Construction was underway this week around 68th Street and Riverside Boulevard. Photo by @globetrotscott.
A project that will transform Riverside Park from 65th to 68th Street has begun and is likely to last as long as two years. This is Phase 5 of a six-phase reconstruction project that spans the entire stretch from 59th to 72nd Street known as Riverside Park South. The first 4 phases were completed before 2008.
Phase 5, which is expected to cost $25 million, will include new plazas, play areas, a bathroom, volleyball courts, a dog run and other kinds of fields. A parks department spokesperson told us it is expected to take 18 to 24 months. During the reconstruction certain activities that usually occur in that section of the park may go away. The annual sculpture fest known as Model to Monument will be moving, for instance.
The schematic below shows what it will look like. Click it to enlarge. We have more on the reconstruction here.
LOOKS GREAT! Will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Relieved it’s not another skyscraper.
Wasnt an improvement supposed to be made to the dangerous and very narrow bike path/pedestrian bottleneck on the river between 71 and 72?
Yes but that’s a separate initiative.
Sounds good but they should really put in an adult fitness park with pull-up stands, parallel bars, sit-up stations etc…
There is already one near Chinatown on the East River that’s widely used.
I was in LA last month and they have several adult fitness parks on the beach. They were very popular and attracted a big cross section of society who all worked out together.
There is a small dog park now that no one uses since it is so small. This plan seems to have the same thing. It will be a waste of space being so small.
I wish someone in the parks department would look at riverside park up at 110th. It is disgusting.
So true. I live near there and it IS disgusting. It was bad last summer but worse now I think.
I like it, it’s for real Upper West Siders who have been using the park since before the area was inundated with wealthier people.
I agree! They need to retouch or fix the whole upper part of it!
How sad- large, beautiful open space (so rare in Manhattan…) turned into what? VOLLEYBALL COURTS!!??!! Really??? I didn’t realize there was a need… And playgrounds? Beside the fact there is already an over-designed playground immediately adjacent to this parcel, what could be better for kids than an open space to just simply run in! Currently the space is a “forbidden” dog park- not by dictat but by default- and a delight for neighborhood residents needing space to exercise their pups and for residents who just enjoy watching the pups play, not to mention the kids who love watching and playing with them, too. Oh, well- hope the kids, pet owners, and older folks who love this space in its current form are ready to play volleyball…
I agree. This space is really nice and widely used as it is. This will just junk it up.
I agree. It was a private grassy space owned by the Trump Place apartments and run by Riverside Park South which at the time was independently funded outside of the NYC Parks Dept which is why most were not allowed on the grassy space. The costs of mowing and upkeeping the space were probably a hassle, so they struck a deal. I’d bet that as a result one or two of the buildings got extra tax abatement (which expired for the earlier condos on the Blvd last year).
Not understanding why so many resources are going to park area in what is now a very affluent area, where folks have many options…? These are major “luxury” amenities not just simple trees, grass and planting of impatiens.
in the meantime, insufficient funding of parks in the other boroughs particularly lower income areas
I agree with you and the other posts. The staircase in Riverside Park going down to the 101st St. soccer fields has been closed for the past year. Even with the fencing surrounding it, I still see people climbing around and walking down the staircase, which is in serious disrepair. It is very dangerous. I asked over the summer why no progress had been made on this since last year and I was told that there wasn’t any enough money.
Hopefully the ramp at 69th St. in the park will be redone so that the ramp will be ADA approved. Right now it is too steep and many people with wheelchairs and walkers cannot navigate the ramp to take advantage of the pier.
Re: “Hopefully the ramp at 69th St. in the park will be redone so that the ramp will be ADA approved.”
HOPEFULLY, but don’t hold yer breath waiting fer it!
AND, if Parks Dept. does decide to renovate it, they will probably CLOSE IT for months while it is being “fixed”.
Why? Because the “geniuses” in management “wear blinders” that prevent them from understanding the needs of the handicapped.
Besides, the able-bodied still have that set of steps to access the Pier One café and other amenities, so why worry?
What a waste of cash. They could remove the current fencing, add some trees, place a path along the top of the hill, and maybe expand the dog run/playground and you’d have all you need for way less than $25mm. Who wants/needs these concrete plazas at 67th, 66th, etc?
And, with all this stuff on the hill and below toward the river….there goes a prime sledding spot!!!!
Totally agree. There are wonderful REAL beach volleyball courts at 108th Street. They are hardly ever in use. Could anyone provide a rationale for MORE supply of an inferior version of a nice, but not overwhelmingly popular, resource? Give us nature! IT IS a Park, folks!
Fredrick Law Olmstead rolling over in his grave!
And what about north of 96th st?
The park-side path @ street level on RSD is a sorry mess with dislodged and warped paving due to massive root growth.
A brief stretch has been fixed, but that was years ago.
The stairs @ 103rd and 108th are dilapidated as well.
The tot lot at 112th & RSD is also in dire need of repair…
Riverside Park South is special in some way making it different from Riverside North?
what gives?
Lots of lighting and cameras I assume. We need them all across the entire park. Looking at statistics, it’s the upper numbers that are experience more crime. Let’s keep this in mind.
Bathrooms finally!!?
Families with children and dogs have enjoyed getting together on the grass and having the kids and dogs play. Others have friendly games of frisbee with the dogs or fetch. Some jog with their dog from one end to the other. Neighbors get to know each other creating a community. Sunbathers strech out and are fine with the occassional wet nose saying high. Little dogs and big dogs all have room to play. Others just enjoy sitting in the benchs along the fence greeting the dogs and kids while watching the sunset. Most evenings there are close to 25 people and 5 to 10 kids along with 30 dogs enjoying the grass. Families have come from the 40’s up to the grass area with their dogs. Designer’s of “dog run” should be thinking of the space as a family gathering area for two and four footed families. Since the start of the riverside south park the real estate market has changed to where buyers are now walking away from properties that do not have amenities for all members of the family. The UWS has some of the most dogs in the city, https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-york-city-s-pet-population. Just as Central Park is shared with off leash hours to enjoy your pets city planers should consider dog parks as family parks. The families that have unofficially used the grass area appreciate it. The pet industry has been a growth industry the past 10 years with rates upwards of 18% a year, per once banker dog dad. Per the local council office the area is being developed by the developer and then handed over to the city/parks department. New York is ranked 51 our of 100 on outdoor pet friendlyness and ranked 100 overall, https://wallethub.com/edu/most-pet-friendly-cities/5562/. New Orleans has the most pet friendly restaurants per capita and San Francisco the most pet parks per capita. On another site Porland, OR was ranked number 1 for overall dog friendly, https://mom.me/pets/19937-top-10-us-cities-dogs-ranked/item/portland/. Tourist who contibute a chuck on money to the NY economy travel with their “dog tourist” visiting the city and a good park with pet friendly cafes nearby is a marketable attraction.
Is there any reason that UWS pet owners can’t bring their dogs to Central Park? Having only been here a short time (and no longer a pet owner) I’m only familiar with the UES dog runs. Are there not sufficient spaces for them on the west side of the park?
I agree, the “dog tourist” is such an under served and under appreciated market, right behind the pony parade.
I more than completely agree with Jen’s post, “I really wish they had a plan for a sufficient dog run. The one(s) in the park there now is never used being a tiny run. We need a larger space where the dogs can really run. Another dog run like the current one is a waste of space.”
WHY don’t dogs have a decent sized areas to actually run in? Dog owners are discriminated against.
Dog owners are being discriminated against? How about, it’s not the city’s obligation to cator to someone’s pet. I love these “first world” problems, forget the poor, the hungry, what about my Fido’s (or Fiffy) right to run around. These unofficial dog run areas are filthy, full of pieces of dog urine and feces (that little bag doesn’t pick up all pieces). Therefore most parents and non dog owners avoid them for fear of tracking this into their apartments. The city should design these spaces for the tax paying humans.
1.) A large percentage of the tax-paying residents of the City are dog-owners.
2.) A large portion of both the City’s residents as well as its visitors who do not have dogs themselves, welcome and enjoy the presence of other people’s dogs.
3.) Presumably, dogs that get sufficient exercise, play and fresh air (or what passes for fresh air) are more likely to be better-behaved and less prone to aggression (both toward other dogs as well as toward people) than dogs who lack such benefits. If that is the case, then wouldn’t providing the spaces necessary for dogs to get sufficient exercise, play and fresh air be in the interest not only of the City’s entire dog population but also of its human (or what passes for it) population as well?
4.) Your point about the area-in-question being fouled by dog feces and urine would appear valid. If the problem were merely people being lax in picking-up after their dogs, then I would think that a campaign to encourage such basic responsibility and courtesy might be a solution. I inferred from what you wrote, however, that this is not the case. If so, I do not know what could be done.
5.) As to “the poor” and “the hungry”, for whom you expressed concern, would they benefit any more from the volleyball courts or fields that are planned than from either what is currently in the space or a larger, improved area for dogs to run free?
1. Please show me the statistics on this “large population” because by my calculation 8% of the NYC population owns a dog.
2. Once again, show me the statistics. I enjoy dogs, but I do feel bad for the large dogs that are forced to live in the city. However, I don’t think the solution to this is to use city funds to build dog parks. I think the solution to this is more responsible humans when choosing a pet.
3. Horrible argument based on the premise that your bad choice of having a pet and not taking into consideration the environment that he/she will live affects the pets temperament. And therefore, non-pet owners will suffer on this choice unless funds are used to correct your mistake.
4. This is a fact not a theory. When a dog urinates on the floor, no dog owner cleans this up. Everyday 600K dogs in the city urinating 3-5 times a day, over the full square footage of the city this isn’t that great. However, if you concentrate that in a dog park, that space becomes unusable for anyone without a dog. And that’s just the urine, don’t get me started on the owners you don’t pick up after their dogs.
5. I never said I was for this redesign. Personally, I think the money would be better spent on addressing the homeless issues in this city. However, the thought that we should be building dog parks is rediculous ( unless privately funded). If we are building dog parks, why not “cat trails” or “rabbit runs” or even large public fish aquariums. Why are we discriminating against all these other pet owners?
I
I admire your thorough, yet even-handed response.
Reminds me of myself, in my younger days, although you may not take that as such a complement.
Only thing: my cat does enjoy a good run.
TCoast:
1.) I do not have statistics to cite. My statements, both that a considerable number of City residents are dog owners and that their dogs are enjoyed by many others as well, were based on personal observation and experience.
You write, “by my calculation 8% of the NYC population owns a dog.”
I lack the knowledge to either confirm or dispute this. For all I know, you could be accurate but you do not provide any citation. Also, is that 8% of the total number of households or 8% of the total number of persons? And if individuals, does it include minors who live in a household with one or more adult? Since many of the households that have dogs are made-up of two or more persons, obviously the numbers will be very different depending upon whether or not one counts each separate person in each household that has one or more dogs.
In any event, even 8%, while obviously a minority, I would nonetheless not consider insignificant. I would surely think that the number of people who merely, “welcome and enjoy the presence of other people’s dogs”, as I put-it, must be at least as large as the number of people who actually own dogs. But again, I do not have any statistics or other actual data that I could cite off-hand.
2.) Concerning “large dogs that are forced to live in the city”:
Although I would not dispute that living in an apartment in the City is less-than-ideal for dogs above a certain size, doesn’t one have to consider the larger picture? In the case of adopted and rescued dogs, wouldn’t the alternative (being malnourished and neglected on the street, in a shelter or dead) often be considerably worse for such animals?
Also, I don’t know where you draw the line with regard to what you consider “large” but surely, for many people, dogs below a certain size (as a general rule, at least) just don’t offer certain appeal and benefits that larger ones do.
3.) I do not, by any means, claim that there can be no legitimate counter-points and arguments made to the ones I have made here. But I find you to greatly and unfairly over-simplify the matter.
4.) I acknowledged both the problem and that I did not have a solution to offer for it. I also specifically mentioned the idea of a campaign directed at people who are lax in exercising the basic responsibility and courtesy of picking-up after their dogs.
5.) “I never said I was for this redesign.”
I appreciate you clarifying that and I apologize if I came across as misrepresenting your position in any way.
“Personally, I think the money would be better spent on addressing the homeless issues in this city.”
That certainly sounds like a reasonable position to take.
One could certainly make the argument that until at least some minimum goal has been reached in addressing such critical matters as homelessness, hunger and lack of access to medical care, expenditures in those areas must take complete priority and precedence over all others. As long as public money continues to be spent on all kinds of less-critical, non-critical and even downright trivial things, however, I would contend that a dog park is at least as legitimate as any number of others.
“If we are building dog parks, why not “cat trails” or “rabbit runs” or even large public fish aquariums.”
Here, I am afraid that you delve into the absurd. The animals that you named do not have the same needs for exercise and air that dogs do and that dog runs can provide for them.
——
I appreciate your having taken the time to reply in detail. Obviously, this is a discussion that could go on for some time but the thread is about to be closed to new comments. Take care.
Being a typical WSR Reader, my cat Suki wants to know what’s in it for her?
What about the morningside heights area???? Why weren’t the funds used for EVERYONE that uses RSP!
I live on RSB. Bove Industries is ripping off the city. $25 million for this park??? Are you kidding me? Some politician deliberately overpaid for this and is getting a huge kickback!!!
https://www.boveindustries.com/
thank you for explaining the situation.
this explains all of the open questions above.