership role tinventory and assessing these structures; City should pursue alternative unding

acilities through general obligation bondbonds backed by specic revenue sources While new parks can and should identhe potential o generating private undin programming and to supplement public drealizing this unding should not be usedexcuse to remove this public baseline o Even more important, a parks ability to rdollars privately should not be a means ospecic proposals to the ront o the quecapital approval.

Recommendation 2Capture revenue from


SectionSix Recommendations

The surest,most directroute towardimproving

parks main-tenance isto increasethe Parks &Recreationgeneral oper-ating budget.


19/24

licenses or leases on oradjacent to parkland Water ront sites are attractive to the publicand to private investors, and can provide a venue or valuable uses or services.The Cityshould generate revenue received fromlicenses or leases on parks and adjoiningpublic property for the maintenance andmanagement of these public spaces. Teuses and services generating revenue should be

appropriate or the space and should enhancethe users experience o the park. Tis approach provides a regular income stream or parksmaintenance while enabling the City to capturesome o the value created by the park in adjacent public properties; an approach that differs romthe current system o lease or license revenuesbolstering the Citys General Fund.

Tere are several examples o where this hasoccurred around the city. Some are on designatedState and City parkland, such as Hudson RiverPark rust and Brooklyn Bridge Park. Others areon land owned by the City that is being redevel-oped as public space, but not ormally designatedas parkland, such as Stuyvesant Cove and the West Harlem water ront now under construc-tion. In some o these places, the benets o City

unding are enhanced by non-prot conservancy partners. Finally public spaces at public develop-ment sites like South Street Seaport and GatewayEstates have similar but distinct arrangements.Here, the leaseholder is mandated to provide orthe maintenance o the public spaces directly orthrough a third party arrangement.

Tis approach has also been suggested orother areas in the city such as the Brooklyn water ront at Piers 7-12 and the South BrooklynMarine erminal, where a percent o leaserevenue rom uses at these sites or payments in

lieu o taxes (PILO s) rom new developmentsites created rom public property could beused to help cover maintenance costs. Anotherapproach involves establishing entire districts where a raction o al l new lease revenues rom public properties within several blocks o a parkor greenway are dedicated to that space.

While establishing reliable and adequatesource o management unding is the right goal,it is clear that leases or licenses are not a solutionavailable to every park. Even where it is possible,dependence on such unding can skew thesearrangements. For example, at Brooklyn BridgePark, revenue rom private development sitesmust cover all o the parks management costs,19 which suggests that the development must berelatively lucrative and reliable. Parks with less pressure or creating revenue sources may be ableto consider other virtues o private activities, suchas service and program delivery as well as revenue.Hudson River Park rust is currently acingthis question as it weighs the option or how todevelop Pier 57. Te public interest in these arrangements iscontrolled through the provisions o the leases orlicenses. Tese contracts speci y permitted uses,the term o use and the nature o the payment

(e.g. xed or as a percent o revenues). Tey can alsorequire a lessee or licensee to provide specic servicesto the public, such as restrooms or water ountains ormeet specic design requirements. Tere are specictrade-offs between the degree o public control ona private lessee/licensee; the amount, timing, andcertainty o unding; and the location and impactso the private use and activity on the adjacent publicspace.

While these arrangements can only be trulyevaluated on a site by site basis, the publics abilityto gauge the costs and benets and en orce theconditions o such arrangements could be improvedby relying on performance standards as acondition for RFPs and lease negotiations and by ensuring that Parks & Recreation has juris-diction on public access sites while improving theirability to en orce per ormance standards or third parties. Tis would enable park managers to bettertarget service delivery and would provide a betterbasis or en orcing the terms o the lease or license.Parks & Recreations own Parks Inspection Programcould be the basis o such standard.20 A per ormance-based lease would provide a much better basis orevaluating the trade-offs involved specical lyrevenue versus service delivery o any particulararrangement. Finally,ensuring that Parks &Recreation has jurisdiction on public accesssites and improving their ability to enforceperformance standards when a third party isinvolved . Te public spaces that result rom thesenegotiations should eel like true public spaces. Te party responsible or design, construction, and main-tenance o these sites must have experience in manag-ing and maintaining parks. Relying on developers tobuild and maintain new water ront parks has provento be a mixed success, whether here in New York oracross the Hudson River in New Jersey. Te publicshould be able to look to Parks & Recreation as theagency responsible or their care. Tis would require

Parks & Recreation to have the nal word on designissues related to capital improvements and the abilityto permit public events. Te resulting public spaceshould ideally be under the jurisdiction o Parks &Recreation. I their jurisdiction is not easible, thenParks & Recreation should be a ull partner in thedesign and management o the site, and have directen orcement responsibility and resources.

Recommendation 3Assess Feasibility of wa-terfront Park ImprovementDistricts (PID) It is well documented that well-maintained parkscreate value on adjoining private property and that poorly maintained parks decrease the value o associ-ated property.21 Te business improvement districtsthat exist around the city are a proven mechanism

or capturing this wind all and delivering it or park maintenance activities. Te Union Squareand especially Bryant Park Business ImprovementDistricts provide revenue or management o theirrespective parks. Another well known example is theBattery Park City Parks Conservancy, which relieson assessments o local property owners built intothe common area maintenance ee to pay or their

management activities.The feasibility of new waterfront

park improvement districts (PIDs)should be examined for waterfront areaswith prospective new development, anability to pay an assessment fee, appro-priate zoning and use, and an economicand physical connection between thepark and adjoining property.Te structure o these districts must addrethe natural tension between those who paydistrict assessments and those who beneimproved management. Because paymenta degree o control over use, revenue genmust be balanced with the city-wide naturo parks. Tere needs to be bright lines as who controls the unds and or what are purposes. Payment structure should be traent and equitable.

Statistical analyses o this issue suggassessment ees should be determined ongross square ootage o buildings withintwo block radius o the park, and not basthe length o rontage on the park. Residbuildings and units are most likely to derlargest value increase, but l imited assessm

ees could be charged to any retail or comoperation that also benets rom the proxthe park. Buildings with rent stabilized apments or otherwise legally affordable apashould be exempt.

Te PID structure will not work or ev water ront neighborhood. It is clear that t work best in neighborhoods with new contion, a high percentage o owner-occupiehouseholds and a nancial ability to absoadditional ees directly or as a pass throuthe landlord. Battery Park City, Riversideand the Hudson Yards offer examples o new PID-like assessments have or presum

will be built into common maintenance new residents.

17Recommendations

17 FY07 - $234 million or Parks & Recreation; FY proposed - $269 mil lion or Park s & Recreat ion

18 New Yorkers or Parks notes that the current (FYbudget level or Parks & Recreation is less than o percent o the Citys budget.

19 According to the Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservathe plans or redevelopment o Piers 1-5, owned Authority, began taking shape 20 years ago, the ccalled or a park. Te government committed the build Brooklyn Bridge Park based on the agreemthe park include limited development to pay or imaintenance and operations costs.

20 According to Parks & Recreation, Te Parks Depauses the PIP ratings to hold itsel accountable to tstandards o cleanliness, sa ety, and structural coIn addition, these ratings are used to target probleand to utilize limited resources more effectively.

21 See or example, John Crompton in Te Impact oon Property Values, Journal o Leisure ResearchVol. 3, No. 1 pp. 1-31 and Te Proximate Principle:Impact o Parks, Open Space, and Water FeaturesResidential Property Values and the Property axNational Recreation and Parks Association, 2006New Yorkers or Parks and Ernst & Young, How Parks Investment Pays its Way, NY4P, 2005. RPA conducting research or Friends o Hudson R ivethe impact o the park on adjacent land values.


20/24

New development, especially whenaccompanied by a rezoning, offers a particular political moment to institute such ees. One way to address the inequity inherent in such anarrangement would be to extend the benetsof the PID to other neighborhoods byestablishing districts in areas that geographicallyextend across diverse income levels and a varietyo land uses. An example could be the lower EastRiver in Manhattan, putting together a PID or

the water ront neighborhoods above and belowthe Brooklyn Bridge. Another could be northernManhattans Inwood neighborhood on theHarlem River. Yet another could be RiversidePark. One study, conducted or the RiversidePark Fund in 1996, ound that a PID orRiverside Park could be established rom W 72 Stto W 125 St or condominiums, cooperatives andrentals between the park and Broadway. Such aPID, with an assessment ee o $150 per dwelling per year, would yield $10 million dollars per year

or the park. Such an approach could be extendedacross an entire Harbor District, though effortsshould be undertaken to determine the maxi-mum size o a PID that still enables residentsto realize the impact o their payments in parkimprovements.

Recommendation 4Enhance public accessthrough zoningTe public access requirements o the CitysLocal Water ront Revitalization Program and water ront zoning have resulted in a number oesplanades and other privately built and managed water ront public spaces. Te program has been very success ul in ensuring that public access is provided in quali ying residential and commer-

cial development projects. However the experi-ence offered by such privately held public spacesis mixed. While some spaces are well designedand heavily used, others are not. Some sites eeldisconnected rom the adjoining neighborhoodand nearby water ront public spaces. WhileParks & Recreation and the Department o CityPlanning (City Planning) have recently steppedup en orcement actions, neither agency are wellequipped to monitor management at the growingnumber o these sites.22

Provisions within the new Greenpoint- Williamsburg zoning text offer a substantialmeans o ensuring that these water ront spacesare truly public and are connected to each otherand to adjoining parks. Te rezoning establishedand encouraged a voluntary alternative by which developers can build required public walkways and open spaces, turn the propertyover to the parks department, while continuingto have property owners pay maintenance costs.These provisions should be extendedto other waterfront areas through anamendment to the waterfront zoning text. Tis arrangement will encourage and acilitatecoordinated management o other adjacentexisting and proposed water ront parks - ensur-

ing that these public spaces provide a seamless highquality water ront recreational experience. It will permit efficient management decisions by al lowingequipment and personnel to be spread across a largerland area.

As with Greenpoint-Williamsburg,CityPlanning and Parks & Recreation should col-laborate on overall Waterfront Master Plans

or other, specic water ront areas where proposednew development and a critical mass o existing and

proposed parks makes City ownership and manage-ment a viable option. A Water ront Master Planshould compliment any existing Water ront AccessPlan (WAP) and serve as a guide or the agency and

or uture developers along the water ront, provid-ing a conceptual ramework or parks and publicspaces. Tey should serve as a means to ensure thatCity Planning and Parks & Recreation as well asthe community, developers, and state and ederalagencies - work towards their common goals early inthe process.

Water ront Master Plans shouldincludeprovisions typically included in WAPssuch as esplanade and supplemental openspace location and design, constructionstandards, connections to adjoining public spaces,and management plans including evening opera-tions. Tey should also identi y suitable candidate water ront areas or this kind o zoning and shouldspecically address possible long term and interimactions on potential gap sites where landowners arelikely unable or unwilling to move orward, where properties are exempt rom public access require-ments, and previously developed access sites where public ownership is desired. Water ront MasterPlans should also address the increasing numbero water ront greenways by incorporating bicycleaccess in the supplemental open space and water rontesplanades created by zoning. Specic areas that

might be suitable or these plans include the Flushing water ront and Long Island City in ueens and theNorth Shore o Staten Island. Tese Water ront Master Plans shouldspecically assess whether certain uplandaccess areas need to be included in transferof ownership. Te Greenpoint-Williamsburg WAPrequired an increased number o upland connectionsto the water ront, but didnt create an opportunityto trans er ownership and liability o these areas toParks & Recreation. Where an upland connection islocated between adjacent properties, developers areresponsible or their hal only; urther complicatingdesign and maintenance o the connection. Te Water ront Master Plans shouldalso identifyhow the Federal, City and State approvalprocesses can be better coordinated andstreamlined. Under current Water ront Zoning, private owners are required to build or repairstructures, such as piers, in the water adjacent totheir property, which involves two approval processesby the City and the State. Water ront Master Planscan serve as a vehicle or scoping the issues associated with the approvals , and generally enhancing theefficiency o the approval process. Te City shouldcreate and allocate fundsto a waterfront improvement fund to provide

incentives for landowners, especially inlower income areas, to meet the goals o plans. As per Greenpoint-Williamsburg, t

unds could be used to provide incentive participating in the land trans er, especianeighborhoods where land values or densnot be high enough to warrant developer p pation or where shoreline conditions warrextraordinary response.23 Te und should alsbe used to und interim and permanent ac

to address gap sites. Funding or the wateimprovement unds could be allocated asthe Citys capital plan. Additional specicto be considered include using Clean Wat

unds or bulkhead/stormwater remediator no interest loans rom the State EnviroFacilities Corporation, trans er taxes, envmental mitigation settlement unds, the sair rights and levies on passenger and conships or could ollow the inclusionary homodel using ees generated in one placat another.

Recommendation 5

Make non-prot manage-ment partnerships workbetterPartnering with community-based organihas enabled public agencies, such as EDCas Parks & Recreation, to share managemsponsibilities with non prot partners. Teropportunities to improve service deliverynon-prot partners by clari ying and apprately allocating responsibilities or manaDividing duties brings the best out ofeach of the partners responsible for thepark. Moreover a park will be more likely private unding i potential contributors the City is doing its share. Many management functions are besthandled under existing responsibilities ofcity agencies. City agencies - such as EDNYC DO , Parks & Recreation, DSNY, aDepartment o Environmental Protectionalready experienced, equipped and staffehandle certain unctions in a more efficieand economical way than a community baorganization. Tey have already negotiatedcontracts, trained staff, and procured and spare equipment and elements. For exampNYC DO already maintains all the streein Parks & Recreation properties. EDC ha

played a pivotal role in maintaining the lascale in rastructure (e.g. piers and bulkhseveral water ront locations an expensicomplicated task. uality o li e issues, security, are a challenge or many smalleand

waterfront parks report

Documents