Gardens Rising Feasibility Report

Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery New York City Community Gardens Coalition

LOWER EAST SIDE COMMUNITY GARDENS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY WEDESIGN

WE Design eDesign Dynamics 3x3

1

INTRODUCTION CONTENTS 3 5 14 16 22 138

INTRODUCTION PROJECT OVERVIEW FIELDWORK COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY TOOLKIT & GARDEN ANALYSIS RESOURCES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS THANK YOU FROM AZIZ DEHKAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEW YORK CITY COMMUNITY GARDEN COALITION This Feasibility Study marks the completion of Phase One of the Gardens Rising project for stormwater capture and integrating green infrastructure solutions into the 47 community gardens of the Loisaida neighborhood.

On behalf of the New York City Community Garden Coalition (NYCCGC), I want to thank the hundreds of people who have participated in this project. We have visited and analyzed all the 47 community gardens in the project area, and through multiple community meetings, I got to know many of you and learned about your individual community garden needs.

Our list of thank you’s is extensive. First and foremost, I want to thank our funders at the Governor's Office of Storm Recovery. Led by Claudia Filomena, they have been extremely helpful in their support and guidance through the maze of regulations and requirements.

I also want to express our appreciation to the WE Design team. Collaboration in a community engagement project is vital for a successful outcome. Tricia Martin and her team have been remarkable in their ability to offer opportunities and communicate ideas, creating an accessible toolkit to use in building green infrastructure in Phase Two of Gardens Rising.

neighborhood, and tireless deliberations have made the Feasibility Study a living, working document that will benefit all the community gardens involved.

Thank you to NYCCGC and the community gardeners of the Lower East Side. Without your support, without your continuing dedication to community and community gardens, Gardens Rising would never have even happened. Hopefully, the Feasibility Study will be a living document that can not only inform this neighborhood, but also be replicated and applied throughout the boroughs of New York City.

Any project of this scope cannot be accomplished without a dedicated staff. The Gardens Rising team has been extraordinary. Working long hours, on weekends, in the early morning, at night, in the scorching heat of the summer, and in the bitter cold of winter, the Gardens Rising staff has been a terrific, focused team working with intelligence, humor, and the vitality to make this project fun.

Finally, I want to give a special, personal thanks to Charles Krezell, Gardens Rising’s Program Director. From the moment that Gardens Rising was proposed, he has been the heart and soul of this project. His community organizing, his presentation of ideas that benefit not just community gardens but the quality of life in the city, has helped make Gardens Rising a groundbreaking experiment in citizen participation, self-governance, and self-determination.

Thank you all. I am honored to have worked with this amazing, diverse group of people.

In a community-based project, it is essential that everyone’s voice be heard. That has been the role of the 15 members of the Gardens Rising Steering Committee, a group of unpaid, elected, and appointed people who have been the governing body of Gardens Rising. Their insight into community gardens, the politics of the GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

3

CONTRIBUTORS

Tessa Huxley Brigid Keating Thank you to all the Gardens Rising Ilan Kutok community gardeners of the Lower East Side!

Jack Linn Ross Martin GOVERNORS OFFICE OF STORM RECOVERY Carlos Martinez Lisa Bova Hiatt, Executive Director, GOSR Shig Matsukawa Claudia Filomena Sarah Zaborowski Alex Zablocki Leesa Foreman DESIGN TEAM Sarah Chin Tricia Martin, WE Design, RLA, LEED AP Daniel Berkovits Taylor Drake, WE Design, Designer Eric Rothstein, eDesign Dynamics, STAFF Managing Partner & Engineer Charles Krezell, Program Director Nora Kusaka Herrero, eDesign Dynamics Crystal Gaudio, Project Manager Project Engineer Gianni Simplico, Bookkeeper Megan Marini, Service Design Director Sara Romanowski, Communications Vanessa Monique Smith, Research & Beverley Love, Administration Outreach Director Ann Lee, Web Master Karine Sarkissian Program Strategist Israel Quitcon, Community Organizer Lorrerta Yung, Community Organizer NYCCGC BOARD Max Katz, Community Organizer Raymond Figueroa-Reyes, President Jamie Jensen, Communications Mara Gittleman, Vice President Jesenia de Moya Correa, Communications Magali Regis, Secretary Cally Guasti, Intern Jill Poklemba, Treasurer Casey Uy, Intern Robin Dickens Alison Schlesinger, Intern Brenda DuShane Aresh Javadi STEERING COMMITTEE John McBride Wendy Brawer Cindy Nibbelink Rev. Laura Cotrich Renee Peperone Shawn Dahl Angela Maull Carmine D’intino Nando Rodriquez Kristin Ellington Sharon Sockwell Ayo Harrington Haja Worley Herman Hewitt

4

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Mitchell Silver, Commissioner Bill LoSasso, Director, GreenThumb Carlos Martinez, Deputy Director, GreenThumb Kate Spellman, Senior Advisor, Chief of Community Outreach and Partnership Development Anthony Reuter, Manhattan Outreach Coordinator Kelsey Wickel, Project Planner

FRIENDS Audubon Society of New York Community Board 3 Chinese-American Planning Council, Inc. Earth School Green Guerillas Henry Street Settlement Loisaida Center LUNGS Manhattan Land Trust Nature Conservancy New Yorkers 4 Parks ELECTEDS New York Restoration Project Gale Brewer, Manhattan Borough President Sierra Club of New York Councilwoman Rosie Mendez Sixth Street Community Center Councilwoman Margaret Chin Theater for the New City Councilman Mark Levine, Chair, City Council’s Trust for Public Land Committee on Parks and Recreation David Dodge, Policy Analyst Manhattan Borough President's Office AGENCIES Carrie Grassi, Deputy Director for Planning, Erin Cuddihy, Director of Green Infrastructure, NYC Mayor's Office of Recovery NYC Department of Transportation and Resiliency Danielle DeOrsey, Green Infrastructure Nancy Kohn Planner, NYC Department of Transportation Gigi Li Derick Tonning, Assistant Director Drew Lombardi, Community Liaison, of Engineering, NYC Department of Manhattan Borough President's Office Environmental Protection Felicia Mayro, Executive Director, Office of Green Infrastructure Neighborhood Preservation Center Margot Walker, Director, Capital Planning Carolyn Ratcliffe and Partnerships NYC Department Tupper Thomas of Environmental Protection, Ahmed Tigani, Assistant Director, Land Use, Office of Green Infrastructure Planning and Development, John McLaughlin, Managing Director, Manhattan Borough President's Office Office of Ecosystem Services, Tinkerbell Green Infrastructure & Research NYC Department of Environmental Protection

2

PROJECT OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION The Lower East Side Community Gardens Green Infrastructure Feasibility Study is a community-based approach to enhancing the sustainability and resiliency of community gardens around the Loisaida neighborhood. The project is a convergence of design, engineering, and community engagement in order to address climate change adaptation in a vulnerable coastal community through the use of applied resiliency strategies that can serve as a model for a more sustainable New York City.

Tidal surges from Superstorm Sandy (2012) in combination with a high tide led to severe coastal flooding, inundating much of the Lower East Side and causing significant damage to property in the area. The project area for this Feasibility Study was one of the heaviest-hit neighborhoods, intensified by the fact that much of the area is high-density housing, including public and subsidized housing. Seven of the community gardens in the study area were flooded during Sandy, and more lie within the 100-year floodplain, which extends slightly beyond the range of area affected by Sandy. Catalyzed by the effort to address resiliency opportunities posed by the threat of climate-change-driven flooding in the future, this Feasibility Study also looks at the way these community gardens can provide additional benefits to the neighborhood. These strategies are not only meant to contribute to resiliency in the event of catastrophic events, but also to local sustainability on a day-to-day basis, amplifying the co-benefits these community gardens already offer the Lower East Side, and more broadly, New York City.

The opportunity to incorporate sustainability and resilience strategies into these community gardens additionally provides the chance to program and design them in a way that aligns with the community's daily goals. Each community garden has its own organizational structure, and in the creation of this Feasibility Study an effort was made to incorporate the voices of each community gardener into the final product. Discussions were also held about how adding strategies based around social resilience would entrust a certain responsibility on these community gardens to act as socially cohesive spaces, both on a daily level and during extreme events where social networks can be critical for safety and relief.

The Feasibility Study incorporates an analysis of 46 of the 47 community gardens in the Lower East Side–one garden opted out of any additional changes

Flooded Avenue C at East 6th Street in Manhattan's East Village neighborhood of Loisaida, moments before the Con Edison power substation on 14th Street and Avenue C blew up. Photo: 30 October 2012, David Shankbone

to programming. The Study aims to identify the needs of gardeners in all of the community gardens, as well as community members throughout the neighborhood. The project serves the needs of community gardeners by proposing strategies to improve water quality within the gardens, treat stormwater runoff, address issues of water supply, enhance local habitat, and create sources for renewable energy. Each strategy's benefits, considerations, maintenance requirements, and costs are outlined so as to be useful beyond the scope of this project. In outlining the fieldwork and community engagement process, assessing relevant opportunities, and developing technical and community-based criteria for evaluating community gardens, the Feasibility Study intends to provide a replicable framework by which sustainability and resiliency goals can be implemented in other community gardens or community garden districts.

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

5

PROJECT CONTEXT

•

•

• • • • •

Campos 11BC De Colores La Plaza Cultural 9C Fireman's Memorial Sam & Sadie

SUPERSTORM SANDY FLOODING EXTENT FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

Seven gardens in the study area were inundated during Superstorm Sandy. The extent of the flooding was very close to FEMA's 100-year floodplain, mapped here to show the potential future impacts of a similar storm system on the Lower East Side.

6

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

HISTORICAL CONTEXT Financial decline and citywide bankruptcy in the mid-1970s gave way to a slew of empty and abandoned buildings across the city, eventually reclaimed and razed by the City of New York. A program called Green Guerillas, founded by Liz Christy, coalesced around what started as unregistered use of these newly empty lots for local communities, primarily African-American and Latino, to use as spaces for gardening and community gathering. Soon after, The Mayors Council on the Environment (now known as Grow NYC) started the Plant a Lot program, which with the help of Liz Christy, then became formalized as Operation GreenThumb in 1978. The short-term leases offered through this program over time became longterm stewardship of these spaces, some of which are land trusts, while most are under the jurisdiction of GreenThumb (now a division of NYC Department of Parks and Recreation) or the Department of Eduction. All have become deep-rooted and diverse community landmarks.

GreenThumb continues to be the most extensive community garden network in the country, providing support and materials to the community gardens it manages.

For years, the community gardens in the Lower East Side have served the people resident to the area in a variety of ways, such as providing space for gardening, social events, educational programming, and self-expression. Decades later, the Lower East Side has become a hotspot for development, making each of the now 47 community gardens in the area vulnerable to turnover. A unanimous measure in Community Board 3 (CB3) to create an established “Community Garden District” recognizing the historical significance and protecting the spaces as land trusts is in the works, spearheaded by Council member Rosie Mendez.

RESILIENCY CONTEXT Superstorm Sandy’s devastating effects on the Lower East Side challenged the resiliency of the neighborhood. On October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy, in combination with high tides, pushed a record-breaking 14 feet of flooding elevation through the Narrows of the Upper New York Harbor. This sent tidal surges through much of Lower Manhattan, causing damage to properties and infrastructure all over the Lower East Side. Basements, subways, and utility lines flooded, and the salt water caused electrical failures that ultimately lead to an explosion at a Consolidated Edison power station. In addition to power outages,

water pressure and steam for hot water and boilers was lost, leaving many without heat. Telecommunications lines were also down, reducing the area's ability to communicate with relief organizations. With transit systems down across the area, and no power at night for security, many people were stranded and vulnerable for the several days during the aftermath of the storm.

In an effort to promote higher resiliency in the area, the volunteer-based Lower Manhattan New York Rising Community Reconstruction (NYRCR) Planning Committee was instrumental in the decision to set aside $2 million of the $25 million allotment from the NYRCR Program toward stormwater remediation, using community gardens as a catalyst for resilience. The $2 million grant was awarded to the New York City Community Gardens Coalition (NYCCGC) in two installments: a quarter of it to initially to conduct a feasibility study and generate a master plan for the 47 community gardens in the NYRCR Lower Manhattan planning area, and three-quarters of the sum to begin implementation of that plan in selected areas across the Lower East Side.

The intention of the Feasibility Study is to analyze the sites based on criteria from NYRCR for enhanced resiliency in the area as well as create a more recognized community garden district identity. Similarly, the project incorporates the community goals of each garden into the plan, so that the ecological and social resiliency of the neighborhood is increased. Intensive fieldwork and community outreach measures ensure the success of these benefits to the community.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT The Gardens Rising team stems from NYCCGC and incorporates members from partnering organizations including Loisaida United Neighborhood Gardens (LUNGS). The 47 gardens have been divided into five geographical sub-districts to help facilitate the organization and outreach to the community garden members.

The Gardens Rising Steering Committee is the representative governing body consisting of one member (with one alternate) elected from each of the five community garden sub-districts, plus four additional members selected by the NYCCGC Board of Directs based on their expertise in the field of study, as well as one non-voting member from GreenThumb/NYC Parks Department. The Gardens Rising staff utilized the Steering Committee for community outreach and input during the entire master planning process. The Phase 1 bid was awarded to WE Design, eDesign Dynamics, and 3x3 Design.

Images of Campos Community Garden on 12th Street after being inundated with several feet of water from Superstorm Sandy. Photo: Alexia Weidler 2012

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

7

PROJECT METHODOLOGY The Feasibility Study is intended to create clear directives for the design and construction of specific installations in the community gardens, both informing Phase II of the grant as well as any further work that may be carried out independently by gardeners or other funded initiatives. The recommended application of selected sustainability and resilience strategies for each garden comes from a strategy toolkit created in response to repetitive conditions observed in the community gardens. Fieldwork conducted to establish these conditions included environmental analysis and socioecological surveys. Iterative community engagement exercises helped refine and direct the observations into a directed set of strategies.

RESEARCH Initially, the team conducted a tabletop assessment on a macro scale for the Lower East Side to help define the overarching challenges for the area. For development of more specific sustainability strategies, the 47 community gardens were mapped using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) including tributary drainage analyses and runoff volumes, utilities, historical soil borings, and inundation vulnerability. This data was used as the background for qualitative information gathered from gardeners, community members, the Steering Committee, and NYCCGC that informed opportunities and constraints for the application of the strategy toolkit within each community garden.

WE Design was simultaneously identifying the surrounding land use, the program for each of the community gardens, the environmental conditions of the community gardens, and other relevant community and ecological indicators for each of the sites. This information was attained through photographic documentation, site observation, and interviews held with gardeners who met with the design team during garden visits.

3x3 Design lead the community engagement efforts and created a methodology for research and workshops to collect necessary community information about the community gardens. The community-centered process solicited community garden members’ input in order to evaluate needs and priorities that subsequently informed the application of strategies. After identifying and mapping observations, the team began to generate a list of sustainability and resilience strategies that could be integrated into the framework for the toolkit.

The project team also conducted research to understand issues, needs, barriers, and opportunities for resilience, while being sensitive to the community gardens’ unique governance structures and existing conditions. These methods ensured that the strategy recommendations incorporated community knowledge, experience, and insight. Public workshops with community garden members and residents were conducted across the five geographic sub-districts of the study to develop shared goals and objectives, and to document iterative proposals for the community gardens.

FIELDWORK + COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Criteria for site assessment fieldwork was determined based on the initial research. While in the field, eDesign Dynamics estimated catchment areas, percent impervious surfaces, locations of catch basins and low points, and drainage infrastructure inside and outside of each of the community gardens.

8

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Members of the design and engineering team talk to two gardeners about the Bokashi Composting System used at Children's Garden in conjunction with El Sol Brillante Garden.

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATION

ON SI BM SU

US SC DI

IS

SI

EN M NE

ES PR

AP

T

ON EN

SI US SC DI

INTRODUCE SOCIAL RESILIENCY STRATEGIES

REFINE TOOLKIT

COLLECT FEEDBACK FROM GARDENERS

TA TI

ON

IS ES TH SY N

INTRODUCE GARDENS ONLINE FORUM

ON

CONNECT NEEDS WITH STRATEGIES USING SCORECARD

CREATE TOOLKIT

K DW OR EL FI

RE

SE

AR CH

SITE VISITS

CREATE INDIVIDUALIZED GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

FI

SITE HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

CATALOG GARDENER PRIORITIES

DISCUSS DISTRICT-WIDE RESILIENCY EFFORTS

REVISE RECOMMENDATIONS

RE

ESTABLISH NEEDS

ON

IDENTIFY REPETITIVE CONDITIONS

PRESENT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

AT I

GARDENER INTERVIEWS

TEACH GARDENERS ABOUT THE STRATEGIES

IC

IDENTIFY KEY ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS

PL

TABLETOP ANALYSIS

SOCIAL & ECOLOGICAL MAPPING

REFINE TOOLKIT APPLICATION

JUNE - JULY

JULY 23

SEPTEMBER 20

PHASE II

NOVEMBER 1

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT GARDEN QUESTIONNAIRE ONLINE GARDEN WALKABOUT

SCORECARDS DIGITIZED ONLINE

PROPOSAL FEEDBACK WORKSHEETS DIGITIZED ONLINE

DIGITAL 80% DRAFT SENT OUT FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK & COMMENTS

INTEGRATE FINAL EDITS FROM GARDENERS VIA EMAIL

PROJECT PROCESS GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

9

TOOLKIT The toolkit provided in this Feasibility Study is a set of sustainability and resilience recommendations for each garden that have been synthesized from both the technical considerations identified during the fieldwork, and the expressed objectives of the community gardeners from the community engagement process that occurred throughout the study. The first step in creating the toolkit was an establishment of the repetitive conditions found in all of the community gardens.

The conditions included: land cover type and use, values for impervious surfaces and drainage analysis, structures on the sites, corner lots, lots adjacent to buildings, sunlight attenuation, sites with educational programs, etc.

The second step was the creation of a list of strategies that address resiliency in the gardens and are suitable to the parameters of the repetitive conditions observed. Included in the toolkit are the beneficial outcomes that are reached when pairing existing conditions with sustainability practices, in addition to a description of the specific conditions in which each strategy is appropriate. The district-level and regional sustainability and resilience co-benefits are discussed, such as increased habitat, water independence, provision of renewable energy, and educational or social resiliency programming. Also listed in the toolkit are the constraints of each strategy, including maintenance considerations, technical considerations, and regulatory considerations.

TOOLKIT APPLIED The toolkit is then applied to each one of the community gardens based on each strategy's suitability for the conditions found at each site, as well as any interest or disinterest in particular strategies that we heard from each garden at community meetings. Each community garden has proposed elements from the toolkit, and an estimate of costs associated with the recommended strategies. Costs are organized in two categories, including one for specified materials, shipping, and handling, in the event that gardeners decide to undertake a project from the toolkit on their own terms, as well as a cost for the project assuming prevailing wages, in the event that the project is incorporated into the design for Phase II of the grant.

To help determine how best to allocate funds, a list of evaluation criteria was created by both the design team and the Steering Committee. The evaluation criteria encompass both the technical improvement metrics that each proposed strategy would provide, as well as each garden's capacity to maintain and operate

10

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

a given strategy. Technical metrics were expressed in units including square feet of planted pollinator gardens or gallons of rainwater harvested per year, and garden capacity criteria included points awarded for involvement during community meetings, as well as sheer number of gardeners who work regularly on maintaining the community garden. Evaluation criteria were then summed up to help the Steering Committee determine which gardens should be prioritized for design and construction of recommended strategies during Phase II of the grant.

PURPOSE & GOALS WATER INFRASTRUCTURE The Lower East Side, like most of Manhattan, is highly impervious to stormwater, which is a significant contributing factor to the frequency and volume of combined sewage overflows (CSOs) into the East River. The community gardens in the Lower East Side, most of which are entirely pervious, for this reason somewhat offset the area's contribution to CSOs. Because they are such a valuable resource in reducing sewage overflow, it is critical to optimize stormwater management practices within the community gardens. While most gardens infiltrate the majority of rainwater that falls on them, recommendations to reduce runoff and erosion and to improve drainage were made where necessary. In other cases, grading within the community gardens was not optimized for the programming and planting plans. Recommendations to regrade or channelize water to distribute it more effectively for infiltration or irrigation were made in order to move water to areas that need it, or away from areas that experience pooling during a rain event.

Many gardens have a shortage of water, as their only water sources are hydrants on the sidewalk, sometimes on the opposite side of the street. While many gardens have structures that could be used for rainwater harvesting to help with issues of water supply, the volume of water needed in the gardens sometimes necessitates a larger roof area, in which cases structures were proposed in conjunction with rain barrels. Other reasons for rainwater harvesting recommendations were not due to water scarcity as much as the kind of water being used. Some gardens have been equipped with hose bibs that connect to municipal water supplies, and while this has sometimes proven necessary during dry months, rainwater harvesting systems were proposed in these gardens to encourage the garden to reduce its demand for potable water.

While infiltration- and detention-based strategies were not needed frequently in the study area, as most of the gardens are already infiltrating at 100%, rain gardens or wetlands were recommended in areas that experienced pooling or had an opportunity to create more efficient drainage patterns to specific areas for infiltration. Wetlands were proposed only in community gardens that expressed a desire to have a water feature or aquatic habitat, mainly because there was a preexisting form of a wetland or pond.

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS The implementation of green infrastructure solutions provides a host of benefits that extend beyond stormwater management. While many strategies reduce the volume of CSOs during rain events, they can also provide broader ecological benefits that have been lost or stifled due to dense urban development. A rain garden, for example, might also act as a pollinator garden if planted accordingly, providing benefits to water quality in a community garden while simultaneously providing food and habitat for pollinator species. Most often, the beneficial functions of one solution have a host of co-benefits, or secondary values. The installation and stewardship of sustainable gardens can reduce the effects of urban heat island (UHI) effect during warm months through evapotranspiration and surface albedo reduction. Vegetation can act both as insulation and wind reduction, which during cold months saves energy on heating. Sustainable gardens can help enhance soil health, enabling higher rates of water retention and carbon sequestration. Salt-tolerant plants that can withstand salt water inundation or climate-adapted plants that are chosen for their ability to tolerate the conditions of a given climate can be the quickest to bounce back after environmental disturbance. Healthy landscapes provide habitat for local wildlife like pollinators and migrating birds, which in turn can increase biodiversity and resilience. Proper design and management can additionally enhance a landscape’s ability to perform these functions.

SOCIAL RESILIENCY The provision of lively and operative community spaces can create social resiliency by bringing communities together as a network. During environmental disturbances including heatwaves and storms, vulnerability challenges like language isolation and inaccessibility of elderly or disabled populations can be reduced when an established social network provides accountability and assistance in aid and relief. In addition to support during catastrophic events, day to day health and wellness in a community is enhanced when open spaces are present to promote spending time outdoors.

The roof of the large shed at Dias Y Flores Community Garden is not sloped to a gutter. In order to meet their water needs, the gardeners fill up the 500 Gallon rain barrel each week using hoses connected to a hydrant on 13th Street.

Community gardens are unique in that they offer two means of community building, both passive and active. Like a public park, community gardens serve the neighborhood as open spaces that offer respite and connection with nature.

This facilitates social contact between neighbors or visitors to the community GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

11

garden. Simultaneously, community gardens serve as a more active means of community-building, as they not only require planning and collaboration in their maintenance and upkeep, they are often used as spaces for educational or social events. In this way, unlike public parks, community gardens actually necessitate interaction between all community garden members who would like to take part in the daily use of the space. Membership to the community gardens is easy and usually involves joining an email listserv, which by nature connects community members over a shared goal. Additionally, public events and gatherings contribute to community cohesion and social capital by bringing people together over shared interests, such as musical or theatrical performances, and educational opportunities related to the gardens' programming.

COMMUNITY GARDEN DISTRICT RESILIENCY NETWORK RESILIENCY NETWORK The strategy toolkit focuses on solutions and improvements based on individualized observations at each site; however it is important to recognize that each project's benefits can be amplified within the context of a community garden district. Because the Gardens Rising project is making proposals for each of the gardens across the Lower East Side neighborhood, the ways in which the geographic proximity of the sites effects the success of improvements made at each individual site are at play. The functional efficacy of planting pollinator gardens in one community garden, for example, might be positively impacted were there to be other pollinator gardens proposed for nearby gardens. Thus, when considering the ecosystem services of each of the strategies proposed, one might begin to visualize how each proposal interacts with others in the network.

CURRENT ASSETS In discussing improvements that could be made to the district, it is important to recognize that the community gardens and their organizational structures are already offering the city substantial environmental services. Together, the 47 community gardens offer over 7.5 acres of land that is mostly vegetated open space and pervious surface. In a single year with average rainfall, this is over 1.3 million gallons of stormwater infiltrated into the ground rather than the combined sewer. In addition to environmental services, the net human capital of each of the community gardeners as stewards of these spaces is a huge financial relief for NYC Parks. The gardens together have hundreds of active gardeners who plant, water, and maintain these spaces, many of whom also host public events.

CURRENT NEEDS While the implementation of sustainability and resilience strategies will appreciably help the network of community gardens in the Lower East Side, many of them have needs that go beyond the capabilities of this grant, starting with more recognition of the environmental services that they do already provide for the city.

Members of the Lower Eastside Girls Club work to construct a bamboo "threshold" in first street garden in collaboration with the Heliotrope Foundation and Joana Torres' Officina Design. Photo: Joana Torres 2016

12

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Visibility Increased street presence of the gardens could significantly bolster visitorship and awareness. This could take the form of better signage outside the gardens and around the neighborhood, consistent fencing or colorful entrances, or distinctive porous paving on the sidewalk in front of the gardens. While each of the community gardens has a unique organizational structure and personality, a consistent visual identity across each of the gardens could help visitors recognize the community gardens, and unify the community gardens district.

Membership More visitors to the community gardens has the potential to bring in new interest and membership, another element that most of the community gardens have a need for. While many community gardens make it easy to do, membership is on the decline, likely due to the changing demographics of the Lower East Side neighborhood to a younger and more transient population. Community outreach efforts to determine what kinds of programs would entice current non-members to join the community gardens might help dictate the way in which sustainability and resilience strategies are implemented.

DISTRICT-WIDE STRATEGY OUTCOMES MAP

Great North Infiltration: 428,065 gal/year Storage: 10,750 gal/year Habitat: 4,300 SF Education: 15 signs Energy: 840 Wh/charge

9

2

10

12

3

8

5

4 1

11

Middle Earth 37 40 43

15

Infiltration: 84,570 gal/year Storage: 6,650 gal/year Habitat: 2,170 SF Education: 13 signs Energy: 672 Wh/charge

22

46 39

15

13

El Pueblo

16 17

19

36

25

30

28

Infiltration: 275,000 gal/year Storage: 8,150 gal/year Habitat: 2,800 SF Education: 9 signs Energy: 672 Wh/charge

23

27

26 29

Mundo Verde

45

41

32

34

38

20 21

33 31

18

24

35

44

Capital After site observations, gardener interviews, and community meetings, it is clear that every community garden could use more funding. Whether to support small projects like replacing plants, or large ones like building an observation deck, community gardens currently do not have many options to generate funds.

Most of the work done in the community gardens comes from membership fees, which can be as low as $10 per year. As a result, most of the daily work is funded out-of-pocket, and therefore is not copious if the number of active members is low. Grants like GOSR's grant to NYCCGC help to allocate public money into the sustainable development of these public spaces, and allow the gardeners, as stewards, to begin completing many of the tasks that require more significant investment.

6

7

Infiltration: 7,422 gal/year Storage: 6,650 gal/year Habitat: 2,350 SF Education: 3 signs Energy: 168 Wh/charge

Southlands

Infiltration: 95,420 gal/year Storage: 4,000 gal/year Habitat: 4,800 SF Education: 3 signs Energy: 504 Wh/charge

42

A quantification by sub-district of some of the net benefits that could be provided to the city were each of the sustainability and resiliency recommendations to implemented in the community gardens.

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

13

3

FIELDWORK SITE VISITS SOCIOECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT The fieldwork component began with site visits to 46 of the 47 community gardens, through which several scales of assessment took place. Where possible, available gardeners were interviewed in order to hear firsthand how the community gardens are programmed and used on a daily basis, as well as to gain a sense of local knowledge about what kinds of issues the community gardens face with regards to the sustainability and resiliency goals of the project. From these interviews, the WE Design team also attained an initial idea of what kinds of implementations would be useful to each community garden based on existing infrastructure, areas of opportunity, and the gardener’s expressed desires. Initial suggestions for programmatic shifts to increase sustainability and resiliency were discussed with the gardeners on-site, in order to better understand their responses to these proposals, and to introduce them to the potentials of the project. Interventions were presented as ways in which current community garden elements might be changed, moved, altered, replaced, or enhanced to increase sustainability and resilience during the process of strategy implementation in Phase II. ENGINEERING & HYDROLOGIC ASSESSMENT eDesign Dynamics’ field investigation focused on assessing formal and informal stormwater drainage infrastructure, water demand, and potential for stormwater capture, storage, and reuse in the community gardens. The engineering team inspected the land cover and direction of surface runoff, recorded erosional and the pooling patterns, and investigated potential locations for green infrastructure installation in and adjacent to the community gardens. In addition to the on-site surveillance, the engineering team talked with the gardeners to gauge the current stormwater resiliency of the community gardens (i.e. how quickly and to what extent the community gardens are able to recover from a heavy rainstorm event), and inquired if the community gardens currently collect and utilize rainwater on-site.

Above: The Gardens Rising team meets with gardeners at El Jardin del Paraiso Below: WE Design and eDesign Dynamics speak with a gardener at Orchard Alley about the program of the space while she helps a Good Old Lower East Side (GOLES) organizer prepare for an event in the community garden

14

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

DOCUMENTATION Information attained from the site visits was recorded by WE Design and eDesign Dynamics respectively into matrices designed to help keep recordings consistent across all community gardens. Elements on the WE Design matrix included

VISUAL $33($5$1&( Frontage length Fence type Foliage along fence Signage Street presence

GARDENS RISING ANALYSIS MATRIX Name of garden Address Hours VISUAL $33($5$1&( Frontage length Fence type Foliage along fence Signage Street presence SPATIAL CHARACTERISTICS Location type (corner/pocket) Surrounding neighborhood Avenue vs street Watershed location Size / shape ECOLOGICAL COMPONENTS Tree count Canopy Tree type Building shading (height) Fauna indication Seasonal adaptability

SPATIAL CHARACTERISTICS Location type (corner/pocket) Surrounding neighborhood Avenue vs street Watershed location Size / shape STORMWATER / GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FEMA / flood COMPONENTS ECOLOGICAL Site low point Tree count Current water management Canopy Pervious Tree type / impervious Materialsshading (height) Building Unusedindication / potential space Fauna Surrounding roof Seasonal adaptability

SOCIAL COMPONENTS PHYSICAL COMPONENTS How many members are active?

Neighborhood demographic Do you hold meetings? If so, when?

Pathways / access Apart from gardeners, who else currently uses Seating the garden?

How? Lighting / safety What arestructures your long term goals for the Current garden?

Near term goals?

Food production Would you like to expand your membership or user base? If so, to whom?

What general programs/events do you currently host, and when? Educational programs What other programs/events would you like to host?

What are your favorite aspects of the garden?

What are your favorite parts about the neighborhood?

STORMWATER / GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FEMA / flood Site low point Current water management Pervious / impervious Materials Unused / potential space Surrounding roof SOCIAL COMPONENTS How many members are active?

Do you hold meetings? If so, when?

Apart from gardeners, who else currently uses the garden? How? What are your long term goals for the garden? Near term goals?

Would you like to expand your membership or user base? If so, to whom?

What general programs/events do you currently host, and when? Educational programs What other programs/events would you like to host?

What are your favorite aspects of the garden?

What are your favorite parts about the neighborhood?

PHYSICAL COMPONENTS

STRATEGY SYNTHESIS After visiting each community garden, the WE Design and eDesign Dynamics teams worked together to synthesize ecological and social functions that could be introduced or enchanced in the gardens to increase sustainability and resiliency in each community garden. These functions were derived to address the purpose and goals of the project relating to water infrastructure, sustainable planting, and social resiliency. Sustainability and resiliency strategies were selected because they had been identified in some of the community gardens and could either benefit other community gardens that do not already have them or because they could be enhanced in community gardens that do already have them. Other strategies were selected because they were determined to be the best-suited landscaping techniques to address sustainability and resiliency goals for the community gardens. Once an initial list of strategies was determined for the toolkit, the design team worked with 3x3 to create the best way to vet the list with gardeners. The strategy toolkit then was developed through an iterative process of community engagement and discussion.

Neighborhood demographic The Site Visit Matrix used to asses each Pathways / access community garden, and sketch made at El Sol Seating Brillante Community Garden Lighting / safety Current structures Food production

fields relating to exterior appearance of the community garden, spatial characteristics, ecological components, physical/structural components, stormwater/green infrastructure notes, and social programming. Elements recorded on the eDesign matrices related to signs of erosion, soil structure, drainage areas on site, and opportunities for wetlands and right-of-way bioswales. Gardeners' comments attained from interviews were also transcribed and saved with the analysis matrices, to be taken into account during the strategy synthesis and proposal process. Additional comments were added during the other community engagement events.

Additionally, photographic documentation helped the design team visually recall each of the 46 community gardens during the planning process when making recommendations in specific areas and estimating square footage of proposed strategies. To additionally help with initial locations for sustainability and resiliency strategy proposals, quick sketches in plan were drawn at each garden.

A large depression at Eastside Outside Community Garden has the potential to more efficiently infiltrate the high volume of runoff it receives from the adjacent sport court

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

15

4

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PART 1: COMMUNITY GARDEN NEEDS In three groups, gardeners discussed the needs that face their community gardens and the larger district. Each of the needs expressed in this part of the workshop were compiled by a member of the Steering Committee into a list. Afterward, gardeners voted on their top two most pressing needs using stickers, to help hone in on the most immediate needs on the list. The following image illustrates each group’s list of needs as well as the voting outcomes. The needs with the most votes from each group were compiled into a “common needs” list.

The Gardens Rising and Design Teams introduce themselves and present the project purpose and goals to a group of gardeners from the Lower East Side.

GROUP 1:

Rain Catchment/ Water Capture

Rain Catchment

KICK-OFF MEETING: JUNE 25

Soil quality/ soil remidiation

Solar Energy

Pond system

Ponds

On Saturday, June 25, 2016, the Gardens Rising, WE Design, eDesign Dynamics, and 3x3 teams met with a gathering of community gardeners from the study area at the Loisaida Center. WE Design presented design experience relating to the project, while eDesign Dynamics and 3x3 presented relevant engineering and community engagement experience respectively. The Gardens Rising Feasibility Study scope, purpose, and goals were then reviewed, the design team was given an opportunity to discuss methodology and community engagement plans for the project. At the end, gardeners were given the opportunity to ask questions and engage in discussion about the fieldwork, community engagement, and green infrastructure recommendations components of the process.

Water channels/distribution

Rodent Abatement

Tree pits/ bioswales

Soil Remediation

Rodent Abatement

Noise pollution (Waterfall to cover)

Composting

Impermeable Surfaces

GARDEN WORKSHOP: JULY 23 On Saturday, July 23, 2016, community gardeners on the Lower East Side met to establish needs and priorities of their gardens, and discuss how to align these with key strategies for possible green infrastructure projects. The goals were to: • Document community gardeners needs • Prioritize green infrastructure strategies and functions • Rank priorities for each community garden

16

COMMON NEEDS:

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

GROUP 2:

GROUP 3:

Water Capture

Storage shed needed

Composting

Bioswales- tree pits

Turn on park water earlier

Rodent Abatement

Soil Quality

Water catchment

Funding

Vertical gardening

Educational Programs about water issues

Extend system of pond

Distribution of water

Porous pavers needed

Irrigation to plots and other areas

Aqueduct channel

Repair fixtures/walls/sidewalks

Composting

Tree pits- garbage

Green Space

Overgrown plantings Improve former pond Maintain hardware /equipment Vertical gardening Animals (cats vs. birds) Pollinator gardens

PART 2: STRATEGIES After pinpointing needs, gardeners learned about green infrastructure strategies by playing a guessing game to understand strategy options and the needs they address. Each card had a diagram of a resilience strategy with some key ecological functions the strategy provides. Gardeners took turns drawing blindly from the deck and holding up the card without seeing its contents. The rest of the gardeners had to use the diagram and the functions on the card, as well as any other clues they could think of to provide the ‘blind’ gardener enough information to guess the strategy. Finally, once the strategy was guessed, the ‘blind’ gardener would read the back of the card out loud, which included needs that specific green infrastructure strategy can address.

RNING ABOUT STRATEGIES

Once a better understanding of the strategies and the needs they address three choices for green game to understand strategy options and the needs they address.

Each gardener then infrastructure strategies based on their own community garden’s needs. Below is their top three choices for green infrastructure strategies.

Below thevotes total (76cast votes)for the most desired strategies the total of selected choices from allis76 ed choices for most strategies. gardens. in desired the community

pointing needs, gardeners learned aboutgardeners green infrastructure strategies playing a was established, then voted onbytheir top

LEARNING ABOUT STRATEGIES After pinpointing needs, gardeners learned about green infrastructure strategies by playing a

14

Gutters

11

Native Gardens

voted on their top three choices for green infrastructure strategies. Below is the total (76 votes) of selected choices for most desired strategies.

8 8

Bioswales Pollinator Gardens

7

Living Systems

6

Porous Pavers

5 5

Green Roofs French Drains

3 3 3

Phytoremediation Wetlands Channels

2

Tree Planting Rain Gardens

guessing game to understand strategy options and the needs they address. Each gardener then

1

14

Gutters

11

Native Gardens

8 8

Bioswales Pollinator Gardens

7

Living Systems

6

Porous Pavers

5 5

Green Roofs French Drains Phytoremediation Wetlands Channels

3 3 3

Treeplay Planting Above: Gardeners a card game to learn strategies 2from the toolkit Below: Gardeners strategies they think would 1be helpful in their community gardens Rainselect Gardens

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

17

Once gardeners discussed needs and strategies for their community gardens and the larger district, they reconvened with other members of their garden to develop customized scorecards to: (1) rank green infrastructure functions that address garden needs and (2) rank the priorities of their garden. The visualization below represents the rankings that gardener’s attributed to each of the 12 functions.

PART 3: SCORECARDS Once gardeners discussed needs and strategies for their community gardens and the larger district, they were asked to reconvene with other members of their garden to develop customized scorecards. The firstFIpart the scorecard asked LT RATofI ON gardeners to rank ecological functions from a list provided that they felt were CAT CHMENT most needed to address resiliency issues in their gardens. The functions list was FISLT RAT I ON primary ecological TORAGE compiled during the initial fieldwork and reflects some of the functions that were observed or requested in the gardens.

Following is a list of CHMENT DICAT S T RI BUT I ON the ecological functions as they appeared on the scorecard and a graphic that FISLT RAT I ON TORAGE represents the total value that gardeners attributedDRAI to each NAGEof the 13 functions CHMENT through the prioritization on the scorecards.

DICAT S T RI BUT I ON

FILTR ATIO N absorption of water C ATCand H M Ecleansing NT as it passes through soil

FILTR STO RATIO A G EN ATC IB H MUETIO N TN D CI STR

collecting water, rainfall, FILTR N STO RATIO AAGGEespecially DR A IN E over a natural area C ATC H Mdrainage ENT

18

D IPSTR U TIO LA NIBTIN GSN FILTR STO RATIO AAGGEEN DR A IN S T RU C TU R A L ATC Hwater MUETIO N TNto help manage gathering ofIB D CIPSTR LA N TIN G RFILTR E ME DATIO IATIOSN stormwater S TO R A G EN AGE SCTDR RUAECIN CR ATIO ATC HTU M ERNATL D I STR IB U TIO N PESCO LA RFILTR ME IATIO ATIO TONODof RLTIN AINdistributing GGGENSN the process water DR ACINTUA GR EA L S T RU CR E ATIO N CI STR ATC HGMUarea ETIO O Lan OIB IC ATLN throughout DEC P LA N TIN G S R ESCO ME OEDRLRIATIO IN GE N TO A G E N G Y DR A IN A G E S TCR RUECATIO TU RNA L EC O L O Gand A Lmovement D I STR IB UICTIO the collection P LA N TIN G SNN R E ME D IATIO CO IN E NOEitLRleaves of runoffDR as AG GRYGEA L a site S TCR RUAECIN TU EC O L OATIO G ICNA L LA G SN RPECO MENODLTIN IATIO IN G E N E R G Y the useSof plants TCR RUECATIO TU RNAtoL promote EC O L O G IC A L of an area health and resiliency R ECO MEODLIATIO N E N E RIN G YG ECCRO LE OATIO G ICNA L

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

CO E NOELRIN G YG

PLANT I NGS FISLT RAT I ON TORAGE DRAI S T RUCTNAGE URAL CHMENT DICAT S T RI BUT I ON PLANT I NGS building physical structures REMEDI I ON FISLT RATATI ON TORAGE to enhance the resiliency of an area NAGE S TDRAI RUCT URAL CREAT I ON CAT CHMENT DIPLANT S T RI BUT I ON IAT NGS REMEDI I ON FISCOOLI LT RATNG I ON TORAGE NAGE S TDRAI RUCT URAL to halt and reverse CREAT I ON ECOLOGI CAL CAT CHMENT DI S T RI BUT I ON environmental damage PLANT I NGS REMEDI AT I ON COOLI NG ENERGY S TORAGE S TDRAI RUCTNAGE URAL CREAT I ON ECOLOGI CAL DIPLANT S T RI BUT I ON I NGS REMEDI AT I creation of rich soil COOLI NG ENERGY ON to absorb runoff NAGE and support healthy plant growth SECOLOGI TDRAI RUCT URAL CREAT I ON CAL PLANT IAT NGS REMEDI COOLI NGI ON ENERGY SECOLOGI TCREAT RUCT URAL I ON using strategies to reduce excessive CAL heat inREMEDI urban environments ATNGI ON COOLI ENERGY CREAT I ON ECOLOGI CAL COOLI NG to use living organisms ENERGY

to improve the physical surroundings ECOLOGI CAL

ENERGY deriving power from naturally emitted energy

1-3

4-6

1

7-9

distribution

5

catchment

2

3 storage

creation

4 filtration

10-12

6

energy

7 8

9

structural

10 11drainage 12 cooling

ecological

remediation

plantings

6

In addition to ranking desired ecological functions in the gardens, the scorecards also included sections for gardeners to rank from a list of priorities relating to the resource allocation, community engagement, and environmental impact of the potential projects. The synthesis of this information is provided on each garden’s Garden Analysis page in the following section.

GARDEN WORKSHOP: SEPTEMBER 20 On Tuesday, September 20, 2016, community gardeners met again to respond to the first iteration of the Garden Analysis pages that represented their own gardens. The goals were to: • Present the 60% completed feasibility study including existing conditions, opportunities assessments, green infrastructure recommendations, and schematic plans for each garden • Review the first iteration of the Strategy Toolkit with gardeners • Facilitate discussion between gardeners about how the Strategy Toolkit would be best applied to each garden • Collect responses from each garden regarding what they like about the Garden Analysis pages, as well as what they would like to change with regard to how the strategy toolkit was applied to their garden

PART 1: PRESENTATION OF 60% STUDY AND STRATEGY TOOLKIT The presentation of the Feasibility Study gave community gardeners a sense of the project context into which each of their garden's Analysis Pages had been incorporated. At the 60% completion of the Feasibility Study, the first iteration of the Strategy Toolkit had been completed and was shared with gardeners to solidify the strategies that had been addressed in the July 23rd community meeting, and address changes or additions that had been made since then.

Each strategy is associated with sustainability outcomes, a number of which are broadly quantified on the Garden Analysis pages that were presented to gardeners. The metrics for these quantifications were discussed with gardeners in combination with a conceptual application of the Evaluation Criteria, to help make transparent the process by which the design team aims to guide the Steering Committee's selection process for project funding.

PART 2: GARDEN ANALYSIS PAGES DISCUSSED After presenting the Feasibility Study, gardeners assembled into groups by garden, and were given their garden's Analysis Page for closer inspection.

Gardeners were asked to review the entire spread for accuracy, including general garden information, opportunity assessments, green infrastructure recommendations, and site plans. Each garden was given a worksheet to help organize feedback and discuss the benefits and changes to each green infrastructure strategy that had been proposed from the toolkit. The responses were tabulated and reviewed by the Steering Committee, and subsequent changes were made to the Garden Analysis Pages to reflect those expressed by the gardeners. The gardeners were also asked to rank the strategies in their gardens to further assist the Steering Committee in the process of prioritizing project funding.

Gardeners examine and discuss the next iteration of the strategy toolkit and make comments and suggestions to the strategy recommendations made to each of their gardens.

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

19

GARDEN WORKSHOP: NOVEMBER 1

CROWD-SOURCING RESOURCE MAP

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016, the community gardeners convened again to review the newest iteration of the strategy toolkit, which included more strategies related to social resiliency, and consolidated some of the water and habitat recommendations into strategies that could be more widely proposed across all community gardens. In addition, the 80% draft of the Garden Analysis pages were passed out for another review of both the iterative response to the last community meeting, and the new application of strategies that hadn't been in the toolkit previously. Gardeners finalized and confirmed information about their gardens, including general information, existing conditions, and opportunities assessments.

Another worksheet was passed out to organize feedback and collect comments pertaining to specific strategies, and gardeners were invited to mark up their pages and hand them back in after consulting with their garden groups.

PURPOSE One of the goals of the Feasibility Study is to create a replicable model that can grow and evolve with the community gardens as projects are carried out, and as ecological and social resiliency needs change throughout the Lower East Side in the future. To address this need, the WE Design team and Gardens Rising project task force advised a venture led by 3x3 and Sean Ansanelli, web development associate, to create a crowd-sourced web platform through which gardeners will be able to stay up-to-date with projects, learn about the toolkit strategies, and post resources, thoughts, suggestions, or comments to a public forum. This platform will stay live in the interim period between the close-out of the Feasibility Study and the implementation phase of the project, so that it can facilitate conversation between community gardens without creating a pause and loss of momentum before Phase II. It will also be able to inform the second phase of the project, as a living addendum to the Feasibility Study. In addition to this function, the platform is intended to operate even after the second phase, so that resources around the sustainability and resiliency strategies of the project will remain accessible and up-to-date, constantly reflecting current intentions and goals of the community gardens.

Many of the proposed projects in the Gardens Rising Green Infrastructure Feasibility Report are able to be carried out by gardeners themselves. While some recommendations are only possible with equipment or processes best suited to a contracting crew, the web platform includes an updatable resources guide for those projects that gardeners can complete internally. These projects each have a resources page that explains what each strategy can do to increase sustainability and resiliency, the tools necessary to implement it, costs associated with its implementation, and the maintenance procedures associated with its persistence.

Gardeners will be able to post useful information, including personal knowledge and experience, or equipment they are willing to share so that other gardeners might be able to complete some projects themselves.

Garden members look at the last iteration of garden analysis pages, making final comments and suggestions, after discussing the final list of strategies in the toolkit.

20

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

FUNCTION The home page includes a navigational menu bar, a large map of the Gardens Rising project site, live location buttons for each garden, and a news and events carousel across the bottom that will be updated with project news, events, and

other information pertinent to the gardens network. Once selected, an individual garden's Profile Page is accessible from its button on the main map. The profile page has basic information about the garden including the garden's name, address, and a profile photo from the garden. In clicking the "More Photos" link, more photos of the garden are available. The Profile Page also includes sustainability and resiliency projects that were recommended for the garden, as well as a link to a page dedicated to documenting the progression of a specific garden's projects if one is underway. The page also contains a discussion feed, allowing gardeners to post comments, ideas, photos, videos, and news.

The Garden Page for Le Petit Versailles Community Garden

to complete it (if it is a project able to be implemented by gardeners), maintenance procedures, and costs associated with its construction. Users will be able to post general information, tips or lessons learned, and where to source materials or supplies locally and affordably. The page will also have a list of other gardens that have implemented the strategy, so that gardens considering carrying it out have a resource to find out what it looks like in context, and know who to consult within the Lower East Side Gardens Rising network if they have questions.

Gardens Rising Crowd-Sourced Resource Map Homepage

When a user clicks on a project link for an individual garden, they are directed to a project page. This page documents the progression of a specific project at a garden. Included is the timeline of the project, which will allow users to comment on the project while also enabling users to post process photos to the feed on the page. In addition to each specific project having a page that can be accessed from the Garden Profile Page, each of the sustainability and resilience strategies presented in the strategy toolkit of the Feasibility Study has its own general project-type page on the web platform that will provide information about the strategy. This page is also directly accessible from the "Projects" button, linking to a page that lists each green infrastructure strategy with an icon. Once selected, a specific Strategy Page will be available, outlining all the necessary information relating to the project. This includes a description of its goals, materials necessary

The Projects page, including a link to all the strategies' information pages

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

21

5

STRATEGY TOOLKIT & GARDEN ANALYSIS OVERVIEW

COMMUNITY GARDEN SUB-DISTRICTS

In order to create a directed analysis for each of the 46 community gardens, it was necessary to prioritize the opportunities for enhancing community garden resiliency, and focus on the most pressing needs for each site. The way this list of priorities has been constructed was through multiple avenues of input. In addition to the prioritized set of opportunities and needs that came from the fieldwork matrices of both the WE Design and eDesign Dynamics teams, data was also consolidated by 3x3 during the community garden workshops, and synthesized to create an individualized list of priorities per community garden. The priorities of the design team were compared against the interests and desires expressed by the community garden teams to create a master list of strategies encompassing both the requirements of the grant and the requests of the community gardeners.

The 46 community gardens have been grouped into five informal sub-districts based on geographical proximity. These district categorizations were used to organize gardeners’ feedback for community engagement exercises, as well as to help create more intimate community meetings as toolkit strategy development began to become more tailored to each site. While the districts have no bearing on strategy implementation or prioritization, it functions as a tool to begin to unify gardeners around creating a more socially connected community garden network in the Lower East Side. Creating informal districts is a way to generate a more tangible sense of local community within the broader system of community gardens. The goal was to use the community engagement component of the project to buttress long-term inter-garden relationships as well. The longevity of these resiliency projects and the identity of the Lower East Side as a community garden district relies on the organized and continual connection between community garden groups and the spaces in which they operate.

Each community garden is presented in the following Garden Analysis pages with general information about the community garden, paired with the information that will be used to formulate final design proposals for each community garden, including both the observations from the design team and expressed needs from the gardeners. The pages include “existing conditions,” meaning structural or infrastructural components primarily related to the observed programming of the community garden. This section is followed by “site observations or considerations” that WE Design or eDesign Dynamics saw as notable features in the community garden that may play a role in the implementation of the strategy toolkit.

Following this section is a synthesis of the prioritized feedback given by the gardeners for each community garden entitled “garden priorities.” Formulated from the scorecards from the July 23rd workshop by 3x3 and WE Design, community garden priorities are broken down into sub categories relating to resource allocation, community benefits, and environmental impact. These key areas of feedback are cross-referenced against the observations and considerations from WE Design and eDesign Dynamics’ fieldwork into three selected “opportunities,” supported by photos taken of each community garden.

These three opportunities act as a synthesis of data derived from the fieldwork and community engagement sections and will carry over into the toolkit strategy proposals for each community garden, informing the direction each implementation proposal takes.

22

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

In addition to social connectivity being critical in strengthening the resilience of the Lower East Side, improved ecological connectivity plays a critical role in enhancing local habitat and increasing local biodiversity. Healthier and more biodiverse urban ecosystems have countless benefits for humans like improved air quality, regulation of pests and disease, and physical and mental health improvements, yet they also provide financial gains related to energy usage and carbon sequestration. These 47 community gardens are close enough to each other that the benefits of one garden can be enhanced if nearby gardens are also given the same improvements, ultimately providing the entire district with improved resiliency.

The geographical sub-districts are roughly divided evenly, so that each district contains a similar number of community gardens. The Great North extends from 13th street to 10th street, El Pueblo from 9th street to 7th Street, and Middle Earth from 7th street to 4th street. Mundo Verde is bounded by 3rd Street to the north and Houston to the south, and contains all community gardens between Avenue A and D. Southland community gardens extend over a broader area south of Houston, and also consist of the community gardens between Houston and 4th Street to the west of Avenue A.

MIDDLE EARTH

3

Ave B Community Garden Association

24

Fifth Street Slope Garden

4

Campos Community Garden

25

Generation X Cultural Garden

5

Children’s Garden

26

Orchard Alley

6

Dias Y Flores Community Garden

27

Parque de Tranquilidad

7

Eastside Outside Garden

28

Secret Garden

El Sol Brilliante

9

El Sol Brilliante Jr.

10

Relaxation Garden

11

Toyota Children’s Garden

12

Vamos Sembrar Garden

EL PUEBLO 13

9C Community Garden

14

De Colores Community Yard & Cultural Center

15

Earth People Community Garden

16

Fireman’s Memorial Garden

17

Green Oasis & Gilbert’s Sculpture Community Garden

18

La Plaza Cultural Community Garden

19

Sam and Sadie Koenig Garden

MUNDO VERDE 30 31

37

43

ton

Brisas del Caribe Garden

32

Jardin Los Amigos

33

Kenkeleba Sculpture Garden

34

Le Petite Versailles

35

Miracle Garden

36

Peach Tree Garden

3

8

5

Sta nto n Riv

44

ing

41

ton

22

35

31 38

46

39

20

15 19

21

32

36 34

25

30

28

16

7th

23

4th 26

27

th

13

18

24

33

13

4 1

11

4th

Hou s

All People’s Garden

Hope Garden

10

12

15

40

29

th

9

2

7th

Bow ery Chr ist For ie syth

8

10

Av eD

El Jardin de Paraiso

Av eC

23

17

Av eD

11th Street Community Garden

Av eB

2

6

7

Av eC

Creative Little Garden

Av eA

22

Av eB

11BC Community Garden,

th

Av e

1

13

Av eA

6BC Botanical Garden

1st

21

Av e

GREAT NORTH

1st

6th & B Garden

Ess Nor folk ex Su Clin ffolk to Att orn n ey

20

29

Hou s

ton

Del

45

anc ey

SOUTHLAND 37

Albert’s Garden

38

Children’s Magical Garden

39

Committee of Poor Peoples LES Garden

40

First Street Garden

41

Forsyth Garden Conservancy

42

LES People’s Care Garden

43

Liz Christy Community Garden

44

M’Finda Kalunga Garden

45

Siempre Verde Garden

46

Suffolk Street / Dorothy Strelsin Memorial Garden

42

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

23

COMMUNITY GARDEN PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA Each of the 46 community gardens has received a set of green infrastructure recommendations corresponding to the opportunities assessment as a part of the following individualized Garden Analysis. While each community garden has one or more green infrastructure recommendations, some project recommendations may have more impact than others based on several existing conditions within the garden that come together to influence a project's potential for water infrastructure and habitat improvements. Each garden's green infrastructure recommendations are therefore evaluated based on metrics created to help the Steering Committee determine which projects will best provide resiliency and sustainability to the Lower East Side community garden district.

SITE SELECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS INFILTRATION-BASED PROJECTS LARGE WATER HARVESTING PROJECTS SMALL WATER HARVESTING PROJECTS DECREASE RUNOFF FLOWS (EROSION CONTROL, WATER CONVEYANCE) HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS ADDITIONAL TREES (PER TREE) INCREASE IN SUSTAINABLE GARDEN AREA (+300 FT2) INCREASE IN POLLINATOR PLANTS (+300 FT2) REPLACING HARDSCAPE WITH SOFT INFRASTRUCTURE SOIL IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED SOCIAL IMPROVEMENTS PROVISION OF OFF-GRID RENEWABLE ENERGY SIGNAGE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION OR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

24

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 20 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10

The success of projects installed in gardens is also influenced by the social structure and capacity of the garden. More active gardens have an ability to maintain projects and sustain their ability to provide intended resiliency and sustainability goals. In addition, gardens that have ongoing public programming and higher accessibility mean that the resiliency improvements of projects installed will be more widely experienced.

It is therefore necessary to complete an additional evaluation of each garden based on an assessment of a second set of criteria that will influence a project's impact and longevity in each garden. Below is a list of how each garden was analyzed in a quantifiable manner, to give way to a selection of the most pressing resilience project sites.

SITE SELECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA GARDEN MEMBERSHIP 0 - 10 MEMBERS 11 - 20 MEMBERS 21 + MEMBERS LEADERSHIP & WILLINGNESS TO MAINTAIN PROJECTS NO INTEREST SOME INTEREST QUITE INTERESTED VERY EXCITED PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NO PARTICIPATION SOME PARTICIPATION MOST PARTICIPATION GARDEN HAS ONGOING PROGRAMS AND PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY NO PROGRAMS / ACCESSIBILITY SOME PROGRAMS / ACCESSIBILITY MANY PROGRAMS / HIGH ACCESSIBILITY

TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 0 5 10

INTRODUCTION The community garden resiliency strategies are a product of site analysis through fieldwork carried out by the design and engineering teams to address the opportunities for each community garden. These observations were paired with the expressed needs and desires of the gardeners during site visits and community engagement events. In the Garden Analysis pages following the toolkit, each site's existing conditions leads to a directed opportunities assessment.

The opportunities assessment is then referenced against the following toolkit to provide specific green infrastructure recommendations for each community garden's best method to enhance social and ecological resilience within its borders and across the Lower East Side.

DISTRICT-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS While strategies proposed in response to site-specific observations will help each garden individually improve resiliency, certain recommendations are not specific to site observations, but rather to the community garden district as a whole.

These strategies adhere to the same goals of the project, but are recommended for all the gardens, as well as the public right-of-way between each of them. The following strategies are therefore best considered for the entire study area, and are not listed on each Garden Analysis page.

PUBLIC HEALTH & RAT ABATEMENT Public perception of the community gardens is important to uphold. More visitors leads to livelier spaces and increased participation in the gardens. An important way to increase the public interest in participation relates to perceived cleanliness and organization. This can quickly be improved by ensuring existing elements in the garden (raised beds, structures, etc) are well-maintained and clean. Personal decorations or embellishments can be used to increase the charm of a garden, but at a certain level can also be seen as a way to privatize a space, leading to the perception that a garden is not willingly open to the public. In addition to perception from people, clean and organized spaces are also less inviting to pests.

The Lower East Side is dense and often home to pests like rats that eat trash left on the street, and burrow in gardens. Rats utilize almost all the community gardens either as passageways or homes, so techniques used to discourage this

BI OS W GR AL AD E S MI ING CR O PO GR LL IDS PO INAT OR RO U RA S P GAR IN AV DE W RA AT ERS NS ER IN G SIG AR HAR NA DEN VES TIN S SO GE G ILS ST & C RU OM C PO T SU ST URE ST S A TR INA EE BL S EG WE AR TL DE AN NS DS

COMMUNITY GARDEN RESILIENCY STRATEGY TOOLKIT

6TH & B COMMUNITY GARDEN 6BC BOTANICAL 9C COMMUNITY GARDEN 11BC SERENITY GARDEN 11TH STREET COMMUNITY GARDEN AVE B COMMUNITY GARDEN ALBERT'S GARDEN ALL PEOPLE'S GARDEN BRISAS DEL CARIBE CAMPOS CHILDREN'S GARDEN CHILDREN'S MAGICAL GARDEN COMMITTEE OF POOR PEOPLE'S GARDEN CREATIVE LITTLE GARDEN DE COLORES COMMUNITY YARD DIAS Y FLORES EARTH PEOPLE EASTSIDE OUTSIDE EL JARDIN DEL PARAISO EL SOL BRILLANTE EL SOL BRILLANTE JR FIFTH STREET SLOPE GARDEN FIREMAN'S MEMORIAL GARDEN FIRST STREET GARDEN FORSTYH GARDEN CONSERVANCY GENERATION X CULTURAL GARDEN GREEN OASIS & GILBERT'S HOPE GARDEN JARDIN LOS AMIGOS KENKELEBA SCULPTURE GARDEN LA PLAZA CULTURAL LE PETIT VERSAILLES LIZ CHRISTY LES PEOPLE'S CARE GARDEN MIRACLE GARDEN M'FINDA KALUNGA GARDEN ORCHARD ALLEY PARQUE DE TRANQUILIDAD PEACH TREE GARDEN RELAXATION GARDEN SAM AND SADIE KOENIG GARDEN SECRET GARDEN SIEMPRE VERDE GARDEN SUFFOLK STREET GARDEN TOYOTA CHILDREN'S GARDEN VAMOS A SEMBRAR TOTAL 10 15 17 33 11 43

5

21

7 16 32

3

2

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

25

should be employed across the district. If pests are perceived to not be a problem in a garden, having a clean and organized space can quickly can improve the willingness of people to enter and engage.

SIGNAGE AND EDUCATION Signage and other visible identification cues can have a large impact on the unification of an area. Signage could refer to boards with text or banners with images, but could also refer to other place-making visual identifiers like logos in public areas, distinctive or colorful paving, or color and shape schemes used on public infrastructure. These distinctive strategies can be implemented on the exterior of gardens, but could also be in other public areas within the community gardens district. Signs that explain the social and ecological significance of the community gardens can help establish public awareness and support for these garden spaces, and can also increase visitorship and ultimately membership. By using logos, patterns, shapes, or phrases that relate specifically to community gardens in the district, public recognition and long-term support will be expanded.

An art installation on the Lower East Side waterfront called "On a Fence" (2013) by Chat Travieso uses colors on an otherwise bare fence to indicate direction and create a sense of place. Photo: Chat Travieso 2013.

IMPROVED CONNECTIVITY Visitors who enjoy their experience at one community garden might be more likely to visit another if there were clear pathways or signs that directed them to other community gardens. Movement between the community gardens could be increased by a demarcated trail or path on the pavement of the sidewalk or road, or even signs or colors on publicly visible infrastructure in the district.

Improved connectivity would not only help establish movement between and utility of these gardens, but could also act as the underpinning for a larger system of connection like an audio tour, exercise trail, or ecology walk. Setting up a visible and encouraged way to connect each of these gardens will also serve to increase visitors and membership, as well as the public support for these spaces, contributing to the sense of participation and community that these gardens possess.

The yellow accented elements at the Creative Little Garden give it a noticeable street presence and create a distinctive identity for the space. This idea could be expanded into a district-wide community garden identity.

26

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES • Reduce erosion by slowing or redirecting runoff • Assist in even distribution of stormwater • Direct water to specific areas designed for retention, infiltration, or evapotranspiration • Efficiently move water from one area to another • Thicken topsoil layer and allow deeper-rooting plants to grow

H2O

GRADING OBJECTIVE Each of these grading strategies involve redirecting drainage patterns to efficiently control runoff and encourage infiltration, allowing stormwater to soak into the ground or be absorbed by vegetation.

H2O

Berms Berms can be used to redirect water, and also to slow it down, reducing erosion and runoff by giving the water more time to infiltrate into the ground. Berms are linear mounds of soil that run perpendicular to the downward slope, and are often planted to maintain structure and shape.

Channels Channels are efficient ways to distribute water from one point of a garden to another. Channels are either paved depressions in the ground or trenched, quickly moving water to designated areas in a garden rather than allowing it to infiltrate or pool. Water is then able to be stored or infiltrated in a specific place within the garden. Channels may also move water to an outlet or overflow system, as a volume management technique if there is too much water to infiltrate quickly enough in a given area.

Regrading Regrading redirects water by changing the slope of the ground to attain desired overland water flow vectors. Regrading involves a significant addition, subtraction, or restructuring of soil and fill to attain new landscape contours.

RESILIENCY OUTCOMES • Improve stormwater management efficiency on-site, reducing extent of damage during environmental disruption • Create opportunity for new plantings thereby expanding habitat and increasing biodiversity REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • Removing soil from the garden can require a cost-prohibitive Waste Classification Testing. Instead, move any excess soil from a grading project to another part of the garden MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • May require reshaping or restructuring if erosion occurs, but are ideally designed to resist erosion while reducing it across site • Requires clean-up of debris and sediment build-up • Avoid soil compaction when possible, particularly in areas where infiltration is intended • Vegetated berms may require weeding, pruning, and plant replacement • Mulching can reduce erosion, maintain soil moisture, and reduce weed growth TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • Assess topography and drainage flow vectors to ensure placement and orientation are properly integrated into existing landscape contours • If possible, use excess soil from other excavation in garden to regrade. If supplementation is necessary, use fill soil for structural contouring and grading • Ensure berms are the proper elevation to manage the amount of upstream runoff for a 5-year storm, a 5.95 inch/hour rain event • Ensure channel width and depth is sufficient for the drainage area volume of a 5-year storm • Ensure that regraded slopes do not exceed 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), and those that exceed 3:1 are planted with groundcover or designed to resist erosion GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

27

for lighting outdoor community areas could significantly increase a community garden's ability to provide for its community's daily needs as well as its resilience to disaster or disruption.

Water Pumps Irrigation can save time and energy in watering a garden, as well as significant amounts of water over time. Some irrigation methods allow for slower and more direct watering, providing deeper infiltration and better absorption. Irrigation is most effectively controlled if connected to a monitoring system with a pump; however this is only possible in a garden with an electrical connection.

MICROGRIDS

H2O

OBJECTIVE Microgrids are electrical power grids that generate and utilize power on-site, without connecting to the municipal power grid. The most environmentally sustainable systems derive clean energy from renewable energy harvesting systems. Batteries connected to these tools allow for the storage of energy, alleviating the issue of intermittent renewable energy supply. Solar power tends to be the most financially feasible source of energy for small sites that have a southern-facing vantage of the sky. Microgrids are independent of the main power grid system, and can therefore supply energy to a community during an emergency. Provided that the microgrid has access to its renewable energy source, battery, or generator, power remains consistent during a blackout that may occur on the main grid.

Charging Stations Charging stations use batteries charged by renewable energy to power-up the batteries in mobile devices. While often these are used for cellphones, they can also be used for emergency equipment, acting as a critical service hub during a disaster. Cell phones aid in communication during emergencies, and charging stations can charge roughly five devices simultaneously, and are good for approximately 30 complete charges of a smartphone.

Lighting Lighting can be costly when used for day-to-day operations like meetings, gatherings/events, or safety purposes; however it can be critical in making lively and well-programmed community spaces. Providing the energy required

28

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Wi-Fi Internet access serves as a great means for communication and connection. Wi-Fi networks can also be critical in disaster relief and correspondence.

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES • Lighting can increase safety of a community space • Offering internet access or power to charge mobile devices can increase visitorship to a garden • Power used for irrigation or wetland circulation can increase efficiency in watering, decrease excess water usage, and reduce the time it takes to water • Renewable energy may take gardens off the grid, offering energy independence RESILIENCY OUTCOMES • Power for lighting can increase gardening hours, extending the usage of the garden into the night, creating new programming opportunities • Offering internet access or power to charge mobile devices can be critical during an emergency or disaster, especially if there are outages on the main grid • Charging stations can bring communities together for social utilities based around electronic devices or internet that can build long-term social capital MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • Solar panels may require cleaning to ensure maximum effectiveness • Any electrical issues that arise may require an expert TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • Maximum sun exposure requires southern-facing orientation with minimal blockage for as many hours as possible • Stand-alone power-generating stations will require structural footings and excavation

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES • Provision of habitat to pollinator species that regulate ecological productivity • Pollination of flowering plants that produce food in gardens • Increased biodiversity • Pest mitigation through habitat provision for competitors or predators to common pests • Maintenance of soil and water quality through reduction of erosion and runoff POLLEN

POLLINATOR GARDENS

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

OBJECTIVE Pollinator gardens are rich with plants that provide food to pollinators like bees, butterflies, birds, and even bats. Pollinators ensure the health of other elements in the ecosystem and help NECTAR regulate ecological productivity. Pollinators enable plants that rely on pollination to reproduce, as it is a necessary step in the production of seeds and fruit. Though intended for plant reproduction, seeds and fruit are additionally an important food source for wildlife, who often have a role in dispersal of seeds. This cyclical provision of resource is an important part of a well-functioning environment. Planting pollinator gardens is therefore not only beneficial to existing pollinators, but to the greater ecoregion. The co-benefits and provisional ecosystem services attributed to an increase in biodiversity are also associated with social and economic enhancements. Urban community gardens are prime sites to plant pollinator gardens because of the diversity and density of plant species.

RESILIENCY OUTCOMES • Increased biodiversity enhances resistance to disease and resilience to environmental disturbance MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • Ensure the proper soil moisture conditions are met to maximize productivity • The first establishment year will require more thorough inspection of plant health, after which less examination will be necessary • Pruning and deadheading are necessary parts of keeping plantings healthy • Weeding and mulching help reduce competition and maintain soil quality TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • Establishing the longest possible blooming season is critical in planting a pollinator garden. Making sure there is at least one plant species in bloom at any given time increases the garden's ability to provide habitat and food year-round • Choosing the right species for the conditions of the garden is important in keeping the garden healthy: ensure plant species are selected for their tolerance of environmental conditions on-site

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

29

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES • Improves water quality through physical filtration • Reduces stormwater runoff volume, thereby reducing the volume of Combined Sewage Overflows (CSO) • Allows for groundwater recharge • Increases albedo and air circulation, thereby decreasing surface temperature and the heat-related emissions that come with it H2O

POROUS PAVING

LOS ADOQUINES

OBJECTIVE Porous paving, porous cement, and porous pavers allow water to infiltrate a paved surface through holes or pores within paving surfaces, or the H2O cracks between the pavers. Pavers are designed to have small gaps in the jointing, and therefore maintain stability and lode-bearing capacities despite the small voids. Beneath the paving surface lies a layer of aggregate or gravel that temporarily stores stormwater. The depth of this layer is determined by how much water storage is necessary, and usually ranges from 6-18 inches.

Underlying the layer of stone is a geotextile, before the existing soil of the site.

The geotextile helps maintain the separation of the stone and soil layers, to prevent sedimentation and filling of the voids between the aggregate particles that store the water. Water that permeates the surface of the porous paving or pavers passes through the gravel and geotextile layers and is able to be absorbed into the ground, increasing infiltration and groundwater recharge, while reducing runoff and erosion. Porous pavers also reduce the amount of heat generated from the sun on a given paved area. Because of the small spaces between porous pavers, increased surface area and air circulation allows for cooling of the paved area and therefore reduced Urban Heat Island effect. The cooling effect of porous pavement is associated with reduced energy use and carbon emission.

30

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • Due to maintenance considerations, the Department of Transportation has special guidelines for application of porous paving in the right-of-way and may require a Memorandum of Understanding for maintenance • Department of Transportation has street design guidelines for paving in the right-of-way • Department of Environmental Protection has standards for rightof-way pre-cast concrete panels of porous pavement • Department of Environmental Protection has standards for on-site porous and permeable surfaces • Department of Parks and Recreation has considerations and procedures for excavation underneath a tree canopy MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • Removal of sediments that build up in the gaps of porous pavers is required semi-annually or after a large storm. This can be achieved by using vacuums and power washers.

• If so desired, pavers can be chosen to intentionally allow groundcover to grow between the cracks of the surface, which in turn requires weeding, trimming, and watering during dry periods • Winter application of salt for de-icing should not be practiced on porous pavers, and the passing of snow-clearing tools like shovels should be done with care so as not to catch the edge of a paver TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • Maintenance of porous pavers can be reduced if a vegetated buffer is installed upstream, so as to pre-treat any runoff that may flow onto the surface • The soil beneath a porous paver installation should have a drainage rate of at least 6 inches per hour.

• Porous pavement is not recommended if there is less than 3 feet of existing soil between the bottom of the aggregate layer and the bedrock or groundwater layer

SOILS & COMPOST H2O OBJECTIVE Soils, as the basis for growth in a garden, require a great deal of care. Soil health directly impacts the productivity and lifespan of plants, as well as absorption rates of water from both rain and irrigation. Healthy soil with lots of organic matter can hold onto more water for longer periods of time, therefore slowing infiltration, making it available for absorption by plant roots and providing nutrients to important microbacteria, worms, and other soilcultivating organisms.

Compost Composting provides a localized way to utilize garden and organic waste while generating rich soil that can be used for planting and fertilization throughout the garden. Using compost in gardening increases the soil's ability to retain water and nutrients and can also stabilize the pH of the soil. Soils that retain water better end up reducing erosion and runoff because they can more quickly absorb water that would otherwise flow off the surface of the soil. Increasing nutrients and organic matter in soil by using compost also increases the population of beneficial organisms that contribute to plant health, degradation of toxins, and even carbon dioxide sequestration.

Phytoremediation Urban soils, particularly in post-industrial cities, are often contaminated with toxins that are dangerous for human health, especially in a garden that undergoes soil turnover and tilling and heightened water flow from irrigation. Water can often spread toxins to other parts of the site or into the groundwater, proliferating

contamination more rapidly in the water table. Toxins can also migrate onto a site through groundwater. Toxins can enter the soil from unintentional leaks or illegal dumping that may have occurred in the past, but can also reach the soil by traveling through the air from industrial sites, construction sites, or just from passing vehicles. Non point-source pollution as an indirect contaminator of soil can quickly compound over time in an urban setting. These toxins can inhibit plant growth and minimize the abilities of important soil cycling organisms like earthworms and beneficial microbacteria. Some species of plants are able to absorb toxins in the soil and either store them in plant tissues or break them down into benign compounds. Phytoremediation is a method of utilizing specific plant species to remove pollutants or toxins in urban soils, rendering the soil more fertile for planting, and much safer for gardening. Phytoremediation takes time; however it is a lower-cost alternative than other methods of soil remediation, and can be carried out by gardeners.

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES • Improved soil quality and soil organism habitat • Cleaner water runoff and infiltration • Improvement of water storage capacity in soil RESILIENCY OUTCOMES • Potential for educational opportunities and programming • Organic matter collection and creation of healthy planting medium REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • In the case of phytoremediation, for plant species that are not able to break down toxins, hazardous waste removal will be required for disposal of biomass MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • Composting requires turnover and aeration every 7-10 days • Healthy compost requires maintaining an adequate carbon/nitrogen ratio, requiring careful consideration of what is put into the pile at any given time • Phytoremediation zones should be maintained and cared for just like other parts of the garden. Irrigation should remain consistent with the species' needs TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • Consider allocating an area for a compost heap that is out of the way of normal programming in the garden • Avoid consumption of plants used for phytoremeditation, and prevent wildlife from consumption GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

31

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING OBJECTIVE Considerable amounts of water can be captured H2O off of roofs or other raised surfaces by using a gutter and directing it into a storage tank, rain barrel, or adjacent garden. Rainwater that would normally flow off roofs and create runoff, scouring, or erosion, which can also weaken the footings or foundations of structures, can be collected to reduce runoff and store for future water use. Water supply in gardens can be critical during dry months.

Water storage also allows a garden to become less dependent on municipal water sources, both helping to reduce the cost of the water utility bill, as well as reducing the demand of potable, treated water for use in irrigation. Water treatment is energy-intensive and expensive, thus decreased demand can actually provide carbon-emission related reductions as well. Elevating rain storage tanks makes it possible to have gravity-fed irrigation in gardens through drip lines controlled with a spigot or automated irrigation valve system.

Rain Harvesting Devices Rain barrels often vary in size depending on the roof catchment area and the goals for water collection. The way in which water is conveyed to a rain barrel also depends on the volume of water being harvested, or the aesthetic interests of the gardener. Rainwater harvesting systems can be customized to suit a specific site's needs and conditions, or constructed to fulfil certain educational or aesthetic goals. The barrels themselves can be customized as well, to serve as elements of an iconographic campaign or district identity–a Gardens Rising identity for example.

32

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Roof Repair Many of the community gardens in the Lower East Side have unused roof catchment area from tool sheds or shade structures that could be optimized for rainwater harvesting. Roofs can have significant catchment areas that are not fit for rainwater harvesting due to the materials on the roof being in poor condition, or the slant of the roof not being suitable for rainwater catchment. Piping or gutter malfunctions due to cracks from freeze-thaw cycles or aging of sealants and joints can cause rainwater harvesting systems to stop working. Fixing these issues can be expensive, however, the long-term benefits often outweigh the capital cost.

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES • Reduction in erosion and scouring that weakens foundations or footings • Reduction in runoff and pollution entering the Combined Sewer and contributing to CSO • Reduction in demand of potable, filtered water from the municipal system, reducing cost on the garden, and reducing associated environmental demand in energy expenditures for water treatment • Can create an iconographic identity that can boost community garden cohesion REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • Governor's Office for Storm Recovery requires installations to be fixed in place • Consult with the Department of Buildings for current rainwater harvesting rules MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • Ensure the rain barrel has a screen at the opening to keep debris from entering the tank • Cover and seal barrel to ensure mosquitoes and algae do not populate the tank • Utilize the water in the rain barrel before the next storm, to ensure the tank is not overloaded, and to avoid allowing water to stand for too long in the tank • Systems must be disconnected in the winter and/or ensure they are empty of standing water at all times TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • A "first flush" system may be a necessary addition if contaminants or pollution from roofing materials or urban particulate matter build-up is a concern • Ensure the tank(s) is/are big enough to hold the volume of a 1-inch storm by measuring the area of the roof • Create an overflow system, ideally into a vegetated area or rain garden

H2O

RAIN GARDENS OBJECTIVE Rain gardens are vegetated depressions in the soil H2O located in low-lying areas so as to collect a large quantity of runoff from a given drainage area. Rain gardens are designed to infiltrate stormwater at a rapid rate, usually allowing water to dissipate through infiltration or evapotranspiration within 12-24 hours. They are usually comprised of about 18 inches of growing medium, ideally sandy loam soil, underlain with a geotextile fabric, followed by at least 18 inches of gravel underlayer. The geotextile prevents sediments from the topsoil from entering into the gravel underlayer, keeping the two layers separate. Plants in a rain garden are specifically selected for their ability to withstand inundation, while also being able to survive in drier soil conditions between rain events. They have deep roots, in order to absorb and evapotranspire a great deal of water.

Plant species and soil compositions are chosen for their ability to filter pollutants collected in the rain garden from runoff. Microbial populations as well as insects and worms in a rain garden's soil are critical components to helping filter and cleanse the water and maintain soil quality.

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES • Rain gardens reduce runoff and infiltrate stormwater effectively • Plants in rain gardens and the bacteria in their soils filter pollutants from runoff, cleansing the water that eventually infiltrates into aquifers • The soils in rain gardens are able to absorb and hold water for longer periods of time when plants are present • Rain gardens create hydrological and soil conditions that allow for specific flora that might not otherwise tolerate a garden's landscape conditions • Plantings in a rain garden have a co-benefit of providing habitat and food source for wildlife REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • The Department of Environmental Protection has design standards and guidelines for on-site bioretention rain gardens • The Department of Parks and Recreation regulates proposed plant species and protects existing plantings and trees • If in the public right-of-way, the Department of Transportation has a street design manual for design standards and guidelines MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • Monitoring is necessary to maintain plant health and ensure species success • Remove weeds that will compete for water, and remove debris that may build up • During longer periods without rain, watering vegetation in a rain garden can avoid plants entering states of dormancy • Depending on the species, plants may need extra care during winter, and may not function as efficiently • Avoid soil compaction in the rain garden, and scarify the topsoil to preserve optimal infiltration rates TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • Rain gardens are optimal for small areas that do not have space for larger stormwater treatment installations • Initial soil composition should have a high level of organic matter • Ensure infiltration rates are greater than 1/2 inch per hour, and that the area completely drains after 24 hours • Maximum slope for rain gardens should not exceed 3:1 • Check dams or berms may be required for steeper sides to reduce erosion

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

33

occurs, but inform the actions that are carried out during a disaster. Signs can help navigate people to safe places and inform them of necessary procedures in graphical language that is universally understood.

Well-being Signage can be used to discuss the ways in which nature effects health, both in an individual and in a community. By using elements in a garden to serve as examples for this, people can familiarize themselves with the ways in which people and the environment are interconnected. Community gardens are a perfect venue for suggestions about healthy living, sustained wellness, and physical fitness.

ND EDA S

LOS HUM

FILT RAT

La Capta

ción

E

El Depó

sito

NGS

HA

Las Siem

bras

TA T

G

BI

COO LIN

H2O

LES

ción

ENT

ER

STO RAG PLA NTI

ION

La Filtra

W AT

SIGNAGE

WETLA CAT CHM

El Enfri

OBJECTIVE Signs are a means of portraying information to a community in order to facilitate knowledge and awareness about a specific topic.

amiento

H2O

Ecological Environmental signage can enrich the experience of a landscape by creating a more profound level of interaction while enabling a user to better understand their surroundings, and therefore interact with them on a deeper level. Signs that include details that may not be objectively apparent or express the functions of cycles or processes that occur over long periods of time can help form an appreciation for natural systems that wouldn't necessarily arise without that information provided. Diagrams or images that express these systems in a visual way can additionally help solidify concepts. Signage in this way can promote longer-lasting relationships between the users and the landscape, and catalyze a deeper respect for its subjects that could lead to increased stewardship and advocacy.

Emergency Community gardens serve as hubs for social gatherings and cultural events, but can also become active community spaces during times of emergency. In both the bringing together of a community to create social support systems and the physical conversion of community area for disaster relief proceedings, community spaces can have a dramatic effect in increasing the resilience of a neighborhood.

Community cohesion has shown to dramatically reduce vulnerability by quickening disaster response and community resilience. Signage not only helps establish a collective identity for the spaces in which this community coherence

34

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES • Important information is easily portrayed at all times • Interactions between visitors and the landscape are enhanced, and new interest may result • Gardens are well labelled and more established within the community RESILIENCY OUTCOMES • Landscapes are more deeply understood and therefore better appreciated by users, creating motivation for stewardship and advocacy • Community is educated about environmental systems and/or emergency preparedness • Disaster response is streamlined and efficient REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • Department of Parks and Recreation regulates sign design and content • Americans with Disabilities Act has signage designs and considerations MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • Weather ages outdoor signs quickly, and repair or maintenance may be required • Vandalism may occur on signs that are accessible to the public at all times with limited surveillance TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • Signage should be well-integrated into the site, both in placement and size • Signs should be entirely visible to ensure maximum usage and interpretation • Materials used for outdoor signage should be capable of aging and weathering without deteriorating • Signs should be well lit if used at night, and not placed in overly shady areas

The transformation of outdoor space into a programmable social utility can enhance the social capital of a neighborhood by bringing together more people by providing a venue to hold cultural events. When social capital is increased in a neighborhood, the community sees an enormous boost in social resilience that can have life-saving effects through social networks during environmental disturbances, or other emergencies like terrorist attacks.

H2O

STRUCTURES OBJECTIVE In addition to managing landscape performance to H2O meet ecological or aesthetic needs, structures can be used to augment or supplement environmental functions or to procure additional benefits. They are also used as spaces to gather, which can increase the social capital of a community garden.

Structures can also be constructed to supply a greater roof catchment area for rainwater harvesting.

Rainwater Landscapes can sometimes become more efficient in producing a desired outcome when built installations are used to intensify natural processes.

Sometimes these outcomes can be met by constructing systems that harness or collect natural resources efficiently. In the case of rainwater harvesting, structures can be used to increase the catchment area of a given site, and even slope to help route water into rain barrels. While the roofs of garden sheds and pergolas are efficient because they are multi-purpose, there are other structures that more closely resemble art that are specifically designed to capture rainwater. In effect, any raised surface in a garden, like a table or benches, can be custom-designed to act multifunctionally, harvesting and storing rainwater as a secondary function.

Social Hubs Gathering spaces can become better-defined, more inviting, and multi-seasonal if given a basic built form. Outdoor structures can be as simple as light poles with guy wires and canvas canopies, or incorporate roofing and walls.

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES • Increased rainwater harvesting surface area with greater volume stored for future use on site • Longer lifespan of tools or equipment placed in a structure used for storage RESILIENCY OUTCOMES • Social cohesion around common space created by structures used for gatherings or events • Aesthetic or programming enhancement to community gardens that provide new or sustained interest in membership and maintenance REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • GreenThumb has a Gardenhaus Guidebook for all structures in community gardens • GreenThumb requires that all structures built in community gardens must adhere to the Department of Building guidelines.

The relevant guidelines administered by Department of Buildings are outlined in the Gardenhaus Guidebook MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • Rainwater harvesting system components like gutters or filters require regular cleaning of debris build-up • Structures weather and require maintenance after time TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • Determine the programming of the structure and how much space it will utilize in the garden, ensuring there is ample room allocated both for the structure itself and for the programming it will provide • Structures may require excavation for grading and levelling, and may require footings or foundations

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

35

Hydroponics Hydroponinc gardening is a method of growing plants (usually food) in a controlled medium, outside of the soil. Hydroponic systems require structural components of tubes through which a controlled medium of water and nutrients are cycled with pumps. Hydroponics typically require less space for each plant than would planting in a raised bed and often growing periods are shorter; however, due to the structural, maintenance, and energy requirements, hydroponics are typically uncommon at the community garden level.

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS OBJECTIVE STAGHORN SUMAC Planting particular species that are well-adapted to the area not only increases local biodiversity PIN OAK but requires minimal maintenance and enhances MARSH resilience to environmental disturbances typical of ELDER the region, like drought, heat waves, severe storms, or coastal flooding. Ecosystem services associated with productive landscapes have economic and social benefits that extend beyond ecological attributes, improving human health and well-being.

Las Siembras

El Enfriamiento

Native Gardens Native plants are evolutionarily well-adapted to thrive in local environmental conditions. This reduces the level of maintenance required in the garden, including pest control and excess use of water. Native groundcovers require reduced watering and use of pesticides or fertilizers and improve the quality of the soil.

Native plants also provide habitat for local fauna, strengthening local ecological productivity by reducing competition with invasive species. This in turn enhances resilience to environmental disturbance, especially if native gardens are planted with high diversity.

Salt-Tolerant Planting Certain species are more resistant to saline conditions, and are therefore able to withstand inundation due to storm surge and coastal flooding. By planting salttolerant species, gardens increase resilience to flood damage in the reduction of the amount of time it takes for the garden to restore to health after inundation.

While this helps maintain habitat for local fauna after a disturbance, it also reduces time and money devoted to cleanup and recovery.

36

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES (IN-GROUND) • Lower maintenance needs and costs • Less water required to irrigate • Improved soil and water quality • Reduction in erosion and runoff • Increased habitat for local fauna RESILIENCY OUTCOMES • Strengthened habitat and ecological productivity with in-ground sustainable gardens • Enhanced resilience to environmental disturbance • Improved health and well-being of community • More efficient and year-round food supply with hydroponics MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • Weeding, watering, and mulching sustainable gardens is necessary to upkeep plant health • Utilizing compost can increase health of plantings TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • Assess the shade and moisture levels of the planting site so as to ensure proper species selection • Native plant species will be acclimated and therefore most successful if they have also been grown locally

RESILIENCY OUTCOMES • Enhance community health and wellness REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS • The Department of Parks and Recreation has a Tree Planting Standards that include species selection, pest management, and maintenance • GreenThumb outlines regulations for trees in the GreenThumb Gardener's Handbook

TREES OBJECTIVE Trees regulate the temperature of an area by providing shade and therefore cooling during warm seasons and insulation during cold seasons, thereby reducing the financial and emissionsrelated costs of heating and cooling. In addition, some tree species can help reduce structural damage to structures in a garden by acting as wind buffers during storms.

Trees can absorb a great deal of water during a rain event, holding water with their canopy and absorbing it through their roots, reducing runoff. Mature trees transpire enough water to uptake between 1 and 6 times the volume of a standard 50-gallon rain barrel per day. Tree roots help maintain soil structure and therefore reduce erosion. Trees act as a filter for air pollution, absorbing gaseous pollutants from the air and collecting particulate matter on its surfaces, therefore increasing the health of the community. The aesthetic enhancement that trees provide can bolster a community's mental health and well-being, linked to overall happiness and productivity.

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES • Regulate the temperature of an area, potentially saving on money and emissions-related costs • Reduce Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect • Manage stormwater runoff and improve water quality • Maintain soil structure and prevent erosion • Improve air quality

MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • Some trees may require special care during the first years of establishment • Watering trees the correct amount is important and will depend on the species–some are susceptible to rot if overwatered, while some need high soil moisture content • Mulching around trees can help maintain soil moisture, reduce compaction, and prevent weeds from growing to compete for water • Urban trees are more susceptible to disease and may require periodic health inspections • Proper pruning may be required if foot traffic around the tree calls for removal of overhead branches. Make sure to properly prune a tree if this is necessary • In areas where food production, rainwater harvesting, and/or solar energy collection are taking place, pruning trees may be necessary TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • Diversity of tree species can increase resiliency to disease, pests, and weather-related disturbances • Selecting a tree species that will do well in a given site is important for its long-term health and likelihood of succeeding • Ensure trees have proper room to grow and will not become a nuisance to paved areas or when they grow older • Understand the potential size of the mature tree's canopy and plan accordingly to avoid maintenance costs later • Avoid planting trees in areas of the garden used for food production or solar energy collection, because shade inhibits these activities • In parts of the garden programmed to be natural areas, a mix of canopy, understory, and groundcover creates good habitat for local fauna as well as good conditions for a healthy microbial community in the soil

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

37

SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES • Can efficiently collect and manage stormwater onsite, reducing the effects of CSO • Filters water and runoff RESILIENCY OUTCOMES • Provides habitat to riparian species, increasing biodiversity in areas that don't already have aquatic systems

WETLANDS

H2O

WETLANDS OBJECTIVE Constructed wetlands collect water during a rain event but unlike a rain garden, they remain saturated, due to an impermeable barrier that H2O prevents infiltration. If constructed correctly, they are a low-maintenance strategy used to treat runoff through natural bioremediary processes that break down pollutants and filter water. Constructed wetlands are located at a low point in the drainage area so as to collect the greatest possible runoff volume. Typically wetlands have an inlet and an outlet, as water is intended to circulate through wetlands, avoiding stagnation and encouraging the greatest possible volume of water to be filtered by the system. Plants, soil or gravel substrate, and even organisms in a wetland are able to filter water while preserving the state of the wetland. Biofilms made up of microorganisms live in soils and on wetland plants and remove pollutants, while other organisms living in wetlands can provide pest management. Wetlands additionally provide a specific habitat to riparian species that would not normally be found in other parts of a garden and therefore can increase the species diversity and resilience of a landscape.

38

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS • Wetland plants and organisms are sensitive to pesticides and herbicides; avoid usage of these within the drainage area of the wetland, or if possible, entirely • Wetlands cannot withstand long periods of drought–while they can tolerate lower levels of water than usual conditions for short periods, ensure the wetland stays saturated throughout the year • Wetland microbial activity in the soil substrate can create enough heat to resist freezing over in the winter so long as the surface water level is high enough. Raising the water level before winter can ensure the surface layer is deep enough to prevent ice from reaching the bottom • Excess sedimentation may occur around inlet which may require removal TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS • Ensure the waterproof lining leaves enough freeboard space to accommodate for increased capacity to withstand heavy inflows of stormwater without leaking • Liners must be able to withstand puncturing from gravel used in the wetland or roots and be resistant to UV exposure and frost • Liner materials often used are EPDM rubber, HDPE plastic, or PVC. Thickness varies between 0.5mm and 2mm • Riprap or gravel can be used to reduce erosion around the inlet and outlet areas of a wetland • Wetlands should be designed so they can be drained for any maintenance or reconstruction needed–if an outflow isn't possible, a pump may be used • Wetlands with depths less than 3 feet tend to provide habitat to more diverse plant and animal species, while wetlands 6 feet or deeper will not freeze over and can therefore host fish populations

mixture that is underlaid with a storage layer made of stone. They are usually about 5 feet deep in total, allowing water to infiltrate through the installation before entering the soil surrounding the bioswale. The plants and trees planted in the bioswale typically have deep roots, designed to manage water through fast evapotranspiration and interception.

RIGHT-OF-WAY BIOSWALES

BIOSWALE BIOSWALE

H2O

FILTRATION La Filtración

SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN THE PROJECT DISTRIBUTION La Distribución In addition to addressing infiltration-based strategies within the gardens, the public right-of- El Drenaje way outside of each community garden was taken Las Siembras into consideration for right-of-way-bioswales (ROWB). The proposals made from this process for the Gardens Rising project will be some of Manhattan's first ROWBs. Because stormwater infiltration rates within the community gardens are very high, the vast majority of the rainwater that hits the community gardens is detained within them. Infiltration across the whole Lower East Side site can therefore be most enhanced by installing bioswales that interface the stormwater system at points of concentrated flow: in the gutters outside the community gardens. By placing the bioswales in front of the community gardens, the boundaries of the community gardens are in effect extended into the public realm. This not only increases visibility of the community gardens, but also serves to demonstrate an additional means by which the gardens are providing environmental benefit to the city. Bioswales’ infiltration volumes can be fairly accurately quantified and therefore they provide a measurable reduction of stormwater entering the sewer and contributing to CSOs. ROWBs are designed to capture and manage stormwater runoff from impervious right-of-way areas lying upstream. During a rain event, rainwater runs down the gutter and into an inlet designed to redirect runoff into the bioswale basin. Once water enters through a curb cut at the inlet of the bioswale, water is directed into a shallow depression of soil that runs the length of the installation. From this depression, water quickly infiltrates through the various layers of soil. Bioswales usually consist of a vegetated basin with 18 inches of an engineered sandy soil

SITING THE BIOSWALES The New York City offices for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as well as Department of Transportation (DOT) issued siting guidelines pertaining to conditions appropriate for ROWBs on the sidewalk. In accordance with the siting guidelines, an initial walkthrough conducted by the design and engineering teams identified a series of sites throughout the Lower East Side. The sidewalk conditions unique to each identified site resulted in the varying proposed dimensions. The initial proposed locations were additionally analyzed for their

A rendering of what Stanton Street might look like if the existing empty tree pit is converted into a bioswale in front of Siempre Verde Garden

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

39

stormwater catchment capacity based on geographic information system (GIS) data for their corresponding Tributary Drainage Area (TDA). The TDAs for the proposed locations were constructed based on stormwater runoff flow directions and catch basin locations.

The identified sites from the initial walk-through were then evaluated by the DEP, DOT, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forestry Service and GreenThumb, and the Borough President's Office on an agency walkthough led by the design and engineering teams. The sites were examined for their compliance with multiple agency siting guidelines, interaction with existing infrastructures and tree pits, and location within their TDA. GARDEN OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS As a part of the agreement process for the proposed ROWBs, ownership (pertaining to the lease-holders of the community gardens) and maintenance of the ROWBs has been placed on the gardens. This is formalized by a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the gardens receiving bioswales. Maintenance and stewardship of the bioswales therefore is the responsibility of the community gardeners: in effect these bioswales act like extensions of the gardens in the public right-of-way. Maintenance, however, not only involves watering and replanting where necessary, but also requires ensuring that the stormwater absorption capability of the ROWBs remains fully functional. Ensuring this ROWB efficacy necessitates removing sedimentation in the inlet and outlet, as well as retaining the surface swale topography within the basin.

Because community gardeners are responsible for maintenance, establishing community gardeners' understanding of the requirements is critical before conducting geotechnical investigations on each of the proposed sites. To facilitate a more thorough understanding of the benefits and requirements of bioswales, several meetings were held with gardeners to discuss what ROWBs are and how they function, and covered the requirements for maintenance and stewardship.

After the meetings, gardeners belonging to those community gardens with proposed ROWBs voted almost unanimously to move forward with geotechnical investigations in front of the garden.

WE Design explains to gardeners of La Plaza Cultural the environmental benefits, sidewalk installation dimensions, and maintenance procedures of a potential bioswale in front of La Plaza Cultural.

40

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

GEOTECHNICAL PROCEEDINGS Geotechnical investigations are necessary prior to installing ROWBs to determine the soil characteristics, soil permeability rates, depth to the groundwater table, and if bedrock will be encountered at the proposed location. For a location to be feasible for a ROWB, the soil surrounding the proposed ROWB locations must have adequate infiltration rates. The geotechnical work for the Gardens Rising project follows the Procedure Governing Limited Geotechnical Investigation for Green Infrastructure Practices (Dec 2015) outlined by DEP. Before proceeding with the geotechnical work, historical borings, water, and sewer data are assessed near the proposed ROWB locations. Underground utilities, such as gas lines, are also considered prior to drilling, using a ground penetrating radar (GPR) during the geotechnical work. The following cost estimates are sourced from current contracts with both EG&R and eDesign Dynamics boring programs for 10 borings for ROWBs and Porous Pavers.

A geotechnical boring procedure underway in Greenpoint for bioswale feasibility in the sidewalk

EG&R BORING PROGRAM

UNITS

QUANTITY

UNIT COST

SUBTOTAL

MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION

EACH LOCATION

10

$350

$3,500

PERMITS & AGENCY APPROVALS

EACH LOCATION

10

$150

$1,500

HEALTH AND SAFETY PLANS

EACH PROJECT

1

$1,000

$1,000

SOIL BORINGS WITH SPLIT SPOON SAMPLING (20FT)

EACH BORING

10

$1,000

$10,000

SOIL BORINGS FOR PERMEABILITY TESTING (10 FT)

EACH BORING

10

$1,200

$12,000

ASPHALT/CEMENT PATCH AND BACKFILLING OF BORINGS

LINEAR FEET

300

$5.50

$1,650

UTILITY CLEARANCE/GROUND PENETRATING RADAR

EACH LOCATION

10

$450

$4,500

TOTAL

$34,150

EDD ROWB COST

UNITS

QUANTITY

UNIT COST

SUBTOTAL

PROJECT OVERSIGHT

DAYS

10

$800

$8,000

DATA REVIEW & SYNTHESIS

HOURS

20

$100

$2,000

DATA REVIEW & SYNTHESIS

HOURS

5

TOTAL COST

$150

$750

TOTAL

$10,750 $44,900

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

41

PROPOSED BIOSWALE LOCATIONS, SIZE, AND VOLUME OF STORMWATER MANAGED VALUES BASED ON VOLUMES FOR A 1-INCH RAIN EVENT WITHIN THE TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE AREA (TDA) EASTSIDE OUTSIDE COMMUNITY GARDEN 1" TDA: 13,001 GAL 1: 13' X 5' (1,459 GAL) (11% MANAGEMENT)

1

EL SOL BRILLANTE / EL SOL BRILLANTE JR 1" TDA: 12,664 GAL 1

2

3

1: 15' X 5' (1,683 GAL) (13% MANAGEMENT) 2: 20' X 5' (2,244 GAL) (18% MANAGEMENT) 3: 11' X 5' (1,234 GAL) (10% MANAGEMENT)

DE COLORES COMMUNITY YARD 1" TDA: 13,060 GAL 1

1

1: 14' X 5' (1,571 GAL) (12% MANAGEMENT)

SIEMPRE VERDE GARDEN 1" TDA: 9,881 GAL 1: 13' X 5' (1,459 GAL) (15% MANAGEMENT)

42

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

CAMPOS 1" TDA: 20,638 GAL 1: 13' X 5' (1,459 GAL) (7% MANAGEMENT) 2: 14' X 5' (1,571 GAL) (8% MANAGEMENT)

1

2

11BC COMMUNITY GARDEN 1" TDA: 13,442 GAL

1

1: 13' X 5' (1,459 GAL) (11% MANAGEMENT)

9TH STREET COMMUNITY GARDEN 1" TDA: 5,580 GAL

1

1: 13' X 5' (1,459 GAL) (26% MANAGEMENT) 2: 13' X 5' (1,459 GAL) (26% MANAGEMENT)

2

LA PLAZA CULTURÁL 1" TDA: 17,721 GAL

1

1: 10' X 5' (1,122 GAL) (6% MANAGEMENT) 2: 20' X 5' (2,244 GAL) (12% MANAGEMENT)

EL JARDÍN DEL PARAISO 1" TDA: 7,233 GAL 1: 13' X 5' (1,459 GAL) (20% MANAGEMENT) 2: 13' X 5' (1,459 GAL) (20% MANAGEMENT)

1

2

2

COST ESTIMATION Opinion of probably costs were estimated using the combined project experience of eDesign Dynamics and WE Design on similar projects and with consultation with steering committee members with relevant experience. Costs for proposed projects were determined by units of square feet (SF) or for each individual element (such as a rain barrel), as a way to scale project costs based on size and extent of installation. Unit costs for specific products or product types are derived by quotes from manufacturers. Additional fees were added to incorporate shipping and handling of materials. Unit costs were also separated into 2 categories, the first outlining material costs with the assumption that transportation and installation of strategies are operated by gardeners, and the second category assuming the prevailing wage fees that are required for capital projects through federal funds. An additional 30% contingency has been added to the total for each community garden's associated costs table to accommodate for any extra mobilization or permitting fees. Because rat abatement and safety & public health improvements are being proposed for every community garden, they have been added as a line-item to each community garden's associated cost table. To the right is a breakdown of the pricing system applied to the project cost estimation matrices for each of the green infrastructure recommendations listed on the Garden Analysis pages.

SUSTAINABILITY & RESILIENCE STRATEGIES STORMWATER ABSORPTION ROW BIOSWALES POROUS CONCRETE POROUS PAVERS RAIN GARDENS WETLAND GRADING RAINWATER HARVESTING RAIN BARREL: "SMALL SYSTEM" RAIN BARREL, GUTTERS: "MEDIUM SYSTEM" ROOF ADJUSTMENT, RAIN BARREL, GUTTERS, IRRIGATION: "LARGE SYSTEM" SMALL PRE-FAB STRUCTURE MEDIUM PRE-FAB STRUCTURE LARGE PRE-FAB STRUCTURE HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS GARDEN EXTENSION SUSTAINABLE & POLLINATOR GARDENS, SOILS & COMPOST TREE PLANTING SOCIAL IMPROVEMENTS SOLAR LIGHTING: PATH LIGHTS SOLAR LIGHTING: ACCENT LIGHTS PHONE CHARGING SOLAR BATTERY STATION: "MICROGRID" SIGNAGE: LARGE SIGNAGE: MEDIUM SIGNAGE: SMALL RAT ABATEMENT SAFETY & PUBLIC HEALTH IMPROVEMENTS

UNIT

UNIT PRICE: MATERIALS ONLY, INSTALLED BY GARDENERS

UNIT PRICE: PREVAILING WAGES, INSTALLED BY CONTRACTED LABOR

EACH SF SF SF SF SF

N/A N/A $20 $15 $45 $0

$35,000 $30 $30 $20 $120 $20

EACH

$200

$400

EACH

$300

$600

EACH

$500

$1,000

EACH EACH EACH

$5,000 $10,000 $15,000

$10,000 $15,000 $20,000

SF

N/A

$30

SF

$10

$15

EACH

$200

$520

EACH

$250

$500

EACH

$500

$1,000

EACH

$10,000

$12,000

EACH EACH EACH EACH

$700 $500 $300 $300

$1,200 $800 $500 $400

EACH

$300

$400

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

43

THE VISION: AN ILLUSTRATIVE SECTION A conceptual cross-section of what each strategy in the toolkit might look like in the context of a community garden in the Lower East Side. The background of this section is made up of collaged images taken at several of the community gardens during the fieldwork segment of the Feasibility Study.

44

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

45

1

11BC Serenity Garden DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH 626 E 11 St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 2,350 ft2

FOUNDED 1986

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Large influx of rainwater due to broken downspout on neighboring building overflowing into site • Structure near southern back of site, roof is not set up for rainwater harvesting • Trellis at southern edge with no roof for rain collection • Have rain barrels around site but not attached to current downspout overflow • Lots of pooling around site, ground stays moist and mossy • Do not have way to irrigate site • Very shady site, narrow flanked by high buildings • Mostly shade planting, few trees, few flowering plants • Site graded south toward back, high point at middle eastern edge • Use hydrant for primary water source

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Expand rainwater storage capacity—fix roof of shed • Create ways to move water from one part of the site to another, channelize water on-grade or elevate rainwater pipes to barrels across garden • Improve drainage across site • Plant shade-tolerant pollinator gardens for improved habitat

46

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

11BC Serenity Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

1

N

3

H2O

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

4

5

MARSH ELDER

RAINWATER HARVESTING H2O

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS BIOSWALE

POLLINATOR GARDENS

H2O

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

ITAT

Las Siembras

G

El Enfriamien

to

2

H2O

4

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

COOLIN

ER

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN

La Filtraciรณn

WAT

6

NECTAR

H2O

6

La Distribuciรณn El Drenaje Las Siembras

3

5

GRADING

BIOSWALE

SIGNAGE

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 100 POINTS

2 6 BROKEN DOWNSPOUT

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

600 gallons/year

10

Grading

Water Conveyance

830 gallons/year

10

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

550 SF

10

Bioswale

Water Infiltration

72,950 gallons/year

20

Signage

Education

10

TOTAL

1 5

Membership

10/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

5/10

TOTAL

40

ASSOCIATED COSTS

1

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

$20 / SF

200 SF

$0

$4,000

Grading

3

60

1

$15 / SF

550 SF

$5,500

$8,250

Bioswale

$35,000 each

1

N/A

$35,000

Signage

$1,200/$800 ea.

1 Large, 1 Med

$1,200

$2,000

Public Safety + Rat Abatement

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$7,800

$51,050

Sustainable / Pollinator

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$66,365

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

47

2

11th Street Community Garden DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH E 11 St, btwn 1st Ave and Ave A SIZE 10,555 ft2

FOUNDED 1982

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP Manhattan Land Trust

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Have large empty space in front, used to be deck and bench area and is now unprogrammed • Sun in middle of garden during midday, front and back are shaded by large trees • Tool-shed roof used to have rain catchment, gutter needs maintenance • Trellis across middle of site, no roof for rainwater harvesting • Raised beds in middle and south of site, many are filled with volunteer plants, not food • Raised beds along western central edge exposed soil, high sun • Use hydrant for water • Front is tightly programmed with meandering brick path lined with stonework walls, low accessibility

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Fix gutter on current rainwater harvesting system and use trellis for harvesting rainwater to maximize catchment area • Utilize phytoremediation techniques to amend soil quality where seating used to be at front to garden • Replant raised beds with pollinator habitat

48

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

11th Street Community Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

H2O

1

N

3

H2O

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

5

H2O

MARSH ELDER

RAINWATER HARVESTING

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

STRUCTURES

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

H2O

4

Las Siembras

NECTAR

SOILS & COMPOST

OLD DECK

1 5 4

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 30 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rain Harvest / Structure

Water Storage

Sustainable/Pollinator/Soils

Habitat Improvement

OUTCOME

POINTS

400 gallons/year

10

400 SF

10

TOTAL

RAISED BEDS

3

POLLINATOR GARDENS

2

20

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

0/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

10

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$400 each

1 Small System

$200

$400

$15 / SF

400 SF

$4,000

$6,000

$10,000 each

1 Small

$5,000

$10,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$9,800

$17,200

Sustainable/Pollinator/Soils Structure Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$22,360

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

49

3

Avenue B Community Garden DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH 200 Ave B, btwn 12th & 13th St SIZE 1,100 ft2

FOUNDED 1996

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • • • • •

Entirely shaded by canopy or buildings Small tool-shed with thin gutter on one half leading to rain barrel Very small site Brick path down center and mostly exposed soil under canopy Many potted plants around site Use hydrant for water Site is graded toward eastern front, at Ave B

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Upgrade gutter for rainwater harvesting

50

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Avenue B Community Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

N

1

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 15 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

OUTCOME

POINTS

600 gallons/year

10

TOTAL

1 POTTED PLANTS

10

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

0/15

Participation

0/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

5

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$400 each

1 Small System

$200

$400

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$800

$1,200

Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$1,560

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

51

4

Campos DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH 640 E 12 St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 5,318 ft2

FOUNDED 1983

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • High food production, mostly raised beds in northern half • Low canopy cover, high sun for food production • Semi-permeable brick path down middle of site to dirt open space in front of stage- pools during rain events • Have stage with roof and large (250 gal) rain barrel— still use much more water than barrel provides • Tool-shed on eastern edge has gutter but no rain barrel • Have rain garden in southwest corner for overflow from rain barrel • Use water from hydrant across the street to supplement • Ground in front of stage does not infiltrate quickly, leads to pooling

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • • • •

Replant northeastern edge of garden with salt-tolerant native plants Expand current pollinator garden in northeast Increase rainwater harvesting capacity from stage roof Attach rain barrels to gutter on tool-shed for expanded rainwater harvesting system • Address low infiltration rates on main path

52

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Campos

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS BIOSWALE

H2O

H2O

1

N

LOS ADOQUINES

H2O

La Filtraciรณn

3

La Distribuciรณn El Drenaje

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

Las Siembras

5

7 H2O

MARSH ELDER

1

BIOSWALE

6

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

H2O

POROUS PAVING

MICROGRIDS

POLLEN WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

ER

CATCHM STORAG

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

PLANTIN

Las Siembras

ITAT

COOLIN

WAT

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

G

El Enfriamien

to

4

2

3

H2O

4

H2O

6

Las Siembras

NECTAR

RAINWATER HARVESTING

POLLINATOR GARDENS

SIGNAGE

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 125 POINTS

FOOD PRODUCTION

FOOD PRODUCTION

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Bioswale / Porous Paving

Water Infiltration

75,025 gallons/year

20

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

1,650 gallons/year

15

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

400 SF

10

Microgrid

Renewable Energy

168 Wh

20

Signage

Education

10

TOTAL

7

75

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

ASSOCIATED COSTS

6 POOLING

Rainwater Harvesting

2

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$35,000 each

1

N/A

$35,000

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

$15 / SF

400 SF

$4,000

$6,000

Microgrid

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

Signage

$1,200 each

2 Large

$1,400

$2,400

$30 each

500 SF

$10,000

$15,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$26,500

$72,200

Sustainable / Pollinator

RAIN BARREL RAIN GARDEN

RECOMMENDATION Bioswale

5 2

50

Porous Paving Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$93,860

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

53

5

Children’s Garden DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH 194 Ave B & 12th St SIZE 1,261 ft2

FOUNDED 1993

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Site is shaded by high building on south edge, a few trees in garden, and tall street trees to the east and west • Site is mostly exposed soil where bokashi composting system is used • Small tool-shed, not large enough for rain capture • Used to have water feature at south edge where stone structure still exists • Small raised beds for educational activities with neighboring school on south edge • Water is from hydrant, gardeners water all the soil and street tree pits • Site topography changes with bokashi burial cycles, occasional site runoff, however thick leaf cover around perimeter acts as mitigating barrier, along with wood battens around edge

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct berm around edge of site along fence to reduce erosion onto street • Plant native gardens in current empty beds • Improve pollinator habitat • Construct larger rainwater harvesting structure

54

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Children's Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

POLLEN WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

HAB ITAT

N

3

H2O

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

Las Siembras

G

El Enfriamien

1

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

ER

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN COOLIN

WAT

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

to

H2O

5

Las Siembras

NECTAR

GRADING

POLLINATOR GARDENS

SIGNAGE H2O

H2O

6

4

2

2

4

6

H2O

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

LEAF BARRIER

1

BOKASHI BURIAL

PIN OAK

H2O

MARSH ELDER

5

FOOD PRODUCTION

STAGHORN SUMAC

RAINWATER HARVESTING

STRUCTURES

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 85 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Grading

Water Conveyance

Sustainable / Pollinators

Habitat Improvement

Rain Harvest / Structure

Water Storage

Signage

Education

OUTCOME

POINTS

1,245 gallons/year

10

200 SF

10

800 gallons/year

15 10

TOTAL

EDUCATIONAL PLANTERS

3 2

45

Membership

10/15

Maintenance

10/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

40

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION Grading

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$20 / SF

300 SF

$0

$6,000

$15 / SF

200 SF

$2,000

$3,000

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

Signage

$1,200 each

1 Large

$700

$1,200

Structure

$15,000 each

1 Medium

$10,000

$15,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$13,600

$26,600

Sustainable / Pollinator Rainwater Harvesting

Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$34,580

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

55

6

Dias y Flores DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH 520 E 13 St, btwn Aves A & B SIZE 5,156 ft2

FOUNDED 1978

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Mixed canopy coverage with shaded areas and sunny areas • High food production, many raised beds mostly in southern back of site • South central tree cut down in back, now high sun around southern back patio area • Meandering semi-permeable brick and flagstone paths • Roof of large shed is flat, no rainwater harvesting • Have a large 500 gal rain barrel in back under shedfilled with hydrant water each week • Smaller tool-shed in southeastern corner, no rainwater catchment • Pooling in central northern area, low infiltration rate in brick front patio and in low point at northwestern corner

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Improve drainage and infiltration on patio in south of site • Construct rainwater harvesting system off of both shedsslope roof of larger shed to flow into gutter • Plant tree in south of site to shade patio area • Investigate potential to extend planting area of garden to the stoopline of property parcel

56

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Dias y Flores

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

HAB ITAT

N

3

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

Las Siembras

G

El Enfriamien

1

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

ER

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN COOLIN

WAT

LOS ADOQUINES

to

H2O

5

H2O

POROUS PAVING

5

TREES

SIGNAGE

H2O

WATER POOLING

H2O

2

H2O

4 MICROGRIDS

RAINWATER HARVESTING

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 115 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Porous Paving

Water Infiltration

2,490 gallons/year

20

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

1,400 gallons/year

15

Tree Planting

Shading / Cooling

1 tree

10

Microgrid

Renewable Energy

168 Wh

20

Signage

Education

10

TOTAL

FOOD PRODUCTION

5

75

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

10/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

5 /10

TOTAL

40

ASSOCIATED COSTS 5

RECOMMENDATION

4 2 RAIN BARREL

Porous Paving Rainwater Harvesting

1

Trees

3

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$30 / SF

600 SF

$12,000

$18,000

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

$520 each

1 Tree

$200

$520

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

Signage

$1,200/$800 ea.

1 Large, 1 Medium

$1,200

$2,000

Public Safety + Rat Abatement

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$24,500

$34,320

Microgrids

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$44,616

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

57

7

East Side Outside High School Garden DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH 404 E 12 St, btwn Aves A & 1st Ave SIZE 19,602 ft2

FOUNDED 1993

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Department of Education

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Large site, good mix of canopy cover—full sun in northwestern corner, full canopy coverage at northeastern corner • Have greenhouse and a shipping container used for storage- rainwater harvesting off shipping container • Active compost program • Beginnings of a large rain garden in northeastern end, under full canopy • Full sun and raised beds at southern front • Northwestern corner is high point, north eastern corner is low point • Northwestern corner has a trellis, and is mostly volunteer groundcover • Large lawn in central eastern area • Impermeable school surface adjacent to east runs off onto site • Exposed soil area north of lawn in center of site, adjacent to rain garden • Hydrant hookup for water

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT

58

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

• Construct rainwater harvesting system off greenhouse, and expand storage capacity • Construct channel to direct water from play surface on eastern edge into rain garden • Regrade northwestern corner and construct channel to direct water into rain garden • Regrade to direct water from central exposed soil area (old pond) into rain garden • Design rain garden to function optimally

East Side Outside High School Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

H2O H2O

1

N

3

H2O

5

H2O

7

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK MARSH ELDER

RAINWATER HARVESTING

3

BIOSWALE

Las Siembras

El Drenaje

6

H2O

8

Las Siembras

ITAT

4

La Distribuciรณn

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

2

G

to

H2O

Las Siembras

NECTAR

RAIN GARDEN

8

8

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN COOLIN

El Enfriamien

8

7

WETLAN

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

La Filtraciรณn

4

COMPOSTING

POLLEN

H2O

H2O

MICROGRIDS

ER

6

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

WAT

5

GRADING

BIOSWALE

RAIN GARDENS

SIGNAGE

POLLINATOR GARDENS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 135 POINTS EXPOSED SOIL

RUNOFF INTO SITE

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

2,000 gallons/year

15

Bioswale / Rain Garden

Water Infiltration

81,250 gallons/year

20

Grading

Water Conveyance

3,320 gallons/year

10

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

900 SF

10

Microgrid

Renewable Energy

168 Wh

20

Signage

Education

10

TOTAL

LAWN

1

85

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

50

ASSOCIATED COSTS

FOOD PRODUCTION

8 2

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

Bioswale

$35,000 each

1

N/A

$35,000

Grading

$20 / SF

800 SF

$0

$16,000

Rain Garden

$20 / SF

1,200 SF

$18,000

$24,000

Sustainable / Pollinator

$15 / SF

900 SF

$9,000

$13,500

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

Signage

$1,200/$800 ea.

3 Large, 1 Medium

$2,600

$4,400

Public Safety + Rat Abatement

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$40,700

$106,700

Microgrid

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$138,710

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

59

8

El Sol Brillante DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH 526 E 12 St, btwn Aves A & B SIZE 2,575 ft2

FOUNDED 1975

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP Neighborhood Land Trust

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Healthy mix of canopy, high sunlight at front (north) • Several areas with flagstone or brick path, most areas path is mulch • Have a shed on eastern edge with rainwater harvesting hooked up to 3 barrels, but need more rainwater holding capacity • Have large hill in back southern edge and low point runs from center of site to northern edge • Lots of composting in the back southern area on hill • Food production in mounded raised beds mostly in northern central area • Have many pollinator and native plantings • Use hydrant in the winter and in summer to supplement rain barrels • Have city water hose bib access as well

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Expand rainwater harvesting capacity—upgrade existing system • Improve soil quality around perimeter of site, especially along street • Increase pollinator habitat and sustainable garden planting

60

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

El Sol Brillante

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS BIOSWALE

H2O

H2O

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

PIN OAK

Las Siembras

ITAT

5

STAGHORN SUMAC

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

N

3

H2O

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

ER

1

COOLIN

WAT

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN

La Filtraciรณn

G

El Enfriamien

to

H2O

7

La Distribuciรณn El Drenaje Las Siembras

MARSH ELDER

RAINWATER HARVESTING

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

BIOSWALE

SIGNAGE

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

H2O

4

H2O

6

Las Siembras

NECTAR

5 4

SOILS & COMPOST

2

POLLINATOR GARDENS

MICROGRIDS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 120 POINTS 3

FOOD PRODUCTION

6

7

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

Sustainable/Pollinator/Soils

Habitat Improvement

Bioswale

Water Infiltration

Microgrid

Renewable Energy

Signage

Education

OUTCOME

POINTS

600 gallons/year

10

400 SF

10

84,150 gallons/year

20

168 Wh

20 10

TOTAL

1

70

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

COMPOSTING

4

7

50

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

400 SF

$4,000

$6,000

Bioswale

$35,000 each

1

N/A

$35,000

Microgrids

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

Signage

$1,200/$800 ea.

1 Large, 1 Medium

$1,200

$2,000

Public Safety + Rat Abatement

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$16,100

$56,400

Sustainable/Pollinator/Soils

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$73,320

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

61

9

El Sol Brillante Junior DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH 537 E 12 St, btwn Aves A & B SIZE 2,546 ft2

FOUNDED 1981

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Narrow site, medium sun- no canopy in southern front, canopy cover in back • Raised beds with lots of food production down center of site • Roof in back, currently harvesting rainwater but need more storage • Two smaller roofs on either side of site in central area, not currently harvesting rainwater • Neighboring roof gutter to west currently empties onto site • Have unlimited water access from neighbor to east

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct rainwater harvesting system off of west roof in central area, and add more storage to the harvesting system in back • Use edge of garden to expand compost system and employ phytoremediation techniques throughout plantings • Replace shrubs with pollinator habitat to support food production on site

62

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

El Sol Brillante Junior

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

1

N

3

H2O

H2O

5

Las Siembras

NECTAR

RAINWATER HARVESTING

POLLINATOR GARDENS BIOSWALE

H2O

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

ITAT

Las Siembras

G

El Enfriamien

to

2

6

H2O

4

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

COOLIN

ER

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN

La Filtraciรณn

WAT

1

MICROGRIDS

H2O

6

La Distribuciรณn El Drenaje Las Siembras

BIOSWALE

SOILS & COMPOST

SIGNAGE

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 110 POINTS

FOOD PRODUCTION

1 GUTTER OVERFLOW

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

900 gallons/year

15

Pollinator / Soils

Pollination Area

300 SF

10

Bioswale

Water Infiltration

112,200 gal/year

20

Microgrids

Renewable Energy

168 Wh

20

Signage

Education

10

TOTAL

COMPOST COLLECTION

75

Membership

10/15

Maintenance

10/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

5/10

TOTAL

FOOD PRODUCTION

35

ASSOCIATED COSTS 2 3

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

300 SF

$3,000

$4,500

$35,000 each

1

N/A

$35,000

Pollinator / Soils

6

5

Bioswale

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

Signage

$1,200/$800 ea.

1 Large, 1 Medium

$1,200

$2,000

Public Safety + Rat Abatement

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$15,100

$54,900

Microgrid

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$71,370

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

63

10

Relaxation Garden DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH 209 Ave B & 13th ST SIZE 2,645 ft2

FOUNDED 1993

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Many young trees on site, varied canopy height • Raised beds at east of garden- interested in expanding • Unprogrammed at west side—meandering brick pathway is historical, but all else is open to reprogramming • West side is currently volunteer groundcover or exposed soil • Building at south edge, shades garden from direct sun • Use hydrant for water • Low point at south west area, currently unused space

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Plant sustainable and pollinator gardens in western half of garden programmed around pathways • Construct structure to harvest rainwater with irrigation system for raised bed

64

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Relaxation Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

N

1

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

3

H2O

MARSH ELDER

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

RAINWATER HARVESTING H2O

POLLEN

2

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

4

Las Siembras

1

H2O

NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

STRUCTURES

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 50 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

Rain Harvest / Structure

Water Storage

OUTCOME

POINTS

600 SF

10

800 gallons/year

15

TOTAL

25

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

10/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

3

ASSOCIATED COSTS 4

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$15 / SF

600 SF

$6,000

$9,000

Rainwater Harvesting

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

Structure

$15,000 each

1 Medium

$10,000

$15,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$17,100

$25,800

Sustainable / Pollinator

Public Safety + Rat Abatement

RAISED BEDS

25

TOTAL

RAISED BEDS

TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$33,540

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

65

11

Toyota East Children’s Learning Garden DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH 603 E 11 St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 1,656 ft2

FOUNDED 2007

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP New York Restoration Project

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Metal trellis with vines in center of garden • Narrow site, building on either side, no direct sunsome shade planting, but not densely planted • Most of site is exposed soil or gravel, with semipermeable stone pathway down middle • Patio area in northern back with table • Relatively flat site, with 2 berms in the middle front • Use hydrant for water • Some ornamental flowering plants in back, bamboo 'fence'

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Plant shade-tolerant pollinator gardens for pollinator habitat • Build structure to harvest rainwater in front of site, reducing obstruction of back of site gathering area

66

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Toyota East Children's Learning Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

1

N

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

3

H2O

MARSH ELDER

STRUCTURES

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

H2O

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

4

Las Siembras

H2O

NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

RAINWATER HARVESTING

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 40 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

Rain Harvesting / Structure

Water Storage

OUTCOME

POINTS

300 SF

10

500 gallons/year

10

TOTAL

2 TRELLIS

20

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

0/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

20

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION Sustainable / Pollinator

4 1

3

Structure Rainwater Harvesting Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$15 / SF

300 SF

$3,000

$4,500

$15,000 each

1 Medium

$10,000

$15,000

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$13,900

$20,900 $27,170

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

67

12

Vamos a Sembrar DISTRICT: GREAT NORTH 198 Ave B, btwn 12th & 13th St SIZE 1,100 ft2

FOUNDED 1999

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • • • • • •

Very small site Almost entirely covered by canopy, shaded by adjacent building to south Elevated wooden stage in back Semi-permeable brick path down middle of site Exposed soil along edges Site low point is at eastern front Sediment collection indicates pooling at front Hydrant hookup for water

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Plant shade-tolerant pollinator and sustainable gardens throughout site • Construct Structure to harvest rainwater over stage in back of site

68

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Vamos a Sembrar

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

N

1

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

3

H2O

MARSH ELDER

3

STRUCTURES

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

4

H2O

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

4

Las Siembras

H2O

NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

RAINWATER HARVESTING

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 25 POINTS

1

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Sust / Pollinator Gardens

Habitat Improvement

Rain Harvesting / Structure

Water Storage

OUTCOME

POINTS

250 SF

10

500 gallons/year

10

TOTAL

EXPOSED SOIL

20

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

0/15

Participation

0/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

5

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

POOLING

Sustainable / Pollinator

2

Structure Rainwater Harvesting Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$15 / SF

250 SF

$2,500

$3,750

$15,000 each

1 Medium

$10,000

$15,000

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$13,400

$20,150 $26,195

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

69

13

9C Community Garden & Park DISTRICT: EL PUEBLO 144 Ave C & 9th St SIZE 21,902 ft2

FOUNDED 1979

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Stump of willow tree in southwest corner leaves unprogrammed space with high sun • Higher canopy and more shade in eastern area • Significant new square footage of 5 casita roofs, do not currently collect rainwater and are hesitant due to mosquitoes • 5 hose-bib sites around garden with city water access • Food production mostly in sunnier central-east area • Pond in northwest corner, smaller water feature north central of site • South-eastern part of site graded toward south edge • Rainwater runoff and erosion out southern gate onto 9th street sidewalk

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Decrease erosion on south edge by channelizing water along southern edge into proposed rain garden • Install rain garden to accept redirected runoff and provide quick infiltration on site- remove willow stump to do so • Reconstruct rainwater harvesting systems off several roofs around site with elevated barrels for irrigation • Investigate potential to extend planting area of garden to the stoopline of property parcel

70

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

9C Community Garden Park

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS BIOSWALE

H2O H2O H2O

La Filtraciรณn

1

N

3

La Distribuciรณn El Drenaje

H2O

5

Las Siembras

RAIN GARDENS

BIOSWALE

MICROGRIDS

H2O

H2O

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

WAT

ENT

ER

CATCHM STORAG

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

PLANTIN

Las Siembras

ITAT

COOLIN

G

El Enfriamien

to

2

4

H2O

4

H2O

GRADING

H2O

6

RAINWATER HARVESTING

SIGNAGE

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 115 POINTS 1

TOOLSHED

5 FOOD PRODUCTION

4

COMPOST

6 4

6

DEAD WILLOW

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Bioswale / Rain Garden

Water Infiltration

75,950 gallons/year

20

Grading

Water Conveyance

1,245 gallons/year

10

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

1,650 gallons/year

15

Microgrids

Renewable Energy

168 Wh

20

Signage

Education

10

TOTAL

FOOD PRODUCTION

1

RECOMMENDATION

75

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

6 3

2

RUNOFF

40

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Bioswale

$35,000 each

1

N/A

$35,000

Grading

$15 / SF

300 SF

$0

$4,500

Rain Garden

$20 / SF

400 SF

$6,000

$8,000

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$12,000

1

$10,000

$12,000

Signage

$1,200,$800 ea.

2 Large, 1 Medium

$1,900

$3,200

Public Safety + Rat Abatement

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

Rainwater Harvesting Microgrids

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$600

$800

$18,800

$64,100 $83,330

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

71

14

De Colores Community Yard & Cultural Center DISTRICT: EL PUEBLO 311-313 E 8 St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 2,874 ft2

FOUNDED 1996

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Low canopy in southern front of site, high canopy in northern back • Planter beds along both sides of garden, no food production • Have elevated wooden deck in back, no rain catchment, no permanent roof • Have tool-shed in back of site, no rain collection • Have city water hose bib, pump area in center front of garden • Neighboring buildings have pumps in basements, lots of water entering basements underground • Flagstone pavers at entry • Dispersed flagstone pathways around edge

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Replace current toolshed in northwest corner with larger roof for increased rainwater harvesting area • Consider another structure where current tent canopy is for greater rainwater harvesting area under less canopy • Plant pollinator gardens along edges and in southwestern corner • Employ soil improvement techniques in unplanted areas • Grade edges of site away from neighboring foundations to reduce flooding in basements • Investigate potential to extend planting area of garden to the stoopline of property parcel to plant with salt tolerant species

72

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

De Colores Community Yard & Cultural Center

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS BIOSWALE

H2O

H2O

H2O

La Filtraciรณn

1

N

3

H2O

5

H2O

7

La Distribuciรณn El Drenaje

H2O

Las Siembras

RAINWATER HARVESTING

BIOSWALE

SOILS & COMPOST

H2O

POLLEN

1

6

GRADING

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

4

H2O

6

Las Siembras

MARSH ELDER

6

NECTAR

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

1

8

H2O

POLLINATOR GARDENS

STRUCTURES

MICROGRIDS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 125 POINTS

4

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

800 gallons/year

15

Sustainable/Pollinator/Soils

Habitat Improvement

600 SF

10

Bioswale

Water Infiltration

78,550 gallons/year

20

Grading

Water Conveyance

1,660 gallons/year

10

Microgrids

Renewable Energy

168 Wh

20

TOTAL

7 7

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

8

3

HOSE BIB

2

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

600 SF

$6,000

$9,000

Bioswale

$35,000 each

1

N/A

$35,000

Structure

$15,000 each

1 Medium

$10,000

$15,000

$20 / SF

400 SF

$0

$8,000

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

Grading

5

50

ASSOCIATED COSTS

4

Sustainable/Pollinator/Soils

UNUSED PLANTER

75

Microgrid Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$26,900

$80,400 $104,520

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

73

15

Earth People DISTRICT: EL PUEBLO 335 E 8 St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 4,609 ft2

FOUNDED 1993

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • High canopy cover and shade in back, buildings on either side • Low canopy in front, more sun in southern front area • Tool-shed in back central north of garden, no rainwater capture but completely covered by dense canopy • Large tool-shed in northwestern back corner, no rainwater harvesting • Unplanted rock areas in front southeastern corner • Gutter from eastern neighboring property emptying into site • Water pools at front of site in southern central low point, some sheeting onto 8th street sidewalk • Deck at southwest (front) corner with chairs and BBQ • Have city water access, hose bibs in front southwest corner • Most of site pathways are semi-permeable, very uneven bricks • Back northeastern corner patio covered with astroturf • Front sidewalk very uneven and cracked

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct rainwater harvesting system off tool-shed in northwest corner • Construct channel near front of site to direct water away from sidewalk • Improve infiltration and drainage in back northeastern patio and pathways on site by installing porous paving

74

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Earth People

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

POLLEN

H2O LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

LOS ADOQUINES

1

N

3

H2O

5

Las Siembras

H2O

NECTAR

POROUS PAVING

RAINWATER HARVESTING

POLLINATOR GARDENS

H2O

3

2

H2O

4

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK MARSH ELDER

GRADING

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

1 GUTTER OVERFLOW

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 60 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

800 gallons/year

15

Grading

Water Conveyance

830 gallons/year

10

Porous Paving

Water Infiltration

2,490 gallons/year

20

Sustainable / Pollinators

Habitat Improvement

300 SF

10

TOTAL

55

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

0/15

Participation

0/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

5

POOLING + RUNOFF

2

4

5

ASSOCIATED COSTS

UNPLANTED GRAVEL BED

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

Grading

$20 / SF

200 SF

$0

$4,000

Porous Paving

$30 / SF

600 SF

$12,000

$18,000

$15 / SF

300 SF

$3,000

$4,500

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$15,900

$27,900

Sustainable / Pollinator Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$36,270

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

75

16

Fireman’s Memorial Garden DISTRICT: EL PUEBLO 358 E 8 St, btwn Aves C & D SIZE 7,466 ft2

FOUNDED 1979

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • High canopy around edges, low canopy cover in central site • Back southwestern corner has high sun- tree taken down, leaving most of the back now unprogrammed • Small tool-shed east central edge, no rain catchment • Semi-permeable brick pathway in a circle in front central northern area • Central lawn overgrown, surrounded by flowering ornamentals • Purchase water from next door building • Pooling in front of site on low brick pathway • Flat site, low point in south west corner of back, and secondarily at front gate

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Improve drainage and infiltration at northern front of site • Plant native groundcover species in central front circle for low maintenance meadow space • Build structure in back where canopy was removed to harvest rainwater for irrigation • Increase pollinator habitat around circular path in north • Investigate potential to extend planting area of garden to the stoopline of property parcel

76

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Fireman's Memorial Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS 1

N

3

H2O

5

H2O

GRADING

RAINWATER HARVESTING

1

POOLING

H2O

H2O

H2O

H2O

STRUCTURES

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

4

Las Siembras

MARSH ELDER

NECTAR

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

POLLINATOR GARDENS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 60 POINTS 2

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Grading

Water Conveyance

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

Rain Harvest / Structure

Water Storage

OUTCOME

POINTS

830 gallons/year

15

700 SF

10

1,650 gallons/year

15

TOTAL

4

40

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

5/10

TOTAL

20

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

5 TREE STUMP

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Grading

$20 / SF

200 SF

$0

$4,000

Sustainable / Pollinator

$15 / SF

700 SF

$7,000

$10,500

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

$20,000 each

Large

$15,000

$20,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

Rainwater Harvesting

3

Structure Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$600

$800

$23,100

$36,300 $47,190

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

77

17

Green Oasis Community Garden & Gilbert’s Sculpture Garden DISTRICT: EL PUEBLO 370 E 8th street SIZE 17,787 ft2

FOUNDED 1981

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • • • • • • • • •

High canopy cover over most of site, medium light attenuation Gazebo in center, no current rainwater harvesting Tool-shed on eastern edge, no current rainwater harvesting Elevated deck and tool-shed in southern central area, no rainwater harvesting Meandering paths are mostly semi-pervious flagstone and brick Have elevated stage in southeastern corner Have active beehives but lack enough flowering plants Have a koi pond with a pump, pond is deep enough to winter-over Active bokashi composting system in north east corner Purchase water from neighbors to west Low point is northwestern front area but no pooling

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Plant pollinator gardens to optimize nectar flow for beehive • Construct rainwater harvesting system off of gazebo, elevated deck, and tool-shed—will require roof repair • Enhance living system by establishing wetland area next to/around pond for natural water filtration

78

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Green Oasis Garden & Gibert's Sculpture Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS POLLEN

H2O

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

HAB

GS

ITAT

Las Siembras

G

El Enfriamien

to

1

N

3

Las Siembras

LOS ADOQUINES

ER

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN COOLIN

WAT

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

H2O

5

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

7 H2O

MARSH ELDER

NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

SIGNAGE

POROUS PAVING

H2O

H2O H2O

2

5

BOKASHI

5 4 1

3

ART AREA

7 1

1

2

GRILL

2 2

6

H2O

MICROGRIDS

RAINWATER HARVESTING

STRUCTURES

2

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Sustainable / Pollinators

Habitat Improvement

Rain Harvest / Structure

Water Storage

Microgrids

Renewable Energy

Signage

Education

Porous Paving

Water Infiltration

OUTCOME

POINTS

500 SF

10

1,650 gallons/year

15

168 Wh

20 10

1,660 gallons

TOTAL

7

BEEHIVES

4

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 125 POINTS

2

5

H2O

6

STAGE

20 75

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

50

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$15 / SF

500 SF

$5,000

$7,500

Rainwater Harvesting

$1,000 each

2 Large Systems

$1,000

$2,000

Microgrids

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

$1,200/$800 ea.

2 Large, 1 Medium

$1,900

$3,200

$20,000 each

1 Large

$15,000

$20,000

$30 / SF

400 SF

$8,000

$12,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$41,500

$57,500

Sustainable / Pollinator

Signage Structure Porous Paving Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$74,750

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

79

18

La Plaza Cultural DISTRICT: EL PUEBLO 139 Ave C SIZE 27,898 ft2

FOUNDED 1976

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • • • • • • • • • •

Large paved area at northern front entrance Pond in west area with solar powered bog pump and filter Rain harvesting off gazebo roof in the center of garden Large toolshed in southern back of site, no rainwater harvesting Chicken coops in south of site Lots of food production, raised beds in south and west areas mainly, and fruit trees along north and south edges Constructed french drain at low point (north) of paved area directing water west—pipe is not perforated Hugel-kultur beds along north of site act as berm to reduce runoff Many native and pollinator plantings Large meadow in eastern area Use city water with a hose bib to augment rain harvesting Large hill on south of site, with rest of site graded north toward 9th street

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT

80

• Construct more rainwater harvesting systems off tool-shed roofs in southern back of site—repair roof to do this • Improve drainage and infiltration in front paved area • Reduce heat generation and increase albedo on paved surface, and add porosity for increased infiltration • Enhance pollinator habitat GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

La Plaza Cultural

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

H2O

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

N

1

3

H2O

H2O

5

Las Siembras

7

H2O

NECTAR

RAINWATER HARVESTING

FOOD PRODUCTION

BIOSWALE

H2O

MICROGRIDS

POLLINATOR GARDENS H2O

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

ITAT

Las Siembras

G

El Enfriamien

to

4

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

COOLIN

ER

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN

La Filtraciรณn

WAT

LOS ADOQUINES

2

STRUCTURES

H2O

6

La Distribuciรณn El Drenaje Las Siembras

H2O

6

BIOSWALE

POROUS PAVING

SIGNAGE

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 125 POINTS

FRUIT TREES

5 7

COMPOST

2 HOSE BIB FRENCH DRAIN

OUTCOME

POINTS

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

800 gallons/year

15

Porous Paving / Bioswale

Water Infiltration

116,350 gal/year

20

Pollinator Gardens

Habitat Improvement

400 SF

10

Microgrid

Renewable Energy

168 Wh

20

Signage

Education

10 75

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

50

ASSOCIATED COSTS 6

MEADOW

FUNCTION

TOTAL

6

1

RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 Each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$30 / SF

1,000 SF

$20,000

$30,000

Porous Paving

$15 / SF

400 SF

$4,000

$6,000

Bioswale

$35,000 each

1

N/A

$35,000

Microgrid

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

$1,200/$800 ea.

2 Large, 1 Medium

$1,900

$3,200

$15,000 each

1 Medium

$10,000

$15,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$46,800

$102,600

Pollinator Garden

3 4

Signage Structure Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$133,380

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

81

19

Sam and Sadie Koenig DISTRICT: EL PUEBLO 237 E 7 St btwn Aves C & D SIZE 1,307 ft2

FOUNDED 2000

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Surface of front area is mulched soil, with a meandering permeable gravel path • Almost entirely covered by canopy in front, building on either side—narrow site • Back lot has no large trees, higher sun exposure in winter • Few shade plantings in front, while back lot has minimal food production, some pollinator plants, and several palette planter boxes on the ground and on the wall • Gutter overflow in back of garden off neighboring roof- site pools significantly in back area, however infiltration is fast • Site is mostly flat • Purchase water from adjacent properties • Concerned about effects of Sandy on soil in southeastern quarter of front lot- many plants die during establishment period

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT

82

• Plant flood tolerant sustainable gardens around areas that pool during rain- mostly along western edge of northern lot • Collect excess rainwater for irrigation • Employ phytoremediation and soil improvement to address potentially toxic soil • Investigate potential to extend planting area of garden to the stoopline of property parcel GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Sam and Sadie Koenig

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

N

COMPOST AREA

1

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

3

H2O

MARSH ELDER

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

RAINWATER HARVESTING

1 2

H2O

POLLINATORS SOILS & COMPOST

FOOD PRODUCTION

GUTTER OVERFLOW

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 65 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Sustainable / Soils

Habitat Improvement

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

OUTCOME

POINTS

300 SF

10

800 gallons/year

15

TOTAL

3

25

Membership

10/15

Maintenance

10/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

40

ASSOCIATED COSTS

EXPOSED SOIL

2

LOW POINT

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Sustainable / Soils

$15 / SF

300 SF

$3,000

$4,500

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$4,100

$6,300

Rainwater Harvesting Public Safety + Rat Abatement

1

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$8,190

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

83

20

6th & B Community Garden DISTRICT: MIDDLE EARTH 84 Ave B & 6th St SIZE 17,813 ft2

FOUNDED 1983

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Dept.

Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • • • • • •

Native planting beds with labels Pond in southeast area, ground around pond remains soggy after rain Kid's play structure northwest corner with roof Underutilized space in southwest corner Gutters on stage run off into neighbor’s backyard Gazebo in center, no roof for rain harvesting Food production mainly at northeast and southeast corners Site is largely graded toward eastern gate with crest toward southwest corner • Rainwater runoff toward eastern edge sheets onto Ave B sidewalk • Rainwater runoff from southwestern corner sheets onto adjacent property to west

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT

84

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

• Harvest rainwater off stage roof and shed roof in southwestern corner • Grade southwest corner to direct water away from neighboring foundations (to west) and into demonstration rain garden for rain barrel overflow • Channelize water sheeting down eastern path into proposed rain garden along Ave B fence to reduce runoff onto sidewalk- preserve flagstones • Harvest rainwater off children's area roof and central gazebo, which needs new roof to capture water, or replace whole gazebo structure • Set up irrigation system for rainwater collected off southern structures

6th & B Community Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

H2O WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

WAT

ENT

ER

CATCHM STORAG

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

PLANTIN

Las Siembras

ITAT

COOLIN

G

El Enfriamien

to

1

N

5

3

H2O

5

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

H2O

RAIN GARDEN

SIGNAGE H2O

H2O H2O

2 CHILDREN'S AREA

1

FOOD PRODUCTION

6

TRELLIS

4

6

GRADING

H2O

STRUCTURES

MICROGRIDS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 125 POINTS

COMPOST AREA

3 GUTTER RUNOFF

H2O

1

5

1

4

6

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Rain Harvest / Structure

Water Storage

1,650 gallons/year

15

Grading

Water Conveyance

1,660 gallons/year

10

3,320 gallons/year

20

168 Wh

20

Rain Garden

Water Infiltration

Microgrid

Renewable Energy

Signage

Education

10

TOTAL

5 2 RUNOFF

75

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

3 RUNOFF

5

ASSOCIATED COSTS TRELLIS

1 2

50

FOOD PRODUCTION

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

Rainwater Harvesting

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

Grading

$20 / SF

400 SF

$0

$8,000

Rain Garden

$20 / SF

400 SF

$6,000

$8,000

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

$1,200/$800 ea.

2 Large, 2 Medium

$2,400

$4,000

$15,000 each

1 Medium

$10,000

$15,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$29,500

$48,800

Microgrid Signage Structure Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$63,440

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

85

21

6BC Botanical Garden DISTRICT: MIDDLE EARTH 620 E 6th St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 7,841 ft2

FOUNDED 1981

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Low flagstone “Grotto” area in southwest corner • High sun particularly in central area, shadier toward the southern end in the back of site • Shade plantings in south of site, mostly nonflowering plants throughout site • Tightly programmed garden, meandering semi-permeable brick paths • Pond with pump powered by solar in northeast corner • Composting shed on eastern edge, roof trellis not harvesting rainwater • Don’t have much rain harvesting storage for collection off roof of elevated structure • Use hydrant across street for primary water source

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Need better rain barrel system for larger volume of storage • Improve pollinator habitat

86

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

6BC Botanical Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

ER HAB ITAT

N

ENT

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

Las Siembras

G

El Enfriamien

1

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

WAT

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN COOLIN

to

H2O

3

H2O

SIGNAGE

RAINWATER HARVESTING POLLEN

H2O

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

3

2

4 NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

COMPOST

MICROGRIDS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 95 POINTS

4 SUPPLIES SHED

2

1

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

Pollinator Gardens

Habitat Improvement

Signage

Education

Microgrid

Renewable Energy

OUTCOME

POINTS

700 gallons/year

10

200 SF

10 10

168 Wh

TOTAL

20 50

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

10/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

45

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

200 SF

$2,000

$3,000

$800 each

1 Medium

$500

$800

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$13,400

$17,200

Pollinator Garden

GROTTO

Signage Microgrid Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$22,360

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

87

22

Creative Little Garden DISTRICT: MIDDLE EARTH 530 E 6th St, btwn Aves A & B SIZE 2,395 ft2

FOUNDED 1978

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Narrow site, mostly shaded by high canopy cover and buildings on both east and west sides • Mulch in all non-planted areas, no path • Mainly shade plantings, few flowering plants • Site low point is at northern front, whole site graded toward low point which is a few feet below sidewalk • Have city water hose bibs with 2 hook-up spigots • High visitorship in this garden

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Harvest rainwater off trellis roof • Construct larger structure for rainwater harvesting in place of existing tool shed at southwest of site • Increase pollinator habitat with shade-tolerant pollinator species • Investigate potential to extend planting area of garden to the stoopline of property parcel

88

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Creative Little Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

H2O

1

N

3

H2O

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

STRUCTURES

POLLEN

4

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

ER

CATCHM STORAG

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

PLANTIN

Las Siembras

ITAT

COOLIN

WAT

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

G

El Enfriamien

to

2

H2O

4 NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

2 HOSE BIB

SIGNAGE

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 70 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rain Harvest / Structure

Water Storage

Pollinator Garden

Habitat Improvement

Signage

Education

OUTCOME

POINTS

500 gallons/year

10

200 SF

10 10

TOTAL

30

Membership

10/15

Maintenance

10/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

1

TRELLIS

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

Pollinator Garden Structure

3

40

Signage Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$15 / SF

200 SF

$2,000

$3,000

$15,000 each

1 Medium

$10,000

$15,000

$800 each

1 Medium

$500

$800

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$13,400

$20,200 $26,260

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

89

23

El Jardin de Paraiso DISTRICT: MIDDLE EARTH 706 E 5 St, btwn Aves C & D SIZE 32,194 ft2

FOUNDED 1993

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Healthy mixed canopy, some areas shaded, some areas high sun • Willow downed at north end of lawn, area is unprogrammed with high sun • Varying topography, site low point is wetland at northwest corner, not currently functioning as intended • Raised beds in northeast corner with food and pollinator gardens • Have casitas in northeast corner, not collecting rainwater • Use water from hydrant • Western edge elevated hill held up, away from neighboring foundation with tall stone wall • Have a subgrade cistern that accepts water from neighboring roof to west, intended to be part of wetland system with pump • Have unlined channels from cistern north central area headwaters leading to wetland • Most pathways are exposed soil or mulch, pavers at northern entrance • Interested in remediating soil in south eastern area where children play

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • • • • •

90

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Optimize wetland and channels to function properly Plant sustainable gardens at borders to optimize for salt tolerance Construct rainwater harvesting system off casitas roofs Install microgrid in sunny central area at middle of site Employ soil improvement techniques north of tree house

El Jardin del Paraiso

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS BIOSWALE

H2O

H2O

WETLANDS

H2O

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

Las Siembras

ITAT

5

H2O

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

N

3

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

ER

1

COOLIN

WAT

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN

La Filtraciรณn

G

El Enfriamien to

H2O

7

La Distribuciรณn El Drenaje Las Siembras

H2O

WETLANDS

5th St

5

RAINWATER HARVESTING

BIOSWALE

SIGNAGE

H2O H2O

4

2

3

H2O

4

6

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

8

H2O

MARSH ELDER

CHANNELS

GRADING

2

7

7

POOLING

7

1

CISTERN

RAISED BEDS

MEDICINAL PLOT

WILLOW STUMP

2 6

MICROGRIDS

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

SOILS & COMPOST

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 135 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Wetland / Bioswale

Water Infiltration

77,100 gallons/year

20

Grading

Water Conveyance

2,075 gallons/year

10

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

800 gallons/year

15

Sustainable / Soils

Habitat Improvement

500 SF

10

Microgrid

Renewable Energy

168 Wh

20

Signage

Education

10

TOTAL

ELEVATED EDGE

20 Feet

85

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

ASSOCIATED COSTS

8

RECOMMENDATION

TREE DECK

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Wetland

$120 / SF

1,000 SF

$45,000

$120,000

Grading

$20 / SF

500 SF

$0

$10,000

$600 Each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

500 SF

$5,000

$7,500

$35,000 each

1

N/A

$35,000

Rainwater Harvesting

4

7 4th St

50

Sustainable / Soils Bioswale

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

Signage

$1,200/$800 ea.

2 Large, 2 Med

$2,400

$4,000

Public Safety + Rat Abatement

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$63,300

$189,900

Microgrid

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$246,870

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

91

24

Fifth Street Slope DISTRICT: MIDDLE EARTH 629 E 5 St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 4,014 ft2

FOUNDED 1993

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Low canopy cover in central patio areas, edges have greater coverage • Southern front and central area of site are semi-permeable laid brick patios • Trellises in central area on sides of path • Very flat site • Have city water access with hose bib • Shed in northeastern back corner, no current rain collection • Concrete path on eastern edge cracked from tree roots

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct rainwater harvesting system off shed in back of site • Plant sustainable garden for salt tolerance and habitat in unplanted areas

92

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Fifth Street Slope

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

1

N

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

2

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK MARSH ELDER

1

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 35 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rainwater Harvesting

Rainwater Storage

Sustainable Gardens

Habitat Improvement

OUTCOME

POINTS

400 gallons/year

10

300 SF

10

TOTAL

20

Membership

10/15

Maintenance

0/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

15

ASSOCIATED COSTS 2 HOSE BIB

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 Each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

300 SF

$3,000

$4,500

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$3,900

$5,900

Sustainable Garden Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$7,670

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

93

25

Generation X Cultural Garden DISTRICT: MIDDLE EARTH 270 E 4 St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 4,683 ft2

FOUNDED 1971

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Many fruit trees in front northeastern corner—would like more • Open patio area with decomposed granite in southern back, rubber dividers are exposed and peeling up in some areas • Stage area in south facing patio • Some canopy cover in back along southern edge in northeastern corner • 2 pergolas over path along western edge, no current rain collection • Very flat site, water pools near front northwestern patio, near front gate • Have city water access with hose bib on front patio • Large open lawn between trees in front

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct rainwater harvesting system off of both pergola roofs • Plant fruit trees for shading and increased pollination • Construct greater rainwater harvesting roof area as a stage roof / shelter • Use porous pavers to replace existing pathways and patio

94

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Generation X Cultural Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

POLLEN

H2O LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

1

N HOSE BIB

LOS ADOQUINES

3

Las Siembras

H2O

5 H2O

NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

5

STRUCTURES

POROUS PAVING

H2O

2

4

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

TREES

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 80 POINTS

4 LAWN

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Pollinator Gardens

Habitat Improvement

200 SF

10

Tree Planting

Cooling

2 trees

20

Structures/Rain Harvesting

Water Storage

500 gallons/year

10

Porous Paving

Water Infiltration

4,150 gallons/year

20

TOTAL

4 2

60

Membership

10/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

0/10

Public Programs

5/10

TOTAL

UNEVEN PATIO

1 5 3

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$15 / SF

200 SF

$2,000

$3,000

$520 each

2

$400

$1,040

Structure

$15,000 each

1 Medium

$10,000

$15,000

Rainwater Harvesting

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

$30 / SF

1,000 SF

$20,000

$30,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$33,500

$50,840

Pollinator Garden

4

20

Trees

Porous Paving Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$66,092

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

95

26

Orchard Alley DISTRICT: MIDDLE EARTH 350 E 4th St SIZE 15,907 ft2

FOUNDED 1989

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • High canopy cover at eastern side, full sun on lawn at western edge • Exposed soil area at northwestern corner under canopy • Semi-permeable meandering brick/stone pathways around site lined with low stone walls. Brick patio eastern central under canopy • Circular stone seating area mid-east side of site • Toolshed in south east corner, used to harvest rainwater but stopped due to mosquito concern • Cherry, apple and fig trees • Part native planting/part ornamental planting mostly in southern central area • Low point at south western corner • Have access to city water with hose bib connection

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Improve rainwater harvesting system by fixing gutter and repairing roof • Increase both existing sustainable planting and pollinator planting areas for increased habitat

96

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Orchard Alley

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

POLLEN WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

ER

CATCHM STORAG

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

PLANTIN

Las Siembras

ITAT

COOLIN

WAT

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

G

El Enfriamien

to

1

N EXPOSED SOIL

3

H2O

H2O

5

Las Siembras

NECTAR

5

2

RAINWATER HARVESTING

HOSE BIB

POLLINATOR GARDENS

SIGNAGE

H2O

2

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

4

MARSH ELDER

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

4

MICROGRIDS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 80 POINTS

5

LAWN

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

500 gallons/year

10

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

400 SF

10

Microgrids

Renewable Energy

168 Wh

20

Signage

Education

10

TOTAL

50

Membership

10/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

5/10

TOTAL

5

3

1

30

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

400 SF

$4,000

$6,000

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

Signage

$800/$500 each

1 Med, 2 Small

$1,100

$1,800

Public Safety + Rat Abatement

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$16,000

$21,200

Sustainable / Pollinator Microgrids

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$27,560

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

97

27

Parque de Tranquilidad DISTRICT: MIDDLE EARTH 315 E 4 St, btwn Aves C & D SIZE 5,356 ft2

FOUNDED 1979

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP Manhattan Land Trust

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • • • • • •

Very densely programmed site Gravel paths meandering through site Mixture of canopy cover, some tall trees and some low canopy Have shed in back, no rainwater collection Have ornamental plantings for pollination Have native planting areas Have city water hose bib connection High topographic gradient- low point at northern front with hill at central eastern edge • Composting area in south west corner

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct rainwater harvesting system off tool-shed • Increase pollinator habitat in garden by replacing potted plants in northeastern corner with more established perennial pollinator plants

98

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Parque de Tranquilidad

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

1

N

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

Las Siembras

2

NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

HOSE BIB

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 45 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

Pollinator Gardens

Habitat Improvement

OUTCOME

POINTS

400 gallons/year

10

250 SF

10

TOTAL

20

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

5/10

TOTAL

25

ASSOCIATED COSTS 1

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

250 SF

$2,500

$3,750

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$3,400

$5,150

Pollinator Garden Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$6,695

COMPOSTING

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

99

28

Secret Garden DISTRICT: MIDDLE EARTH 293 E 4 St & Ave C SIZE 2,209 ft2

FOUNDED 1981

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • • • • • •

High canopy, mostly covered except small area at northeastern corner Some fruit trees, no other food production Raised beds at southwestern corner, mostly exposed soil Semi-permeable brick patio at southwestern front of site, meandering brick pathway through site Tool-shed in northwest corner, no rainwater harvesting Lots of shade planting on west side under canopy Site low point is northeastern patio Water comes from hydrant- need more water on site

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct rainwater harvesting system off tool-shed • Build an additional structure to collect rainwater for irrigation needs • Increase sustainable and pollinator garden area in sunny northeastern corner • Investigate potential to extend planting area of garden to the stoopline of property parcel

100

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Secret Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

N

1

EXPOSED SOIL

3

2

3

H2O

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK MARSH ELDER

4

RAINWATER HARVESTING

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS H2O

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

4

Las Siembras

H2O

NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

1

STRUCTURES

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 40 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rain Harvest / Structure

Water Storage

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat/Salt Tolerance

OUTCOME

POINTS

1,200 gallons/year

15

300 SF

10

TOTAL

25

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

0/15

Participation

0/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

15

ASSOCIATED COSTS

FRUIT TREES

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

$15 / SF

300 SF

$3,000

$4,500

$20,000 each

1 Large

$15,000

$20,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$19,100

$26,300

Sustainable / Pollinator

3

Structure

4 2

RECOMMENDATION

Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$34,190

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

101

29

All People’s Garden DISTRICT: MUNDO VERDE 293 E 3 St, btwn Aves C & D SIZE 4,573 ft2

FOUNDED 1979

MEMBERS 0—10

OWNERSHIP Manhattan Land Trust

EXISTING CONDITIONS • High canopy cover, many tall trees • High shade from buildings on either side, mostly shade plantings and few flowering plants • Have gazebo, no rain harvesting from roof • Some food production in portable planter boxes at front southwest • Very level site, flat semi-permeable brick pathways and patios • Have hose bib at front southwest corner • Several planting areas in south front are raised with low stone walls

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct rainwater harvesting system from gazebo • Increase sustainable planting in beds around garden

102

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

All People's Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

1

N

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

2

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK MARSH ELDER

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 45 POINTS 1

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

Sustainable Gardens

Habitat Improvement

OUTCOME

POINTS

1,000 gallons/year

15

300 SF

10

TOTAL

25

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

5/10

TOTAL

ELEVATED PATIO

20

ASSOCIATED COSTS HOSE BIB

2

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

300 SF

$3,000

$4,500

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$3,900

$5,900

Sustainable Garden Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$7,670

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

103

30

Brisas del Caribe DISTRICT: MIDDLE EARTH 237 E 3 St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 2,466 ft2

FOUNDED 1992

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Almost entirely paved, mostly impervious • Tree at south cut down, site is in full sun, making it hot and dry • One of 2 casita roofs has gutter that drains into a ditch on neighboring property • Have planting beds along east and north side of garden, some food planted but mostly exposed soil • Elevated beds in center along path with no plants • Beds at south west corner unused • Site low point on cement patio between casitas where water pools • Entire space is largely unprogrammed apart from use of casitas

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Improve drainage and infiltration across entire site with porous paving • Increase shading by replacing tree stump with new shade tree to reduce excessive evaporation from soil in planting beds around site • Plant sustainable gardens around site for improved habitat • Construct rainwater harvesting systems for both casitas' roofs and set up irrigation system to maintain soil moisture between rains

104

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Brisas del Caribe

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O H2O LOS ADOQUINES

1

N

3

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

H2O

5

H2O

MARSH ELDER

POROUS PAVING

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

RAINWATER HARVESTING

POLLEN

4

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

PLANTING BEDS

2

4

Las Siembras

NECTAR

TREES

GUTTER OVERFLOW

POLLINATOR GARDENS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 75 POINTS

5 1

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Porous Paving

Water Infiltration

2,027 gallons/year

20

Tree Planting

Cooling / Shading

1 tree

10

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

250 SF

10

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

1,600 gallons/year

15

TOTAL

3

55

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

5/10

TOTAL

ELEVATED BEDS TREE STUMP

2

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION Porous Paving

UNUSED BEDS

20

Trees Sustainable / Pollinator Rainwater Harvesting Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$30 / SF

500 SF

$10,000

$15,000

$520 each

1

$200

$520

$15 / SF

250 SF

$2,500

$3,750

$600 each

2 Med. Systems

$600

$1,200

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$13,900

$21,270 $27,651

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

105

31

Hope Garden DISTRICT: MUNDO VERDE 192 E 2th St, btwn Aves A & B SIZE 1,987 ft2

FOUNDED 1994

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Low canopy, almost all covered- southern back area has no canopy cover, but building at east and south shade the area • All areas without planting are mulched, except for brick path at front in center- disappears under mulch • Wood platform on west side in back with BBQ • Flat site, low point at front gate • Low drainage at front in brick area- evidence of pooling

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Plant sustainable gardens for habitat and trim back overgrown canopy • Construct structure over deck for rainwater harvesting • Harvest rainwater off proposed structure to irrigate proposed sustainable garden • Reconstruct pathway to be level porous paving, and extend it to the back of garden for accessibility to deck • Investigate potential to extend planting area of garden to the stoopline of property parcel

106

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Hope Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

1

N

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

3

H2O

MARSH ELDER

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

RAINWATER HARVESTING

H2O H2O

POOLING

LOS ADOQUINES

2

H2O

4

4

H2O

STRUCTURES

POROUS PAVING

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 60 POINTS 1

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Sustainable Garden

Habitat Improvement

Rain Harvest / Structure

Water Storage

Porous Paving

Water Infiltration

OUTCOME

POINTS

200 SF

10

800 gallons/year

15

1,245 gallons/year

20

TOTAL

45

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

15

ASSOCIATED COSTS

GRILL

3 DECK

2

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Sustainable Garden

$15 / SF

200 SF

$2,000

$3,000

Structure

$15,000 each

1 Med. Structure

$10,000

$15,000

Rainwater Harvesting

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

$30 / SF

300 SF

$6,000

$9,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$19,100

$28,800

Porous Paving Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$37,440

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

107

32

Jardin Los Amigos DISTRICT: MUNDO VERDE 221 E 3rd St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 2,338 ft2

FOUNDED 1996

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • • •

Casita on site in back northern end, no current rain harvesting off roof Canopy in back but more direct sun in southern front Front patio area has astroturf- pooling visible Pergola in center of site, no rainwater harvesting Have many potted plants with ornamental flowers around pergola in center • Site low point at front • Get water from neighboring building to east, one of the gardeners owns the building next door • Have raised beds in central area with mainly volunteer plants or exposed soil

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Plant sustainable gardens along eastern edge for improved habitat • Install porous pavers in front patio where astroturf causes water pooling • Expand pollinator habitat by planting more flowering plants in central beds • Investigate potential to extend planting area of garden to the stoopline of property parcel

108

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Jardin Los Amigos

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

1

N

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

3

Las Siembras

MARSH ELDER

NECTAR

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

POLLINATOR GARDENS H2O

H2O LOS ADOQUINES

2

4

H2O

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

POROUS PAVING

4

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 75 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

200 SF

10

Porous Paving

Water Infiltration

830 gallons/year

20

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

700 gallons/year

10

TOTAL

1 3 RAISED BEDS

40

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

35

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

2 POOLING

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Sustainable / Pollinator

$15 / SF

200 SF

$2,000

$3,000

Porous Paving

$30 / SF

200 SF

$4,000

$6,000

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$6,900

$10,400

Rainwater Harvesting Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$13,520

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

109

33

Kenkeleba House & Sculpture Garden DISTRICT: MUNDO VERDE 212 E 3rd St, btwn Ave B & C SIZE 7,083 ft2

FOUNDED 1979

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Site is a double lot connected by gate, sculpture lot north, naturalized lot in south • Sculpture lot has sparse canopy cover, full sun • Sculpture lot is mostly flat, except for gully toward front northwest corner • Southern lot is meant to look untouched, many vines growing into trees, and high shade- no ground cover • Southern lot has meandering semi-permeable brick pathway down center • Some raised beds in northeast corner of southern lot, no plants in them- full shade • Get water from next door, managers of garden own building to west • Southern lot low point in northwestern back of lot near foundations of next door building

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Plant sustainable gardens for improved habitat and shade tolerance in southern lot • Plant demonstration pollinator gardens in art area with high sun • Construct structure to harvest rainwater and set up irrigation system for proposed pollinator garden

110

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Kenkeleba House & Sculpture Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

1

N

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

3

H2O

MARSH ELDER

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

GULLY

RAINWATER HARVESTING H2O

POLLEN

2

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

4

Las Siembras

H2O

NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

4

3

STRUCTURES

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 30 POINTS

SCULPTURES

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Sustainable / Pollinators

Habitat Improvement

Rain Harvest / Structure

Water Storage

OUTCOME

POINTS

600 SF

10

1,000 gallons/year

15

TOTAL

1

RAISED BEDS

25

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

0/15

Participation

0/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

5

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION Sustainable / Pollinator Rainwater Harvesting Structure Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$15 / SF

600 SF

$6,000

$9,000

$1,000 each

1 Large System

$500

$1,000

$20,000 each

1 Large

$15,000

$20,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$22,100

$30,800 $40,040

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

111

34

Le Petit Versailles DISTRICT: MUNDO VERDE 247 E 2nd St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 1,588 ft2

FOUNDED 1996

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • High shade on most of site due to narrow lot and buildings at east and west sides, but southern end gets consistent sun • 2 entrances, at north and south—site is used as shortcut between 2nd St and Houston • Northern area has arbor structure, no current rainwater harvesting • Compacted soil under arbor and in northern area • Southern area has elevated platform deck surrounded by circular semi-permeable brick pathway—pathway pools during rain events • Most of planting on site is in raised beds- bricks beneath soil in south of site, and cracked cement slab under soil in north area • Southeastern corner is overgrown and underutilized- high point of site • Fence on Houston side is allowing erosion onto sidewalk • Site low point is at southern side, under deck • Use hydrant on Houston for water

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • • • • •

112

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Construct rainwater harvesting system off arbor at north Regrade southern side to slope away from Houston Create berm along south of site to keep rainwater from sheeting onto Houston Plant shade tolerant pollinator gardens for habitat improvement Improve drainage and infiltration in south end of site where pooling occurs

Le Petit Versailles

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

POLLEN

H2O LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

LOS ADOQUINES

1

N

3

H2O

5

Las Siembras

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

NECTAR

POROUS PAVING

POLLINATOR GARDENS

H2O

COMPACTED SOIL

1

2

H2O

4

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK MARSH ELDER

GRADING

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 95 POINTS

4

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

500 gallons/year

10

Grading

Water Conveyance

1,245 gallons/year

10

Porous Pavers

Water Infiltration

1,660 gallons/year

20

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

300 SF

10

TOTAL

50

Membership

RAISED PLANTERS

10/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

WOODEN DECK

ASSOCIATED COSTS

3

2

45

5

OVERGROWN PLANTING

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

Grading

$20 / SF

300 SF

$0

$6,000

Porous Paving

$30 / SF

400 SF

$8,000

$12,000

$15 / SF

300 SF

$3,000

$4,500

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$11,900

$23,900

Sustainable / Pollinator Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$31,070

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

113

35

Miracle Garden DISTRICT: MUNDO VERDE 194 E 3rd St, btwn Aves A & B SIZE 5,001 ft2

FOUNDED 1983

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Healthy mix of canopy, old and young trees—high light attenuation • Wide meandering semi-permeable brick path down center, leading to flagstone patio in back—pooling on patio occurs in rain events • Large deck structure in back, currently harvesting rainwater off half the roof • Native planting beds in west central area at site high point • Water pools in northern exposed soil seating area • Low point of site is flagstone circular patio area in back of site • Large area to northeastern front of site has exposed soil gathering area with benches and table • Have hose bib hook up for city water access

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT

114

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

• Improve drainage on flagstone patio low point—regrade or channel water off patio while preserving the flagstones • Install rain garden where pooling occurs in northern seating area • Regrade or channel exposed soil area at north of site into proposed rain garden • Expand both pollinator and sustainable garden planting on site • Enhance rainwater harvesting system roof area by fixing gutters and re-sloping roof of stage in south • Increase total volume of rain barrel storage in rainwater harvesting system • Investigate potential to extend planting area of garden to the stoopline of property parcel

Miracle Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

POLLEN

H2O

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

1

N

3

H2O

5

Las Siembras

H2O

NECTAR

GRADING

POLLINATOR GARDENS

6

RAIN GARDENS

H2O WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

WAT

ENT

ER

CATCHM STORAG

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

PLANTIN

Las Siembras

ITAT

COOLIN

G

El Enfriamien

to

1

EXPOSED SOIL

2

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

4

H2O

6

H2O

MARSH ELDER

HOSE BIB

6

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

5 BIRD BATH

3 6

POOLING

SIGNAGE

RAINWATER HARVESTING

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 95 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Grading

Water Conveyance

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

Rain Garden

Water Infiltration

Signage

Education

OUTCOME

POINTS

1,038 gallons/year

10

200 SF

10

900 gallons/year

15

1,660 gallons/year

20 10

TOTAL

65

Membership

10/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

1

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

2

30

4

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Grading

$20 / SF

250 SF

$0

$5,000

Sustainable / Pollinator

$15 / SF

200 SF

$2,000

$3,000

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$20 / SF

200 SF

$3,000

$4,000

Signage

$1,200/$800 ea.

1 Large, 1 Medium

$1,200

$2,000

Public Safety + Rat Abatement

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$7,100

$15,400

Rainwater Harvesting Rain Garden

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$20,020

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

115

36

Peach Tree Garden DISTRICT: MUNDO VERDE 238 E 2 St, btwn Aves B & C SIZE 5,301 ft2

FOUNDED 1980

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • • • • • •

Many peach trees in southern front- low canopy Buildings on either side, site is wide and receives full sun midday Very flat site Brick semi-permeable patio in southwestern front corner and along southern edge, and brick path down center of site Ornamental planting in back of site, less canopy cover Tool-shed on western edge, no current rainwater harvesting Hose bib connection to city water Have drinking fountain water connection

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct rainwater harvesting system off tool-shed • Plant pollinator gardens in back of garden for habitat • Improve pollinator habitat

116

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Peach Tree Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

HAB ITAT

G

to

H2O

3

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

2

ER

N

ENT

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

Las Siembras

El Enfriamien

1

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

WAT

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN COOLIN

SIGNAGE

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

H2O

4

Las Siembras

NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

GAZEBO

1

MICROGRIDS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 75 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

Pollinator Garden

Habitat Improvement

Signage

Education

Microgrids

Renewable Energy

OUTCOME

POINTS

700 gallons/year

10

300 SF

10 10

168 Wh

TOTAL

20 50

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

10/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

5/10

TOTAL

25

ASSOCIATED COSTS

HOSE BIB DRINKING FOUNTAIN

3 4

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 SF

1 Medium System

$300

$600

Pollinator

$15 / SF

300 SF

$3,000

$4,500

Signage

$1,200 each

1 Large

$700

$1,200

Microgrids

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$14,600

$19,100

Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$24,830

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

117

37

Albert’s Garden DISTRICT: SOUTHLAND 16 E 2nd St, btwn Bowery & 2nd Ave SIZE 3,375 ft2

FOUNDED 1971

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP Manhattan Land Trust

EXISTING CONDITIONS • High canopy, many trees and medium light attenuation—mainly shade plantings on site • Water feature in back north west area • Shed in northeast corner, no rain harvesting • Densely programmed garden • Have city water pump with hose bib on site • Very level site with low point in back, along shared wall with cemetery • Mostly shade planting, some flowering species

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Need rainwater harvesting on shed to reduce city water use • Improve pollinator habitat by planting greater area of shade-tolerant pollinator plants

118

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Albert's Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

1

N

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

1

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

Las Siembras

NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 50 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

Pollinator Gardens

Habitat Improvement

OUTCOME

POINTS

400 gallons/year

10

200 SF

10

TOTAL

20

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

5/10

TOTAL

30

ASSOCIATED COSTS HOSE BIB

RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

200 SF

$2,000

$3,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$2,900

$4,400

Pollinator Garden Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$5,720

2

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

119

38

Children’s Magical Garden DISTRICT: SOUTHLAND 129 Stanton St SIZE 5,030 ft2

FOUNDED 1982

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb & Childrens Magical Garden

EXISTING CONDITIONS • High canopy cover, some sunlight on the eastern edge- buildings to south and west of site • Fruit trees including apple, peach, mulberry • Established area for medicinal plantings in east • Mulched pathways, all unplanted area on site is mulched and or exposed soil- low stone wall offset from northern fence along northern path • Wooden egg-shaped chicken coop at low point of site • Large shed in south of site at back, small shed on eastern south edge, neither currently collecting rainwater • Site totally graded away from street, towards central south-east back of garden, where rain garden was before the developer's fence was erected • Attain water from hydrant • Lot 19 (southeast corner), previously rain garden and vegetable garden, is presently inaccessible due to court proceedings of Children's Magical Garden Inc. vs developers.

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct rainwater harvesting system off roof of shed • Plant sustainable and pollinator gardens along northern fence line for enhanced habitat • Berm edges of site with demonstration Hugel-kultur beds to support growth around perimeter, or requested earth bag berm to redirect water

120

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Children's Magical Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

WAT

ENT

ER

CATCHM STORAG

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

PLANTIN

Las Siembras

ITAT

COOLIN

G

El Enfriamien

to

N

1

3

H2O

H2O

5

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK MARSH ELDER

GRADING

2

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

H2O

SIGNAGE

POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

H2O

4

Las Siembras

NECTAR

1

RAINWATER HARVESTING

POLLINATOR GARDENS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 80 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Grading

Water Conveyance

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

Signage

Education

OUTCOME

POINTS

1,245 gallons/year

10

800 gallons/year

15

300 SF

10 10

TOTAL

45

Membership

3

15/15

Maintenance

5/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

MEDICINAL GARDEN

5

35

ASSOCIATED COSTS

4

RECOMMENDATION Grading Rainwater Harvesting Sustainable / Pollinator

ROSE GARDEN

Signage Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$20 / SF

300 SF

$0

$6,000

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

300 SF

$3,000

$4,500

$1,200 each

1 Large

$700

$1,200

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$4,600

$13,100 $17,030

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

121

39

Committee of Poor People’s LES Garden DISTRICT: SOUTHLAND 171 Stanton St SIZE 2,533 ft2

FOUNDED 1993

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • High shade on site, high canopy cover and buildings south and east of garden • Have shed in northwest front corner with gutter, have rain barrel • Shed in southeast corner has gutter but rain barrel not used • Much of site seems unprogrammed, few plantings other than trees, have plastic flowers along eastern edge • Very flat site with compacted, exposed soil • Fence is set back a few feet from sidewalk, exposed soil between sidewalk and fence

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Expand rainwater harvesting across site and use irrigation system for proposed sustainable gardens • Plant sustainable gardens for improved habitat on site • Improve soil quality across entire site, create porous pathway to consolidate foot traffic and minimize soil compaction

122

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Committee of Poor People's LES Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

1

N

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

2

1

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK MARSH ELDER

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 30 POINTS

COMPACTED SOIL

2

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

Sustainable Garden

Habitat Improvement

OUTCOME

POINTS

800 gallons/year

15

1,500 SF

10

TOTAL

25

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

0/15

Participation

0/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

5

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

2 Med. Systems

$600

$1,200

$15 / SF

1,500 SF

$15,000

$22,500

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$16,200

$24,500

Sustainable Garden Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

2

$31,850

1

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

123

40

First Street Garden DISTRICT: SOUTHLAND 48 E 1 St, btwn 1st & 2nd Ave SIZE 2,302 ft2

FOUNDED 1999

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • •

High canopy cover in back, minimal cover in front Roof structure built in front, no current rainwater catchment Temporary seating area in back Gravel path down middle of site, exposed compacted soil in central area, covered with mulch at front south end • Small raised beds in back with shade plantings • Site graded toward southern front • No flowering plants

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct rainwater harvesting system off roof structures • Plant native gardens for low maintenance groundcover and habitat • Investigate potential to extend planting area of garden to the stoopline of property parcel

124

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

First Street Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

1

N

H2O

RAINWATER HARVESTING

RAISED BEDS

2

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK MARSH ELDER

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 30 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

Sustainable Gardens

Habitat Improvement

OUTCOME

POINTS

400 gallons/year

10

200 SF

10

TOTAL

20

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

0/15

Participation

0/10

Public Programs

5/10

TOTAL

1 COMPACTED SOIL

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

Rainwater Harvesting

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$15 / SF

200 SF

$2,000

$3,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$2,900

$4,400

Sustainable Garden

2

10

Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$5,720

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

125

41

Forsyth Garden Conservancy DISTRICT: SOUTHLAND 106 Chrystie St SIZE 11,790 ft2

FOUNDED 1994

MEMBERS 1—10

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • •

High canopy above site, medium light attenuation Wide semi-pervious stone pathway covering most of space All area under trees are exposed soil with minimal planting Whole site graded toward Delancey Street

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Plant sustainable gardens in planters to support habitat • Construct structure to harvest rainwater to irrigate proposed sustainable gardens

126

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Forsyth Garden Conservancy

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

N

1

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

3

H2O

MARSH ELDER

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

RAINWATER HARVESTING

H2O

2

H2O

STRUCTURES

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 30 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Sustainable Garden

Habitat Improvement

Rain Harvest / Structure

Water Storage

OUTCOME

POINTS

500 SF

10

800 gallons/year

15

TOTAL

EXPOSED SOIL

1

3

2

25

Membership

5/15

Maintenance

0/15

Participation

0/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

5

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Sustainable Garden

$15 / SF

500 SF

$5,000

$7,500

$15,000 each

1 Medium

$10,000

$15,000

$600 each

1 Medium System

$300

$600

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$15,900

$23,900

Structure Rainwater Harvesting Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$31,070

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

127

42

LES People’s Care Garden DISTRICT: SOUTHLAND 25 Rutgers St SIZE 2,245 ft2

FOUNDED 1991

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP Manhattan Land Trust

EXISTING CONDITIONS • New path down south center of site, made with permeable pavers • Raised semi-permeable cobblestone patio in eastern back of site, raised planting bed with low stone wall adjacent to patio • Raised beds currently unused at north side • Small tool-shed in back of site, no current rainwater capture • Buildings north and south side, high shade on site • Flat site in front, raised stone patio in back, and far back corner (north west) is underutilized low point with exposed and compacted soil • Have a hose bib with city water access • Site inundated 5' during Superstorm Sandy

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Plant sustainable gardens along southern edge for habitat, shade tolerance, and flood tolerance • Improve pollinator habitat in unused raised beds

128

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

LES People's Care Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

N

1

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK MARSH ELDER

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS POLLEN LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

2

Las Siembras

NECTAR

POLLINATOR GARDENS

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 40 POINTS

2 UNUSED RAISED BEDS

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

OUTCOME

POINTS

500 SF

10

TOTAL

1 HOSE BIB

10

Membership

10/15

Maintenance

10/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

0/10

TOTAL

30

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION Sustainable / Pollinator Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$15 / SF

500 SF

$5,000

$7,500

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$5,600

$8,300 $10,790

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

129

43

Liz Christy Community Garden DISTRICT: SOUTHLAND 285 Bowery SIZE 11,728 ft2

FOUNDED 1973

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • • • • • • •

High canopy, very dense programming and planting- no unused space Permeable meandering paths—gravel and crushed salvaged stone Have one toolshed, no current rainwater harvesting Have one pond at far eastern end, and one in center north of garden Canopy receives sun for nine months, and is shaded during winter months by building to south High canopy allows for good light attenuation Have a Parks contract with building on north edge to use unlimited water Soil erosion out of site, new sidewalk on Houston poured several inches below old one, three sides of garden now eroding onto sidewalk Mostly level site, northwest area is lower

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Construct berms around edges of site to reduce runoff and erosion onto Houston and Bowery sidewalks, and 2nd Avenue subway entrance • Reduce municipal water demand by harvesting rainwater off roof of tool shed

130

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Liz Christy Community Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

N

1

1

EROSION

H2O

GRADING

1 EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 45 POINTS RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Grading

Water Conveyance

OUTCOME

POINTS

3,320 gallons/year

10

TOTAL

10

Membership

10/15

Maintenance

10/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

RUNOFF

1

35

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION Grading Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$20 / SF

800 SF

$0

$16,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$600

$16,800 $21,840

1

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

131

44

M’Finda Kalunga DISTRICT: SOUTHLAND 133 Forsyth St SIZE 20,908 ft2

FOUNDED 1983

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • • •

• • •

Very large site, high canopy with high light attenuation Native and pollinator plantings all around garden Raised beds with food production in northwest corner Have a pond with turtles in southeast corner, and have chicken coop in northeast corner Lots of impermeable paved pathways going through garden, do not like paving and have covered some up with dirt to hide itsome areas of pavement pool or collect water in rain event Rainwater harvesting off southern (NYC Parks) roof, and off several sheds around site Augment rainwater capture with 4 city water hook-up hose bibs Low points are at edges- runoff and erosion flow onto adjacent sidewalks

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Improve infiltration around site by replacing paved paths with porous paving- particularly want paved area at northeast replaced with mulch • Plant native and pollinator gardens around site for increased habitat • Reconstruct pond into wetland with filter strip buffers that can accept redirected runoff • Construct berms around edges of site to reduce runoff.

Grade eastern edge of site toward proposed wetland • Employ phytoremediation techniques around site edges

132

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

M'Finda Kalunga

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS POLLEN

H2O

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

H2O

1

FOOD PRODUCTION

6

HOSE BIB

G

H2O

7

H2O

NECTAR

POROUS PAVING

POLLINATOR GARDENS

5

SOILS & COMPOST

SIGNAGE

H2O

WETLANDS

H2O

H2O

RUNOFF

7

ITAT

5

Las Siembras

HAB

N

3

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

Las Siembras

El Enfriamien to

1

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

ER

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN COOLIN

WAT

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

LOS ADOQUINES

2

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

4

H2O

6

8 H2O

MARSH ELDER

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

1

WETLANDS

MICROGRIDS

GRADING

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 125 POINTS EROSION

4

3 2

7 8

5

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Porous Paving / Wetland

Water Infiltration

7,470 gallons/year

20

Sustainable/Pollinator/Soil

Habitat Improvement

800 SF

10

Grading

Water Conveyance

2,490 SF

10

Microgrids

Renewable Energy

168 Wh

20

Signage

Education

10

TOTAL

70

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

5/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

45

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Porous Paving

$30 / SF

1,000 SF

$20,000

$30,000

Sustainable/Pollinator/Soils

$15 / SF

800 SF

$8,000

$12,000

Grading

$20 / SF

600 SF

$0

$12,000

$12,000 Each

1

$10,000

$12,000

$1,200/$800 ea.

1 Large, 1 Med

$1,200

$2,000

$120 / SF

800 SF

$36,000

$96,000

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$75,800

$164,800

Microgrid Signage Wetland Public Safety + Rat Abatement TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$214,240

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

133

45

Siempre Verde Garden DISTRICT: SOUTHLAND 181 Stanton St SIZE 2,602 ft2

FOUNDED 2012

MEMBERS 21+

OWNERSHIP NYC Parks Department Green Thumb

EXISTING CONDITIONS • L-shaped garden with entrance on both ends • Northern end gets low sun, with buildings on either side and high canopy cover- many shade plantings • Southern end gets some direct sun • Southern end has raised beds and food production • Semi-permeable flagstone patio with table at northernmost end • Site is completely covered in mulch • Small shed on eastern edge with rainwater catchment barrel • Site low point is in central site, accepting rainwater flowing from both sides of the garden • Water comes from hydrant • Northern end with patio is lower than sidewalk by about 2 feet

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • • • •

134

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Expand rainwater harvesting capacity Create rain garden near low point of site to infiltrate excess water Channelize water from north of site into proposed rain garden Expand sustainable garden and pollinator planting area

Siempre Verde Garden

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O

POLLEN

H2O LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

1

N

3

H2O

5

H2O

H2O

7

Las Siembras

NECTAR

RAINWATER HARVESTING

6

8

RAIN GARDENS

POLLINATOR GARDENS BIOSWALE

H2O

MICROGRIDS

H2O

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

STAGHORN SUMAC PIN OAK

6

Las Siembras

ITAT

4

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

H2O

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

ENT

ER

2

COOLIN

WAT

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN

La Filtraciรณn

G

El Enfriamien to

H2O

8

La Distribuciรณn El Drenaje Las Siembras

MARSH ELDER

GRADING

2

SIGNAGE

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 130 POINTS

1

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

OUTCOME

POINTS

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

400 gallons/year

10

Grading

Water Conveyance

1,245 gallons/year

10

Rain Garden / Bioswale

Water Infiltration

87,950 gallons/year

20

Sustainable / Pollinator

Habitat Improvement

200 SF

10

Microgrids

Renewable Energy

168 Wh

20

Signage

Education

10

TOTAL

LOW POINT

4

8

3 FOOD PRODUCTION

5 7 RAISED BEDS

BIOSWALE

SUSTAINABLE GARDENS

5

80

Membership

15/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

50

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

Rainwater Harvesting

$400 Each

1 Small System

$200

$400

Grading

$20 / SF

300 SF

$0

$6,000

Rain Garden

$20 / SF

200 SF

$3,000

$4,000

Sustainable / Pollinator

$15 / SF

500 SF

$5,000

$7,500

Bioswale

$35,000 each

1

N/A

$35,000

Microgrid

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

Signage

$1,200/$500 ea.

2 Large, 1 Small

$1,700

$2,900

Public Safety + Rat Abatement

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$20,500

$68,600

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$89,180

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

135

46

Suffolk Street / Dorothy Strelsin Memorial DISTRICT: SOUTHLAND 174 Suffolk Street SIZE 2,385 ft2

FOUNDED 1980

MEMBERS 11—20

OWNERSHIP New York Restoration Project

EXISTING CONDITIONS • Very flat site • Unprogrammed grassy knoll in western central front of site • Wide flat permeable gravel path to relatively impermeable back patio—part of patio has been filled in with pavement, pooling occurs • Buildings on north and south sides, low sun • Mainly shade planting • Some raised beds in eastern back edges, minimal food production • Shed at back patio with rainwater harvesting system set up- one barrel currently, could use more capacity • Have city water access with hose bib

OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT • Plant demonstration pollinator garden in center of garden • Expand rainwater harvesting capacity with more barrels

136

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Suffolk Street / Dorothy Strelsin Memorial

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS H2O H2O

1

N

Suffolk St

3

H2O

MICROGRIDS

2

RAINWATER HARVESTING POLLEN

WETLAN

DS LES

LOS HUMEDA

FILTRAT

ENT

ER

La Captaciรณn

E

El Depรณsito

GS

HAB

Las Siembras

ITAT

COOLIN

H2O

ION

La Filtraciรณn

WAT

HOSE BIB

CATCHM STORAG PLANTIN G

El Enfriamien

to

LOS JARDINES PARA LOS POLINIZADORES

H2O

2

4

Las Siembras

NECTAR

SIGNAGE

GRASSY KNOLL

EVALUATION CRITERIA VALUE: 95 POINTS

2

4

POLLINATOR GARDENS

RECOMMENDATION

FUNCTION

Microgrids

Renewable Energy

Signage

Education

Rainwater Harvesting

Water Storage

Pollinator Gardens

Habitat Improvement

OUTCOME

POINTS

168 Wh

20 10

400 gallons/year

10

300 SF

10

TOTAL

50

Membership

FOOD PRODUCTION RAISED BEDS

10/15

Maintenance

15/15

Participation

10/10

Public Programs

10/10

TOTAL

45

ASSOCIATED COSTS RECOMMENDATION

UNIT COST

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST (NO LABOR)

PROJECT & LABOR COST

$12,000 each

1

$10,000

$12,000

Signage

$800 each

2 Medium

$1,000

$1,600

Rainwater Harvesting

$400 each

1 Small System

$200

$400

$15 / SF

300 SF

$3,000

$4,500

$400/$400 each

Garden-wide

$600

$800

$14,800

$19,300

Microgrid

2 20 Feet

3

Pollinator Garden Public Safety + Rat Abatement

1

TOTAL TOTAL WITH 30% CONTINGENCY

$25,090

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

137

6

RESOURCES 100 Resilient Cities Eric Klinenberg Heat Waves: a 20-year lesson – 2015 American Planning Association Morris et. al. 2001 Context-Sensitive Signage Design

Gruzen Samton Architects LLP & Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects PC Sustainable Urban Site Design Manual—2008

American Society of Agronomy Journal of Environmental Quality Scharenbroch, Bryant C. , Justin Morgenroth, and Brian Maule.

Tree Species Suitability to Bioswales and Impact on the Urban Water Budget- 2015

Lincoln University Nicki Copley The role of landscape architecture in designing for urban transformations and Adaptation after Disaster – 2014

American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Online Learning Webcast: DHM Design, Mark Wilcox The Social Engineering of Flood Recovery – 2016

NYC Department of Design and Construction High Performance Infrastructure Guidelines—2005

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Mark Kinver 2016 Civic Pride Can Help Sustain Urban Biodiversity

NYC Department of Environmental Protection Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan Stormwater Management Through Sound Land Use – 2007

Center for Watershed Protection Planting and Maintaining Trees – 2016

NYC Department of Environmental Protection Office of Green Infrastructure Standard Designs and Guidelines for Green Infrastructure Practices—2016

Design for Water: Rainwater Harvesting, Stormwater Catchment, and Alternate Water Reuse.

Kinkade-Levario, Heather. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society, 2007

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation GreenThumb Gardenhaus Guidebook—2008

Elsevier Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment Wratten et. al. 2012 Pollinator Habitat Enhancement: Benefits to Other Ecosystem Services

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation Tree Planting Standards—2014

Energy Informative Grid Tied, Off-grid, and Hybrid Solar Systems – 2016

138

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Natural Resources and Environment Department Bot et. al. 2005 The Importance of Soil Organic Matter

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Science Daily Plymouth University Cities Can Serve as a Refuge for Insect Pollinators—2016

The Atlantic: City Lab Lydia Lee—2015 How an Audio Booth Changed the Conversation Around a Major S.F. Redevelopment Project The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB) Ecosystem Services University of New Haven Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Sciences Kondracki, Ryan; Collins, Courtney; Habbab, Khalid Solar Powered Charging Station – 2014

US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Science Constructed Wetland System—2007 US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Science Pollinator-Friendly Plants for the Northeast United States Water Deeply Look to the Soils for Water Supply Answers – 2016 YouAreTheCity Brownfields to Greenfields: A Field Guide to Phytoremediation—2011

US Composting Council USCC Factsheet: Compost and Its Benefits – 2008 US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Syracuse, NY The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality – 2002 US Fish and Wildlife Service Pollinators US Environmental Protection Agency A Handbook of Constructed Wetlands US Forest Service Northern Research Station Trees Improve Human Health and Well-being in Many Ways—2015 US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Protection Partnership Division Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies- Cool Pavements – 2005

GARDENS RISING FEASIBILITY STUDY

139