Riverside South Development

[lofter1]

I'm looking at it from all sides and haven't yet been persuaded, given the number of projects that are more needed (a few of which are mentioned by ablarc above) and in need of funds.

What is the change in the amount of park space that will result by moving the roadway (plus or minus). And how much of that will be at usable grade, as opposed to slopes?

And thousands (more than the "thousand" you now mention who will benefit at some vague date in the future ) use the park as it is today and don't seem to be driven away by the elevated roadway.

And finally, what is the cost and projected amount of time to construct this roadway / tunnels / interchanges?

[Engineer]

The change in park space depends on whether you consider space under a highway to be "park space." I don't. It also depends on whether you consider the current state of the site east of the highway, with the part north of 65th Street a large berm with steep slopes, and the part south of 65th Street a flat area next to a 20-foot concrete wall, desireable park space.

The cost is high -- $350 million -- but the issue at the moment is whether Extell should pay for it, not whether the government should.

[ablarc]

I think you're calling me a delusional theoretician

Not really, I was just saying that they're already living with a condition that affects them, and they're not just making up hypotheses --which is the main opiate of both theoreticians and the delusional.

You think I never use that park? I'm up there once a month or so. It's part of my regular travels around our fair city.

Are there salamanders beneath the roadway? Are there particulates? Is there noise?

I dig that park and the roadway above. It's a very urban mix.

That could have been said of the elevated highway that cut through Boston. They spent a king's ransom to get rid of it. And when its sibling collapsed in a San Francisco earthquake, those folks chose not to replace it.

It works just fine.

If you're driving on it.

As I've pointed out I think when looked at from all angles the current situation works better than what they have in mind.

Don't know why you say this.

Just because they want it doesn't mean it should happen. They're not two year olds who need be silenced with a bottle (or a boondoggle). The roadway will wear out its expected useable life in another 30 years. Build it then.

So they're just babies?

I could also ask why you should care what the Dutch do with their immigrant population (but I won't)

You can. I don't want my kids to have to cope with an Islamic Republic. I don't want the great tradition of liberal Western culture replaced by gropings from the Dark Ages.

I think some things are more important than others, and it's better to breathe the air of relative freedom than the stagnant vapors of imams.

[lofter1]

Noise from vehicles? Yes, it exists -- but it's way up above the park, humming along. It's a fairy tell to pretend that moving the road will make that better by any degree. I have a huge issue with pushing the roadway down to the level of the park at the north end. As fellow-poster engineer has pointed out: The new open roadway along the northern blocks will sit just 25' above the park. The multi-laned highway will be right along side a big part of the park; there the retaining wall will reflect the sound into the park and out to the esplanade (and conveniently move that noise farther away from the residential buildings up above -- which is what this entire "move the road" thing is really all about).

Glad you brought up the particulates: Sure they exist, it's a major highway. How will changing the position of the roadway do anything positive about that? Engineer acknowledges that there will be a pedestrian crossing at 60th Street, which means a new stop light. That means slower moving & stopped traffic, and idling vehicles result in more particulates in immediate areas than when vehicles are streaming along.

Moving the roadway won't lessen the number of vehicles (there could be even more, once Portzamparc's buildings go up) and they'll be closer to the park, very visible -- whereas now they're way up in the sky and not seen at all from the park, and hardly noticeable even when out on the piers. Are they going to vent the tunnel that runs right through the middle of the park? Where will that particulate-laden air be directed?

Salamanders? Never seen any, and would be surprised if I did (maybe the rats eat them all).

Full disclosure: I neither own property in the area nor am paid by any company that will benefit from moving / rebuilding the roadway.

[Engineer]

The highway is little more that 25 feet above the park at the southern end. I don't see you complaining about that. North of 57th Street trucks and busses are probited from the highway. Hence no particulates to speak of. There will be no stop lights north of 57th Street. Boy, you're grasping for straws!

[ablarc]

Glad you brought up the particulates: Sure they exist, it's a major highway. How will changing the position of the roadway do anything positive about that?

Particulates are heavier than air.

[lofter1]

The change in park space depends on whether you consider space under a highway to be "park space." I don't.

There are existing sports courts and bike lanes under the elevated roadway (and they're nicely shaded on hot summer days). So definitely that is park space. And it's used by lots of people.

Not sure how anyone can argue that designated park space isn't really park space.

It also depends on whether you consider the current state of the site east of the highway, with the part north of 65th Street a large berm with steep slopes, and the part south of 65th Street a flat area next to a 20-foot concrete wall, desireable park space.

That existing slope, while perhaps technically "open" to park goers, is basically unusable -- too darned steep and often nasty & wet. From the render it looks like they're planning to replace a chunk of that slope with a big retaining wall.

The flat space you mention: Do you mean the area up top or down below? The flat grassy field up top, near the playground, is fenced off and rarely usable. Has the part down below, which is officially designated as park space, ever been actually opened to the public and made regularly available and usable? I see the occasional dog & owner running around in there, but that's about it.

The fact is that almost the entire area east of the elevated roadway is effectively off limits and being kept that way (as it has been for years) due to someone's reasoning (who apparently prefers it to remain unimproved & undesirable & unusable). Aside from some low grass, it has never been planted and drainage there has never been properly addressed. Deferred maintenance would be an apt term to describe the conditions (a trick familiar to many NYC property owners who haven't gotten their way, but would like to impose their will on others).

Like you say, that area remains a bare and unwelcoming berm -- but that space is a part of the park. Fixing it up would be very nice and as I understand the situation it's the responsibility of the developer to make such improvements. But planting & prettifying it won't increase any actual park space.

So it seems that the actual amount of designated park space remains unchanged, no matter where the road lies. To claim that the "Park space would increase by X% because the off limits / unimproved park areas are now going to be fixed up and eventually opened" is an interesting way to present the package.

The cost is high -- $350 million -- but the issue at the moment is whether Extell should pay for it, not whether the government should.

Wow. Pricey. Can only imagine what it will really cost. Trump was clearly the clever one here. I vote Extell.

[lofter1]

There will be no stop lights north of 57th Street. Boy, you're grasping for straws!

Straw or not, you wrote that there will be pedestrian crossing at 60th. How will that occur in any safe manner without a stop light?

[lofter1]

... when its sibling collapsed in a San Francisco earthquake, those folks chose not to replace it.

The Embarcadero Freeway in SF didn't fall down in '89 (the freeway collapse was across the bay in Oakland -- and that was rebuilt). But that double-decked highway along the SF waterfront was rendered unsafe & unusable by the earthquake, so they finally were able to correct the original wrong and brought it down. That was an entirely different type of roadway than what we're talking about here -- it was a long stretch of massive concrete pylons with multiple entrances and exits -- a maze of roadways. Literally a wall between the city and the bay.

Here we just recently spent millions to make sure the 15 block elevated stretch is both safe and sound.

[Engineer]

Straw or not, you wrote that there will be pedestrian crossing at 60th. How will that occur in any safe manner without a stop light?

Actually you wrote that a stop light would be needed at 61st Street (#311) and I wrote that no crossing would be allowed between 57th and 60th (#316). The crossings would be over the highway at 61st (and at every street north to 70th) and via a stop light at 56th.

[lofter1]

Would 59th terminate at the new version of the WSH? Or would it remain a through street?

[Engineer]

59th Street would connect with northbound 12th Avenue, but not with southbound 12th Avenue.

[lofter1]

This has been a good exchange. And seemingly we both stick to our positions.

Luckily this plan won't happen in my lifetime (aka: within the next 25 years). But no doubt it will be part of NYC's future.

[lofter1]

Meanwhile, given the current uproar along Riverside Boulevard, I wouldn't bet on a "no stop lights" result anywhere in this vicinity:

Boulevard of Broken Bones: Riverside South Residents Demand Traffic Signals

[Engineer]

Riverside Boulevard is a street (not a highway) and should have stop lights or stop signs. The problem here is that the developer constructed the street according to City requirements, so that it can eventually be turned over to the City. Extell apparently wants to turn it over, but the City refuses to accept it.