Forum Article

"The Forum" just posted an article describing community questions for the Department of Parks & Recreation about their Phase 1 plans for the reservoir:

Questions Arise Over City's Plan for Ridgewood Reservoir
via Forum News by The Forum Newsgroup on 10/9/09
By Conor Greene

As the Parks Department prepares to begin the first phase of work at the Ridgewood Reservoir, local elected officials and community leaders have questioned aspects of the plan, and were not impressed with the response they received from the city on their input.

Parks is planning $7.7 million worth of improvements to Highland Park, which includes the Ridgewood Reservoir. Work will include replacing existing perimeter fencing around the reservoir’s three basins, upgrading the lighting and improving the pathways.

Phase one work will take place as the department and community continues to debate the overall future of the park and reservoir property. Many, including Community Board 5 members, want the city to preserve the reservoir in its natural state and upgrade existing ballfields in Highland Park, instead of filling in one of the basins and constructing fields there.

While the debate over the future of the property continues, CB 5 members and elected officials including State Senator Joseph Addabbo (D-Howard Beach) and Councilwoman Elizabeth Crowley (D-Middle Village) are asking Parks to reconsider aspects of the phase one plan.

In July, CB 5 informed Queens Borough Commissioner Dorothy Lewandowski in a letter that the board had unanimously adopted several recommendations concern- ing phase one, including that perimeter fencing be six feet high, instead of four feet as planned; that the electrical service conduit be installed on the reservoir side of the pathway, where the lighting fixture will be installed and that an existing stone stairway not be removed.

In an August 24 response, Lewandowski informed the board that the fence is not meant as a security barrier, since public access to the basins is planned for the future. “The four foot proposal provides a clear view into the basins which will allow the public to better appreciate the interior as well as provide easier observation by the police and parks patrols.”

Regarding the electrical setup, Lewandowski said the decision to locate the light poles on the reservoir side “was made for both ecological and aesthetic reasons.” She argued that since the electrical conduit can’t be placed between the pathway and the basins due to a lack of soft surface, Parks “decided that spending an additional $90K now to locate the conduit in the grass area [on the other side of the path] is a price worth paying to make maintenance in future less complicated and less expensive.”

Parks did agree that facing the lamp post panels away from the path to help prevent vandalism and theft “is a very good idea” that has been incorporated into the design. In addition, Parks has accepted the board’s recommendation that the northeast stairway should be restored. This can be done within phase one “barring any costly surprises revealed in our ongoing structural investigations.” Either way, the stairs will not be removed as planned.

While the board’s push for a pedestrian bridge over Vermont Avenue “is an idea worth studying in-depth,” Parks has determined that it is “cost prohibitive at least in the initial phase of work at the reservoir.” However, the department has directed consultant Mark K. Morrison and Associates to ensure that the current plan would allow for a pedestrian bridge in the future.

Board members expressed displeasure at a meeting earlier this year after receiving Parks’ response to the suggestions. “We’re not dumb – we suggest things for a reason,” said CB 5 Chairman Vincent Arcuri, vowing at the time to “fight this politically.”

In September letter to Lewandowski, Addbbo noted that he generally agreed with the board’s suggestions and said he also has “concerns” over the current plan. He agreed that the light fixtures and related electrical wiring should be on the same side of the path to save money, and also called for a six-foot high perimeter fence. “While six foot fencing might hinder some public access viewing, that issue is far outweighed by the greater issue the of public safety and security of people visiting the site,” wrote Addabbo.

“As you are aware, in these difficult fiscal times, the city needs to allocate funding efficiently,” the senator continued. “I am hopeful that prior to any work commencing on Phase I at the reservoir, your department conducts the necessary research and public input consideration to create a safe and accommodating venue.”

Crowley also wrote a letter to Lewandowski last month, calling the board’s proposals “a good set of improvements to the current plan.” She agreed with the board and Addabbo on the issues of the electrical wiring and fence height. She also noted that she continues to support “ a passive recreation option” at the site and wants a portion of the $19 million earmarked for phase two on renovations of the existing ballfields in Highland Park “before even considering the decon- struction of a basin.”

A Parks Department spokeswoman did not provide information regarding when phase one construction is slated to begin, or a response to Addabbo and Crowley’s letters.

On Wednesday, Arcuri called Parks’ response “foolish” and said that six-foot-high fences are used in other projects around the city, including the promenade along Flushing Bay without complaints of obstructed views. “I think they’re a little hard-nosed; their consultant came up with a design and they want to stick with it,” said Arcuri. “I think part of it is the ego of the designer, and the ego of the agency.”

Looking ahead to phase two, Arcuri agreed that some of the remaining $19 million should be used at the existing ballfields. “They can develop a program for the restoration of the upper ballfields and playground so the reservoir can stay a natural preserved area as every- one wants it,” he said. “There really isn’t a need for additional facilities; the need is for the facilities that exist to be restored.”

Arcuri charged that recent surveys of parks users con- ducted by the city “weren’t realistic” and didn’t reflect the desires of many to preserve the reservoir. “The results of that survey were contradictory to the results of all the public meetings, so we question that... We think that if we have enough political support we could get them to go along with the idea of a nature preserve [at the reservoir] and fixing the upper ballfields. I think we need the mayor to come out and side with the people who are familiar with the area.”

Send us an email

Brooklyn Water Works and Sewers

Thanks to the efforts of Google Books I am able to embed the entire memoir of D. Van Nostrand, an engineer for the Brooklyn Water Works. You can scroll directly to page 25 and read his description of the creation of the Ridgewood Reservoir.



Send us an email

Wasting Our Money

Phase I of the Department of Parks & Recreation's redevelopment of the Ridgewood Reservoir includes a huge waste of taxpayer's money. As I mentioned in a previous posting, some of the lighting, pathway and fencing plan call for the replacement of the existing 7' high perimeter fences with 4' fences. That brilliant design concept would, essentially, allow open season on the forested and wetland basins to anyone desiring to climb over the fence. A closer examination of the design reveals another money wasting element.

Between basins 1 & 2 and 2 & 3 are a pair of pathways that were designed as maintenance roads when the reservoirs were in active use. The edges of those paths are lined with wrought iron coping fences. The parks department design for Phase I calls for the clearing and development of a walking path with limited seating between basins 2 & 3. In general, this is a good idea. Unfortunately, rather than just clearing the vines off of the existing 1/2 mile of coping fences, they want to completely remove it and replace it with a modern steel fence.

Somehow, the original, historic 19th century wrought iron coping fences managed to survive, intact. There are several short sections that appear to be missing, however, on close inspection those pieces can be seen either covered by dirt on the path or on the stone retaining wall in the basin interior. How many places in New York City can one still find 19th century fences at a public works site? I'm guessing none.

During the two World Wars many of the old fences were melted down and used for artillery or other war-related needs. Somehow, the fences designed by the Brooklyn Water & Sewer Works over 150 years ago escaped that fate. Now Adrian Benepe wants to just cut them all down and toss them into a landfill. For what? I'd like to see the cost comparison between the current design, which calls for removal and replacement, with a plan which just removes the vegetation from the fences and restores the missing sections. I'd also like to know (as would most NYC taxpayers) why Mark Morrison and Associates made no attempt to save the historic fences and incorporate them into their design.

All too often in New York City, planners and developers see no need for preserving our city's history. Had it not been for the ambition plans of the Brooklyn Water & Sewer Works and their vision of a clean water supply for the City of Brooklyn, we would not have seen the rapid growth and expansion of, what was once considered, the largest city in the United States.

Send us an email

Parks Department Final Design

After nearly 2 years of community input, budget cuts and political wrangling, the Department of Parks & Recreation has submitted a final "Phase 1" design plan for the Ridgewood Reservoir to the Design Commission. Phase 1 only calls for improvements to the lighting and pathways surrounding the reservoir basins. It is clear from viewing the Powerpoint slideshow and listening to reaction from Queens Community Board 5 that the parks department pretty much ignored most of the community's input. I've converted the slideshow to a PDF file that can be downloaded here.

There are several areas of contention regarding the design, the most obvious being the height of the perimeter fences.

Since the start of the input process the parks department, namely Queens Commissioner Lewandowski and Park Administrator Kuha, have claimed that safety was their primary concern. Many of us commend them on their efforts to have openings in the existing 7' high chainlink fence repaired regularly and helping to increase patrols in the area. Homeless encampments in the basins, makeshift paintball areas and other illegal activities have been eliminated in the forested wetlands within the basins. In June, when the organization "World Science Festival" requested permission to host a bioblitz in the basins it was denied on grounds that it was too dangerous for people to scale down the basin embankments or walk around in the interiors. So why has Commission Lewandowski and Ms. Kuha given approval to a design that calls for removing the 7' high fence and replacing it with a 4' high fence? Was all their talk about safety just designed to keep people away from the reservoirs and create a negative image of the area? I suppose if you want to destroy "unique natural habitats" without any opposition the first thing you would want to do is make people think that it is a danger to the public. Does the parks department actually believe that people aren't going to jump over the fence to access the "dangerous" basins? And if anyone has difficulty climbing the fence, the proposed lighting design has the lampposts inline with the fences making for a convenient stepladder. Besides the obvious negative impact this will have on basins 1 and 3, there have been dozens of news articles posted over the decades about people drowning in the reservoir (basin 2 is a lake).

In Prospect Park an area call the Ravine was restored over an 8 year period. Tens of millions of dollars were spent on plantings, erosion control and other landscape repairs & improvements. When it was opened to the public, a 4' fence had been installed to prevent people from destroying the restored forest and waterway. Here is what happened; Fences were (and continue to be) climbed over or broken outright. In less than a year, much of the beautiful restoration was reversed. Understory plantings have been destroyed, the forest floor is badly eroded, compacted trails crisscross much of the forest, there are homeless encampments, parties, people having sex and the tons of trash. You can view some images of the destruction here. If Commissioner Lewandowski goes ahead with the plan for a low fence, she can expect the same or worse, since it is difficult for law enforcement to patrol the basin interiors.

There are also issues with the lighting plan. The design calls for nearly tripling the number of lampposts surrounding the basins. Another safety issue? Not likely as Highland Park and Ridgewood Reservoir have very low crime. In fact, according to NYPD statistics, it is much safer than Prospect Park. I don't think any other city park has lighting spaced so close. Another waste of money is the fact that the design calls for placing the lighting on the inside of the path and, rather than burying a single electrical line along the inside of the path, running it along the outside edge, with each lighting fixture then needing to have a separate lead splitting off from the outside of the path. Vincent Arcuri, the president of Queens Community Board 5, is a licensed electrician and pointed out this waste of money. Again, community voices were ignored.

The access path between basins 1 and 2 will not be available for public use. The path between basins 2 and 3, however, will be cleaned up and observation points created. This pathway will only be opened during specific hours and secured behind a short length of 7' fencing. There will be some seating added here. No additional seating or exercise stations (requested by the community) will be installed around the perimeter of the basins. Another design issue that was contested by the community board was the removal of a flight of stairs and access at the northeast corner of basin 1 near the Jackie Robinson Parkway service road. In this design feature anyone coming to the park from the area of Cypress Avenue and Cypress Hills Street wouldn't have an access point. It was in this area that many suggested Access-a-Ride vehicles or school buses pick-ups and drop offs. The department of parks wants, instead, to use this area only as an electronic card access point only for NYPD and park maintenance vehicles.

It is unclear to me whether the Department of Parks & Recreation had a design already in mind when they began the process of public input or if the parks commissioner just overruled any designs that included community recommendations. Either way, there is little question that the democratic process for this project has been seriously compromised. The community boards are preparing a joint statement and letter to the City Comptroller which I will post here shortly.



Send us an email

HPRRA Meeting

The next meeting of the Highland Park-Ridgewood Reservoir Alliance will be tomorrow evening, September 10th, 2009 at 7pm. Steve Fiedler of Queens Community Board 5 will show the Department of Parks & Recreation's final design presentation for the first phase of construction around the reservoir.

The meeting will be held at:

Ridgewood Democratic Club
6070 Putnam Street


View Larger Map

Directions to The Ridgewood Democratic Club at 6070 Putnam Street. The
entrance is the first door on Stier Place

From Brooklyn:
Take Eastern Parkway until it ends at Bushwick Avenue.
Make a right turn onto Bushwick Avenue and move to the left lane.
Bear left onto the Jackie Robinson Parkway (formerly Interboro)
Exit at Cypress Hills Street (2nd exit)
At the top of the exit, make a left onto Cyrpress Hills Street
At the bottom of the hill make a left onto Cooper Avenue
Make a right at the 5th block (62nd Street)
62nd street ends in 2 blocks at Myrtle Ave
Make a left turn onto Myrtle and the make a right turn (about 50 feet) onto Fresh Pond Road (just at the end of the underpass; Fresh Pond starts at Myrtle and there is a carpet store on the right)
About 1/4 mile, 1 block after the M train station, Putnam Street is on the left.
It’s one block after the train station

From Manhattan:
Take the LIE
Exit to The Grand Central Parkway East (towards LI)
Stay in the right lane and exit onto the Jackie Robinson Parkway (formerly
Interboro)
Exit at Cypress Hills Street
At the top of the exit, make a right onto Cypress Hills Street
At the bottom of the hill make a left onto Cooper Avenue
Make a right at the 5th block (62nd Street)
62nd street ends in 2 blocks at Myrtle Ave
Make a left turn onto Myrtle and the make a right turn (about 50 feet) onto Fresh Pond Road (just at the end of the underpass; Fresh Pond starts at Myrtle and there is a carpet store on the right)
About 1/4 mile, 1 block after the M train station, Putnam Street is on the left.
It’s one block after the train station

From The Bronx:
Take the Triborough to the Grand Central Parkway and follow directions above
Parking can be sometimes be difficult in the area

By Subway:
Take the M train to the Fresh Pond Station or the L train to Myrtle Avenue and
then go upstairs and take the M to the Fresh Pond Station
Walk one block to Putnam and then left onto Putnam.

Send us an email

New Parks Blog

A new blog called "A Walk in the Park" is a great information resource that helps keep communities up to date on the Department of Parks & Recreation's planning and other activities. Here is the description from their blog header:

"A news and information resource dedicated to transparency, accountability, community-based planning & consultation, and the health and public safety of visitors and employees in New York City's public park and recreation system."

Send us an email

Support from Riverkeeper

The organization "Riverkeeper" supports our efforts to protect the reservoir basins as a nature sanctuary. From their website:

Ridgewood Reservoir in Highland Park, Queens

As noted in PlaNYC 2030, New York City is proposing to turn the largest of three basins in the 50-acre, Ridgewood Reservoir in Highland Park, Queens, which has become an urban forest and fresh water wetland, into a 60-acre recreation site. Riverkeeper opposes plans to alter these wetland areas for several reasons.

Ridgewood Reservoir absorbs stormwater that would otherwise enter the city’s already over burdened sewage system. Replacing woodlands with recreational fields will exacerbate flooding and the urban heat island effect, and destroy an important habitat for many bird and plant species. The additional fields and recreational areas at Ridgewood Reservoir would not be needed if resources were devoted to improving facilities at existing recreational areas, such as Highland Park.

Past efforts to fill in wetlands and turn them into ball fields, such as Strack Pond in Queens, have failed, raising the question of the overall feasibility of such an undertaking. Any proposed changes to the Ridgewood Reservoir should be subject to SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) and CEQR (City Environmental Quality Review) processes.

Send us an email