The Battery Park City Committee of Community Board 1 (CB1) is pushing for a more active role in the upcoming process to reconfigure Wagner Park so that it will be better able to withstand future extreme weather events.
Committee chair Ninfa Segarra opened the discussion at the panel’s October 25 meeting, saying, “a major project that we have in southern Battery Park City is Wagner Park.” She noted that Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) vice president Gwen Dawson had appeared before CB1 in April, “and talked about doing some sort of global review. We questioned Gwen about whether or not there was going to be input by the community, and she said that there would.”
Ms. Segarra added that CB1 chair Anthony Notaro, “had looked at the Request for Proposals, and it specifically did not talk about input from the community, so it wasn’t clear what form that input would take.” She then queried BPCA spokesman Nick Sbordone, “since then, we’ve heard nothing. Do you have anything to tell us” before the Authority’s public question-and-answer session, scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday, November 9). She added, “it seems that announcements are done more there than here at CB1. Is there’s anything you can tell us to give us an update on this significant, major project, or are we going to get stuck again with concept plans as our first contact?”
This was a reference to another BPCA project, to reconceive the South End Avenue streetscape, which some community leaders have criticized as lacking in meaningful input from official stakeholders, such as CB1.
Mr. Sbordone replied, “we have had public input and there was a survey that was available online and in building lobbies. What we were looking for in the survey is the idea that changes for resiliency purposes need to be done to Wagner Park, because it’s at the bottom of Manhattan, right on the waterfront. So what is it that the community would like to see in terms of features and amenities that could be potentially be put there?”
He continued, “what I want to reiterate to the committee tonight is that the stage we’re in, is still the first stage, which is the evaluation.” He added that there have been few questions from residents about Wagner Park at the two Open Community Meetings the BPCA has hosted since the survey ended, in April.
Ms. Segarra theorized that this was, “because nobody knows anything, so it’s hard to ask questions.”
Committee member Tammy Meltzer added that the substance of Ms. Dawson’s report to the Committee in April had been, “that the survey was up, it was running, and it would be closed.”
“Here’s where we’re going,” Mr. Sbordone explained. “Two things: we want to have at least two more public dialog conversation, open comment sessions.”
“On what?” Ms. Segarra interjected.
“On Wagner Park,” Mr. Sbordone answered.
“What about it?” Ms. Segarra pressed. “That’s real unclear.”
“Improving the resiliency of Wagner Park is a must,” Mr. Sbordone said. “It’s a priority that has to happen. As part of these efforts needed in the park and the public building inside the park, as part of the overall design, what it is that the public would like to see — what features? What functions?”
Ms. Segarra pushed back, asking, “so the money you spent on that survey didn’t produce anything?
“It did,” Mr. Sbordone responded.
“So why don’t we know what that said?” Ms. Segarra asked.
“We don’t want to limit this to just the survey,” Mr. Sbordone parried. “We want to have additional input from the public. Because we went down this path before, and I was told the survey wasn’t enough.” This was another reference to the South End Avenue study, in which responses from a few hundred residents and tourists served as the basis for various proposals that would narrow the street, expand the sidewalks, change the direction of traffic, reduce the number of parking spaces, create traffic islands, and cordon off part of the thoroughfare as recreational space. (One scenario in this study also envisioned creating new retail space by filling in the arcades that line several buildings along South End Avenue, but the Authority has since disavowed this option.)
On this point, Ms. Segarra seemed to agree with Mr. Sbordone, emphasizing her dim view of the South End Avenue survey. She then returned to her reservations about the process, saying, “what’s the problem with us as a committee having a discussion around this, and then you can have a public forum. Are we not the public, that we always have to go to your community meetings in order to be able to talk?” She noted that the City Charter gives Community Boards, “the legal function to advise,” adding that, “I know the BPCA thinks that it’s a government unto itself. But we are a body legitimately appointed to represent the community. And it looks like the pattern now is to always do separate forums, so we’re not part of it, and we have to come in as participants.”
Ms. Segarra reflected, “we think we could be helpful in the process if we’re part of the actual conversation, instead of being an audience in a community meeting that has a slew of announcements that we have to wait for to figure out what’s going to happen next. That would be my recommendation.”
These sentiments were echoed by Committee members Tammy Metlzer (who said, “here, here!”) and Kathy Gupta (who said, “we’ve historically played that role”).
Mr. Sbordone said, “my response is that I agree with you and I’d like to be able to finish giving my update before I am accused of not getting the Community Board involved.”
But Ms. Segarra remained focused on this point, asking, “so how are we involved?”
Mr. Sbordone replied, “here’s how you are involved. We all know that public input, separate and apart from the community board, is important to everybody.”
Ms. Segarra interjected, “and we could be part of that. Why not a joint forum?”
Mr. Sbordone pushed back, saying, “hear me out. So we are going to do at least two more, full-bore public input dialog sessions with the community at large. In addition to the community board. We want to use this Wednesday’s Open Community Meeting as an opportunity to have a conversation about Wagner Park. There will be other parts to that meeting, but we want to be sure we get through those relatively quickly and then have an open public discussion about Wagner Park.”
Ms. Segarra returned to the lack of information available to the public (as well as the Community Board) in advance of this meeting, by asking, “a discussion about what?
Mr. Sbordone said again, “hear me out. I’m giving you the wide frame. Our consultant that did the assessment, Perkins Eastman, is going to be there as well, and will present the assessment to date, to stimulate and spark that feedback from the community
Ms. Meltzer observed, “same thing,” apparently referring to the similarity between the Wagner Park process and the South End Avenue study that preceded it.
Robin Forst, a public member of the Committee, asked, “the assessment is based on the survey?”
Mr. Sbordone answered, “the assessment is informed by the survey, but they are also doing their own work as experts in the field.”
Ms. Forst queried, “so will this specifically be on the resiliency or the uses?”
“Both,” Mr. Sbordone replied, “because not everybody is an expert in resiliency, but you are all stakeholders in the community.”
Ms. Meltzer bored in, asking, “at that meeting, will they tell us the statistical analysis of how many people answered the survey and how they responded, so we understand what the response was from the survey.”
“Yes,” Mr. Sbordone answered.
Ms. Meltzer continued, “the biggest question for resiliency is that the BPCA sits on the resiliency task force for Lower Manhattan and any plans that are done for Wagner Park, I want to know before they’re presented how that relates and works into, the global plan for Lower Manhattan. So I really need to understand, and I’m hoping you can present at that meeting, how the resiliency plan that they envision will be incorporated into the Lower Manhattan plan.”
“That’s exactly why we do it,” Mr. Sbordone rejoined, “because we want to make sure that these plans are integrated in a way that makes sense across the board. It’s not just about Battery Park City. It’s about the Big U and Lower Manhattan on a larger scale.” (The “Big U” is one proposal for surrounding Lower Manhattan with a network of flood barriers designed to hold back future storm surges.)
Ms. Meltzer pressed, “and will they be able to answer those questions?”
“Yes,” Mr. Sbordone replied. “You’ll be happy to know that one of the principals of Perkins Eastman is Stanton Eckstut, of the Eckstut design, which was the master plan for Battery Park City. So this is a fellow who knows a thing or two about a thing or two when it comes to Battery Park City.” (This was a reference to the 1979 design scheme that governed the development of much of Battery Park City between Albany Street and West Thames Street.)
Ms. Meltzer retorted, “he’s a hundred years old,” and added, “it’s nice that he’ll be there, but he’s part of the past, not the future.”
Mr. Sbordone observed, “we’re excited to have an expert in the field who’ll be walking through to answer Ninfa’s questions, to spark public conversation so people coming in are not just given a blank piece of paper, but have some type of framework to understand, through which to ask questions.”
Committee member Tom Goodkind asked, “are we giving any input as to how we feel the park should be?”
Ms. Segarra answered, “it’s hard to give any input when we don’t know what they’re suggesting.”
Mr. Sbordone continued, “the second part of what I was going to say is, we want to then commit to a second one of those sessions in the beginning of next year. And in addition to those efforts, we are doing individual interviews where neighborhood stakeholders come into BPCA, sit down with Perkins Eastman, and work through the particulars.” He added that among the organizations that will be asked to provide this level of input are “folks like Gigino’s Restaurant, the Battery Conservancy, Pier A, the Ritz-Carlton, the Jewish Museum, the Skyscraper Museum, the Downtown Alliance, the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council, and CB1.”
Ms. Meltzer interjected, “one of the reasons it’s so important that you come to the Community Board is that as you listed individual stakeholders, you left off a group that is in the park more than once a day, five days a week: kids from P.S./I.S. 276.”
“The list I gave you wasn’t exhaustive,” Mr. Sbordone rejoined, continuing, “there have been no decisions made in terms of design plans. We have a three-phased approach: evaluation, planning and design. We’re still getting feedback and evaluating.”
Committee member Maria Smith chided Mr. Sbordone, saying, “I’m sorry — what a waste of money.”
Mr. Sbordone retorted, “you’ve got to give me something here. If we do something, you’re upset that we don’t take feedback. If we don’t take feedback, you’re upset that we did something.”
Ms. Segara said, “the best way to do that is to have Perkins Eastman come to one of our meetings. It would be great if they could come in January, and we could have a great discussion with them and let them know how we feel. And that would really be an enormous great forward step for the Authority. It would be positive; it would be a way of being inclusive. We know that everything we would like may not be in the plan, because there are other factors. But at least that would really feel like there’s a recognition that this body plays an important role in this community and has the respect of every elected official here. We really take seriously that we represent the community.”
Battery Park City Committee co-chair Jeff Mihok said, “I would totally second that. It would be a huge step forward.” He then asked, “you’re saying there’s no plan yet. They’re just gathering information?”
“Right,” answered Mr. Sbordone.
“But would you say that something is happening to Wagner Park?” Mr. Mihok pressed.
“Yes,” replied Mr. Sbordone.
“So that’s already a plan,” Mr. Mihok argued, “just so you understand it from our perspective. You may not know what color it is, what it’s shaped like, what it’s going to be used for. But it’s already a plan in the sense that something’s changing.”
Mr. Sbordone contended that, “to me, a plan is what’s going to happen.”
Mr. Mihok asserted, “if you said to your kids, ‘I don’t really have a plan, but we’re moving to a new town,’ that’s a plan.”
Ms. Meltzer added, “by not including the Community Board, you do yourselves a disservice and don’t build any positive momentum.
The Open Community Meeting at which the BPCA (and their consultant, Perkins Eastman) will present their initial evaluation of Wagner Park is slated for tomorrow (Wednesday, November 9) from 6:00 to 7:30 pm, at Six River Terrace (opposite the Irish Hunger Memorial and next to Le Pain Quotidien restaurant). Residents are encouraged to attend.