Urban Mobilities_Design and Urban Ecologies Studio 2 book, Spring 2015 by Parsons Graduate Urban Programs

Urban Mobilities MS Design and Urban Ecologies Studio 2 | May 2015

An exploration into the complex ecosystems of waste generation, collection and disposal in New York City, pg 10 Alternative Mobilities as a method for facilitating bottom-up transportation for under-serviced communities, pg 42 A community-inclusive planning process for the design of an interconnectivity transit plan to ensure mobile equity within this rapidly developing waterfront neighborhood, pg 66 An exploration of emerging ecologies that originate from the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, pg 88 Cultivating parallel and emergent processes of participation and convergence through the already existing Participatory Budgeting (PB) interface of resident participation, pg 110

Editor’s letter In Spring 2015, the MS Design and Urban Ecologies Studio 2 focused on urban mobilities. By ‘mobilities’ we refer to the capability of things and people to move but also to the networks, infrastructures and flows that make them capable of movement and that enable mobility. Student teams focused on studying existing and designing new mobility infrastructures and systems along the Brooklyn-Queens waterfront, all in search for embedded possibilities in the spaces of mobility to act as the repository and relay for cultural imagination, community connections and for strengthening local ecological, economic, and political resources. By foregrounding mobilities as the theme of Studio 2, we proposed that mobility is a key for understanding processes of production of urban space, particularly in the context of globalization. Working to understand how urban citizenship is constituted by examining regimes and modes of urban mobility helped students define dimensions of the public realm and civil society that need articulation by creating new connectivities and re-energizing the existing ones.

– Miodrag Mitrasinovic, Adam Lubinsky, and Aran Baker, faculty

WELCOME:

Editor’s letter

Urban Mobilities

Gamar Markarian Born to an Armenian-Lebanese family in Beirut, Gamar received her BS in Landscape design and Ecosystem Management in 2005 and taught and worked at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon and EARTH University, Costa Rica. in 2008, Gamar co-founded Atelier Hamra; a landscape architecture office in Beirut Lebanon. She is currently mastering urban design at the American University of Beirut, and Design and Urban Ecologies at Parsons / New York.

Alexandra Venner (Zanny) is motivated by big mountains, people, and the processes of city-making. As a young woman balancing a rich city life with never-ending mountain invitations, Zanny is learning to find a way to let adventure, education and work coalesce and resonate into a single way of seeing and acting in the world. The life she lives, as an elite athlete, urban practitioner, and backcountry traveler, is her launching point.

Silvia Xavier was born in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, where she completed her bachelor’s degree in Product Design. After graduation she worked for the wood and furniture industry. Currently living in New York, she is expanding her design experience, shifting from products and services to larger artifacts and systems, focusing on the study of urban infrastructures and material flows. Her goal is to engage in innovative and critical practices, working on multidisciplinary projects to address the continuous development of cities and the environment.

Alexander Valencia is from New York City studying Architecture and Design and Urban Ecologies at The New School. Alexander is dedicated to bridging the gap between architecture and urban Ecologies/Design in a provocative and progressive manner to give a new light into the possibilities of the Built Environment.

Alexa Jensen is a passionate urbanist, designer, life traveller, positivity engager and serial coffee drinker. Currently finishing her first year of her MS in Design and Urban Ecologies, Alexa previously graduated with a degree in Architecture from the University of Utah and went on to manage a team of employees while working within a design firm. She hopes to continue to study the complex inner workings of urban landscapes and begin to turn this information into strategic action all while exploring, enjoying the outdoors and hiking with her dog, Bowie.

Masoom Moitra is an architect, urban-activist, artist, researcher, dissenter, designer and student organizer from Mumbai. She works on urban issues that involve participation in collaborative and creative struggles for claiming the right to the city for those who are overlooked by the state and its allies.

Mariana Bomtempo is an Architect and Urbanist graduated at the Universidade de Brasilia, Brazil, in the beginning of 2013. Mariana has experience working with residencial and institutional architecture, construction, graphic design and urban planning.

Contributors

Bernardo Loureiro is an urbanist and architect from São Paulo, Brazil. He is mainly interested in the intersection of cities and landscapes, and in the materials and flows that underpin this relationship.

Darcy Bender is a designer currently living n Bushwick, Brooklyn. She studied architecture at University of Oregon where her thesis focused on the influence of mapmaking on the architectural process. Since graduating, she has worked in affordable housing construction, retail display and as a freelance designer, maker and handy woman.

Tamara Streefland Tamara is an urbanist and earth Scientist. She is committed to designing viable urban projects at the interface of social and natural resiliency. She is currently working on Constellation Project, a network of gathering spaces that are connected by vegetated flows of water infrastructure in Queens.

Wasteland, pg 10

WELCOME:

Contributors

Tait Mandler Tait Mandler is an anthropologist, ecologist, and urbanist exploring methodologies for design interventions into socio-spatial issues of justice and inequality. Adamantly transdisciplinary in approach, Tait likes participatory co-creation that brings people together. Also: political ecology, science and technology studies, queer theory, practices of direct democracy, and trying to disrupt the capitalist system whether in the classroom or in the streets.”

Alternative Mobilities, pg 42

Urban Mobilities

Drew Vanderburg is an artist and street performer who has parlayed his theatrical training into a sociopolitical vehicle of urban transformation. He has worked extensively as a director and designer in the NYC downtown theater scene, but now designs for the world stage. Drew believes in love and fun as the antidotes to fear and oppression.

Michael Stepniak has worked in policy research and analysis in the public sector on issues including zoning, healthcare, and inter-municipal cooperation. He completed his BA in Urban Studies at Wayne State University. Michael is from Detroit, Michigan. He is a former construction and factory laborer, a local history buff, and sometime blogger of local urban issues..

Shibani Jadhav is an architect from India. Her interest lies in the relationship between the built, the unbuilt and the forces that govern these forms. Currently she is exploring the realm of intraregional migration, causes and its effect on the “place” of origin and destination.

Walter Petrichyn was born and raised in Windsor, Ontario. He received a Bachelor (Honors) of Arts at the University of Windsor in 2013, and studied at Concordia University in Montreal in 2010. His involvement in community engagement and his interests in urbanism, art, producing radio and films all emerged to find The New School to undergo a Master of Science degree in Design and Urban Ecologies.

Denilyn Arciaga With roots in Chicago, her fascination with the urban has led her to work, volunteer, and explore 15 countries spanning 3 continents. With an eclectic résumé, her passion has grown around endangered slum communities due to globalization. Denilyn obtained her BA in Architecture at the University of Illinois in Chicago and is currently in her first year of the DUE program. What she loves most about it: working with culturally diverse people from different fields gives her the ability to learn more about the global.

Nadine Rasheed is a Lebanese interior architect pursuing her MS in the Design and Urban Ecologies program on a Provost’s Scholarship, in addition to completing a post-graduate certificate in Sustainability Strategies. She is interested in the interplay of community engagement strategies and planning processes and their role in shaping the built environment. Prior to her New School studies, she oversaw large-scale interior architecture and design projects in the Middle East and Europe, designing hotels and other structures in Dubai, Amman, Cairo and Athens. She holds a BA in Interior Architecture from Notre Dame University in Lebanon.

Renata Benigno is Brazilian and received her bachelor in Architecture and Urbanism from the University of Brasilia. She has worked as an intern in different architecture offices in her city and later as an architect of real estate development at Odebrecht Realizações, where she worked on various projects, in multidisciplinary groups. After completing her master program, she plans to engage with innovative urban practices and collaborate with the creation of new ways to reshape the urban.

Dimitra Kourri is a practicing architect and future urbanist. As an architect she enjoys experimenting with materiality and creating healthy, sustainable environments. As an Urbanist she is interested in issues that affect urban development and the future of urbanity. Moreover, she is concerned with not only cross-cultural and historic perceptions of urban developments, but also exploring the associated socio-economic disparities that so often influence the urban design discipline.

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows, pg 66

WELCOME:

Contributors

Max Freedman As a Joker with Theatre of the Oppressed NYC, he has facilitated the creation and performance of original plays about homelessness, incarceration, racial discrimination, and gender identity. For the New-York Historical Society, he created and teaches a program for middle-school students using theater to explore and activate American history. He previously worked in community engagement for arts organizations in New York and Washington, DC. Born in New York City, raised in Los Angeles, he has lived in Bedford-Stuyvesant since 2012.

Mateo Fernández-Muro Architect in 2011 from Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) and Master Degree in Advanced Architectural Projects (MPAA) in 2013 from Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid (ETSAM), where he is now a PhD candidate researching on the political relation between spatial fictions and conflict in the post-democratic city. He is co-founder of Displacements Journal (www. displacementsjournal.com) and collaborates with Cultural Landscape Research Group (GIPC) at ETSAM. Currently studying a Master of Design and Urban Ecologies (MSDUE) at Parsons The New School for Design, New York.

BQE—The In Between, pg 88

Kartik Amarnath is a recent graduate holding a BA in Biology with minors in Anthropology and Philosophy. He was a member of DePauw University’s Honor Scholar program where his senior thesis focused on the urban ecology of slum communities in Chennai, India. His primary academic interests are in urban political ecology, environmental health, and critical theory. He has prior field research experience studying environmental health in urban Atlanta, migrant farm worker camps in the Southeastern United States, and slum resettlement projects in Chennai. He spent his childhood living in four countries and graduated from high school at the American Embassy School in New Delhi, India. For the 2013-2014 academic year, Kartik was in Kuala Lumpur researching accessibility and agency for the historic blind community of his mother’s childhood neighborhood.

Maria Guadalupe is a Mexican architect that has worked in the design of vertical housing and in the diffusion of sustainable practices for large scale projects in Mexico City. She has been invited to publish and lecture some of them. Now, she is trying to accomplish better social and environmental strategies in a more complex and urban scale through the Design and Urban Ecologies Program.

Towards a Resourceful Sunset Park, pg 110

Urban Mobilities

New York City: a dynamic convergence of Mobilities

BQE—The in between The project explores emerging ecologies that originate from the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. The main aim of the proposal is to transform the ‘in between’ spaces into social and transit hubs by creating collective initiatives to activate these leftover spaces that are currently underused. Read more on page 88.

Alternative Mobilities Based on a study of the Chinatown Dollar Van system, the Alternative Mobilities project is a method for facilitating bottom-up transportation for under-serviced communities. Read more on page 42.

Wasteland is an exploration into the complex ecosystems of waste generation, collection and disposal in New York City. Our group's vision is to create a more visible, equitable, and tenable waste stream across the expansive geography of New York City through 3 complementary strategies: (1) create the NYC waste stream visibility website to make the process of waste mobility transparent; (2) move the conversation around 'waste to energy' from conflict to action; and, (3) create civic and community-based waste collection centers at the community district scale. Read more on page 10.

Parallel Movement System + Flows analyzes the public transit along the Brooklyn/Queens waterfront and the impacts of the Mayor’s ferry proposal. Our project proposal in Red Hook provides a community-inclusive planning process for the design of an interconnectivity transit plan in order to ensure mobile equity within this rapidly developing waterfront neighborhood. Read more on page 66.

Resourceful Sunset Park builds upon the already existing Participatory Budgeting (PB) interface of resident participation to cultivate parallel and emergent processes of participation and convergence, thereby carving out discursive and political ruptures that counter predominant top-down master planned approaches to the climate crisis and foregrounds environmental justice. Making the asymmetric social dimensions of urban change more visible and expanding upon them to shift power relations can help ameliorate the inherent limitations of top-down and technocratic practices of transformation that often put environmentally overburdened communities in further risk. Harnessing the PB process, we strive to build up the transformative potential of neighborhood residents, thereby re-signifying the knowledge and experiences of historically marginalized residents and countering the trend of urban transformation grounded in exclusionary forms of decision-making. Read more on page 110.

WELCOME:

Location map

Urban Mobilities

Wasteland Darcy Bender | Bernardo Loureiro | Gamar Markarian Tamara Streefland | Alexandra Venner | Silvia Xavier

FEATURE:

Group name

Urban Mobilities

Introduction Every year, eight million inhabitants in New York City produce almost six millions tons of residential and commercial waste. This waste flows through an essential, yet largely invisible system, across many different scales - from household to transfer station to landfill. The waste management system is heavily dependent on landfill disposal in distant locations, and is therefore inefficient due to the amount of truck miles traveled, as well as missed opportunities to retrieve valuable resources from it. In the new and ambitious OneNYC plan, Mayor Bill de Blasio presents his vision of sending zero waste to landfills by 2030. In order to achieve this goal, New York City needs to drastically reinvent its current waste system by moving away from disposing its waste in the backyards of communities near and far, and design more localized, equitable, and resilient waste strategies. Several preferred waste tactics that focus on diversion, re-use and prevention already exist in NYC and other cities. It is imperative to explore how such tactics can complement each other and trigger a paradigm shift towards a visible, equitable and tenable waste system in NYC.

FEATURE:

Wasteland

CURRENT SYSTEM

75%

10%

15%

Urban Mobilities

FEATURE:

Wasteland

Urban Mobilities

Our vision is to create a more visible, equitable, and tenable waste stream across the expansive geography of New York City. In order to archive that goal, we propose to redefine New York City’s waste ecologies and changing its waste management systems through 3 complementary strategies: (1) create the NYC waste stream visibility website to make the process of waste mobility transparent; (2) create civic waste collection centers at the community district scale; (3) move the conversation around waste to energy from conflict to action. These three strategies require the involvement of numerous protagonists, including: DSNY and potentially other public agencies, waste diversion organizations and private waste collection companies, elected city officials, community based organizations, as well as individual urban citizens.

FEATURE:

Wasteland

Urban Mobilities

New Yorker City’s waste collection system ensures that it remains out of sight and out of mind. Most people have no idea how to find out what happens to their trash once it is collected.

New York City hosts more than thirty waste transfer stations that hold the waste until it can be shipped via truck, rail or barge. These stations are obscure to the average citizen. Again, the amount of information available publicly on the source of the waste and its final destination varies widely.

Preferable waste management systems in NYC are used to their capacity, but not used to their full potential

FEATURE:

Wasteland

5 Several co-existing waste tactics that focus on diversion, reuse and prevention already exist in NYC, such as Sure We Can (Image 1, 2) & BK Rot (Image 3, 4, 5). It is imperative to explore how such tactics can complement each other and trigger a paradigm shift alongside DSNY’s residential waste programs (Image 6).

The DSNY collection system is able to collect more than 10,000 tons of trash per day. There are over 200 licensed commercial haulers that take care of everything else, but have limited public records on where this waste ends up.

Parallel NYC waste diversions programs, such as Sure We Can, BK Rot and Lower East Side Ecology Center play a vital role in environmental and social waste management practices at the neighborhood scale. Sure We Can supports 315 Canners who have earned a total of half a million dollars by collecting 7 million containers in 1 year. BK Rot in Bushwick processes a small amount of organic waste, 5.66 tons/year, and employs local youth in Bushwick who transport organic waste via bike. Lower Eastside Ecology Center processes 200 tons of organic matter/year and is diverting organics from landfill by utilizing designated NYC Park space. Although these organizations cover a smaller waste collection area than DSNY, their social and environmental capacities are not utilized to significantly respond to the city’s massive waste stream volume.

Urban Mobilities

pa ca per rd & bo ar d

Trash is too valuable to be wasted and its monetary, energetic and use value must be extracted.

glass containers met

refuse

sti

Currently 83% of NYC waste goes to landfill. This is a costly system that mixes and buries materials and does not generate any economic, energetic or use value. Alternatively, more than 60% of NYC’s household waste could be diverted to composting and recycling and the remaining 40% could be processed into energy. Adopting these processes would not only avoid expenditures with landfilling, but also generate revenues.

tle

energy potential value

pla

compost

ON THE MOVE MOBILE WORKFORCE

HOUSEHOLD

RESTAURANT

1978 tons/day 1500 tons/day

1370 tons/day

7000 tons/day

3280 tons/day 3550 tons/day

Subway Waste 40 tons/day

Street Waste 380 tons/day

Commercial Waste 8,500 tons/day

1000 tons of food scarps out of 3348 tons is consumed by pests every day

FEATURE:

The effects of living in a fast-paced city like New York, has allowed a mobile workforce to flourish, which in turn has contributed to NYC’s mass “throw-away” society. Henceforth, the city produces around 20,000 metric tons of waste every year, of which 55% is residential waste and 45% is commercial waste. Most of the trash is poorly handled and maintained, which only results in 50% proper recycling. Also, the NYC curbside organic trash offers a perfect habitat for “pests”.

Wasteland

current loss

organics

Residential Waste 11,500 tons/day

more recycling + 5 ¢ bottle redemption

landfill refuse

$ 320 million/year spent on transport and disposal of waste to landfills

recyclables

5 ¢ bottles

paper & cardboard

50% of all recyclables go to landfills

679000 metric tons/year of greenhouse gases

Urban Mobilities

“Twenty-six of the city’s 38 private transfer stations are located in four community districts. Together, they handle 70% of the trash processed in New York City.” —Antonio Reynoso, Chairperson

CT PA OH

New York City’s waste system is composed by a complex array of actors, facilities and infrastructures, and is heavily dependent on long-distance export.

CartoDB attribution ©OpenStreetMap contributors ©CartoDB

FEATURE:

Wasteland

Urban Mobilities

WASTE.EXPOSED Visualizing New York’s waste system The intent behind this strategy was to bring more visibility to the NYC’s waste system. This is a very complex and difficult to see system. It handles 14 million tons of waste each year, but goes mostly unnoticed, besides trash bags on the curb and collection trucks on the street.

Waste is a very mobile material, supported by massive infrastructures, but its journey and its landscapes are often invisible.

The infrastructure behind this system is, however, massive, and poses a series of issues. It is highly concentrated in some neighborhoods of the city, and depends on very distant sites for disposal (sometimes 600 miles away in other states). And it has many environmental and social impacts - air pollution, emissions, and water pollution, to name a few. To bring more visibility to these issues, we created a website, waste.exposed, using data available in order to map out the waste system. In order to make this relatable to NYC’s citizens, the website shows where your waste is going to, depending on where you live.

FEATURE:

Wasteland

Urban Mobilities

The main feature of the website, the interactive map, shown above. The user can enter their address or neighborhood and see where their waste is going to, by type of waste. The panel on the right describes the journey.

Here, the landfills and incinerators that the non-recyclable waste of a Greenpoint, Brooklyn resident goes to. In red, the quantities and miles traveled to these destinations.

The journey for recyclable waste is also explained in another tab. It follows the same structure as the non-recyclable waste, showing the steps in the journey, along with metrics such as distance and quantity.

Final destinations for recyclable waste are also listed, when data is available.

By clicking on one of the destinations from the list, the user can zoom in and see what their landscapes look like from above. Shown here is the Atlantic Landfill, the largest in the state of Virginia.

Incinerators, like this one in New York State, also receive about 15% of New York City’s residential non-recyclable waste.

In this case, most of the metal, glass and plastic is taken to the Sims Claremont Terminal, in Jersey City.

The journey for paper recyclables is also show, with its export destinations of paper mills in India and China, in this case.

Wasteland

FEATURE:

Urban Mobilities

CIVIC WASTE CENTERS

A Place with a System that Sorts, Transports, and Processes Waste at the Neighborhood Level

Current Coexisting Collection Systems Diesel powered trucks

Heavy loads Mixed materials

Unionized city work force

$307/ton for collection

Earns aprox. $103 per day

$124/ton for disposal

$393 millions spent per year to export waste to landfills

Our strategy responds to the three waste matters that we have identified as key insights:

Example of DSNY Collection Shed

Long distance tranportation to centralized facilities

Waste Transfer Station receiving wate from this collection shed

(1) three Community Districts are handling 70% of New York City’s Waste. This demonstrates a massive & unjust concentration of where waste is being processed;

Estimated DNSY truck trips Out of sight out of mind waste tranportation

6886 sanitation street workers

Example of Parallel Systems Collection Shed Approx. 700 Canners in NYC

Into sight into mind organic waste transportation

Stimulates & educates household organic waste separation

Sure We Can (SWC) redemption center

Hauling micro-loads of recyclables & organic waste to micro-facilities

Non-recognized city waste work force

Human-powered carts

(3) there are already successful social and environmental waste management systems in NYC whose impact are not being used to their full potential. They utilize human powered carts that carry micro loads of recyclables & organic waste to micro facilities.

Canners humanpowered trips

Diverting materials away from landfills Depositing 2000 five cent bottles is an earning of $100/day

Example of distributer truck trip

BK ROT compost collection center

Human-powered carts can haul Approx. 130 lb of food scraps per trip Creates more living-wage jobs

(2) door-to-door DSNY truck collection travels all throughout neighborhoods. This emits 1.7 million metric tons of greenhouse gas per year, which is a huge environmental justice concern for the communities that take on this burden;

Cyclers humanpowered trips

FEATURE:

Wasteland

Urban Mobilities

Sure We Can Canners cover a 1.5 mile radius

distributed over 59 community districts

NYC needs arounds 60 Sure We Cans

distributed over 59 community districts

hif mS

d Para

NYC’s distributed Civic over 59 Waste community Centers districts

We are proposing Civic Waste Centers (CWC) for each community district on city-owned land to receive residential waste. Rather than large centralized waste facilities concentrated in a single community district and trucks moving all throughout neighborhoods, hyper-local waste diversion facilities across the city, distribute waste more evenly and creates a critical proximity to the waste a community generates. Imagine a CWC, which is not only a waste processing facility, but an economic, environmental, and social resource shared with you, your neighbors, your community and the city of New York.

Challenges of the CWCs & what this strategy highlights to address

Framework to implement The Framework to Implement One Civic Waste Center the(CWC) Civic Waste Centers District on City-Owned Land per Community

Year 1-2

contract between DSNY & CWC

Stage 1: Gov’t Policy & Recognition

1- The shift from city-wide programs to city-wide laws and the time factor this entails 2- Bringing a variety of actors together from different scales 3- Community Outreach 4- Changing behavior 5- City-owned land availability 6- Acceptance of close proximity to waste in parks 7- Mechanics of collection 8- Seasonal Considerations 9- Shifting DSNY operating dynamics 10- Designing efficient humanpowered transportation modes

The 5 Bin Program Canners Recognized

Year 3-4

Canners Legalized

Stage 2: Transitioning Gov’t Policy into Law & Expanding DSNY’s Role

The 5 Bin buffer period human powered paper pick-up

Year 5 +

Stage 3: Legal Implementation & CWC’s Expansion with DSNY

Environmentally Friendly Vehicle Transporting all Household Waste

CWC Officially Registered with DSNY

ECO-FRIENDLY

The 5 Bin Law

FEATURE:

Wasteland

Urban Mobilities

The All Inclusive Pamphlet

Our pamphlet is a skeleton to outline an all inclusive tool that explains what goes into each of the 5 bins. This tool would facilitate the process of household sorting.

Pilot Area: CD 7 Sunset Park

60kg per load

2.6g of organics per household

300 in

63 in

The pamphlet addresses the challenge of community outreach within our strategy. Currently DSNY’s outreach material is scattered and uses different languages due to the shifting of DSNY’s ongoing developments in household waste management.

STEP 1

2.2 tons of organics

STEP 2

Manhattan 3

Brooklyn

3.9

8 9

Sunset Park

sq miles

126,000

residents

37.7 tons of organics/day

11 Population concentration

To exemplify our strategy as a whole, we chose to test it in Community District 7, which is Sunset Park. This is our way of responding to the challenges of the mechanics of collection, while exploring the possibility of locating and defining the Civic Waste Centers on city-owned land.

We began by dividing sunset into 24 manageable sections and zoomed into one area where we figured out volumes, routes and the dynamic between CWC and DSNY.

Wasteland

FEATURE:

First, the collection process begins with DSNY workers picking-up residential organic twice/ week. Each section needs 5 workers who would transport 6 loads per day via human powered mobility.

Second, each section has 2 drop off-sites where workers place the collected organic waste, which will later be picked up by DSNY trucks that will transport it to the CWC.

Urban Mobilities

STAGE 1: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles YEAR 1-2

STAGE 2: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles + Paper YEARCivic 3-4 Waste Center (CWC) The GATHERING SPACE

COMMUNITY GARDEN + COMPOSTING

STAGE 1: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles

COMPOSTING

YEAR 1-2 STAGE 1: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles YEAR 1-2

COMMUNITY GARDEN

STAGE 2: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles + Paper YEAR 3-4

GATHERING SPACE

GATHERING GATHERING SPACE

SPACE

COMMUNITY GARDEN + COMPOSTING

COMPOSTING

GATHERING SPACE

STAGE 2: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles + Paper YEAR 3-4

COMMUNITY GARDEN

COMPOSTING

STAGE 2: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles + Paper YEAR 3-4 COMMUNITY

STAGE 3: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles + Paper + GARDEN Recyclables + Refuse YEAR 5+ GATHERING SPACE

GATHERING SPACE

COMPOSTING

SECTION A

YEAR 5+

COMPOSTING

SECTION A

COMMUNITY GARDEN

COMPOSTING

STAGE 3: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles + PaperGARDEN + Recyclables + Refuse YEAR 5+ GARDEN EXTENSION

SECTION A

OFFICE

RECYCLING PROCESSING RECYCLING FACILITY

OFFICE

PROCESSING FACILITY

STORAGE

CANNER STORAGE

RECYCLABLE STORAGE

100

SECTION AA SECTION

OPEN SPACE

RECYCLABLES RECYCLABLES STORAGE

STORAGE

200

RECYCLABLE OFFICE STORAGE WORKSHOP/

GATHERING SPACE OFFICE

OFFICE GATHERING SPACE OFFICE

RECYCLING PROCESSING 0 FACILITY

SECTION A

RECYCLABLES STORAGE

OPEN SPACE

200 In the case of Community District 7 we decided to locate the CWC in city owned land close to the newly opened Bush Terminal park. This demonstrates how the CWC will grow over years from collecting residential organic matter and 5 cent bottles to being the preferred destination for sorting and processing all household waste.

FEATURE:

SECTION A

CANNER STORAGE

RECYCLABLES STORAGE

100

WORKSHOPWORKSHOP OPEN KITCHEN COMPOSTING SPACE KITCHEN SPACE SPACE

200

RECYCLABLE STORAGE

WORKSHOP KITCHEN SPACE

RECYCLING PROCESSING FACILITY

OFFICE

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP/ GARDEN

5 10

SPACE

OFFICE

KITCHEN

PAPER STORAGE

5 10

COMMUNITY GARDEN

OFFICE

RECYCLABLE STORAGE

PAPER STORAGE WORKSHOP OPEN

COMMUNITY GARDEN

LEARNING SPACE

COMPOSTING

CANNER STORAGE

SPACE

COMMUNITY GARDEN

LEARNING SPACE

OFFICE

200

COMMUNITY GARDEN

PAPER STORAGE

CANNER PAPER STORAGE

GARDEN EXTENSION

COMPOSTING

GATHERING SPACE GATHERING SPACE

COMMUNITY

GARDEN EXTENSION

SECTION A

COMPOSTING

STAGE 3: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles + Paper + Recyclables + Refuse YEAR 5+ STAGE 3: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles + Paper + Recyclables + Refuse

WORKSHOP/ LEARNING SPACE

COMPOSTING

COMMUNITY GARDEN 0 5 10 20

WORKSHOP/ LEARNING SPACE

COMPOSTING

5 10

What is significant about the CWC is that it is a place that redefines how we live with our waste: (1) it encourages citizens to think more critically about how much they are throwing away because of the close proximity of the Waste center to their own homes; (2) it transforms waste into a social and environmental community resource; (3) the Civic Waste Center becomes space where people in the neighborhood can come meet, gather, learn and even cook.

Wasteland

This strategy creates a more intimate relationship with our household waste while simultaneously bringing numerous protagonists together, including: DSNY, Department of Parks, waste diversion organizations as well as individual urban citizens in relation to each other. We strongly believe that the feasibility of the CWC as a place with a system that sorts, transports, and processes waste at the neighborhood scale needs to be integrated within DSNY’s formal waste management structure.

Urban Mobilities

1885 America’s first incinerator built on Governor's Island

1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act to promote and provide assistance in research and development

1947 Fresh Kills Landfill opens as a temporary solution for waste

1994 US Supreme Court rules waste a commodity and trade may not be inhibited across state lines. Landfills across America can take waste with no state interventions.

1968 24 incinerators CO2

1972 7 incinerators

Particulate Matter

1908-1968 24 municipal incinerators are built in NYC and about 17,000 domestic waste combusters

1990 3 incinerators

Waste incineration without air pollution control was a major source of airborne, respirable pollutants in NYC for many decades during the 20th century.

1990 Federal Clean Air Act sets new emission guidelines

1970 Federal Clean Air Act sets emission guidelines that lead to incinerator shutdowns

Incinerators emit toxic smoke containing dioxins, particulate matter and CO2

1999 The last incinerator is torn down in NYC through efforts of NYPIRG, South Bronx Clean Air Coalition

WASTE TO ENERGY

Waste to Energy?

Shifting the conversation from conflict to action.

US/EU

WTE

Landfill

38%

Mayor Bill de Blasio’s OneNYC plan calls for zero waste to landfills by 2030. Major changes regarding NYC’s waste management system are needed in order to reach this goal.

30% 38%

38% 7%

Gasification

Could Waste to Energy (WTE) be an alternative to landfills for New York City’s waste?

69%

FACTS?

38%

70%

Anaerobic digestion

SYN GAS

Waste to Energy is a widely used yet controversial term. In this publication we use it to refer to the these three mechanisms for converting waste matter to energy.

FACTS?

51%

Austria

49%

51%

40%

EU 22%

40%

EMISSION

CO2 EMISSIONS (KG/ MWh)

24%

BIO GAS

70%

38%

24%

SYN GAS

A wide range of information exists about the pros and cons of these techniques, although the information varies widely and few studies are conducted by independent researchers making it difficult to base decisions on hard facts.

Wasteland

38% 30% Recycling/ Composting 49%

22%

Incineration

Anaerobic digestion

Recycling/ Composting

69%

Gasification

FEATURE:

WTE

Landfill

US/EU

Incineration

As we found out this is a very political question. WTE is a heavily contested subject, which finds its roots in thousands of municipal and domestic waste incinerators, that polluted the city throughout the 20th Century. Scientists and the companies running the plants insist the newest technology is better than landfilling, but issues remain around the siting of plants, diversion from recycling and composting efforts and commonly held perceptions about incinerators.

2012 Mayor Bloomberg solicits proposals for WTE in NYC. The plan is abandoned within the year.

15% of US total waste is incinerated by the start of the 90s

MSW

Austria

379

COAL 1022 In Europe, Waste to Energy is used much more widely used due to lack of space for landfills. However, many countries also have much2006 better Source: O’Brien & SWANA., recycling rates which changes the composition of the waste being converted.

EMISSION

MSW

1375

COAL 1022 Source: EPA, 2007

CO2 EMISSIONS (KG/ MWh)

BIO GAS

MSW

379

Urban Mobilities MSW

37 1375

The Battlefield

The Process Identify 1

Historically, there has been a lot of controversy around the subject of waste to energy. Therefore, we propose a process that aims to find common ground between different actors that have taken positions that are seemingly incompatible.

Map. 2

The first step is to identify the issue and the actors involved in the debate and to gather data on the Internet. In this case we identified the proponents and opponents through anti-incineration petitions, scientific publications, company statements, governmental presentations among others, which was then mapped in step two.

Engage. 3

Map. 4

Share. 5

Collaborate. 6

Environmental

The third step is to engage with the actors. Initial contact revealed the main actors that exist in the debate, as many organization referred to other organizations as key players. We were able to map these relationships in order to reveal the WTE debate landscape.

FEATURE:

Economic

The survey that was developed proved to be a valuable tool to obtain further understanding on players’ positions. It included a variety of opinions on efficiency, public health, environmental impact and alternative strategies. Scenarios that cover a large spectrum of alternative approaches and scales of applying WTE, were an important part of the process of finding common ground.

Wasteland

Urban Mobilities

clause.”

has progressed beyond incineration.” 10% OPEN CONVERSATION

CONVERSION BUSINESS AS USUAL

The current system is kept as is.

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

“Silly. Waste to energy “The city should be is landfilling forever”

able to deal with its waste!” thisown can be done.

“The “AD is agases useful emitted are technology, but very just as dangerous to expensive.” health as those from incineration” “All for it!.”

“Yes Converting LF to WTE “The city should is a boon to recycling, host pursue composting communities of and WTE.” present landfills.

LIMITING TRUCK TRIPS

Create a cap on

“All for it!.” “Emissions from all

LOCAL GASIFICATION

number of truck WASTE-TO-ENERGY: WHAT IF? miles allowed for exporting waste.

“I am not sure that this can be done by government edict.” “The issue is the interstate commerce clause.”

OCAL GASIFICATION

CONVERSION

a local

ion is rk.”

“Economics might not work” 90% RE-CYCLING 90%

“Hospital waste management “You should ask the has progressed people on the Upper beyond incineration.” East Side.”

“AD is a useful technology, “You should ask the people but very expensive.” on the Upper East Side.” “The gases emitted are “Economics might not work” just as dangerous to health as those from 90% RE-CYCLING 40 FEATURE: incineration” “All for it!.”

90%

We found incentive to open up the conversation around anaerobic digestion, as actors at both sides of the debate saw an opportunity in that. The final step is to share the information with the actors involved and propose a roundtable to talk about concerns and explore further opportunities for moving the conversation forward.

“A lot of public education is needed for this to work.” “Hospital waste management has progressed beyond incineration.”

10%

“Impossible.”

“There is room for improvement but I’m doubtful of the chances of success.” Wasteland “The best Future scenario is working towards waste

Anaerobic Digestion solely uses organic waste to create biogas. Starting in 2015, a large part of NYC commercial organic waste will have to be processed outside of landfills by law. Local composting in NYC is challenging due to lack of space, Anaerobic Digestion provides opportunity to process this waste on a smaller, local area. An example of AD in NYC are the Digester Eggs at the Newtown Creek wastewater treatment facility.

Landfill Mining?

Desalination?

Reduce waste to achieve 90% recycling rate.

Subway?

“Impossible.” Smart City?

“There is room for improvement but I’m doubtful of the chances of success.”

“Economics might not work”

” ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

within city limits.

“No, it is much more efficient to sent it to a local WTE facility”

“You should ask the people on the Upper East Side.”

gasification plants.

Anaero bic Dige stion is really so a lid plan for NYC or ganic wa ste

All hospitals use onsite WTE.

75% Landfill disposal “Yes this can be done. absolutely. 15% Recycling and re-use Converting LF to WTE WTE, absolutely not” 10% Waste to Energy conversion

ment.”

I am all for it, but what are the emissions of AD?

“Limiting truck miles, absolutely. WTE, absolutely not.”

TRANSFER TO GASIFICATION

ENERGY: WHAT IF?“Limiting truck miles,

not

I endorse AD, but how would we fund it?

“I fully agree”

is landfilling portion is converted toforever” energy.

TRANSFER TO GASIFICATION

How do we “There is room for AD would work collect all the for the improvement but I’m organic waste? doubtful of the chances ofcommercial organic waste success.” “The best Future scenario is working towards waste reduction”

US. Too costly to implement.”

and re-use. The rest of the waste is transported to landfills in

“No, it is much more efficient to sent it to a local WTE facility”Turn local waste transfer stations is “A lot of public education into small scale needed for this to work.”

“Impossible.”

75% Landfill disposal 15% Recycling re-use is “This and technology 10% Wastenot to operating Energy conversion in the

“I fully agree” Pennsylvania. A small “Silly.South WasteCarolina to energy Ohio, Virginia, and

HOSPITALS

Open Conversation

technologies should 1. Business as usual held to the same The currentbewaste system continues as it is functioning now. standards.” The city keeps promoting recycling, composting, prevention and re-use. The rest of the waste is transported to landfills in Ohio, Virginia, South Open two Carolina and Pennsylvania. A small portion is converted to energy. gasification plants

“This technology is not 1. Business usual operating in theasUS. HOSPITALS landfillscontinues to The currentConvert waste system as it is functioning now. Too The costly to implement.” WTE plants. city keeps promoting recycling, composting, prevention

is a boon to host communities of present landfills.”

All organic waste is converted to energy “AD is biomass a useful technology, through but very expensive.” gasification.

“The best future scenario is working towards waste reduction”

Rezone? World Cup?

The key elements of this process are 1) giving people space to explain their positions on the subject in great detail. 2) Asking them about a series of scenario’s that cover a whole spectrum of possible solutions 3) focus on an scenario that can open up the conversation from conflict to action. Since these politically charged controversies exist globally, this approach could be used to move forward in other urban areas of contention.

Urban Mobilities

FLUSHING

Alternative Mobilities

ELMHUST

MANHATTAN

Mariana Bomtempo | Alexa Jeansen | Tait Mandler Masoom Moitra | Alexander Valencia Based on a quantitative and qualitative study of the commuter vans that run between New York City’s Chinatowns, our group has designed a participatory process for communities that are underserved by public transforation to co-create their own mobility systems. While participatory process have become more commonplace in urban design, mobility remains a project that is usually approached from the perspective of top-down planning.

SUNSET

We believe that the ‘Right to Mobility’ is closely related to the ‘Right to the City’- and by taking collective responsibility for connecting parts of the city that have been neglected by traditional processes of transportation planning and political will, this right can be claimed.

Introduction New York City may have one of the most robust public transportation systems in the world but it does not work for everyone equally. People whose movement is not based on the centrality of Manhattan or a 9 to 5 work day have transportation needs that are underserved. Immigrant communities that are low income and where English is not the primary language have solved their own mobility problems, often with systems reminiscent of their native countries. “Dollar Vans,” a misnomer now that fares have increased, are self-organized commuter vans that have become more common around the city since the 1980s. With the growth of the Chinese immigrant population, there was an economic and cultural incentive for fast and linguistically accessible transportation between the developing Chinatowns. Unlike the other dollar vans in the city that pick up passengers all along their routes, the Chinatown vans operate mostly as shuttles between their destinations. This system has no formal maps and emerged without authorization but is currently being assimilated into the city’s authorized transportation through licensing of the vans. We came to understand the Chinatown vans to be a successful system, as measured by the riders themselves. Our mobility co-design process is informed by insights from the Chinatown vans.

FEATURE:

Alternative Mobilities

Urban Mobilities

Without maps or consistently clear signage, finding the vans for those who are uninitiated is a lexicon of Chinatown and parked vehicles. The images here represent the process of locating and boarding one of the vans. First moving through the bustling economic 8th Ave in Sunset park, finding a licensed van marked with the NYC Commuter logo, asking the driver which direction the van is headed, taking a seat, and paying a fare to the collector who walks down the aisle.

FEATURE:

Alternative Mobilities

Historical Socioeconomic Context While anyone can ride the vans, they are clearly run by and for the Chinese cultural enclave. Patterns of migration to and settlement in New York City are affected by geopolitical forcings as well as local land use and real estate markets. And, of course, the social ties of new immigrants who likely move near family members. Chinese immigrants are made up of many ethnic groups who generally settle together. The Cantonese have largely located themselves in Flushing, Queens while the Fujianese make up a greater portion of Manhattan and Sunset Park, Brooklyn residents. But these divides are not absolute and family members may live in different areas of the city. The commuter vans are a vector of socioeconomic connection. They allow families to easily visit each other, provide home-work transportation, and facilitate the flow of capital via consumption between enclaves. In the following pages we explore why the vans have become so common even though there is public transportation connecting Manhattan, Sunset Park, and Flushing.

Urban Mobilities

RIDERS PER DAY

6:05pm Queensboro Plaza 5:43pm

FLUSHING 7:54pm

ELMHUST

MTA Bus

B57 [36 stops]

11th largest US bus system

NUMBER OF VEHICLES Dollar Vans 900 vans 20 people / van

MTA Bus

OPERATING COSTS licensed van

4:56pm 4:56pm 4:56pm

Gas $26,097

GAS CONSUMPTION

Time and Distance The most obvious reason for taking the dollar vans over public transportation is that they are faster. In the map above we show the relative transportation times between the Chinatown vams, public bus, and subway. As the vans only make a few stops at their pick-up and drop-off locations they are approximately three times faster than the bus, which requires transfers and constant stops along the route. This is important in understanding the price difference. While public

transit between Sunset Park and Flushing costs $2.75, the Chinatown vas costs $4. Unlike public transit which costs the same to go anywhere, the Chinatown vans have prices based on distance, so the route from Sunset Park to Manhattan only costs $3. The vans understandably charge less for this route as the operating costs and time saved is less than for a longer route. On the next page we review some of the metrics of the Chinatown van system and then we explore some of the other reasons besides cost that make the vans so prominent.

Alternative Mobilities

FEATURE:

It is still unclear how licensing may affect the cost of dollar vans, but because of fees and insurance it is more expensive to operate a licensed van. The Chinatown vans seem to be more accepting of licensing than some of the other dollar vans. This may be because of a fear of negative interactions with the police and that many Chinatown vans are actually more like mini-buses than the 18-passenger vans in Flatbush and Queens, making them more visible.

Gas $26,097

Oil & Maintenance $150

The commuter vans are substantially faster than taking the subway or public bus

The Chinatown vans are just one of the dollar van system in NYC. Collectively the dollar vans are the 25th largest bus system in the United States. Data on the size of each dollar van system is harder to collect as they are operated without authorization for most of their history. The current move to license and authorize the vans means more accurate data will be available in the near future. The MTA bus is just one aspect of the larger public NYC bus system, which is the largest in the United States.

$34,350 per year

$26,247 per year

unlicensed van

B63 [33 stops]

1,200 buses 50 people / bus source: Tait!

Insurance $7,663 Oil & Maintenance $150 Emissions $15 Inspection $150 Hack License $275

Atlantic Av / Smith st 5:48pm

SUNSET PARK

342,000

25th largest US bus system

Q58 [11 stops]

Flushing Av / 61th st 6:48pm

MANHATTAN

120,000

5:46pm

7 train [16stops]

N train [16 stops]

Dollar Vans

= 20,000 riders

FLUSHING

MANHATTAN - FLUSHING 13.8 miles 16-25 TRIPS PER TANK

ELMHUST

MANHATTAN

MANHATTAN - ELMHURST 7.8 miles 29-45 TRIPS PER TANK

MANHATTAN - SUNSET 6 miles 38-58 TRIPS PER TANK

SUNSET - FLUSHING 17.4 miles 13-20 TRIPS PER TANK

SUNSET PARK

The largest operating cost of the vans is gas consumption. To the left we have mapped the costs of gas for each route. One way that the vans mitigate this cost is by only running trips when the vans are adequately full. This means the vans are not on a set schedule, they wait at the pick-up location until there are enough passengers and then leave.

Urban Mobilities

CHINATOWN FLUSHING

WORKING POPULATION: 26,935

CHINATOWN MANHATTAN

WORKING POPULATION: 26,950

CHINATOWN SUNSET PARK WORKING POPULATION: 28,001

2005 - 2009

1980

1990

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME - $25710 $25710 - $33099 $33099 - $37450 $37450 - $41490 $41490 - $46097

$46097 - $52177 $52177 - $59421 $59421 - $67000 $67000 - $81806 $81806 +

These two maps show the connection between median household income and linguistic isolation in the areas served by the vans. As Ken Guest explains below, the vans are important because many riders do not speak English, which can make taking public transportation difficult and threatening. Compared to many other immigrant groups, lower-income Chinese communities in NYC are less assimilated and less likely to speak English even after years or decades in the United States. The vans offer an important cultural connection between riders and drivers that is not found in public transportation. Thus the

2005 - 2009

LINGUISTIC ISOLATION .4% - 8% 8.01% - 18% 18.01% - 28%

vans can be seen as these communities realizing their right to the city through the right to mobility. Not only do they make transportation more accessible for non-English speaking individuals, they are reminiscent of transportation systems in China and other parts of the world.

”

along (1 4) asian (1 8) asking (7) ave (1 0) beat (7) best (9) board (1 3)

“

2000

2010

Enclaves Along Routes We understand that there is more than time or money to taking the Chinatown vans. The above map shows the growing population of Asian immigrants in the areas where the vans

have operated since the 1980s. The vans facilitate social connections through socioculturally appropriate transportation.

Alternative Mobilities

FEATURE:

28.01% - 38% 38.01% - 48% 48.01% - 100%

[Dollar] vans allow immigrants to navigate easily through New York without ever learning about the city’s subway and bus system or learning English. Riding them is a bit like riding a bus in Fuzhou... they serve a very particular niche for new immigrants who must circulate in a Chinese community that is now stretched between three New York City boroughs.

”

- Ken Guest

bumpy (7)

bus

comfortable (7) commuter (7)

driving

(21 )

hour (1 3) leave (1 1 )

(81 )

line (7)

minutes pick (1 1 )

person (9)

phone (7)

route (1 2)

safe (6) save (7)

speak

(1 7)

car (7)

convenient (9)

drop (1 2)

flushing min (9)

buses (8)

(68)

friends

(73)

(1 8) front (7)

money (9)

mta (7)

point (9) pretty (1 0)

price (1 2) queens (1 2)

(37)

stop

trip (1 1 ) usually (1 3)

van

(21 )

(49)

(1 7)

guy (8) hand (9)

helps (6)

(23)

really (6) review (7)

shuttle (24)

(1 9)

(32)

ride

(32)

(27

(21 )

(27)

(8)

(58)

fast (1 0) feel (1 0)

going

street subway took traffic train

(44)

talking (8) think (1 0) times (1 0) travel (7)

(26) short (6)

city (1 0)

main manhattan passengers people

loud (7) love (7)

parking (1 2)

seat service

start (8)

gets (1 0) give (1 0)

(31 )

driver

deal (1 2) depending (8) division (1 1 )

end (7) english (7) everyone (7) far (7) fare (7)

live (8) location (8) lot (1 0) (31 )

brooklyn (1 2)

chinatown chinese

cost (6)

efficient (8)

bowery (7)

(57)

riders (8)

sit sometimes (1 8)

(1 4)

sure (1 5) taking (31 )

transportation (8)

waiting (1 3) worth (8)

Yelp Tag Cloud generated by text analytics from all yelp reviews on ‘Chinatown Dollar Van.”

Urban Mobilities

Taxi & Limousine Commission Symbol >> test phase August 2014

ommuter

Existing regulations Chapter 57 >> rule for drivers: penalties, licensing, laws, operations, vehicles conditions

License #:12345 How to identify a licensed commuter van? Info: Licensed vans have important information about the van’s owner and operator visibly marked.

Owner Operator Address Base/Permit Numbers

T123456C Plates: Commuter vans have TLC-issued license plates that either begin with T and end with C or begin with LV.

TLC blue diamond decals are located in 4 places: each rear passenger door, the windshield and the rear door window.

Flushing

Elrmhust

Chinatown Formal Protocol transit. Even with a license, a commuter van is not supposed to be hailed and cannot pick up passengers at MTA bus stops. To the left we have mapped some of the registered areas of operation for some Chinatown van companies. This shows that these vans are only authorized to run as shuttles, picking up passengers in one area and dropping them off in another without stopping in between.

Manhattan

The following page illustrates some of the informal protocol that allow the dollar van systems to operate. These are the flexible and unspoken relationships and behaviors between drivers and riders that make the system operational. Some of them, such as which side of the street pick-up happens on, can be formalized while others, such as the illegal but common pick-up of hailing riders, cannot.

Sunset Park

Fomalizing The Dollar Van After decades of contentious relationships with the police and city government, there is currently a push to license and authorize many of the dollar van systems into commuter vans. This happens through the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and the Department of Transportation (DOT). TLC grants the driver a license the van a decal identifying it as an authorized commuter van. DOT overseas the area of operation for each van or company, especially to prevent too much overlap with extant MTA transportation. It is important for city revenue and the Transit Workers Union that commuter vans not be overly in competition with public

FEATURE:

Alternative Mobilities

Flushing

Beginning of Sunset Park to Flushing Route

Sunset Park

Chinatown Informal Protocol

60th Street and 8th Avenue

Drivers Must Wait In Line On Return From Previous Trip

15 - 20 Minute Wait Between Vans

Manhattan = South Facing Vans

1 2

Queens = North Facing Vans

3 4 5 Operates as a shuttle van until entering into Chinatown, where it operates as a “dollar van”

Drivers in front of the line have passenger priority until max capacity

MTA Route

Vans pick up passengers, signaling with their hand out, along MTA Bus routes

Urban Mobilities

COMMERCIAL E AV L C

E AL

TRANSIT

COMPANY

UNLICENSED

$$$

INVESTORS

DRIVER

BUSINESS BANKS WORKERS (LOW-WAGE) R

TU UL

NEW YORK STATE

INSURANCE

C SO

COMMUNITY BOARD

R FO N E

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS FEATURE:

DRIVER

RIDER

LICENSED

$$$ TRANSIT

MAYOR

POLITICAL PRESSURE

FAMILIES IMMIGRANTS COMMUNITIES

M CE

NYPD

C O-

Alternative Mobilities

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS UNIONS CAAAV | CSWA | TWU

CIVIL SOCIETY

Mapping the socioeconomic and political connections of the Chinatown vans The connection map to the left shows how the Chinatown vans operate at the intersection of commerce, civil society, and public institutions. Chinese immigrant communities in NYC, like all communities, are both social and commercial. Van drivers and company owners are members of the same communities as the riders, so this transportation system socioeconomically contributes to and is sustained by Chinese immigrants. The connections created and sustained are also both social and economic. In this way the vans are completely embedded into the flows of people and capital that occur between NYC’s Chinatowns. Government oversight of licensed vans involves TLC, DOT, and the NYPD. These organizations, in turn, are responsible to or influenced by the Mayor’s office, community boards, the MTA, and NY state government. Pressure from civil society groups may be in favor of the vans, as with Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence (CAAAV), or in opposition to them, for example the Transit Workers Union (TWU). Understanding and visualizing these connections as reinforcers that make the Chinatown van system more than alternative transportation system but an embedded aspect of everyday socioeconomic life led us to the design proposal laid out in the remaining pages. We drew inspiration and guidance from the Chinatown vans to create a process for other communities underserved by public transit to create their own alternative mobility systems that are embedded and socioculturally appropriate, creating connections beyond just transportation.

Urban Mobilities

REPLICATING THE RIGHT TO MOBILITY Reinforcers

A participatory process for alternative mobilities!

Chinatown dollar-van

...potentially used by: Our hypothesis is that some communities may be more adept at cooperatively creating and sustaining their own mobility systems than the MTA

We identified the following reinforcers from the Chinatown van system: cohabitation with the MTA, connection between price and time saved, optimized routes, trip schedule based on passenger demand, operation at

FEATURE:

community organizations

facilitators: students

independent consultation

that can be

design a process for communities to realize their right to the city through the right to mobility

government agencies

...custumized to specific socioeconomical and cultural systems: - community organizations (mobility to mobilize) - find and improve the existing dollar-vans - community board meetings - day labors centers - elderly - other social enclaves that need connections

and between socioeconomic centers, maintenance of cultural ties, marketing through word of mouth, cooperation between drivers, and navigating government transit policy.

Alternative Mobilities

A research project with an experimental archiving application

day labor centers

Our participatory process of alternative mobility co-creation could be applied by government agencies, community organizations, or independent consultants to a variety of community transportation needs underserved by the

MTA. To test and exemplify the process we have experimentally applied it to a day laborer job center to see if transportation between laborer’s home, work, and job center could also build community and reinforce worker’s rights.

For this example we will take the position of student facilitators and the Bay Parkway Job Center will be the collaborator we are working with.

Urban Mobilities

Protocols, Policy/Regulations, + Criteria for Success From Riders, Community, Organization and Collaborator Feedback.

Pilot Revised Preliminary Action Plan to Further Develop Criteria For Success

Organizations

Technicians

3. Specify Potential Riders + Community to Outreach for a Collaborative Workshop/Meeting.

Workshop with Workbook to Identify Rider Demand + Challenges from a Community Perspective.

Assembly to Present Information + Gather Rider Feedback.

Return to the Question of Rider Demand to Find a Conclusive Demand.

Initial Meeting to Frame Situation Identify and Identify the Stakeholders and “Situation”. Community Organizations + Investigation of Situation with Lexicon + Metrics.

Evaluate + Process Community Input to Conduct A Second Round of Research + Interviews.

Riders

Consultation to Discuss Feasibility

This participatory process involves multiple stakeholders and is guided by a “Missed Connections” workbook. The steps are outlined in the diagram to the right and the complete workbook and details of the Bay Parkway Job Center example (along with all of our research on the Chinatown van system) can be found online at alternativemobilities.wordpress.com. The goals of this process are to identify areas of transportation that are lacking, to identify the existing connections and strengths of the community, to organize collaboratively and cooperatively, and to ensure that a new transportation system creates and maintains community cohesion. The process and workbook move through the collection of qualitative and quantitative data through meetings and workshops that bring stakeholders together in discussion and collaborative activities.

Facilitators Collaborator

MISSED b CONNECTIONS Develop a Preliminary Action Plan.

Legend

Analysis + Design

Workshop with Updated Workbook.

Identify Formal Structures, Economic Systems, Social Cohesion, Protocols, Policy/Regulations, + Criteria for Success From Riders, Community, Organization and Collaborator Feedback.

Workbook Collaboration to Identify A Common Sense of Direction

Develop a Preliminary Action Plan.

Each step is described and how it could be applied to the Bay Parkway Job Center is explored. The final pages have a visualization of the job center scenario in the form of a comic, which can also be found online.

STEP

understanding the situation: who are A and B? where are A and B?

successful mobility = A is able to go to B

B A

NOT successful mobility = A is NOT able to go to B

Revise Design + Create Comprehensive Action Plan Workshop with Revised Preliminary Action Plan to Further Develop Criteria For Success

Pilot Revised Preliminary Action Plan to Further Develop Criteria For Success

Consultation to Discuss Feasibility

neighborhood profile:

what is impeding the mobility?

situation

investigate

metrics

lexicon

stakeholders

what the connection line(s) would represent? First the facilitators and collaborators need to come together to understand each other’s goals for this process. Figuring out what transportation needs and lacking and why they are lacking is the primary goal of this step.

For the Bay Parkway Job Center, it is difficult to day laborers to get from their homes, to the center, to a workplace, and back to their homes. Taking so many trips a day costs a lot on public transportation and take a lot of time because there are not direct connections between these place. Additionally, making it easier to work through the job center instead of from a street corner could help more laborers find non-exploitative work and increase the power of the collective.

Alternative Mobilities

FEATURE:

The facilitators need to collect the contextual and background research that will inform the rest of the process. This means compiling demographic data and maps, locating other community stakeholders, understanding other key issues in the community, and generally spending time in the location.

report 1

The Bay Parkway Job Center serves very low income hispanic immigrants with varying fluencies in English. Workplace harassment and exploitation is common among day laborers and there are few other organization helping laborers know their rights.

Urban Mobilities

STEP

outreach:

which is the best way to target this ridership?

STEP Who are the potential riders of a new mobility system and how can they be reached to be included in this process? This step is dependent on the community that is being worked with. Flyers, showing up at other meetings, tabling, online promotion, word of mouth, and hanging out are all viable outreach strategies.

report 1

Does rider demand actually exist?

STEP

narrative storytelling

ridership walking tours Workshops! Discussion! Community Mapping! Storytelling! Coming together to collect qualitative data and figure out what resources the community has and what resources they need. The most important goal of this step is to establish whether rider demand exists and what the numbers might look like. Community mapping would include walking tours and collaboratively marking nodes of connection (ie. home, work, church) on a large map to gather where people are going, how they are getting there, and what the most difficult areas of movement area.

report 2

more investigation

more accurate report

Compiling the maps will show the areas that day laborers are commuting from and the areas where they work. Grouping these nodes can start to form the framework for potential transportation routes. The Bay Parkway Job Center wants to attract more laborers but it also needs to outreach to more employers so that there will be enough jobs. How could transportation assist with this marketing and outreach?

detailing STEP the needs: detailing the needs:

mapping exercise

report 2

open questions among others

The laborers that use the Bay Parkway Job Center do not all necessarily know each other and may be unaware of other laborers making similar daily commutes. Collectively mapping out nodes of connection would be especially important here. Laborers come from the directly surrounding area but also from Sunset Park and even Staten Island. How large an area would a laborer transportation system need to cover? Are there other places that laborers regularly need to get to?

The number of meetings and workshops required will be dependent on the size of the community and their schedules.

How are laborers currently getting around? When are they using public transit and when are employers picking them up and dropping them off? Do some individuals own personal vehicles?

Alternative Mobilities

FEATURE:

All of the qualitative and quantitative data collected so far needs to be compiled and analyzed by the facilitators. Any important information that might still be missing needs to be collected, this might include interviews and further site visits. Personal and collective maps need to be synthesized to create a spatial picture of mobility needs. Finally, the potential other connections and resources that community transportation could provide need to be clearly defined.

ridership workshop:

filling the gaps:

In the case of the job center there are already laborers moving through the space daily. Spending time there, hanging up flyers, talking to them, and making sure they tell their friends and families would all be great ways to ensure potential riders come to the following meetings and workshops.

STEP

more accurate report more accurate report is the bigger picture is the bigger picture There are two parts to Step 6, which depending on the situation cycle through each other and back into Step 5 if necessary. First the facilitators and collaborators need to work together, based on the report produced in Step 5, to sketch out possible forms the mobility system could take. This includes: types of vehicles, routes, stops, signs, licensing, the economic model, and marketing. How flexible will this system be? Do there need to be set stops or can routes change with daily need? Where can riders be aggregated into common stops? Who are the drivers going to be? And how will the system support itself?

Part B is the process of bringing these plans and ideas to the community and ridership. This gives riders the chance to comment on and adjust routes and stops. If the system requires fares, how much can the riders afford? Are riders comfortable with demarcated vehicles, or would they prefer to be less visible? Depending on the input received, Step 5 and 6a may need to be revisited. Check out our comic at the end to see how this might look at the Bay Parkway Job Center.

Urban Mobilities

STEP

develop a project:

STEP

a. design! + action planning

revising the design:

b. consultation

do!

Step 7 also has a part A and B. First the facilitators need to again compile and analyze the feedback received to create a preliminary action plan, which would lay out the entire proposed mobility system: formal structures, economic system, social aspects, protocols, policy, regulations, and the criteria that determine whether the system is successful. There then needs to be a consultation with experts and technicians to make sure such a system would be feasible.

STEP

For the Bay Parkway Job Center this preliminary action plan could take many different forms. If only a small number of laborers will initially be involved than nothing more than a regular carpool system may be necessary, opening up the center to more laborers may require a loop shuttle that stops in areas where groups of laborers live. The best option may even be something more along the line of a fleet of community bikes.

The final step is to revise and create the comprehensive action plan. At this point not only has the community imagined a mobility system that serves their socioculturally specific needs, but hopefully through workshops and collective envisioning other communities connections have been created and strengthened as well.

MISSED CONNECTIONS

STEP 9 | PG XX

Revise Design To Create A Comprehensive Action Plan Extract information from Pilot Program of the Preliminary Action Plan

Referring to the initial overview diagram, Steps 7, 8, and 9 form feedback loop of sorts, with the input and reaction to allowing the process of design to cycle through each as many times as is necessary. At this point, depending on who the facilitators are, the comprehensive action plan can be passed off to the collaborators or the facilitators can continue on with the project aiding in the implementation of the design. Either way, the final action plan should contain criteria of success for anyone to be able to assess whether the resulting mobility system is meeting the community’s needs.

mobility research:

MISSED CONNECTIONS

STEP 8 | PG XX

QUESTIONS TO BE FILLED OUT BY RIDER

COMMUTE QUESTIONNAIRE

MISSED CONNECTIONS

STEP 8 | PG XX

QUESTIONS TO BE FILLED OUT BY PILOT PROGRAM FACILITATOR(S)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Driver Communicated Well With Me How Could This Be Improved?

Please Identify on the Map:

Strongly Agree

Missing Points of Connectivity Notes:

I Felt Comfortable and Safe How Could This Be Improved?

Extraneous Points of Connectivity Notes:

I Was Pleased With the Ammenities Offered Please Suggest Other Possible Ammenities:

Opportunities for Better Routes/Service

Pickup and Pickup Location Was Convenient And Straightforward

Notes:

Please Suggest Other Possibilities:

Dropoff and Dropoff Location was Convenient And Straightforward Please Suggest Other Possibilities:

x x

Bay Parkway Job Center

I Was Picked Up and Dropped Off in a Timely Manner

Laborer Homes

Strongly Disagree

Routes Were Cost Efficient and Sustainable Notes :

How Could This Be Improved?

This Mobility System Offers a Sense of Community

Common Work Areas

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

How Could This Be Improved?

I Had a Conversation With Someone During My Ride

Notes:

Current Economic Model is Sustainable

Why or Why Not?

Notes:

Signage is Sufficient Notes:

The Fare Was Reasonable Notes:

Mobility Environment is Suitable for Riders Notes:

Please Identify What You Liked About This Mobility System and Why

Pickup and Dropoff Locations Were Visible

I Would Use This Mobility System Again

Strongly Agree

Routes Were Time Efficient Notes:

x x

Which Aspects of the Current Mobility Model Could Be Improved? How Might You Imagine Them to Improve?

Added Notes:

Revise Program and Create a Comprehensive Action Plan Based Off of Pilot Program Results

lk wa

ridership forms This final collaborative step is to propose the preliminary action plan to the ridership and to run some pilot routes with riders. There are final quantitative surveys to complete to make this input easy to aggregate and address. Stakeholders need to agree on the criteria of success so that the system can be evaluated once it has been implemented. Criteria of success are meant to move beyond the financial and into the social.

Bay Parkway Job Center

Some example criteria of success for a Bay Parkway Job Center mobility system could be: doubling the number of laborers working out of the job center, transportation that facilitates worker collective meetings, or the connection of the Bay Parkway center to another local job center so that resources can be shared.

FEATURE:

Alternative Mobilities

Common Work Areas

HELLO

lk wa

Bay Parkway Job Center

Laborer Homes

x x

¡HOLA!

Common Work Areas

Urban Mobilities

FEATURE:

Alternative Mobilities

Urban Mobilities

PARALLEL

MOVEMENT

SYSTEMS + FLOWS Denilyn Arciaga | Nadine Rachid Michael Stepniak | Drew Vanderburg

RED HOOK

FEATURE:

Group name

The Parallel Movement Systems + Flows team researched the coastal geography from Long Island City, Queens to Sunset Park, Brooklyn, between the BQE and the East River. Initially, we studied the existing public transit systems and the Mayor’s proposed ferry plan in relation to the socioeconomic conditions of the waterfront neighborhoods. Our research led to Red Hook as the site for transit intervention through a community inclusive design process.

Urban Mobilities

Introduction New York City features multiple interweaving modes of public transportation. We analyzed the ways that these systems work together or compete, as well as their management, funding, visual communications, and impacts on general quality of life. Analyzing the Mayor’s ferry expansion plan in relation to the public transit infrastructures in our site study showed deficiencies in the north-south + coastal-upland connectivity. Without supplementary upland transit services to expand the catchment area of each ferry terminal, it is unlikely that public ferry transit is a financially viable solution to NYC’s transportation needs. Access to more transportation options means higher quality of life, but our research indicated that this access is not spread equally across the studied site. What started off as a transit-oriented perspective eventually led to the socio-economic realities. How can transit equity increase as population grows due to coastal development, while still maintaining the integrity of the existing community fabric?

FEATURE:

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows

Urban Mobilities

“WE ARE THE ULTIMATE COASTAL CITY.”

-Mayor Bill de Blasio State of the City 2015

FEATURE:

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows

Urban Mobilities

POPULATION DENSITY along the waterfront has grown due to zoning changes. This also increases subway ridership and coastal development.

7 Vernon Blvd-Jackson Ave +76.1%

Bedford Ave

L +61.5%

Marcy Ave

J M Z +50.4% York St

F +74.9% High St

A C +46.7% Clark St

2 3 +20.0% Fulton St

G +49.9%

Average Weekday Ridership % of Change from 2007-2014 Comparison of the Top 4 Busiest Stations: Times Sq-42 St: +12.6% Grand Central-42St: +5.8% 34th St-Herald Sq: +0.6% Union Square: +4.8%

2000 Population Density

Zoning Adopted Since 2002

Population Density (Per Sq Mile)

FEATURE:

500

2010 Population Density

2010 Population Density with Subway Stations/Lines

5000

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows

Urban Mobilities

FERRY PROPOSAL CRITIQUE BELOW: Insufficient ridership is the primary obstacle to the mayor’s ferry transit expansion plan. The current proposal relies on an estimated ridership far higher than the current ridership with a fare fare lower than the current fare, which also incurs a substantial subsidy from the city. How will the city empower the needed dramatic surge in ferry ridership, especially as ferries remain disconnected from upland transit infrastructure? OPPOSITE PAGE: We researched the Area Median Income of the coastal neighborhoods, the percentage of people who use the existing NY Water Taxi and the walk time from ferry stop to nearest subway station. Our findings show that higher income neighborhoods used the ferry while lower income ones did not.

% rise in property values as calculated by the NYCEDC

5% 3% 2% 1% 1

7/8

3/4

5/8

1/2

3/8 1/4 1/8 0

Distance from ferry terminal in miles

FEATURE:

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows

Urban Mobilities

RED HOOK

is a coastal neighborhood that has been transit neglected with no subway stations and a cancelled B77 in 2010. The B61 absorbed ridership, resulting in crowded busses and slower times between stops. The “South Brooklyn” line of the Mayor’s ferry plan adds more transit options. However, the new mixed-use developments being planned contain higher-income commercial and residential buildings. Red Hook has been home to Brooklyn’s largest NYCHA development. How can we ensure that the new developments not exclude NYCHA residents and inscribe socio-economic divides in Red Hook? Can the future developments and ferry plan provide benefits to the already existing long-time Red Hook residents?

B61 MAR 2002 HARBOR TECH

B57

B77

JAN 2002 RED HOOK STORES

Water Taxi Stops Proposed ERF Stops Annual Weekday Ridership 2007 -2014

OCT 2004 IKEA

# in Billions

Previously Rezoned

FEATURE:

6 5 4 3 2 1 0

$25.5 Billion

Current MTA Debt

$15.2 Billion

Red Hook IBZ NYCHA Properties

NYCHA residents make up 63.7% of Red Hook’s population of 10,228

cancelled

MTA Chairman Tom Prendergast Annual Salary

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows

Over $90,000 $90,000 - $75,001

Planned Developments

$75,000 - $55,001

MTA Capital Budget Funding Gap

$359,877

Area Median Income by Block

Brooklyn’s Largest Public Housing Complex Red Hook East + West: 30 Buildings 2,873 Units 6,518 Residents

Luxury Residential: 685,000 sf Mixed-Use: 685,000 sf Creative Commercial: 790,000 sf

$55,000 - $45,001 $45,000 - $35,001 $35,000 - $25,001 $25,000 - $15,001 Under $15,000

Urban Mobilities

THE NEIGHBORHOOK is our proposal for a free

community-specific feeder shuttle. It provides service for Red Hook residents to the ferry and subway as well as increasing transportation equity and the ridership needed for ferry sustainability. Besides addressing the local needs for transit, the NeighborHook makes stops at local events based on a community participatory process.Our aim is for the destinations to be places of social gatherings and events thereby supporting the culture of Red Hook.

FEATURE:

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows

Urban Mobilities

THE NEIGHBORHOOK FUNDING

To fund our proposal, we require the Mayor’s office to mandate a program of value capture finance on the real-estate developments that are currently proposed for Red Hook. De Blasio frequently speaks of the “Tale of Two Cities” metaphor for the growing gap between rich and poor in NYC. He seeks to create affordable housing and represent the interests of working class families. However, a ferry expansion would serve high-income residents near the coastline and cater to the developers whose property values will rise when the ferry service arrives. With The NeighborHook, de Blasio can expand ferry service while staying true to his purported values of equity, inclusivity, and affordability.

VALUE PROVIDED TO RED HOOK CURRENT + FUTURE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES

TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES

NYC TREASURY

NEIGHBORHOOK CAPITAL COSTS FUND

MUNICIPAL BOND REPAYMENT

NEIGHBORHOOK OPERATIONS FUND

INCREMENTAL TAX INCREASE IN PROPERTY

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

+ +T AC R CE E 61 CR RSH AN SS SI OW IP T DI NG

-B

PARTICIPATION +AWARENESS

BASELINE 2015 PROPERTY TAX

ITE

LAND VALUE TAX

OP S

T RY S

FER

LOCAL BUSINESSES

E OM

FO SH RM AR AT IN IO G N

MUNICIPAL BOND

DEPARTMENT OF

PARKS + RECREATION

INFORMATION PLATFORMS

FEATURE:

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows

Urban Mobilities

THE NEIGHBORHOOK PROCESS 1.

ASSEMBLE TOGETHER TO VOTE After the smaller groups have reached consensus, the participating community group as a whole filters its selections through a voting process.

FORM STEERING COMMITTEE The process of designing the NeighborHook starts by identifying and partnering with community organizations in Red Hook. Together, we form a steering committee and work on building the NeighborHook tool.

The selected stops will be entered to a digital platform where the community organizers are storing their findings. The number of votes for each stop will also be documented for the final stage of the process.

Community organizations include, but not limited to: Red Hook Community Justice Center Red Hook Initiative Southwest Brooklyn Industrial Development Corporation

SMALL GROUPS TO FILL OUT CARDS

In Red Hook, we have identified that the feeder shuttle will make 5 stops in the neighborhood (including ferry and subway stops) in order to match the 20 minute cycle of the ferry schedule. Each community organization must work with its targeted community to reach a consensus of 5 stops. The process is as follows: 1- Break out to groups of 6 to 10 people 2- Each group decides on 5 stops for weekday and 5 for weekends

Weekday Cards

Weekend Cards

FEATURE:

CREATE ROUTE PROPOSALS Aenean vel risus ut diam commodo ultrices. Mauris eleifend odio enim, at auctor enim dignissim et. Donec in ligula a mi ultrices malesuada porttitor a justo. Sed erat massa, fermentum non nulla vitae, maximus hendrerit ipsum. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent.

Aenean vel risus ut diam commodo ultrices. Mauris eleifend odio enim, at auctor enim dignissim et. Donec in ligula a mi ultrices malesuada porttitor a justo. Sed erat massa, fermentum non nulla vitae, maximus hendrerit ipsum. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent.

+ sociosqu ad litora torquent. porttitor a justo. Sed erat massa, fermentum non nulla

The feeder shuttle will run on two schedules, weekend and weekday. The different colors help the participants and facilitators easily identify the stops.

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows

+ Aenean vel risus ut diam commodo ultrices. Mauris eleifend odio enim, at auctor enim dignissim et. Donec in ligula a mi ultrices malesuada porttitor a justo. Sed erat

The cards are designed to allow the participants to think about the reason behind selecting a location and justifying their selection to their group members. This process will help in making decisions based on the community’s best interest.

sociosqu ad litora torquent. porttitor a justo. Sed erat massa, fermentum non nulla vitae, maximus hendrerit ipsum. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent.

+ +

DOT + MTA + New York City Department of Parks and Recreation + City Representative

Finally, the steering committee will come together to go through a final selection of the stops based on the most urgent needs and voting process. After identifying the stops, we will create proposals for both the weekday and weekend schedules for final comments and review. The process and final maps will be exhibited in the main ferry stop through an interactive screen. On the screen there are also options for making comments and suggestions on how to make RED HOOK a better place for all. The most mentioned topic will appear on the screens.

Urban Mobilities

THE NEIGHBORHOOK SUMMER ROUTE

THE NEIGHBORHOOK SUMMER SCHEDULE Opposite page: We have designed a hypothetical route which will have been determined via our participatory community process. The destinations selected here are the ferry terminal, the public school and housing development, the community center, the subway station, and the recreation center.

The NeighborHook Summer Weekend Route

The route will be driven by two buses, departing from Valentino Pier every 20 minutes and traveling in a circular loop. This route considers areas that are currently underserved by bus transit. It avoids truck lanes and considers the direction and congeston of the streets. The route would also be designed with consideration to the ferry arrival and departure schedule, as well, as preferential treatment towards the schedules of community events such as a baseball game, school field trip, or farmers’ market.

PROPOSED VALENTINO PIER FERRY TERMINAL

PS15/ RED HOOK HOUSES WEST

THE MICCIO CENTER

Twice each year, a new schedule will be designed and proliferated by the NeighborHook to ensure community relevancy sensitive to seasonal conditions.

THE RED HOOK REC CENTER

SMITH & 9th St.

The community engagement process, bus route, stops and suggestions will be available on-line through an application.

SUBWAY TO FERRY LINE FERRY TO SUBWAY LINE

FEATURE:

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows

Urban Mobilities

TENANTÕS MEETING

VENDORSÕ MARKET

VOCATIONAL TRAINING

VALENTINO PIER FERRY TERMINAL SMITH & 9th ST.

THE NEIGHBORHOOK STOPS Bus stops are designed to be removable, lightweight, freestanding units, as well as act as a cultural artifact for the identity of Red Hook.

NEIGHBORHOOK STOP

TENANTÕS MEETING

Vocational training

VENDOR’S MARKET

ADVERTISING FOR SOCIAL EVENTS IN RED HOOK

ROUTE MAP & SEASONAL SCHEDULE

PS15/ RED HOOK HOUSES WEST

FEATURE:

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows

INFORMATION INTERACTIVE SCREEN & DOCUMENTATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZING PROCESS

FERRY TICKET VENDING MACHINE (METRO CARD)

ROUTE MAP INCLUDES SEASONAL EVENTS & SCHEDULE

Our proposed ferry terminal shelter at Valentino Pier will feature a ticket vending kiosk as well as interactive informational screens to encourage participation in dialogue about local social issues. We hope that these touchscreens can also act as touchstones to generate community cohesion between commuters waiting for the ferry or the bus.

Urban Mobilities

BQE

The In Between Renata BENIGNO | Shibani JADHAV Demetra KOURRISOVA | Walter PETRICHYN

FEATURE:

Group name

Urban Mobilities

Introduction Stretching 11.7 miles, the Brooklyn Queens Expressway connects the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens in a way that aimed to alleviate traffic and opened up new opportunities for both commercial and non commercial use. The BQE also notoriously became a boundary for neighbourhoods, whether its physical infrastructure would be elevated, underneath or at the ground level of the surrounding areas. We were interested in the various ecologies that emerged from the built existence of the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. To do so, we studied both the large scale (the BQE as an important transit infrastructure that connects and at the same time separates neighborhoods) and the local scale of the BQE (the spaces that are created due to the intersection of the expressway and different types of transit infrastructure).

TAXI

modes of transportation allowed in the BQE

alternative transportation modes

in between uses

FEATURE:

BQE—The In Between

Urban Mobilities

TRANSIT GAPS

INCIDENTAL SPACES

New York City has several transportation gaps, especially in its concerns to the connections between the boroughs other than Manhattan.

The Brooklyn Queens Expressway is not only a connector between borougs, but it is also a barrier for the neighborhoods it passes through. It became important to understand the BQE in a more local scale, in order to define how was the interaction between the expressway and these neighborhoods.

The subway lines are mostly Manhattan centric, which congests the system in many areas of the island and forcing commuters of other boroughs to spend up to 3 hours a day in trains. This is despite the fact that the number of Brooklyn residents traveling to Queens grew by 32 percent since 1990, compared to a 13 per cent increase in commuters going to Manhattan. A trend of emerging business and commercial centers is evident in both Brooklyn and Queens, which creates opportunities for employment and recreation that could potentially be reached without travelling through Manhattan. Besides that, around 25% of New Yorkers are more than 2 miles away from an MTA subway stop. It is evident that communities in need of adequate public transit are located in the outer boroughs. Meanwhile, the majority of MTA’s budget is being allocated to the 2nd avenue line and the extension of the 7 line in Manhattan.

1 Webster Ave/3rd Ave Corridor 2 Soundview

3 La Guardia

5 Main Street/Utopia Corridor

6 Jamaica Ave Corridor 4 Middle

Village

7 Southeast Queens

Currently, the BQE serves a North/South axis connecting Brooklyn and Queens, in a way that alleviates traffic and serves the borough transportation gap that public transit has not been able to fulfil. A trip connecting Brooklyn and Queens takes approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes by public transit, whereas the BQE allows cars to make the same trip in only 20 minutes using the BQE.

Currently, leftover spaces are formed alongside and under the BQE due to the intersection between the expressway and other transit infrastructure, such as streets, avenues, train lines and bike lanes. In order to explore these incidental (or inbetween) spaces, two distinct sites were chosen as case studies. The first site is located around Trinity Park, in Dumbo, and this area extends alongside the BQE. The second site is located in Williamsburg, in the stretch of the BQE between Metropolitan and Lorimer Avenue, where the BQE passes over the area in analysis.

Williamsburg Dumbo

DUMBO

8 Utica Ave Corridor 9 Nostrand Ave Corridor Map of New York City showing areas underserved by MTA subway system. [areas beyond 1/4 mile from a subway station with greater than 26,000 residents/sq mile]

Source: Pluto, NYC Open Data. OPTION 3 Car via I-278 W (BQE, in this section) Travel time: 23min

OPTION 2 Bus Q69 + Subway Line F Travel time: 1h 9min

OPTION 1 Bus Q69 + B62 Travel time: 1h 28min PLACES BUS SUBWAY CAR

WILLIAMSBURG

B Map of NYC section showing travel times to go from Brooklyn to Queens. Source: Google Maps

FEATURE:

BQE—The In Between

Urban Mobilities

DUMBO

FEATURE:

WILLIAMSBURG

BQE—The In Between

Urban Mobilities

SAFETY An important part of the research was the understanding of safety issues regarding the sites under analysis. The intersection of transit infrastructure, as mentioned before, creates difficulties for the neighborhoods around the BQE. In the sites studied, there is a great problem regarding transit accidents, whether they are due to the lack of proper signaling system or to the behavior of people who do not respect the existing traffic signs.

4|8

4|10

1|1

52|104

3|6

2|3

5|10

5|11

6|13

5|10

2|4

5|11

2|3 3|6 1|2 3|6 1|2

8|17

1|2 1|2

5|10 1|2 16|35 18|39

1|2

PEDESTRIANS INVOLVED

CYCLISTS INVOLVED

DUMBO

161

330

3 [0.91%]

5 [1.52%]

WILLIAMSBURG

124

251

13 [5.18%]

11 [4.38%]

TOTAL

285

581

16 [2.75%]

Source: Base maps - Pluto MAP. Statistics - NYC Crash Mapper (data collected between February 2013 and January 2014). http://nyc.crashmapper.com/13/2/14/2/standard/collisions/2/10/40.704/-73.874.

UNDERUSE Through visits to the site chosen in Williamsburg, a study was developed regarding the occupancy of the parking lots located underneath the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, in between Metropolitan Avenue and Lorimer Avenue. Currently, in different days of the week and at several times of the day, 30% up to 45% of the parking lots remain vacant. This observation demonstrates that some spaces under the BQE, disregarding their size, are underused and could be occupied by other activities that would explore their potential to serve the community.

April 27th (MON) 3:30 pm

April 27th (TUE) 3:00 pm 33%

38%

67%

62%

May 6th (WED) 1:00 pm

May 12th (TUE) 12:30 pm 35%

45%

65%

55%

Parking study underneath the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, in between Metropolitan Avenue and Lorimer Avenue, in Williamsburg.

22|44

01 collision

Coexistence of formal and informal power structures in the parking lots under the BQE

17|34 5|10

4|5

02 - 10 collisions

2|4

11 - 20 collisions 21 - more collisions X|Y X - number of collisions Y - number of people injured

12|27

2|3

Interestingly, in the site located in Dumbo, although the existing bike lanes offer more safety for the cyclists, they become a risk for pedestrians. According to them, cyclists do not like to share the space and do not reduce their speed even if people are crossing the lanes.

LEGEND

7|14 3|5

8|17

10|23

As the areas surrounding the BQE are usually interrupted, cyclists and pedestrians are forced to cross dangerous intersections, risking their lives to complete their path.

Currently, the New York City has a Vision Zero Action Plan, a program dedicated for ending traffic deaths and injuries on city streets. This plan involves many city departments, such as the Police Department and NYC Department of Tranportation (NYC DOT).

4|8

21|42

PEOPLE INJURED

COLLISIONS

FEATURE:

2|4

2|3 2|3

5|11

BQE—The In Between

NY Department of Transportation NYC Department of Transportation Department of Sanitation Illegal urban practice Department of Environmental Protection

Urban Mobilities

INSIGHTS [ALONG THE BQE]

[UNDER THE BQE]

Most of the incidental spaces observed along the BQE were designated as parks, squares or other public spaces designated for collective activities. Due to the intersection of transit infrastructure, the green areas are fragmented in several small parks and playgrounds, making the access to them difficult and sometimes dangerous. Many of the areas do not have proper paths for pedestrians, forcing people to risk their lives while crossing the streets [refer to the following pages for more info about safety].

The spaces located under the BQE were usually used simply as parking lots. As these parking lots were usually long stretches of underused space, Individuals and organizations reclaim the incidental spaces with or without approval from the governing bodies, in order to create interventions in their own terms. Artists create temporary interventions under the BQE, whereas skateboarders create their own ramps under the BQE, which are constantly removed by New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT) in a cycle that never ends.

What if the incidental spaces could help to bridge existing transit gaps?

What if interventions in the incidental spaces could go beyond the intent of self expression and could orient people’s attention to the underuse of these areas?

What if underused incidental spaces below the BQE could be utilised to their potential?

FEATURE:

BQE—The In Between

What if individuals and organizations could reclaim the use of these incidental spaces?

Urban Mobilities

Incidental spaces, once activated for new uses, have a great potential to bridge transportation gaps and to create public spaces for community interaction. Incidental spaces would then be utilised to their potential and would become both transit and social hubs.

100

FEATURE:

BQE—The In Between

Urban Mobilities

101

PROPOSAL 1

The Structure With cardboard material and gaffers tape, a box was built with appropriate size to enclose pedestrians (6 feet 7 inches). The structure had five walls, in order to create more space inside so people wouldn’t feel constrained.

CAMERA OBSCURA AN ART INTERVENTION

By concentrating a gaze towards a space in an unconventional way, a person will configure new ideas about it in an educational and entertaining way.

Challenges

Camera Obscura is an enclosed room in a public space that projects a moving image underneath the Macri Triangle in between Meeker and Union Avenue. A camera obscura is a dark room with an aperture to project light into the structure, illuminating the outside in the space. Use of the camera obscura dates back to the 10th century and public camera obscuras were popular sea side attractions in the Victorian Times.

For rapid prototyping, taking the structure to the site as soon as possible was the goal. Mounting the structure with yarn and bricks on site due to a lack of an interior frame to support the facade from harsh winds was another obstacle. Playing around with the aperture, the distance between the open hole and the projected wall improves sharpness and detail of the moving image. Blocking light was another hassle; and we used our coats and sweaters to darken the box.

The Responses The responses with the participants were important due to the engagement targeting the study site. One person could not see the area beyond an industrial site and wouldn’t like to see that change, while others played around imagining the idea becoming a park, a baseball field, and an evening for food trucks. One person asked what is the property value underneath. The Camera Obscura worked as a stand alone project, but with the potential to be a catalyst for residents to be aware about programming their own spaces. Future aspirations would be to make it more a presentable, strong structure, to work as a mobile art intervention, to partner up with other artists or community groups.

102

FEATURE:

BQE—The In Between

Urban Mobilities

103

PROPOSAL 2

DOT P2P A PROGRAM PROPOSAL

The Brooklyn Queens Expressway could serve as a potential connector for the new job centers that are emerging outside of Manhattan. A car pooling system in BQE would allow commuters to share their daily commute in order to save time and resources.

Focusing on small commercial

enclaves by ensuring ease of transit

for communities located further from Manhattan could potentially provide easier job access for commuters

spending up to 3 hours a day in trains and buses.

By layering our findings, we noticed

that the BQE could serve as a potential connector for these centers.

P2P is a Peer to Peer car pooling

system that allows commuters to share

High Density Areas

their daily commute in order to save

Underserved by the Subway

time and resources.

By using social media, P2P will redirect users to a website, where they will be

asked to input the starting and ending points of their daily commute.

The website will then match similar

Job Centers Outside

input, identifying people with similar

of Manhattan

routes and connecting them to car

share. “Safe points” of pick up and drop off will be clearly marked on the website to ensure the safety of the users.

The website will also provide incentives

in the form of coupons and discounts for those using the service, funded by ads

BQE Route

appearing on its pages.

DOT P2P will also act as a tool that

transfers travel pattern information to NYMTC, becoming a source of data for the future development of public transit routes.

104

FEATURE:

BQE—The In Between

Urban Mobilities

105

PROPOSAL 3

DOT IN BETWEEN

Public Space

A PROGRAM PROPOSAL

In order to give coalitions and small organizations the opportunity to have a say over the way spaces below the Brooklyn Queens Expressway should be utilized, there is a need for a platform that allows them to partner with larger organizations and decision-making bodies. This would provide the necessary framework to promote negotiations between the stakeholders involved and would generate holistic design interventions for the incidental spaces.

NYC Taxi Drivers “80% of NYC Taxi drivers are Muslims, most of them park along the BQE to perform their daily prayers.”-NYTWA

Activity Area

Safety Collisions...124 People Injured...251 Cyclists Involved...11[4.38%]

Community Space

(Source - NYC Crash Mapper collected between February 2013 and February 2014.)

As DOT seeks opportunities to create partnerships, through appropriate relationships and alliances, we understand they are the best department that could give coalitions and small organizations the opportunity to have a say over the changes that would happen in their neighborhood.

DOT In Between is a program under NYC DOT’s umbrella, along with other programs from the department, such as DOT Art, NYC Plaza Program and the previous proposed program DOT P2P. As just some of the stakeholders have the potential and resources to partner with the New York City Department of Transportation, the platform would provide the opportunity for these stakeholders to partner with each other and create comprehensive proposals together, in order to address their needs simultaneously.

FEATURE:

- Taxi Driver

Pedestrians Involved...13[5.18%]

Based on the analysis developed by the group, several stakeholders were identified, including individuals (for example residents, artists, business owners and visitors), groups of professionals (such as the New York Taxi Workers Alliance) and non-profit organizations (like Design Trust for Public Space and Transportation Alternatives); each of them with different needs that could be addressed by using the incidental spaces. Currently, many of the stakeholders identified are either interested in or are already working with DOT, mostly in isolation from each other.

106

“We need restrooms. We are not asking for free restrooms, but we need restrooms!”

The proposal becomes feasible, as its objectives are in line with DOT’s mission. The creation of a program that brings new uses to underused spaces would be in line with the aim to provide safety and efficiency regarding the movement of both people in New York City,

BQE—The In Between

Community Farm & Dog Park

as well as it would promote economic vitality and quality of life to New York residents.

design comprehensive proposals for the incidental spaces along with the Small Organizations;

In DOT In Between Program, there are 3 different types of stakeholders involved:

3) DOT In Between Consultants is a group of professionals that would give the permits to the proposals suggested.

1) Alliances, Coalitions and Small Organizations, which are groups of individuals that share the interest to make changes in the incidental spaces, whether the proposals are temporary or permanent;

The platform will function in DOT’s website, through which the stakeholders will be in contact with DOT and with each other.

2) DOT In Between Partners are large non profit organizations that share DOT’s mission and have the potential to

Urban Mobilities

107

SCENARIOS

STAKEHOLDERS COMMUNITY-BASED ALLIANCES | COALITIONS Group of Residents with one common objective

share DOT’s mission and goals

INTERVENTION

MESO LEVEL

- Propose interventions

TEMPORARY

TEMPORARY TEMPORARY

[SHORT-TERM] [SHORT-TERM] TEMPORARY INTERVENTIONS

- Simple Proposals - Mobile Installations

DOT IN BETWEEN CONSULTANTS

DOT PARTNERS

- Facilitate the connection between Alliances | Coalitions and DOT to get approval for complex proposals

2nd BOARD Representatives of other City Departments

1st BOARD 2 Members of

PERMIT

- Approve | Reject simple and complex proposals

PERMIT

- Approve | Reject complex proposals NYC Department of Design and Construction

PERMANENT

NYC Department of Environmental Protection

- Complex Proposals - Constructions - Renovations - Installation involving sound DOT CONSULTANTS 1st Board Deliberates

NYC Department of Sanitation NYC Economic Development Corporation NYC Parks & Recreation

PERMANENT PERMANENT [LONG-TERM] [LONG-TERM] PERMANENT

INTERVENTIONS

SUBMITTING THE FORM

GETTING APPROVAL FROM CB

Before submitting the proposal to DOT In Between, the DOT Partner needs to get approval from the Community Board FROM CB GETTING APPROVAL Before submitting the proposal to DOT In Between, the DOT Partner needs to get approval from the Community Board

108

FEATURE:

Possible Group of Individuals

Possible Partnership

would be interested in applying their proposals to DOT In Between; 2

possible large non-profit organizations that could become DOT Partners; and

PARK(ING) DAY

DUMBO BID

ARTISTS ORGANIZATION

Organizers of an annual event that creates temporary public parks in parking spots

BID that advocates for marketing and programming of public spaces

Group of artists interested in creating a permanent art installation

3 examples of partnerships that could result from the program.

There are infinit ways stakeholders might be connected, and it is

important to highlight that the program can also create a web of relations

has a great potential to transform

Possible Non-profit Organizations

PARTNERING WITH ORG

that designs viable and democratic public spaces

Possible Partnership

way of maintaining these spaces.

DOT Partner will be responsible of making sure the proposal is comprehensive and addresses the Alliance/Coalition needs CREATING THE PROPOSAL

DOT CONSULTANTS 1st + 2nd Boards Deliberate

Through DOT In Between website, the DOT Partner submits a form that contains information about the proposal (location, objectives, SUBMITTING THE PROPOSAL impacts, inspiration) Through DOT In Between website, the DOT Partner submits a form that contains information about the proposal (location, objectives, impacts, inspiration)

advocates for safety and for alternative types of mobility

transit hub, and for DOT, as a potential

DOT provides the contacts of DOTDOT CONSULTANTS DOT Partner will be responsible 1st + 2nd Boards Partners [Organizations] to the of making sure the proposal is Deliberate Alliance/Coalition so that they will comprehensive and addresses the develop the proposal together Alliance/Coalition needs

SUBMITTING THE PROPOSAL

DESIGN TRUST FOR PUBLIC SPACE

community, as a possible social and

CREATING THE PROPOSAL

DESIGN TRUST FOR PUBLIC SPACE

public zones, serving for both the

+ DOT provides the contacts of DOT Partners [Organizations] to the Alliance/Coalition so that they will develop the proposal together PARTNERING WITH ORG

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES

incidental spaces into democratic

DOT CONSULTANTS 1st Board Deliberates

Through DOT In Between website, the Alliance/Coalition submits a form that contains information about the proposal (location, SUBMITTING THE FORM objectives, impacts, inspiration, Through DOT In Between website, contact info) the Alliance/Coalition submits a form that contains information about the proposal (location, objectives, impacts, inspiration, contact info)

2 possible groups of individuals that

By providing this network, the platform

DOT In Between Consultants analyze the proposal and, through DOT In Between website, give [or not] the permit for the Stakeholder GETTING PERMIT FROM DOT to start the intervention DOT In Between Consultants analyze the proposal and, through DOT In Between website, give [or not] the permit for the Stakeholder to start the intervention

DOT CONSULTANTS 1st Board Deliberates

different stakeholders, here we present

and organizations. GETTING PERMIT FROM DOT

would create partnerships between

between several coalitions, alliances

DOT CONSULTANTS 1st Board Deliberates SUBMITTING THE FORM

As examples of how the program

THE STREET VENDOR PROJECT

Possible Partnership

Group of street vendors claiming for more opportunities and better work conditions

COMMUNITY-BASED COALITION

GHOST BIKES

Group of Residents

Cycling Community claiming for safer streets and bike lanes

P2P DOT P2P Program

NEW YORK TAXI WORKERS ALLIANCE

DOLLAR VANS UNION

Group of Taxi Drivers claiming for resting spaces and public restrooms

Group of Dollar Van Drivers

GETTING PERMIT FROM DOT

Through meetings called Review Sessions, DOT In Between Consultants, the Stakeholder and the DOT Partner will negotiate GETTING PERMIT FROM DOT the approval of the proposal Through meetings called Review Sessions, DOT In Between Consultants, the Stakeholder and the DOT Partner will negotiate the approval of the proposal

BQE—The In Between

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES

DESIGN TRUST FOR PUBLIC SPACE

advocates for safety and for alternative types of mobility

that designs viable and democratic public spaces

Urban Mobilities

109

TOWARDS A RESOURCEFUL SUNSET PARK Kartik Amarnath | Mateo Fernández-Muro Max Freedman | Maria Guadalupe

If ‘mobilities’ refers to the movement of people, objects, and networks, our project focuses on who gets to decide their movement. In other words, we aim to design new parameters for who decides how mobilities are generated, deployed, situated, and harnessed at multiple scales of the city. Our design aims to re-administer urban mobilities according to an environmental justice framework. As such, our aim was to ‘design who decides’ in order to further support community mobilizations aimed at addressing the material, physical, and ecological embodiments of injustice they confront every day.

Introduction Sunset Park, as sociologist Sharon Zukin writes, is “a multiracial space that is both a cultural home for different ethnic communities and a contested site of real estate speculation and gentrification”. The section of Sunset Park wedged between the New York Bay and the BQE, labeled a Significant Maritime Industrial Area, was thereby designated for decades of concentrated heavy industrial activity. As such, the neighborhood is subject to environmental hazards and negative health outcomes, and to the changing industrial economy. Meanwhile, New York City’s responses to the urban climate crisis, collected under the banner of ‘resiliency,’ have not adequately accounted for structural injustice and unequal power relations. We aim to move from the conservative framework of ‘resiliency,’ which relies upon imbalances of knowledge and power, to a transformative practice of ‘resourcefulness,’ which can better address the challenges faced by environmental justice populations and low-income communities of color.

112

FEATURE:

Towards A Resourceful Sunset Park

Urban Mobilities

113

OCCUPY SUNSET PARK

114

FEATURE:

Towards A Resourceful Sunset Park

Urban Mobilities

115

All space has both social and material dimensions...

... but the material—led by experts and top-down strategies—tends to dominate resiliency planning, 116

FEATURE:

Towards A Resourceful Sunset Park

while the social—connected to local experience and knowledge—is neglected and taken for granted.

Urban Mobilities

117

The dominant resiliency discourse may not serve the interests of low-income, climate-vulnerable neighborhoods.

One New York The Plan for a Strong and Just City Ma neig yor de h bo Bl r and infra hoods asio’ s stru ctu and new e re rem quit On ain y, b e th u e p

s ent sse tre ironmts. s v r n e n pla uilt e f exp YC e b ce o N th in t ov r

Vision 4

Goals

Our Resilient City

material redistribution

Neighborhoods

Every city neighborhood will be safer by strengthening community, social, and economic resiliency

Buildings

organizing capacity public-sector investment third-sector investment

The city’s buildings will be upgraded against changing climate impacts

Our neighborhoods, economy, and public services will be ready to withstand and emerge stronger from the impacts of climate change and other 21st century threats

spare time + social capital alternative networks of production, finance, distribution, consumption

education governmental structure + procedures financial + economic models computing + technology

Infrastructure Infrastructure systems across the region will adapt to maintain continued services

Coastal Defense New York City’s coastal defenses will be strengthened against flooding and sea level rise

sustained iterative practice challenge to the status quo

New York City will... Eliminate disaster-related long-term displacement more than one year of New Yorkers from homes by 2050

The City of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio Anthony Shorris First Deputy Mayor

communal bonds to sustain the reproduction of everyday life

Reduce the Social Vulnerability Index for neighborhoods across the city

social infrastructure to articulate and enact the aspirational

Reduce average annual economic losses resulting from climate-related events nyc.gov/onenyc

One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City

214

nyc.gov/onenyc

One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City

215

What’s wrong with resiliency? Resiliency is conservative. Focusing on the stability of an existing system against interference privileges the status quo and ignores the possibility of transformative social change that might address interference at the source.

118

FEATURE:

Resiliency is defined by state agencies and expert knowledge. Top-down strategies limit their own effectiveness by hoarding technical expertise within traditional power structures and failing to incorporate local, experiential knowledges.

Resiliency can reinforce urban inequality. All infrastructure is socio-technical in nature, but resilience is misconceived by state agencies and experts in primarily technical terms. Neglecting the social opens the door to negative effects such as ‘eco-gentrification.’

Towards A Resourceful Sunset Park

group consciousness democratized production of meaning

cultural affirmation cultivation of the will to social justice

alternative knowledges normative + observational attentive to difference and commonality

Urban Mobilities

119

2014

2015

To enact resourcefulness in Sunset Park, we decided to build from an existing process, Participatory Budgeting, that attempts to operate according to some of these values.

ct Proposing projects

PB NY C

Late September – October 2014

Late October 2014 – Early March 2015

Neighborhood As Assemblies blies

Delegate Meetings

Through community meetings and online methods, the Council Members present information on the budget and residents brainstorm project ideas and select budget delegates.

Budget delegates meet in communities to transform the community’s initial project ideas into full proposals, with support from experts.

Josh Lerner, the Executive Director of the Participatory Budgeting Project, says, “Participatory budgeting historically has often helped create other parallel participatory institutions... Once people get involved in participatory budgeting they start asking bigger picture questions and create new ways to address those questions.” With this in mind, we use Participatory Budgeting as a spine for the cultivation of parallel, iterative processes that will begin to realize resourcefulness as both practice and capacity.

Choosing projects

Residents also submit project ideas online.

Implementing projects

120

FEATURE:

March 2015

Late March – April 2015

Project Expos

Voting Vo

D Delegates return to the community to present project proposals

egates p Delegates present nal p the final project osa and proposals sidents vote on residents which proje projects to fund

Towards A Resourceful Sunset Park

April 2015 onward

Evaluation & M Monitoring egates an Delegates and other ipan evaluate the participants cess, th process, then oversee the mplementatio of the implementation p projects

Urban Mobilities

121

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP •

OUTREACH MODEL PRESENCE of the UNDERREPRESENTED •

•

• • •

Logistical support for community-based outreach by readily making available information on PB policies and process for distribution Provide financial support for community-based outreach by reallocating money given to PBP and CVH for citywide outreach Appoint driving group comprised of > 3 underrepresented populations/community groups

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

Canvassing with emphasis on underrepresented groups, conducted by/with members of these groups Engage residents regarding how to develop safe spaces for assemblies and ideas for programming and trainings at upcoming PB events Aim to increase circle of outreach participants Compile ideas from residents who are unable or unwilling to attend assemblies Make recommendations for changes to driving group membership

• • • • • Driving Group

BUDGET DELEGATE COMMITTEES

122

FEATURE:

Budget Delegtate Committees have a busy summer! Beginning in June, they orient new members and begin to research for the upcoming cycle. They hear testimony from and host workshops with local residents, city agencies, CBOs, and policy advocates, and prepare an annual Statement of Needs and Priorities (SNP) for the district.

Towards A Resourceful Sunset Park

MAY

City Agencies

• •

Recruit additional members to driving group if needed Utilize Participatory Action Research to develop a district-wide outreach strategy Identify underrepresented target populations Identify members of target populations to canvass Reflect with canvassers on overall outreach strategy and make changes in collaboration with them Mediate between underrepresented groups and City Council District office Distribute available City Council resources according to outreach strategy and input from canvassers

SUSTAINED PRACTICE of SELF-ORGANIZATION Currently, Budget Delegates volunteer at the Neighborhood Assemblies each fall, and form committees for just a few months to transform proposals into feasible projects. These committees disband at the end of the cycle, in the spring. WHAT IF they were standing committees, with rotating membership and expanded responsibilities?

APR

As each BDC meets with its corresponding city agency throughout the winter to turn the proposals generated at the Neighborhood Assemblies into feasible projects to be voted on, the BDCs are responsible for increased transparency: regular public updates -- to a district blog and via e-mail to Assembly participants -- about the status of the various proposals. If your proposal has been ruled out as part of these negotiations, you can petition the relevant BDC to bring a representative from the city to the district to hear your case and answer questions.

Participatory Budgeting Outreach Canvassers

City Councilmember

MAR

As the BDCs, the District Committee, and City Council staff kick into high gear getting out the vote, they also identify potential candidates to join the BDCs for the following cycle. Applications are due one week past the end of voting. Each BDC reviews applications and selects new Budget Delegates for the following year. Outgoing Budget Delegates are celebrated! BDCs and the District Committee begin to assess the process and plan adjustments for the future. BDCs host Project Expos and assist with outreach to educate residents about the PB process and the projects up for a vote.

In September and October, BDCs present and distribute SNPs at the Neighborhood Assemblies, where project ideas are generated. They also begin to recruit new Delegates for the following cycle. (Applications are available from September to April.)

Each year in June, half the Budget Delegates in each BDC cycle out to make room for new members. Outgoing Budget Delegates have the opportunity to join the District Committee.

Urban Mobilities

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

123

JUN JUL AUG SEP PROJECT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

Currently, the implementation of winning projects is overseen by the Budget Delegates who helped develop them. This keeps the circle of residents with oversight authority and access to technical knowledge small. WHAT IF Budget Delegates began a wider and more sustained conversation leading to more inclusive oversight and more accountability from city agencies?

Logistical support for community-based outreach by readily making available information on PB policies and process for distribution • • Budget Delegate Committee

•

Project Oversight Committee • •

•

Dennis Flores, El Grito Sunset Park

On-site meeting

124

FEATURE:

“Last year Sunset Park voters chose to spend $680,000 on more NYPD surveillance cameras...These cameras aren’t working.”

Because of a lack of effective community oversight, residents did not have access to the cameras’ footage, which was their intended purpose.

Towards A Resourceful Sunset Park

Urban Mobilities

125

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

PARTICIPATORY EXPENSE BUDGETING AT THE CITY SCALE Agencies reserve 1% of expense budget for PB The City Charter, which has not been subject to comprehensive revision since 1989, could mandate that one percent of the annual Controllable Expense Budget for select city agencies be reserved for Participatory Budgeting. 1% would be the baseline regardless of how many City Council Districts choose to participate in Participatory Budgeting (currently 24 out of 51), creating a redistributive impact in favor of participating districts. Because a new city budget is approved every June, the funding for PB projects to be implemented next fiscal year would be calculated using an agency’s expense budget for this fiscal year.

Someone at the Neighborhood Assembly has an idea for a combination environmental etrofitting/job training program for young people in the neighborhood. Instead of being told that it is ineligible, the idea is recorded by Budget Delegates and moves on to the next step of the process.

FEATURE:

NOV

Currently, Participatory Budgeting is only used to allocate capital funds: for the construction, acquisition, or installation of a physical public improvement (usually within one fiscal year). Expense funds, on the other hand, support ongoing programs, services, and salaries. WHAT IF the process could be used for both?

The FY15 Controllable Expense Budget for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is $1.099 billion. One percent of this, $10.99 million, is reserved by DEP to be allocated via Participatory Budgeting for projects to be implemented in FY16.

Each City Council member who signs up for Participatory Budgeting must currently allocate at least $1 million of their discretionary capital funding for the process. In contrast, each member receives only $400,000 (up to $500,000 in high-poverty districts) of discretionary expense funding each year, eventually granted to local CBOs at the council member’s discretion. The system has a history of corruption; Mayor de Blasio has dismissed discretionary expense funding as “pork” and promised to eliminate it.

126

OCT

Residents propose expense projects Proposals for programs and services, currently ineligible for funding through the Participatory Budgeting process, would be generated alongisde capital project proposals at the Neighborhood Assemblies in September and October each year. The proposal process would not change; only the parameters of eligibility.

Towards A Resourceful Sunset Park

DEC

JAN

FEB

The retrofitting program competes with winning projects from across the city for the $10.99 million reserved by DEP at the beginning of the fiscal year. Budget Delegates vote from all 24 Environmental Committees, and the program is selected!

MAR

Budget Delegates collaborate across jurisdictions Programs and services can be site-specific (like capital projects) but may also be cross-jurisdictional. District-based Participatory Budgeting currently has no way to address needs and aspirations that transcend the neighborhood scale. If an expense proposal were to be generated in one district that might affect others, the relevant Budget Delegate Committees would work together with the city agency in question to transform the proposal into a full, feasible project. This process might also involve the selection and cooperation of a CBO which would receive the contract to provide the proposed program or service, if selected by voters.

MAY

Final vote: Budget Delegates citywide The finalists from participating districts would be presented at citywide agency-specific Project Expos, open to the public. Each agency would conduct an internal assessment of its expenditures in each district vis-a-vis the district’s needs, and present its findings to the voting Budget Delegates. Budget Delegates vote!

The retrofitting program comes in second place in the neighborhood vote. Along with three other expense projects from District 38, it proceeds to the final step of the process.

APR

Neighborhood vote The big change to the neighborhood vote would be what’s new on the ballot: expense proposals and business loans (see proposition #4), in addition to capital projects. As with capital projects, voters can select up to five favored programs or services. Unlike with capital projects, this is not the end of the process for expense funding. The top vote-getters in each district whose cumulative cost does not exceed $1,000,000 move onto the final vote.

The Environment Committees from Districts 38 and 39 work with DEP to develop the proposal. They select UPROSE to provide the service. UPROSE works with DEP and the Budget Delebates from both districts to fully design the service according to the vision from the Neighborhood Assembly.

Urban Mobilities

127

MAP OF RELATIONS TRANSPARENCY and ACCESS

128

FEATURE:

Towards A Resourceful Sunset Park

Urban Mobilities

129

LOCAL CURRENCY

GOALS 1st Phase Enhance and strengthen local community. Focus on economic development rather than economic growth from a well being perspective. Educate of the ideal set of products and services. Benefit global public. Not mercantilist approach. Achieve democracy through decision making power. Help members to cooperate. Help members fulfill their basic and highest needs.

Organized by a non profit and obtain the money to start uo through fundraising, donations or foundations.

Get volunteers to participate: Businesses CBO´s Companies Industries To pay a porcentage of their employees wages in SParks.

Create a collaborative Currency Governance Council (CGC);

Develop criteria for membership and committe organization, tasks and mission.

Partner with a financial institution to manage members account and exchange of dollars to tokens and vice-versa, that record flows.

Develop open source online platform of commerce members to publish their information and where members manage their account.

2nd Phase Use gain to increase funding to provide assistance, well being and resourcefulness. Accomplish more control of community´s general social, economic and environment decisions. Encourage cooperative and cordial atmosphere. RULES 1 SPark = 1 dollar Overlay existing system but doesn’t substitutes it. Only members can receive and spend SParks. Individual members need to work or live in the area. Business, companies, enterprises and CBO´s members have to be established in the area. Demurrage fee of 5% if SParks stay without movement for 6 months: since they acquire value to the degree they are used in commerce, and the purpose is not to store financial wealth. Online system should be transparent in order for everyone to check the information as well as the members´ action that should be published there. Use current index of health, economics, security, food, quality, environment quality, education, etc.. to measure model performance to achieve well-being. Money that is exchange to pay wages will be reserve in the account of the financial partner. 15% percent of the reserve money of the account obtained by the exchange of dollars to SParks will remain available and the rest can be use for loans of free interest just with the inflation rate. The profit made by interest of taking exchanging SParks for dollars by individuals and by commerce when being paid in SParks will be use for donations.Through the website members can lend their SParks to other members requesting lending either individuals, business or non profits.

130

FEATURE:

7 Organize informational sessions and workshops to explain how system works and make wiser purchasing

During the first period the money of interest will be used to pay the Currency Governing Council and Partipatory Budgeting Delegates.

After a period of time when a substancial amount of interest is gained, it will be used for loans and donations to business, organizations or projects that improve well being and public good.

Loans and donatios should help or improve overcome challenges through resourcefulness with priority in: climate change, resource depletion, habitat destruction, pollution, debt and financial crises, income and wealth disparitties, decaying infrastructure, and rising health care costs.

COMPANIES/INDUSTRIES/ ENTERPRISES They pay their employees a percentage in SParks and support the system NONPROFITS/CBO’S They pay their employees a percentage in SParks and provide educational sessions and informational workshops to help members make wise purchases and know the neighborhood issues.

LOANS AND DONATIONS Projects are funded with the fees acquired by the stores and individuals. They will focus in improving the public good and well being.

STORES Member businesses receive SParks as payment for goods and services. They pay 2% of all transactions involving SParks back to the CGC. They are allowed to exchange SParks for dollars without fee and they provide discounts and promotions to members.

INDIVIDUALS Employees receive SParks in a percentage of their payment, at least 5%, and residents can become members if wanted. If they exchange SParks for dollars, they will be charged a fee of 3%.

Towards A Resourceful Sunset Park

Urban Mobilities

131

This is Maria.

Maria works for a small manufacturer of bicycle wheels, at Industry City.

You don’t have to pay the full amount in SParks. Pay with whatever SParks you have, and the rest in dollars!

Hey Maria! Here is your first paycheck and your SPark Card.

Maria goes online to find out where she can use her SParks.

Having had difficulty crossing 4th Avenue with her 2 year old, Maria discovers that UPROSE has a working group advocating for transportation justice. She decides to approach them to get assistance.

I’m paying you with SParks I buy from the Currency Governing Council at only 75 cents on the dollar! Any worker who gets paid in SParks has to spend their SParks at a member business like mine. And then all of the member businesses have to give 2% of any purchases made with SParks back to the Currency Governing Council. (Since I’m not a retailer, I have to buy more SParks from the Currency Governing Council in order to keep up with my wage obligation.)

FEATURE:

Maria casts her vote. On her ballot, next to a description of the 4th Avenue greenway median project, there is a new box that she can check:

As Budget Delegates from the Transportation Committee work with staff from the DOT to transform Maria’s idea into a feasible project, Maria follows their process in regular email updates from the Committee. Maria knows that if her proposal is dropped, for whatever reason, she can petition the Transportation Committee to bring a representative from DOT to the district to hear her case and answer questions.

Maria attends an On-Site Meeting for the greenway median project and decides to join the Project Oversight Committee.

The project is constructed! Neighbors have complaints, so Maria calls her new contact at DOT for a public follow-up meeting.

Plus, if enough businesses sign up to be members, eventually a fund will be created from which I can get access to zero-interest loans!

At the Neighborhood Assembly... Maria, we are definitely aware of this issue, and we have been advocating DOT. Have you heard of something called Participatory Budgeting? The Neighborhood Assemblies are coming up soon! It would be very helpful to have your voice heard there.

It’s our job to make sure people who often aren’t included in the process find out what’s going on. All the outreach used to be run by an organization based in the South Bronx-- good people, but how would they know the people who live in Sunset Park like we do? Or like you do? We could really use your help spreading the word...

132

Armed with what she learned about transportation at UPROSE’s summer workshops, Maria attends a Neighborhood Assembly in September. Budget Delegates present their research, conducted over the summer, and distribute the Budget Delegate Committee’s official Statement of Needs and Priorities. I have an idea for a project! I am very scared walking with my twoyear-old across 4th Avenue. We should have a greenway median!

SPark Card? What’s that?

She can use them at the Key Foods on 5th Avenue and 44th Street!

With the same online tool she used to find out which stores accepted SParks, Maria can also see a map of all the community-based organizations in District 38, and the kind of resources they offer.

SParks is the local currency of our City Council District. It’s just like money! I pay 10% of your wages directly into your SPark Account, which is linked to this SPark Card. You can use SParks in any member store for groceries or other everyday needs.

Towards A Resourceful Sunset Park

D39? I’m calling from D38!

My son always has trouble with the cops! We need a program for young people of color to know their rights!

We’re working on a proposal that could benefit your kids as well...

Maria meets Youth & Education Budget Delegates from around the city at the citywide Expense Expo, learns about their proposals, and votes!

The know-your-rights training program gets enough votes within Districts 38 and 39 to move on to the final stage...

“If this project is funded, would you be interested in taking part in the oversight of its implementation?”

Maria joins the Budget Delegate Committee for D38. She is on the Youth & Education subcommittee. The BDC conducts extensive research and prepares the official 2017 Statement of Needs and Priorities for the district.

The SParks fund has become large enough so that interest-free loans can be distributed to member businesses using the Participatory Budgeting process.

After two years, Maria cycles out of the BDC. What’s next? She could join the District Committee, which oversees the PB process in her district. She could join the Currency Governance Committee. Who knows?

Urban Mobilities

133

134

FEATURE:

Group name

Urban Mobilities

135