Rendering of new plan for dock house. NYC Parks Department via CB7.
By Daniel Katzive
After three years and three major redesigns, efforts to rebuild the 79th Street Boat Basin Marina took an important step forward this week, winning support from Community Board 7.
The full CB7 board voted Tuesday evening 29 to 4, with two abstentions, to pass a resolution that had been approved by the board’s parks committee the previous evening. That resolution expressed approval for the city’s latest plan, with some caveats and recommendations. While acknowledging that many community members remain dissatisfied, the resolution calls the latest design a “fair compromise.” CB7 Parks and Environment Committee co-chair Natasha Kazmi noted the designers had made significant adjustments to the plan in response to feedback from the community.
Those adjustments came after seven visits by the city Parks Department’s design team to the Parks and Environment Committee, where it presented changes to the design for the marina’s new dock house.
A redesign of the controversial dock house building was key to gaining the community board’s support for the plan. The board and members of the public had been highly critical of previous designs. Critics focused on the scale of the structure, on how the building’s modern facade would fit in the historic park, and how much the building would interfere with views of the river. As West Side Rag reported last week, the latest plan for the structure is smaller and has a facade with more exposed glass. The new dock house will house workspace for marina staff, Coast Guard required records, facilities for boaters, and space for educational programs..
At 3,800 square feet, the latest proposal is 61% of the size of the original 2021 dock house proposal and one story lower than the 2023 version of the plan. However, it will still occupy nearly twice the space of the current, dilapidated dock house, and several members of CB7 continued to express concerns that it remains too big, a view City Councilmember Gale Brewer said she shared at Monday’s meeting of the board’s Parks and Environment Committee. More details on the design are in the presentation from the parks team on the CB7 website.
In presenting the project at Monday’s committee meeting, the design team said the old existing dock house building was inadequate, even for the programming previously in place at the marina. City plans for the marina call for expanding that programming, including adding more boat slips and upgrading facilities to meet modern standards for marinas, current building codes, and accessibility requirements.. The team claimed that the current building design meets the minimum space requirements for the project, and their argument carried the day with a majority of committee and board members.
The marina has been closed to since October 2021 and a number of boaters and representatives of educational groups joined Monday’s committee meeting to urge approval of the new design. David Polakoff, a sailing instructor who previously taught at the marina, called the plan a fair compromise. “Everyone is getting something. As a user, I’m not going to get what I desired. That’s okay. I’m getting what I need,” he said, adding, “I really hope that we’ve gotten to the point where this is good for everybody and that we can now not compromise any more functionality for aesthetics.”
The project planning is currently only about 30% complete, and CB7 members will get another chance to review it at the 50% planning point in the fall. In the meantime, the current plan will be presented to the city’s Public Design Commission in August. If all goes smoothly from here, the project manager told the parks committee that construction could potentially be completed by mid-2027.
In voicing support for the plan as it stands so far, CB7 recommended that the built-up area of the dock house not be increased further from the latest plan and that elements of nature should guide any further design changes. Other stipulations included recommendations that vessels that contribute to excessive noise and pollution not be allowed, that marine education programming should be increased, and that members of the pre-2021 community that lived on boats docked at the marina receive priority in relocation back to the marina once it is complete.
Members of the public can also continue to provide feedback on the design. CB7 has created a Google form which will remain on-line through Friday. The Federal Emergency Management Administration, which will be funding about 30% of the project, is also soliciting feedback at the email address FEMAR2COMMENT@fema.dhs.gov.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here.
1. If you’re on the CB7 board, why are you abstaining? That is absurd.
2. How could you be using the Volunteer House in Riverside park as a reference and come up with this monstrosity?
3. Riverside Park can’t even afford to keep garbage cans in place or fix basic infrastructure like paths.
4, Parks can no longer afford basic enforcement anymore.
5. $60 Million will be the NYC responsibility. Now factor in the inevitable outrageous cost overruns.
This monstrosity is unnecessary and NYC can’t afford it.
You might abstain if you owned a boat there. OR if you had any fiduciary interest in the Boat Basin.
$60 million dollars? Yikes.
Monstrosity is an excellent descriptor here.
Having settled this issue., perhaps the Park Committee and city council members can turn their attention to the ecologic disaster confronting Riverside Park North. The basic infrastructure, i.e., paths are in horrible condition, grass has turned to mud, and the trees–without which there would be no park–need pruning and other basic maintenance. The uncurbed use of motorized vehicles has made the park a clear and present danger for pedestrians. One has to wonder if there has been sufficient political advocacy for the preservation of Riverside Park North and the safety of pedestrians who use it.
I might note that the real ecological disaster was noted in the Parks presentation for the dockhouse… The Riverside Park Esplanade is going to be under water routinely by the late 21st century. If we can barely pass a marina reconstruction, imagine what it will be like when the parks department proposes to tear up the entire lower level of the landmarked park to elevate it.
“ecologic disaster”? That’s just a wee-bit dramatic, no?
Please also rebuild the docks and boat slips that have been destroyed in storms in the West Harlem Piers Park on W 125th Street.
I support the most recent dock house design and I am pleased that the MCB7 Parks & Environment Committee and the full MCB7 have endorsed it, so we can move to the completion of the design, planning, and permitting stages; it has been too long in the making.
As presented at the June 17th meeting, the design offers minimal functionality and already falls short of the American Society of Civil Engineers (Planning and Design Guide for Small Craft Harbors and Marinas) standards. The building cannot be further reduced; as it is, the current design will be satisfactory but it will not be a world class marina (a shocking fact for a world class city such as New York, and noting the fact supported, huge demand from mariners and marine educators for the Boat Basin Marina).
The compromise which the current design reflects, already has favored feedback from non-marina design and engineering professionals and non-marina users versus those who are the experts and the marina’s user base. Further input that is “pure uneducated opinion” and even “anti-marina bias” needs to be set aside. At the June 17th meeting, an attendee even suggested the dock house size could be reduced by removing the bathrooms – unproductive, unrealistic, feedback, which should be discounted and completely set aside.
Regarding the design, the Parks team has done a commendable job to meet myriad regulatory requirements and factor past user input. The effort to pay tribute to New York’s maritime history, much as the southern end of Riverside Park has done, and the Frank Gehry designed IAC building in Chelsea has done, is above and beyond expectations, in both the design and choices in materials. The design is a fitting and proper integration of function, form, and regulatory requirement satisfaction.
On the list of advantages, derived from the Boat Basin marina, not often discussed, is the economic benefit to New York City as well as the Upper West Side, as the resident and visiting users pay user fees (benefiting the City general fund – NOT the Boat Basin, directly) and the users patronize businesses on the Upper West Side (from supermarkets to hardware stores to restaurants and bodegas, etc. [plus Broadway theatres, etc., for the visitors); the economic contributions should also be considered, which are all being sacrificed the longer the marina remains dormant, during this design debate period; hence, let’s move along.
The MCB7 Parks & Environment Committee and the full MCB7 should be pleased it has done “as best as could be achieved” for most of the constituents it represents, and wholeheartedly move forward.
There is an entire maritime center in New York called City Island with multiple Marinas! As for the old “economic benefit” saw that is used for everything. It’s going to take a lot of bottles of water and screws to offset $60 Million. Of course, most boat supplies are not purchased at hardware stores either!
There are tennis courts for public use at the Billie Jean King center in Queens, so by your logic, why do we have tennis courts in Riverside Park?
We have tennis courts appropriate for the park. We don’t need to judge them against a “World Class” tennis center as you did with this. Taxpayers do not need to spend $60 million dollars in city funds and an additional $30 Million in Federal Funds for a boathouse that will benefit so few. There are already multiple sailing schools in Manhattan, Brooklyn and CIty Island and youth programs as well. You may want to open yet another sailing program or marina for your business but it is not in the interest of the community at an exorbitant cost that doesn’t even include the inevitable incompetent city cost overruns.
It’s really ugly.
Isn’t it amazing that it took so long and included so many cooks stirring, stirring the broth and STILL turned out to be so ugly?
Perhaps, then, there have been too many cooks in the kitchen?
“Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye, Not utter’d by base sale of chapmen’s tongues. (William Shakespeare)”
It’s still much too large and, to say much too expensive, would be the understatement of the last three years of wasted time and wholesale incompetence on the part of all involved in this project, especially those who thought for one second that the hideous first design should have even been brought forward for consideration. And those who approved spending $60 million on a project that will benefit so few are breathtakingly out of touch with reality. Further, to do so and end up with such a below par result at the third attempt is beyond the pale.
The tennis courts in the park benefit only a “few.” The parkour court in the park benefits only a “few.” The dog run in the park benefits only a “few.” The baseball field in the park benefits only a “few.” The barbecue pits in the park benefit only a “few.”
When will the restaurant in the rotunda reopen?
Did they look into converting the unknown parking lot under the retunda into an office? Why they need free parking there is beyond me.
And of course let’s make it a priority to get the rent controlled house boats eyesores back
The wasted time on this stupid building is shocking. By the time this opens in Mid 2027, it will have been closed for 7 years. Talk about perfect being the enemy of good.
Can we not get the rotunda restaurant reopened and a decent boating slip made without wasting several years on minutia? That location used to be magical and now it’s just stagnant and a waste of space.
On another note other that the design, I wonder if the new boat basin will be in exactly the same position and whether it will therefore block the view of patrons of the restaurant. I am also very curious as to the current status of the rotunda: what are the current plans for a restaurant or cafe and is, after so many decades, the wonderful fountain with its spouting turtles going to be replaced?
For your consideration, please read the article more carefully, and note, “More details on the design are in the presentation from the parks team on the CB7 website,” and you will learn the answer to your question. Spoiler alert – The dock house will be further south and it will not be aligned with the rotunda and patio.
Note the marina is under the jurisdiction of the NYC Parks Department. The rotunda, traffic circle, and the garage are under the jurisdiction of the Dept of Transportation. The CB7 website includes this Winter 2024 update on the rotunda progress: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SNOV1lmRDvKEflCgs5_1N_nIHpNvgZoO/view.
While I love to read the “spirited” comments on the WSR, I feel I’d like to stay on topic here. While I think the approved design would be perfect for housing at the Fyre Festival, I feel the architect(s) could have channeled Frank Lloyd Wright’s concept of Environmental design. The idea of fitting onto the space could be a nice application for the marina. After all, there must be a million, or hundreds of yacht clubs/marinas with architecture that creates a less startling visual impact and still conforms to purpose. Just my opinion.
Ed H: Good way of putting it: Could we not have a “less startling” design for a RIVERSIDE MARINA?! It’s so ugly in that particular place!!!
It’s still way out of proportion for the space (and still really, really ugly). I have yet to see any coherent explanation of why the marina needs to be expanded, or how the increased traffic will impact the pathway along the riverfront. And who will this new marina serve? Are there that many Upper West Siders who own boats who want to dock them closer to where they live? Or, more likely, wealthy interlopers who think our neighborhood is their playground? Just imagine all the food deliveries that will be routed through the park to serve these new ‘mariners.’ No, we don’t need this. Just remake the space to better serve pedestrians and cyclists, bring back the restaurant, and put the money that’s saved into maintaining the park.
The plans include mitigation for the increased traffic by moving the entrances. The marina needs to be expanded to accommodate both demand for boating slips, as well as prevention against environmental disasters. Are there that many UWSers who want to dock their boat? The 16-year long waitlist for a slip in this location should speak for itself.
The marina is under the jurisdiction of the NYC Parks Department, while the rotunda, traffic circle, and the garage are under the jurisdiction of the DOT. This budget and resourcing is not fungible resources, but the improvements are also not mutually exclusive.
For those who think City Island is an adequate marina or the structure is too large, may I call to attention the fact that this marina has a 1k-person long 16-year waitlist? City Island is over 90 minutes away from the neighborhood via public transportation. One of the main supporters at the council meeting was an educator hoping to bring marine education back to the neighborhood. These funds were appropriated and approved years ago and the cost is broadly federally subsidized. This is a good thing for the neighborhood, but the approvals were embroiled with bureaucracy. This article and the sentiments from the council meeting cover it best: this is a compromise. Pick your battles, people.
There is no need for a $90 Million renovation for “marine education”. There are already numerous programs throughout the city. City public schools are under-performing and in need of funds and using this as a reason is inappropriate.
At a cost per unit of $200,000 the city could build 450 units of housing with that money instead of trying to accommodate a few live-aboard boaters wanting to below market housing on the UWS.
There may be programs throughout the city, however the UWS has been lacking since Sandy. With your focus on education, why not support the constituents who want to bring award-winning environmental education programs *back* to the UWS? If you listen in to the public speaking up at the MCB7 meeting, these are not “live-aboard boaters” looking for cheap housing. These are UWS community members hoping to once again enjoy the rich ecological landscape unique to our neighborhood. You can hear them in their own words here:
https://www.youtube.com/live/bKyVhLa_Z8k?si=b0Ib2qV0Y9-BnaJM&t=6261
I was skeptical until I looked at the presentation (linked in the article) and the additional renderings. I actually give the Parks Department a lot of credit for taking community feedback to heart and coming back with a thoughtful compromise that preserves sight lines and honors the park. I think this will be great. I like the design.
Why does it have to be over the water? They should build it on the other side of the greenway, next to or under the rotunda, so it doesn’t block the view.
Riverside Park is four miles long; take a few steps to your right or your left, and then you will have as pristine a view of the condos in New Jersey as you desire.
You know, they can utilize the 2 public outside bathrooms slightly south and build on top of the 2 structures, as much as they want. It will not ruin the views and still overlook the marina. It does not need to be over the water.
That is great. I like the progressive look. The growth in service size for a long future on the UWS.
Long gone are the days of the 1970’s when there were fewer people, fewer boats and less technology. I remember using the docks in 1976 during the bicentennial “flotilla of boats” on the Hudson River.
This building and the need for expanding services will survive when the waters rise another 2-4 feet over the next 50 years
Some of you are acting like it’s a floating football stadium or something. Go down to Hudson River Park, around 26th street. What do you see? A beautiful park. Happy New Yorkers. Sailboats in the water! A waterfront scene the envy of any other neighborhood in NYC. And also, if you look really carefully — and you have to look carefully, because you’d never notice it otherwise — a marina facility about the size and shape of this one.
I would hate to have Chelsea Piers like structures all up and down the river, Isn’t enough enough sometimes? Keep it quaint, sometimes!
It’ll be a beautiful city when it’s finished.