Recommendations for the Central AreaThe following recommendations are not grouped thematically, but rather in terms of their geographical location. This shift in organization is due to the interrelationship of the proposals and the aforementioned themes. For instance, the High Bridge was grouped in the transportation and infrastructure section of our plan; however, the recommendation suggests its future function as a key component to the recreational resources in the Central section. In addition, the Harlem River Historic Walk links the layering of development we previously sited; for instance, the walk connects the industrial, residential, and recreational sites to the historic transportation structures and infrastructure facilities in the Central area. This has been done in order to acknowledge and maintain the multiple uses and characteristics that have defined the river throughout history. The recommendations are as follows: Improved Access to Recreation over Existing Transportation Infrastructure: When the public cannot access significant historic resources, awareness is decreased. Accessibility to existing recreational areas within the Central area must be improved in order stave off apathy for these important sites. As a result of this indifference toward the historic resources, the Central region is faced with issues regarding vandalism, neglect, and deterioration. Currently, transportation corridors that run along the Harlem River shorelines on both the Manhattan and Bronx sides of the Central area act to sever access to waterfront resources from inland communities. Pedestrian over- and underpasses are extremely limited in bringing pedestrians over the Major Deegan, Harlem River Drive, and Metro North train tracks safely into the existing recreational areas. Furthermore, intersections along these routes are in desperate need of traffic calming measures. In recent years, several local and regional organizations have proposed plans to improve safe pedestrian access to existing recreational and waterfront resources within the Central section of the Harlem River study area. The following two sets of recommendations summarize the existing proposals that deal with improved access to recreation in the Central area. These recommendation could be implemented towards the goal of improved access, both on the Manhattan and Bronx sides of the Harlem River. New York Restoration Project: Harlem River Esplanade1 As part of their proposals for improving and expanding the existing greenway esplanade along the Harlem River, the New York Restoration Project (NYRP) has made several suggestions regarding the future improvement of pedestrian access to the existing greenway. In addition, the organization proposes traffic calming and other strategies for improving pedestrian safety in these areas. Recommendations by NYRP, which could be used as part of this plan include:
NYC Department of City Planning: Comprehensive Waterfront Plan Reach 6: Hudson and Harlem Rivers (1993) Reach 6 of the 1993 New York City Department of City Planning Comprehensive Waterfront Plan addresses a seven-mile area from the city line at Yonkers to the Hudson River to 153rd Street along the Harlem River. The reach generally includes all lands between the water’s edge and the first public streets in Bronx Community Districts 4, 5, 7 and 8. As part of this reach, recommendations for improved pedestrian safety and access to recreational resources, within the Central section, were discussed as such:
Harlem River Historic Walk: A historic walk with guiding visual markers is proposed beginning at the Polo Grounds Towers at West 155th Street, continuing along the Manhattan Greenway at the historic Harlem River Speedway (between West 163rd Streets and Dyckman Avenue), and terminating at Sherman’s Creek in Inwood. The objective of this walk is to recall the developmental history of the Central section of the Harlem River study area, a dynamic and vibrant evolution that resulted in a layering of industrial, transportation, residential, and recreational uses along the edges of the Harlem River. By beginning at the Polo Grounds Towers, the site of legendary athletic facilities including the polo grounds and the former stadium of the New York Giants, now the site of a NYCHA housing project, the walking tour will begin with an element of the recent path - the story of public housing development within the Central Region, predominant in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The Manhattan Greenway at the historic Harlem River Speedway will tell a story of its own; one of the height of boating and rowing activity for the region at the turn of the 19th century, when some of New York’s wealthiest elite gathered here to enjoy expansive views of the Harlem River. The history of transportation infrastructure in the Central Region can be simultaneously expressed along the greenway, which offers views of the historic Harlem River Line train tracks across the river in the Bronx (1851), nestled between the water and the Harlem River Drive (1960s). By culminating at the southern edge of Sherman’s Creek, the walk will further tell the story of industrial development in the Central Region, as this point along the shoreline is a clear expression of the layered nature of the area, with industrial development on the northern boundary, residential to the west, and recreation on the southern shore of the creek itself. The visual markers along this walkway should consist of small interpretive billboards at waist height (approximately 36 inches off the ground), which incorporate text and images referring to the various instances in the developmental history of the Central Region. The billboards should be oriented such that readers are directed towards specific and significant view corridors. In some cases these may face outwards towards the Bronx and the Harlem River, as well as the historic bridges. In other instances, the view corridors might be oriented inwards towards transportation infrastructure and Manhattan-side development. At all points, historic photos of matching views should accompany text explaining the genesis of this land use within the Central Region. Examples of similar land uses and items from similar time periods can be expressed through color-coded maps, which may also be incorporated into some of the billboards. Existing archaeological remnants should also be identified along the walk, including the remains of an archway just north of the Washington Bridge, belonging to a former subterranean passageway that ran under the Harlem River Speedway. In accordance with National Park Service guidelines for interpretive signs, the billboards should help each visitor connect with the development of the Central section of the Harlem River study area. Although eventually intended to serve as a permanent lead-in to the Manhattan Greenway, the entry at West 155th Street to the south of the greenway currently offers only a weak connection to this stretch. Similarly, although a waterfront connection has been proposed for the area north of Dyckman Street leading to Sherman’s Creek, plans to establish this connection still exist; however, the proposals have not made it beyond paper form. While these crucial elements are finalized, implementation of the historic walk can begin along the two-mile stretch of the Manhattan Greenway between West 163rd and Dyckman Streets, which was recently refurbished. This step can comprise Phase One of this plan. Phase Two can establish permanent connections to the north and south of the greenway. A possibility for a Phase Three would be to expand the interpretive billboards into other areas of the Central area, including additional housing projects, or calling out archaeologically significant sites within Highbridge Park. Community Involvement within High-Density Housing: The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) recognizes the need for new community facilities for the City’s public housing projects. In 2000, NYCHA approved the designs for a community center between the Ralph Rengal Houses and the Polo Grounds Towers. These designs were recently exhibited at the Municipal Art Society’s installation entitled, “New New York 3: Small Civic Works”. The retrospective promoted innovative designs for low funded, municipal projects. The design of the community center includes access to athletic and computer facilities. In addition to new community centers, it is important to promote active community involvement, particularly at River Park Towers. Security and maintenance issues have plagued this public housing project. The causes for its steady decline since completion in 1978 are unclear; as the only privately managed public housing project in the Central area, perhaps its deterioration could be contributed to the company that runs the development or it is possible that the complex’s isolation from the built environment could be a factor in its demise. Regardless, community programs, such as neighborhood watches or conservation and ecological awareness seminars, could generate positive responses from the development’s stakeholders. The increased awareness of the security and maintenance issues could capture the City’s attention concerning the needs of this community. Subsequently, innovative designs could be executed for a low cost community center at River Park Towers. Harlem River Bridges: The four landmarked bridges in the Central section of the study area (University Heights, Washington, High, and Macomb’s Dam Bridges) are technically protected from demolition or destructive change. However, because they are City-owned structures, the Landmarks Commission only has an advisory role in reviewing proposals for the bridges and cannot regulate project goals or methods. It is therefore important to identify ways in which to protect the bridges along the Harlem River from projects that assume the bridges to be obsolete or unneeded, and thereby unworthy of sensitive preservation effort. Many of these recommendations can be applied to other significant bridges in the other sections of the Harlem River Study area. One way to elevate their perceived worthiness of protection would be through education and increased public awareness. The most potent form of education in the case of the bridges is enhancing the public’s immediate and daily experience of them. As busy pedestrian and vehicular bridges (with the exception of High Bridge), these landmarks have the potential to attract the admiration of all who use them. The following suggestions could bring these bridges the attention they deserve:
The more exposure and attention the bridges garner, the more likely the public will defend and protect them. The Central area bridges are susceptible to improvement projects that overlook their historic and aesthetic importance. As public infrastructure, the bridges must first serve traffic needs. However, service improvements can be compatible with preservation if sensitive and practical guidelines are adhered to. Suggested guidelines for improvement and maintenance projects are as follows:
Proper regular maintenance is the most vital way of protecting the bridges. Retaining and preserving the aesthetic significance of the bridges influences the public perception of them as historic and cultural assets. Because the bridges are part of an historic system of roadways connecting Manhattan and the Bronx, the City may have access to public resources that could help fund their preservation. The City may have a chance at securing TEA-21 funds from New York’s Transportation Enhancement fund, supplied by the Federal Government. These funds are available for surface transportation enhancement projects that include some of the following activities: provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, historic preservation, and the rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, and facilities2 These eligible activities clearly include the recommendations outlined above, and could provide much needed funds under TEA-21 in order to maintain and restore the bridges as public assets. Case Study: Design Guidelines for Railings on the Washington Bridge: Currently, there is a chain-link fence that serves as the railing for the Washington Bridge. Although this may meet code requirements, it seriously hinders pedestrians from experiencing the view historically enjoyed from this landmark. The original iron railings still remain, but their fine ornamental detail has been obscured by the present fence. A better alternative that still meets code requirements is needed; the following are design guidelines for such an alternative:
Improving the railing of the Washington Bridge will help restore the pedestrian and motorist experience on it, thereby retaining it as a public asset in cultural and aesthetic terms and not merely in practical use. Harlem River Speedway: In terms of the historic arch that marks the historic pedestrian subway, which ran beneath the Harlem River Speedway, we recommend that a historic marker be placed within close proximity of the arch in order to indicate its historic significance. This marker should be similar to the existing signage in Highbridge Park, on the Bronx side of the river. In addition, traffic mitigation measures need to be implemented in order to access the historic entrance, which is located across the Harlem River Drive. Perhaps the arch could function again as a pedestrian subway. It could now lead to the Manhattan Greenway. Finally, we recommend removing the graffiti in order to conserve the aesthetic quality of the arch. Highbridge and Highbridge Park: Generally, the recommendations described below share common goals: the establishment of an open space network linking the Harlem River shoreline with Highbridge Park, the High Bridge, and historic portions of the Harlem River Speedway, as well as the creation of promenades and access points which, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were packed with citizens of New York and its environs. In addition, the recommendations will include the implementation of activities that will attract the public to the park and promote community awareness of the park’s historic structures and recreational potential. High Bridge: The recommendations for High Bridge, the Roman-style aqueduct bridge that carried the Croton Aqueduct across the Harlem River, address access, design, and conservation issues. First, it is recommended that the historic pedestrian promenade atop the High Bridge be reopened to the public. The New York City Parks Department is in the process of planning this now; however, it is unlikely that the proposal will be implemented in the near future. The second recommendation deals with the pedestrian rail on the promenade. A new design for the rail is needed due to the inadequate height of the current pedestrian rail, which is not up to the city’s building code standards for public safety. This issue involves the compliance with current building code specifications and the consideration for the original design intent of the ornate, distinctive, wrought iron rail. The final recommendations involve conservation measures, specifically addressing the deterioration of the water pipe inside the High Bridge, the rusted bearings at the brackets inside the bridge, and the cleaning of vandalized gate structures and stairwells at either end of the bridge. Conservation and maintenance of historic structures is difficult to address in that the lack of public funds for the maintenance of Highbridge Park has not been sympathizing to the deterioration of this historic structure. Highbridge Park: The recommendations for High Bridge Park involve issues of access, as well as the need for education and awareness within the community. In order to improve access to and from the waterfront and greenway, traffic mitigation measures need to be implemented on the Manhattan side of the Harlem River. The New York Restoration Project (NYPR), a community group funded by Bette Midler, is currently pushing such a “traffic calming” strategy in its Upper Harlem/Harlem River Waterfront Comprehensive Plan. Like NYPR, this plan also recommends that access be provided to the entire length of the historic stairwell on the Bronx side of the Park, down the steep incline that terminates at the Harlem River. The chain link fence that currently prevents access at that location should be removed. A third recommendation is the designation of Highbridge park as a New York City Scenic Landmark because of the substantial viewscape up and down the Harlem River from the park. The final recommendation of this plan is to promote school and community programs aimed at education and awareness; such initiatives are currently being implemented as part of NYRP’s program to revitalize Highbridge Park. A feasibility study should be undertaken to determine the best locations for opening new access points to Highbridge Park. Implementing new access points should take into account the proximity and the accessibility to educational institutions. Such measure are proposed in order to facilitate the development of educational programs that will utilize the park as a learning resource for ecology, biology, history, geography, etc. Along with new access points, a series of activities including tours, boating, hiking and rappelling are proposed in order to restore the livelihood of the park. Highbridge Park was a popular destination point in the 19th Century; by creating new activities and by attracting newcomers, the park can once again be an important recreational resource. New structures, such as educational facilities, a restaurant, an ampitheater and the Harlem River Museum, could be designed according to a National Design Competition (see design guidelines that follow). Located between the Alexander Hamilton Bridge and High Bridge, these structures would be historically sensitive in their design; the new construction should incorporate materials similar to the existing structures. The allocation of one percent of the current parkland for the construction of recreational and educational facilities is recommended, along with a cultural site management plan. Educational programs, sponsored by the local government in partnership with local Universities, should be ongoing. One activity that could attract attention to Highbridge Park could be the extension of the New York City ferry tours. The new ferry route would include the Historic Bridges of the Harlem River Boat Tour. The new structures proposed for Highbridge Park could provide an intermediate stop for refreshments and scenic views of nature and the river. This ferry stop would also work as a connection to the Harlem River Historic Walk. The addition of a new structure, the design of a recreation center, should be executed in Highbridge Park, a model of which should be the Chelsea Piers. The steep topography on the East side of the Harlem River banks, particularly the northernmost portions of the park, makes this location suitable for activities such as hiking or rappelling. Design Guidelines: New educational centers in the park should not exceed 1,000 sq. ft. These centers should be one story high so as to not overwhelm or stand out against the existing structures. New construction should be scattered along the existing pathway in the park in order to maximize the use of the parkland. The viewscapes in this area should be incorporated into the design of the new structure. The placement of the structures should also take into account the Harlem River Greenway. Pedestrians’ crossings should provide access to the Harlem River Historic Walk. A boathouse is to be designed on the Manhattan side of the River, across from the newly proposed amphitheater and restaurant site. In addition, pedestrian crossings will be provided above Harlem River Drive in order to connect to the park. Summer Jazz Series: Many New Yorkers are unaware of the resources in the Central area of the Harlem River, and as a result they remain underused. This affect is added to by the lack of a connection between the residential areas of Manhattan and the Bronx. Using the existing park systems on either side of the river, it is recommended that a series of summer music festivals take place in the Central section of the Harlem River Study Area. Much like the Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic in Central and Prospect Parks, we propose a summer music series on the river near Highbridge Park that includes concerts performed by Jazz at Lincoln Center’s Afro-Latin Jazz Orchestra. The aim is to create an event that would involve the participation of local and non-local New York City residents. Sponsored by the commercial interests in the area, such as Target, Con Edison and Home Depot, the concerts would take place on a barge in the middle of the Harlem River. The barge would act as the social and cultural bridge linking Manhattan to the Bronx. An associated festival in Highbridge Park would attract visitors to the Central area’s recreational resources. The increased attention could further the conservation initiative currently devoted to the extensive parklands. Sherman’s Creek Area: One of the largest obstacles to implementing the recommendations in the Sherman’s Creek area is the pollution of the site, in particular of the water basin itself. According to the New York City Department of Planning, the U.S. Army Corps is in the process of evaluating the basin for dredging. Pending the completion of such work, uses along the interior shores of the inlet are severely limited because of PCB contamination. Similarly, the land of the ConEdison property on the north shore is also contaminated. In order to utilize this land, a massive effort is needed to undertake the cleanup of the project. (See Brownfield appendix for more information.) Although Sherman’s Creek has a rich history that includes use as a Native American burial site, a Revolutionary War encampment, and the later commercial and industrial constructions described previously in this plan, its lack of physical remnants of this past pose limitations on the area’s incorporation into a historic preservation plan. As such, the best way to preserve elements of the area’s history is to incorporate historical use into plans for new development. This is best suited to the north and south shores of the Sherman’s Creek area where historic uses are well documented. Along the Harlem River, near the south corner of the inlet, are several boathouses of private ownership. Although their aesthetic is not a historic one, the presence of boathouses that cater to small recreational boating in that location has been documented since the turn of the century. With the rise in interest in the New York City waterfront, and the recent completion of the Peter Jay Sharp Boathouse in adjacent Swindler’s Cove, the time is ripe to put these sites to work according to their historic use. Boathouses between Swindler’s Cove and Sherman’s Creek: The proposal for this site, taking into account the precarious physical conditions of the present structures, is to build new facilities in the same location. These facilities would be part of a network of sites geared toward boating on the Harlem River. Other documented locations of historic boating clubs would be potential sites to include in this network. Other boating-related sites could be included as well, such as the proposed large boat-launch on the Bronx shore, slightly to the north. These locations may be ‘networked’ by use of educational programs, community activities, and tours that would increase attention to recreational opportunities currently available in the region. A network of this type would be multi-leveled, with planned access to and from the proposed Historic Walk, providing stopping points and areas of interest for people on foot, bicycle, or boat. There are several goals pertaining to the redevelopment of the site of the existing boathouses between Swindler’s Cove and Sherman’s Creek: the first is to provide a use and/or service that is comparable to that of the existing boathouses; the second is to improve the existing facilities and services without excluding community needs. Designs of the new boathouses should be sympathetic to the natural areas of Swindler’s Cove by buffering noise or activity for returning wildlife. General Design Guidelines: The material and scale of new buildings should reference the historical boathouses along the Harlem. In addition, the design of a new structure at this site should be informed by traditional forms of boathouses and their wood frame constructions. References to form and the use of wood in the primary aesthetic of a building at this location will maintain the intimate scale already present at the water’s edge, and foster a connection with an historic building type that has been lost to the Harlem River. At other locations in the Central section, a contemporary statement about the Harlem River is encouraged. Innovative designs, not limited in construction techniques and materials, will contribute to defining a new image for the Harlem River. Such a scheme could be achieved in phases where scale and scope can be controlled on a local level with public input. Design competitions are an alternative or additional way to explore the possibilities of design and preservation in the area. Design Guidelines for a new boathouse facility near Sherman’s Creek: Construction elements of human scale are characteristic along Swindler’s Cover and the shore, and a new construction should maintain this level of scale. Oversized or monumental architecture should be avoided in new construction. To this end, new construction should incorporate architectural components that can be used to create scale, such as porches, trimwork, and details. Additionally the form of the historic style of the boathouses along Sherman’s Creek from around 1900 to 1930 should be used as a guiding inspiration. As such, the height of the any new structures should not exceed three stories. If possible, a new structure should have porches or porticos and use form to make references to the historical form. Flat roofs and pitched roofs without overhangs are not permissible. Traditional boathouses display a variety of openings, ranging from attic vents to large doors on the water. The pattern, design and articulation of these openings can provide cues for design of new construction. The pattern and arrangement of windows and doors of a new building should compliment the design and use of the structure(s) and the height and width of openings should be (or make reference to) similar proportions in historic precedents. Vinyl-cladding and unfinished aluminum are inappropriate finish materials for windows in a new building and snap- in muntins in windows are also not acceptable. The most common construction materials for boathouse buildings in the time period referred to should be the predominant material used for new construction projects, in this case wood. Materials such as steel, cast stone, concrete, hardboard siding, and synthetic stucco may be considered for a new building if they are used in a manner that is compatible with either construction techniques of valid historic precedents, or if they maintain a secondary aesthetic role to the primary material of wood. Former ConEdison Power Plant Site: The other area of Sherman’s Creek most affected by loss of historic fabric is the former site of the ConEdison power plant on the north shore of the inlet between the extension of Academy Street and West 201st Street. It has a well-documented history of industrial use, but is now a parking lot. A new facility that utilizes the existing zoning designation for heavy industry is proposed for the site. The goal is to preserve the historic dichotomy of use (recreation and industry) at Sherman’s Creek by facilitating industry, while at the same time providing for the community in which it resides. In addition, the proposal aims to promote an economic stimulus that will increase jobs, and introduce a service and an educational component that adds to the layering of historical use present in the surrounding area. The design of such a facility may involve one or more buildings. Design should take into account certain factors including the compatibility with the residential uses nearby. Noise, odor and other pollutions will not be welcome. The architectural design should reveal something of the dichotomy of industry and recreation inherent at the Sherman’s Creek section and should incorporate an educational facility for community use. A recycling center/processing plant is an appropriate use that works within such a dichotomy. (See Appendix about the Design Charrette entitled “Sherman’s Creek Recycling Plant”). Later phasing may include the extension of the proposed Historic Walk, with a planned location for interpretative information explaining the rich archeological history of that site, including the Native American burial sites and the Revolutionary War encampment, both of which were found directly on the shores of the Sherman Inlet as it stands today. Design Guidelines for new building(s) on the north shore site of Sherman’s Creek This site of the former ConEdison Power Generating Plant, and has the unique advantage of having 360 degrees of potential access. The proposed design guidelines for this site include no changes to the setbacks regulated by the current New York City Zoning Codes for the site, but they do address the orientation of any new structures. With such a potentially visually prominent site, it is important that the primary facade of a new structure wrap around three sides: the Harlem River, the Sherman’s Creek Inlet and 10th Avenue. All truck access should be routed to the 201st Street façade of the building. Scale is also a consideration. The former ConEdison building on this site was 8 stories on the water; the adjacent sites to the north are only 2 and 3 stories. The scale of a new structure should be prominent, reflecting the tradition of industry in the area, but the height should not exceed 8 stories. The form of a new structure however, should explore various massing possibilities aside from that of the historic ConEdison plant. The line of Academy Street should be maintained through the design of the site or building. Public access to the Harlem River along the inlet’s north shore should be part of a design as well. Fenestration should play an important role at this site. The pattern and arrangement of windows and doors of a new building should reveal something of the design and use of the structure(s) as a means to involve the public for reasons of increasing awareness and as a tool for education. The three primary facades must have openings or architectural features that take the place of openings as a tool to break up the façade (the main objective is to avoid a solid, blank wall on a public façade.) Although the previous structure to occupy the lot was made of brick, the new construction should not be limited to this material, as a modern statement of construction technology may benefit the area; this would respond to the manner in which a recycling plant speaks to a modern statement of industry. South and West Shores of the Inlet: This area was also historically a home to docks and boathouses, recent remains of which are buried in the mud of the inlet. This portion of the site currently has two distinct uses: The south portion of this section is currently utilized as a nature walk for nearby educational programs; The portion along the western shore of the inlet, including a one-story building, is paved over and currently serves as a parking lot for the Park’s Department. In keeping with the separation that is already present, and the aforementioned concept of a dichotomy between industry and recreation, it is recommended that the southern portion remain a natural setting and the western portion a transitional area to the industrial uses of the north shore site. The southern shore of the inlet should be kept as a passive recreational space with minimal landscaping and paths needed, along with provisions for seating areas. The single-story brick building on the western site should be adaptively reused. Uses that provide services to the nearby community should be central to the new program. Possible uses may include a small café with minimal parking and outdoor seating or a community center (may include construction of additional square footage). Special attention should be paid to view corridors; the design proposals should emphasize views from various locations, for instance, toward Sherman’s Creek from the Harlem River Speedway, and from the Harlem River itself across the river toward the Bronx. In particular, the corners of 10th avenue and 201st/Academy Street, and of 10th Avenue and the pedestrian bridge near Dyckman Avenue, have the potential of being highly visible. These sightlines should be incorporated to promote the area of Sherman’s Creek and to increase the visibility of the Manhattan Greenway as it runs along 10th Avenue. Later phasing may also include the extension of the proposed Historic Walk up to the site of the former ConEdison plant along the north shore of the inlet, encouraging the linkage of paths and programs along the reaches of the Harlem River. Inwood / Fordham Landing Area: The industrial sites that contribute significantly to the character and fabric of the Central area are subject to a variety of pressures, as described previously. These may pose threats to the physical structures themselves or to their value in characterizing the region’s development. The following are recommendations intended to guide stakeholders in these projects toward solutions that seek to maintain historical continuity while incorporating strategies for growth and improvement. In most cases, these require the cooperation of both city agencies and the community boards and constituents in these localities. While this is often not a seamless process in which the initial goals are integrated into the final product, the strategies are intentionally malleable and contain directives that can be implemented in phases to accommodate normal administrative processes. The sites and buildings identified above share the aspect of public ownership or stewardship, which is problematic in that the responsible agencies are legally able to circumvent the restrictions to alteration or demolition to which private owners must adhere. This process allows projects that are in the interest of public welfare to move forward with a minimum of impediments to removing extant and historic fabric, although there are additional regulations concerning those that are funded partially with federal dollars. (Refer to the zoning appendix regarding projects that fall into the Section 106 and Section 4(f) categories.) New changes in the regulations regarding the public review process, in cases where it would not automatically be initiated due to federal funding, could potentially mitigate threats to historically and economically significant structures. In the Central area, the MTA maintenance yard structures, though not landmarks, could be saved from future expansion plans that might be implemented without concern for the existing fabric. The large number of under-built lots in the industrial districts of the Central section poses issues with regard to future investment in those areas. A switch to mixed-use zoning in the lower Inwood sections (currently zoned for light industrial) may encourages new types of activity in the area, but at the same time it might turn away potential investors as developers might be put off by the limitations imposed on the bulk available on empty or under-built lots. A type of contextual zoning overlay could be implemented which would maintain the low-rise, warehouse type of industrial/commercial construction typically found there. Development of alternative uses, including studio and artist loft space, matched with subdividing larger structures to accommodate smaller manufacturing ventures, could succeed in creating a less industrially based local economy and attract new investment. In addition, Inwood is part of the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone, enabling new commercial and industrial development to derive substantial tax benefits from property rehabilitation, job creation, and company relocation to the area. (Refer to the financial incentives appendix for information about the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone.)3 If new construction of a contextual character is inserted into the voids on these sites, incorporating new versions of traditional use patterns, the community and its built fabric could be reinvigorated, ensuring protection for the district’s unique character. Additional opportunities for investment and community participation are present in the streetscapes that bisect the Inwood waterfront, specifically, Ninth and Tenth Avenues. These streets, which function informally as links for the unfinished Manhattan Greenway north and south, are an integral part of the surrounding fabric, and could be the subject of campaigns to improve public access, safety, and local aesthetics. Similar “beautification” programs, e.g. Bruckner Boulevard in Mott Haven, have the result of attracting pedestrian traffic, instilling a sense of community in local property and business owners, and highlighting area resources. These programs can be tailored to fit the district through community board participation and implementation and can incorporate locally produced art, street furniture design competitions, and historic routes with interpretive plaques depicting important sites and viewscapes. A continuing dilemma in this portion of the waterfront in Inwood, is the patchwork of fenced off lots, dead-end streets, and debris strewn bulkheads along the water’s edge that comprise the proposed site for the New York Restoration Project’s connection to the Manhattan Greenway.4 Assembling the pieces needed to realize this vision requires cooperation from numerous landowners, and may require obtaining easements on properties. Likewise, establishing a strictly pedestrian thoroughfare where there has historically been none brings into question whether industrial or recreational waterfront uses should be dominant. Though unimpeded accessibility in the area has been identified by some groups as a goal, discrete recreation and access points with specific programs may reflect more accurately the historic shoreline condition. Regardless, changes to the waterfront and adjacent lots should incorporate the various uses historically found there, as opposed to applying a blanket solution that addresses only the contemporary desire to open up the entire riverfront to public use. Clearly, there is a need for more mixed-use proposals in order to maintain continuity amid the various demands for usage. Finally, the subject of waterside access on the Bronx shore presents an issue yet to be sufficiently addressed. Other than the boating areas in Roberto Clemente State Park to the south, where locked chain-link fences and gates impede access, there are no opportunities for recreational river usage. The riverfront site just north of the University Heights Bridge is owned by the Department of General Services, but remains derelict. It contains existing concrete and wood slips that could be converted to allow for public boat launching and storage facilities, a use not out of context with the local zoning and history. The adjacent lots have recently been used as the site for new self-storage facilities, a complementary function to the proposed boat launch. To the south of the bridge abutment are lots serving as parking that are the subject of plans in the Bronx Borough Presidents Office to construct high density housing.5 This same location was once the site of a MetroNorth Railroad station, although it has long been unused. The intersection of these various transportation routes, combined with a relatively accessible riverfront, recommend this site to the projects described above. 1 “Upper Manhattan/Harlem River Waterfront Comprehensive Planning 2 Costello, Dan and Lisa Schamess, eds. “Transportation Enhancement: An Overview,” from Building on the Past, Traveling to the Future. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation and Federal Highway Administration, Second Edition, pp. 9-14. 3 Information provided at: http://www.umez.org/ 4Visions for the Harlem River Waterfront, Manhattan Edition, New York Restoration Project, February, 2002. 5 Report of the Bronx Waterfront Task Force, Borough President Adolfo Carrion. June, 2003.
|
| Go Back |