An EVG reader shared these photos from earlier today ... showing a banner hanging from the East River Park Amphitheater: "Destruction (of the park) ≠ Protection (from climate change)."
As you probably know, to stormproof the East Side and protect residents from storms the magnitude of Sandy, the city plans to "lift" East River Park by up to 10 feet when work starts in March 2020.
Creating the intricate flood protection system would see the city close East River Park for up to three and a half years, shutting down the current amenities, cutting down many of the trees and rebuilding the recently renovated running track, among other things.
The draft environmental impact statement for the East Side Coastal Resiliency project is currently available for review and comment. (Be warned: the whole thing is 900-plus pages.) My previous post here has more details on the review process and links to relevant materials.
6 comments:
This plan for the park is fucking asinine and there must be some other reason for it. I hope it doesn't end up happening this way. Was there a reason a wall can't just be built along the edge of the FDR?
It's hard to think of a WORSE use of public funds than this inane proposal.
I feel, personally, that this has to do with making sure construction workers ALWAYS have something to do; it just looks like "make work": first you pay them to build it, then you pay them to tear it apart, then you pay them to re-build it.
IMO, there's no logic to this situation at all, except in respect of the bank accounts of unnamed people in positions of power.
I wonder how much of this plan is going to be given to private contractors vs. city workers?
The money involved in that would explain all of this.
It's a park, and there's a storm surge, let it flood. Isn't that what resiliency is about? Am I missing something here? Are we eventually going to attempt to raise the entire island? By we I mean our stupid fucking bureaucracy/kleptocracy of course.
The plans for the East Coast Resiliency project are not meant to protect the park, but rather all of the people living in the east village/lower east side. Our neighborhood was flooded and a huge portion of Manhattan lost power for 4+ days because we couldn't hold back flood waters. Building a structure that can protect us is important -- this isn't being done to keep construction workers busy. It's for your own protection....
If you look at the illustrations in the impact statement, the effect that the 10 foot wall and landscaping has on the park while entering or viewing it from the west is kind of shocking. It's like looking at the Berlin Wall. In many areas, no longer will you be able to see into the park and to the river from ground level, instead. all you would see is a barrier wall or perhaps some landscaping, but the current view into the park and to the river, being able to see the baseball field and track and field area, the playground, etc. would be obstructed or gone. So if your view now includes the park, trees and the FDR drive, now you view might only be of the FDR Drive.
The document first denies this is an issue, then acknowledges that in several areas this is in fact a major design issue, but then dismisses the issue as not significant, all in the same paragraph.
The bottom line is that we are being sold a hatchet job disguised as a butter knife.
Heres the excerpt:
VIEWS, AESTHETIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES, AND VIEWER GROUPS
The Preferred Alternative would maintain the visual connectivity between the waterfront and the adjacent upland neighborhoods. In Project Area One, the design of East River Park to slope down to the level of the FDR Drive would maintain views of East River Park from the adjacent neighborhoods. However, by raising East River Park, this alternative would potentially block some views of the East River. On Grand Street, views of the East River would be blocked, resulting in a significant adverse impact, but these eastward views would be of East River Park with Brooklyn in the distance. The raised park would block waterfront views in the East 6th Street and East 10th Street view corridors and from within the Bernard Baruch, Lillian Wald, and Jacob Riis Houses compared to existing views, but these views would be of a landscaped waterfront park and there would be no potential significant adverse effects to these views. At East 6th and East 10th Streets, views to the waterfront would continue to be of East River Park. From the portions of the FDR Drive and FDR Drive service road that run through Project Area One, views would be of East River Park, similar to existing views, although occasional views of the East River would no longer be available.
Post a Comment