East Side Coastal Resiliency Project july 2015 presentation

Our Resilient City

East Side Coastal Resiliency Project July 29th+30th, 2015 - Project Area 1

Community Design Workshop Project Area One - East River Park 1. Project Goals Re-Cap 2. Project Schedule 3. Progress of Technical Studies 4. Community Feedback and Design Studies 5. Frequently Asked Questions / Q+A 6. Table Activity and Report Back 2

PROJECT GOALS RE-CAP

WHAT IS THE EAST SIDE COASTAL RESILIENCY PROJECT?

The ESCR Project is being designed to mitigate future climate change and flood risks on Manhattan's East Side.

THE EAST SIDE NOTE: ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM, NOT TO SCALE

4

WHAT IS THE EAST SIDE COASTAL RESILIENCY PROJECT?

The ESCR Project is being designed to mitigate future climate change and flood risks on Manhattan's East Side.

WHAT HAPPENED DURING SANDY? NOTE: ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM, NOT TO SCALE

5

WHAT IS THE EAST SIDE COASTAL RESILIENCY PROJECT?

The ESCR Project is being designed to mitigate future climate change and flood risks on Manhattan's East Side.

BARRIER NOTE: ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM, NOT TO SCALE

6

WHAT IS THE EAST SIDE COASTAL RESILIENCY PROJECT?

The ESCR Project is being designed to mitigate future climate change and flood risks on Manhattan's East Side.

FLOOD PROTECTION NOTE: ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM, NOT TO SCALE

7

TYPES OF FLOOD MITIGATION

Options for resiliency have varying forms and levels of reliability: from wide and TYPES OF FLOOD PROTECTION passive earthen levees to narrow and even removable flood walls and deployable elements.

DEPLOYABLE

FLOOD WALL

BERM / LEVEE

8

SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

How can resiliency infrastructure double as places and spaces for people?

PEOPLE

+

RESILIENCY INFRASTRUCTURE

9

SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Integrating flood protection with improved access and open spaces throughout East River Park and Stuyvesant Cove.

10

ESCR PROJECT SCOPE

A $335 million project to implement coastal protection from Montgomery Street to East 23rd Street.

23R

DS

14T

PROJECT AREA

HS

T

2

ST

1ST

AV E

9TH

T

HOU

STO

PROJECT AREA

NS

1

11

T RI E AS

Y ST MONTGOMER

VER

PITT

ST

AVE

A

T

PROJECT AREA 1 - EAST RIVER PARK

23R

DS

14T

EAST RIVER PARK GOALS AND CHALLENGES:

PROJECT AREA

HS

T

2

• PROVIDE ROBUST FLOOD-RISK MITIGATION

ST

1ST

AV E

9TH

T

HOU

STO

• MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL USES

PROJECT AREA

NS

1

AVE

A

T

12

T RI E AS

Y ST MONTGOMER

VER

PITT

ST

• STRENGTHEN CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS TO EAST RIVER PARK • ENHANCE OPEN SPACE AND ECOLOGY OF THE AREA

COMPLEMENTARY INITIATIVES

The ESCR Project will be coordinated with other initiatives in the area. City and State funds will be used to advance planning south of Montgomery St. 23R

9

DS

2N D

AV E

T

14T

8

HS

7

6

ST

1ST

AV E

9TH

T

HOU

1 STO

NS

T

AVE

A

PROJECT LIST

2 3

13

EAS

MONTGOMERY ST

PITT

ST

T RI

VER

10

4

5

1

EAST SIDE COASTAL RESILIENCY PROJECT

2

LOWER MANHATTAN COMPREHENSIVE PROTECTION PLAN (ORR)

10

NYCHA RESILIENCY INVESTMENTS

3 MULTI-PURPOSE LEVEE STUDY (EDC) 4 PIER 42 PARK (DPR) 5 LOWER EAST SIDE ECOLOGY CENTER (DPR) 6 RESILIENT NEIGHBORHOODS STUDY (DCP) 7 CON EDISON 8 SOLAR TWO 9 HOSPITAL ROW INVESTMENTS

PROJECT SCHEDULE

PROJECT TIMELINE

TIMELINE The PROJECT ESCR Project has an ambitious timeline, now at approximately 2/3 of the way The ESCR Project has an ambitious timeline, now nearly is at anticipated the midpoint in of Concept through Concept Design.

Construction commencement mid-2017.

Design; construction commencement is anticipated in mid-2017.

CONCEPT DESIGN START CITY ISSUES RFP FOR CONCEPT DESIGN CITY PROJECT TEAM ESTABLISHED

CONCEPT DESIGN COMPLETION PROJECT CONSTRUCTION START

TODAY

DESIGN

REFINEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

PERMITTING

EAST SIDE COASTAL RESILIENCY PROJECT JUNE 2014

15

SEPTEMBER 2014

DECEMBER JULY 29-30, 2015 DECEMBER 2015 WORKSHOP 2014 PROJECT AREA 1

JUNE 2017

ESCR CONCEPT DESIGN TIMELINE

Project Design Work & Community Engagement - Where are we now?

TODAY!

16

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Each alternative will be evaluated for eight different criteria.

17

PROGRESS OF TECHNICAL STUDIES

EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDIES - PROGRESS TO DATE

Sewer Investigations

95% - 100% APRIL

Inspecting Waterfront Structures

60% - 100%

Inspecting Bridges

60% - 100% APRIL

19

JULY

JULY

EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDIES - PROGRESS TO DATE

Surveying the Land

95% - 97% APRIL

Examining Flood Risk and Water Flow

50% - 70%

Testing the Soil

10% - 70%

APRIL

APRIL

20

JULY

JULY

JULY

EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDIES - PROGRESS TO DATE

21

Studying Pedestrian and Bicycle Usage

5% - 60%

Making an Inventory of Existing Trees

0% - 60%

APRIL

APRIL

JULY

JULY

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

The ESCR team gathered feedback about connections to East River Park during worksessions using physical models and drawings. Over 200 residents attended this second round of community engagement workshops on 05/19, 05/20, and 05/28.

PROJECT AREA 1 WORKSHOP: MAY 28TH, CHURCH OF ST. BRIGID

23

PROJECT AREA 2 WORKSHOP: MAY 19TH, WASHINGTON IRVING HS

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

In addition to the community engagement workshops and the CB3/CB6 Task Force meetings, the ESCR team is also collecting input from local CBOs and stakeholders.

OPEN SPACE & RECREATION, TRANSPORTATION

CB3 & CB6 Hester St Collaborative Lower East Side Ecology Centre OLS Sparkle Little League Partnerships for Parks Solar One Transportation Alternatives NYCHA TENANT ASSOCIATIONS

Baruch Campos Plaza Riis Rutgers Smith Vladeck Wald 24

PROJECT AREA ONE EAST RIVER PARK

EAST RIVER PARK

Existing Conditions - 2050s 100-year floodplain

FEMA 2050 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN (PROJECTED) RANGE 13.5’ to 15.5’ ELEVATION

PROJECT AREA ONE

26

EAST RIVER PARK NEEDS Community Requests

“

BETTER ACCESS TO EAST RIVER PARK

“

FLOOD PROTECTION

”

“

FAMILY FRIENDLY

“

”

SAFETY AND SECURITY

”

REBUILD BY DESIGN + EAST SIDE COASTAL RESILIENCY

“ 27

CONNECTIONS TO THE WATER

”

“

MORE NATURAL SPACES

”

”

If no, why not?

If

MARCH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FINDINGS “It’s not as appealing as the

Of 63 respondents, top-rated improvements for East River Park were a nature walk Hudson River Park” “I was robbed of my bike in (61%), cafe (55%), and horticultural displays (52%).

East River Park”

What additional services, activities or spaces would you like to see in or near East River Park?

Nature Walk

Café

Horticultural displays

Sunbathing

61%

55%

52%

26%

W in

Sports (bocceball, volleyball, kayak)

26%

Other suggestions include: a dog run, an ice-skating rink, a bike rental facility, a batting cage, movie nights during the summer months, a beach, ping-pong tables, shade structures, a playground, and an eco-festival

28

Ot du

FLOOD PROTECTION ELEMENTS

+ + SUB-SURFACE FOUNDATIONS

BERM

WALL+BERM

WALL

FLOOD PROTECTION ELEMENTS THREE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS FORM THE TOOLKIT OF FLOOD PROTECTION, BASED ON PASSIVE SPACE AVAILABLE

30

CONNECTING THE ELEMENTS

31

SOFTENING TRANSITIONS SMOOTHING BETWEEN ELEMENTS

32

TERRACING TERRACES STABILIZE THE TERRAIN WHEN SLOPES ARE GREATER THAN 3:1

33

WEAVING WEAVING CREATES POCKETS AND TERRACES FOR PLANTINGS AND ACTIVITIES

34

FDR

BIKE PATH

PARK

ADAPTING TO SITE CONDITIONS

35

PICNIC AND SUNBATHING SLOPES

FAMILY GATHERING SPOTS

GREEN TERRACES

SUPPORTING PARK DIVERSITY DIFFERENTIATED TERRACES AND SLOPES PROVIDE FOR A DIVERSE AND VIBRANT PARK EXPERIENCE

36

TRANSITION FROM WALL TO BERM

Moving North, View Towards Williamsburg Bridge

PICNIC AND SUNBATHING SLOPES

GREEN TERRACES

37

ACCESS TO EAST RIVER PARK COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FINDINGS

ACCESS TO EAST RIVER PARK

The ESCR team gathered feedback about connections to East River Park during the community engagement workshops on 05/20 and 05/28.

39

MAY WORKSHOPS

Five connection points were discussed during May design workshops:

Corlears Hook

Delancey St.

Houston St.

ACCESS POINTS

40

6th St.

10th St.

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

Concerns, likes, and dislikes were voiced about existing conditions in these areas of the park:

“THIS AREA IS VERY POORLY LIT AT NIGHT. IT’S A SCARY ENTRY INTO THE PARK! ”

“THE BRIDGE SHOULD CONNECT TO GRAND STREET!”

“THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS CROSSING FOR KIDS!”

“WE NEED MORE UNPROGRAMMED SPACE!”

“THIS STAIRCASE IS DANGEROUSLY STEEP”

“THE RAMPS ARE TOO STEEP ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BRIDGE”

“THIS IS THE NICEST TREE AREA. KEEP THE TREES!”

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

41

“GET US IN THE MOOD FOR A PARK! YOU CAN’T SEE THE BRIDGE FROM BACK HERE”

“THIS AREA IS THE BEST FOR FAMILIES”

ACCESS TO EAST RIVER PARK

Community feedback on the Corlears Hook bridge

JACKSON STREET

CORLEARS HOOK BRIDGE

“WHEN I HAVE COMPANY I USE THIS BRIDGE. IT'S THE MOST PLEASANT ACCESS TO THE PARK.”

“THE DOG RUN NEEDS TO BE BETTER MAINTAINED!”

GRAND STREET

“THESE FIELDS ARE HEAVILY USED”

CHERRY STREET

“THIS AREA IS VERY POORLY LIT AT NIGHT. IT’S A SCARY ENTRY INTO THE PARK! ” “THE WALKWAY BELOW THE BRIDGE IS DARK AND UNSAFE. IT NEEDS BETTER LIGHTING !”

“AT THE AMPHITHEATER, PEOPLE RUN UP THE STAIRS AND USE THE BENCHES TO EXERCISE”

“THIS COMFORT STATION IS ALWAYS CLOSED” “IT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED!”

FDR DRIVE

42

“THERE ARE MANY POTHOLES ALONG THE BIKEPATH”

ACCESS TO EAST RIVER PARK

Community feedback on the Delancey St. Bridge

DELANCEY ST BRIDGE

“THIS AREA IS VERY NOISY” DELA

NCEY

STRE

ET

“THIS IS A DANGEROUS AREA. BIKES RIDE FAST DOWN THE RAMP AND CARS ARE PULLING OUT OF THE PARKING LOT AT THE SAME TIME ”

“THIS STAIRCASE IS DANGEROUSLY STEEP”

“MANY CYCLISTS USE THIS RAMP”

“THERE AREN’T ENOUGH TREES BY THE DELANCEY RAMP” “THE MAJOR BUS ROUTES STOP ON GRAND STREET”

“THE BRIDGE SHOULD CONNECT TO GRAND STREET!” GRA

ND S

43

TRE

ET

“PEOPLE OFTEN GET MUGGED HERE”

ACCESS TO EAST RIVER PARK

Community feedback on the Houston St. overpass

HOUSTON ST OVERPASS

E HOUST ON STRE

ET

“AS SENIORS, WE GO TO THE E6TH BRIDGE BECAUSE IT IS SAFER AND FASTER THAN HOUSTON ”

“THERE ARE A LOT OF SPORT TOURNAMENTS HERE SO PEOPLE DRIVE AND DROP OFF THEIR KIDS ON THE BRIDGE WHILE THEY PARK”

“THESE BALLFIELDS ARE VITAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD”

“IT’S VERY DIFFICULT TO ACCESS THE PARK IN A WHEELCHAIR”

“THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS CROSSING FOR KIDS!”

“GOING UP THE RAMP IS DIFFICULT WHEN BREATHING IS HARD BECAUSE OF ASTHMA

FDR DRIVE

44

“THESE RAMPS ARE VERY NARROW”

ACCESS TO EAST RIVER PARK

Community feedback on the E. 6th St. Bridge

E6TH ST BRIDGE AV EN U

E

D

“THIS IS THE NICEST TREE AREA. KEEP THE TREES!”

E6TH

STR

EET

“WIDEN THE BRIDGE TO ALLOW FOR BIKES AND PEDESTRIANS TO CROSS"

“THE BRIDGE GETS CROWDED IN THE SUMMER. YOU HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO AVOID CYCLISTS.”

“WE ARE SCARED OF PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE COLLISIONS WHEN CROSSING THE BIKEWAY NEAR THE E6TH ST BRIDGE RAMP”

“IT’S A STRUGGLE TO CROSS THE BRIDGE IN A WHEELCHAIR”

“THE CHAIN LINK FENCE ON THE BRIDGE IS UGLY”

“THE RAMPS ARE TOO STEEP ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BRIDGE”

FDR DRIVE

45

ACCESS TO EAST RIVER PARK

Community feedback on the E. 10th St. Bridge .

E10TH ST BRIDGE

AV E

NU

ED

“IN A WHEELCHAIR IT’S EASIER TO GO TO 23RD ST TO CROSS WHERE IT’S FLAT AND THERE ARE NO RAMPS”

E10

“GET US IN THE MOOD FOR A PARK! YOU CAN’T SEE THE BRIDGE FROM BACK HERE” TH

STR

EET

“IT’S HARD TO SEE THROUGH THE CHAIN LINK FENCE AT AN ANGLE AND IT’S NOT WELL LIT AT NIGHT OR IN THE MORNING SO THERE ARE ALOT OF ROBBERIES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BRIDGE ”

“CYCLISTS TRAVEL FAST AND THERE ARE COLLISIONS WITH PEDESTRIANS”

“SEPARATE BIKE LANES IS A GREAT IDEA! ”

“PEOPLE PARK THEIR CARS AND WASH THEM ON E10TH ST. IT FEELS LIKE NO ONE IS AWARE OF THE PARK ACCESS”

“THE RAMPS ARE TOO STEEP ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BRIDGE AND THE SWITCHBACKS ARE NO GOOD FOR WHEELCHAIRS” FDR DRIVE

46

“I DON’T LIKE TO BIKE ON THIS BRIDGE BECAUSE OF THE SWITCHBACKS”

ACCESS TO EAST RIVER PARK

Community feedback - Suggestions for improved access to East River Park

COMMUNITY SUGGESTIONS: 1) PROVIDE FLUID ACCESS TO THE PARK VIA GENTLE RAMPS 2) WIDEN THE BRIDGES TO ALLOW FOR SEPARATE BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION 3) ANNOUNCE ACCESS TO THE PARK THROUGH LANDSCAPING 4) ADDRESS SAFETY CONCERNS BY IMPROVING LIGHTING 5) INCORPORATE SIGNAGE 6) CONSIDER PROGRAMMING AT ACCESS POINTS

47

DESIGN OPTIONS

What are the options to integrate better access and open spaces with the flood protection?

Corlears Hook

Delancey St.

Houston St.

6th St.

WORKSHOP ACTIVITY DESIGN OPTIONS DISCUSSION 48

10th St.

DESIGN OPTIONS

What are the options to integrate better access and open spaces with the flood protection?

EXAMPLE 10TH ST.

10th St.

WORKSHOP ACTIVITY DESIGN OPTIONS DISCUSSION 49

EXAMPLE - 10TH STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS

 

 









10TH STREET BRIDGE 50

EXAMPLE - 10TH STREET COMMUNITY FEEBACK

 

WELL-USED GATHERING ROUNDABOUT CONNECTED

BY M8 AND M14D BUS LINES

ENTRY POINT COMPLETELY HIDDEN FROM VIEW BEHIND RIIS HOUSES STEEP RAMP INHIBITS ACCESS FOR ELDERLY AND LESS-ABLED RESIDENTS  

SAFETY CONCERNS AT LANDING 

SWITCHBACK RAMPS DIFFICULT TO NAVIGATE FOR BIKES AND WHEELCHAIRS







IMPORTANT PLAYGROUND AREAS DAMAGED DURING SANDY

51

VALUABLE PICNIC AND BBQ AREAS

EXAMPLE - 10TH STREET - ALTERNATIVE 1 BASELINE FLOOD PROTECTION

 

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

DRAFT

REUSES EXISTING RAMP AND OVERPASS ON CITY-SIDE

SIMPLE FLOOD-PROTECTION WALL PLACED ALONGSIDE HIGHWAY  

   

PARK-SIDE ENTRY RAMP REPLACED BY MORE GENTLE 1:20 SLOPE, WITH NO SWITCHBACKS 



PICNIC AND BBQ AREAS MAINTAINED

52

EXAMPLE - 10TH STREET - ALTERNATIVE 2 LEVEL 1 ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS  

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

DRAFT ENTRY MORE VISIBLE FROM 10TH ST.  

MORE GENTLE 1:20 RAMP

MORE RELIABLE EARTHEN BERM INTRODUCED AS FLOOD PROTECTION 

REUSES EXISTING OVERPASS  



 



 



   

SMOOTH RAMPS INTEGRATED WITH LANDSCAPED BERM 





53



  

 

PICNIC, BBQ, AND PLAYGROUND AREAS REBUILT AND EXPANDED

EXAMPLE - 10TH STREET - ALTERNATIVE 3 LEVEL 2 ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS  

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY  

DRAFT

WIDE, GREEN SLOPE INCREASES VISIBILITY OF ENTRY RAMP FROM 10TH ST.

GENTLE 1:20 RAMP MEANDERS THROUGH GREEN

POSSIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY GARDEN OR PLAYGROUND SPACE AT ENTRY

 

EARTHEN BERM WIDENED WIDENED LANDBRIDGE CARRIES BIKES AND PEDESTRIAN INTO PARK IN SEPARATE LANES 





 



 



  

  



FIELDS ELEVATED 3-4 FT. AS PART OF BERM TO SOFTEN SLOPES

54



  

PICNIC, BBQ, AND PLAYGROUND AREAS REBUILT AND EXPANDED

THE AIM OF THIS EXERCISE IS TO: GAIN FEEDBACK ABOUT THE COMMUNITY'S PRIORITIES, IN THE CONTEXT OF OVERALL PROJECT BUDGET I.E., WHICH OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE THE MOST MEANINGFUL CHANGES TO THE PARK? -DUE TO LIMITED PROJECT RESOURCES, IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT NOT ALL AREAS WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERGO HIGH OR MID-COST OPEN SPACE/ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS -COSTS ARE STILL IN DEVELOPMENT, AND WILL BE SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC AT THE NEXT PUBLIC MEETINGS -BASED ON FEEDBACK RECEIVED HERE, ALTERNATIVES FOR OVERALL PROJECT AREA WILL BE DEVELOPED, FOR FINAL FEEDBACK IN OCTOBER

55

EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES  



 



 

 

 

ALTERNATIVE 1 BASELINE FLOOD PROTECTION



 

ALTERNATIVE 3

ALTERNATIVE 2

 





 



 















 



 





 









   





 

  



  



FOR EACH ACCESS POINT, WE WILL DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPTIONS: - - - - - -

56

WHICH OPTION IS THE BEST FIT FOR THIS AREA? WHAT DO YOU LIKE AND DISLIKE ABOUT THIS OPTION? WHICH OPTION WOULD PROVIDE THE BEST ACCESS TO THE PARK? HOW WOULD THIS OPTION IMPACT YOUR USE OF THE PARK? IF YOU COULD ADD OR CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS OPTION WHAT WOULD IT BE? HOW BIG A PRIORITY SHOULD THIS OPTION BE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT, AND LIMITED RESOURCES?

- Gain an understanding of the community’s preferences and priorities to further refine the design alternatives

ACTIVITY 2)TONIGHT'S Workshop format Table Set-Up

E10th St

E6th St

Houston St

Delancey St

After the presentation, participants will be invited to join the table of their choice for the roundtable discussions. Thematically arranged, each table will be staffed with 1 facilitator and 2 note takers to help guide the discussion and take notes. (Some tables will also have interpreters, provided by the CBOs, or will HOUSTON ST. AREA 6TH STREET AREA be set up separately to conduct sessions in other languages.) It is anticipated that participants will be able to engageDELANCEY in 2 roundtable discussions during the workshop session, with each discussion lasting 30min.

ST. AREA 10TH STREET AREA

Bridge + landing point models scale 1:200

Project Area 1 map scale 1:200 42” (W) x 33.3’ (L)

(Additional tables can be set up to accomodate Spanish, Traditional Chinese and Fujianese speakers.)

3)

TONIGHT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THE OPTIONS BY AREA

Discussion topics

At each table, the facilitator will introduce the design principles behind each of the alternatives (e.g. To 57provide access to the park via gentle ramps, To maintain the same amount of athletic fields, To offer

NEXT STEPS

NEXT STEPS

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT THE NEXT WORKSHOP FOR PROJECT AREA 1, SOUTH WILL BE HELD TOMORROW:

23R

DS

14T

PROJECT AREA

HS

T

2

ST

1ST

AV E

9TH

T

STO

NS

PROJECT AREA

T

1

A

ST

Y ST MONTGOMER

EAS

T RI

VER

PITT

HOU

AVE

JULY 30TH FROM 6:30-8:30PM AT MANNY CANTOR CENTER 197 EAST BROADWAY

59

nyc.gov/resiliency

QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION

E: nycresiliency@cityhall.nyc.gov Twitter: @NYClimate

FAQ'S IS THE PROJECT BEING COORDINATED WITH OTHER CITY EFFORTS? WILL THE PROJECT INCREASE FLOOD RISK IN ADJACENT AREAS ONCE IT IS BUILT? WILL THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOSE ACCESS TO ITS PARKS WHILE CONSTRUCTION IS TAKING PLACE? ARE LOCAL COMMUNITY BOARDS INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES? MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ESCR PROJECT AREA WHEN CAN I EXPECT SIMILAR WORK TO BE STARTED?

REPORT BACK

REPORT BACK

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Corlears Hook

Delancey St.

Houston St.

6th St.

DELANCEY STREET 63

10th St.

 





DESIGN ALTERNATIVES





REPORT BACK

 

 

 

    



  





   

 



1:20 SLOPE



  

















 







   









 





 

  

   





 







  

  



ALTERNATIVE 1 BASELINE FLOOD PROTECTION

ALTERNATIVE 2

DELANCEY STREET 64



 

  









 













  

 







 

 

 









 

   

ALTERNATIVE 3

   

REPORT BACK

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Corlears Hook

Delancey St.

Houston St.

6th St.

HOUSTON STREET 65

10th St.

REPORT BACK

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 











 

 

 









 



 







 





 



 

  



 

 





 

ALTERNATIVE 1 BASELINE FLOOD PROTECTION

ALTERNATIVE 2

HOUSTON STREET 66

ALTERNATIVE 3

REPORT BACK

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Corlears Hook

Delancey St.

Houston St.

6TH STREET 67

6th St.

10th St.

REPORT BACK

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES  

   

   

 



   





1:20 SLOPE

   

1:20 SLOPE

 



1:20 SLOPE





 















 

 

ALTERNATIVE 1 BASELINE FLOOD PROTECTION



 



ALTERNATIVE 2  

6TH STREET 68

 

 





 



 



ALTERNATIVE 3

REPORT BACK

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Corlears Hook

Delancey St.

Houston St.

10TH STREET 69

6th St.

10th St.

REPORT BACK

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES  



 



 

 

 

 



 





 



 















 



 





 









   







ALTERNATIVE 1 BASELINE FLOOD PROTECTION

 

ALTERNATIVE 2

10TH STREET 70

 



  



ALTERNATIVE 3