Challenges for the Central Area

There are multiple challenges facing preservationists in determining the significance of and threats to historic character. Efforts to maintain consistency in use and integrity of structures may run counter to the communities’ statements of need, in addition to extending into the gray areas of pollution and accountability. It is the goal of this project to identify the role of preservation in mitigating these issues, conduct research into the root causes, and make useful recommendations to the communities addressed.

The issues affecting the Central portion of the Harlem River study area are described below. Aside from zoning issues they are categorized in terms of use and divided into four corresponding groups: first, the issues within the area’s transportation and infrastructure resources are described, then those specific to industrial resources are explained, followed by issues pertaining to recreational areas, and finally issues in high-density housing developments are discussed.

Challenges With Zoning:

The issue of zoning encompasses the area as a whole. The existing zoning is a limiting factor for any development that could revitalize the area. Zoning of the lots along the river is primarily M1-1, M2-1, M3-1, and R7-1, which denote light to heavy manufacturing and medium-density apartment houses.¹ The problem is that the intensity and scale of industrial activity in the area has been reduced in the forty years since the last major zoning review. The current zoning is therefore limiting the possibilities for redevelopment.

Challenges Associated with Transportation and Infrastructure:

Transportation corridors such as the Major Deegan Expressway and the Harlem River Drive are vital to the function of New York City and are a valuable asset to commuters, though they do pose challenges to the communities through which they pass. The course of the railroads along the Bronx shore poses similar problems, generally impeding waterfront access, creating unused pockets of land, poorly maintained historic resources, noise and air pollution, and damage caused by structural vibration.

In contrast, the bridges that span the Harlem River do not function as effectively in limiting access to the waterfront; however, they do impose barriers to pedestrian navigation along the river’s north-south axis and have been contentious subjects for waterborne activities. More commonly, they are the victims of insensitive retrofitting and maintenance projects, which can degrade their historic and aesthetic attributes. In some cases, their importance for the region’s history has been sacrificed to campaigns modernizing New York City’s sprawling infrastructure. For many of the bridges, pedestrian access is inadequate, including the High Bridge, which once carried visitors across the engineering feat that was the revolutionary Croton Aqueduct.

Major Deegan Expressway

The Major Deegan Expressway today poses a paradox: its conflicting performance on a local versus regional scale. While the expressway functions as an essential artery between the Southern tip of the Bronx and northern New York State and beyond, it severs the urban fabric at the local neighborhood level.^sup The Major Deegan Expressway divides the land along the Bronx shore between highly populated residential and desolate industrial zones. Numerous off-ramps lead to the formation of transitional areas that are hard to incorporate into the general fabric of the city; these in-between spaces become pockets of empty land and neglected properties. Massive structural elements, wide lanes, intense traffic, and high curbs come between the local population and the underutilized riverfront.

The expressway represents a major challenge in our study area in that it is necessary to the region’s commercial economy, but is also a local barrier, a source of noise and air pollution, and an instigator of structural vibration from its intense and heavy motor vehicle traffic.

Harlem River Drive (Speedway)

The Harlem River Drive is another example of a major urban thoroughfare that hinders pedestrian access along the Harlem River. Currently, the Manhattan Greenway between 163rd and Dyckman Streets takes advantage of the former 1.5 mile-long promenade that once graced the Harlem River Speedway, but it is seldom accessible along the length of the highway. The location of this major thoroughfare along a large portion of waterfront land precludes possibilities for future water-related development, such as promenades and facilities for boating. As such, the Harlem River Drive is a significant determinant of the nature of the waterfront relationship with inland areas.

Railroads

Most of the freight activity on the railroads today is driven by New York City agencies such as the Department of Sanitation, whose facilities occupy large tracts of waterfront acreage in the South Bronx. The placement of the tracks along the river’s edge plays a substantial role in the industrial character of the area. It also discloses the principle behind the decisions of those responsible for its configuration: the area and the tracks were laid out according to the most efficient method for commercial success and economic viability. This results in another obstacle to waterfront access. At-grade crossings would only allow entry to the thin strip between the tracks and the water, which has seen little in the way of development since its initial construction.

Harlem River Bridges

One of the major issues facing the bridges on the Harlem River is the practical need to maintain them as viable infrastructure. The condition of some of the historic structures has been compromised in response to this demand. It is imperative that improvement projects are sensitive to the historic fabric in their efforts to improve and retrofit these bridges. Though most of the Central bridges are landmarked by the City (except the Alexander Hamilton) and therefore subject to regulation by the Landmarks Commission, it is still possible that historically insensitive or destructive projects can be undertaken in the name of public progress, especially on a citywide scale. A balance must be found between the need for adequate infrastructure and the protection of historic structures.

In a 2002 citywide survey conducted by the Department of Transportation, almost all of the Harlem River bridges were diagnosed as needing work. Macomb’s Dam Bridge is slated to receive major rehabilitation of its super- and substructure elements, as well as a complete replacement of the road deck in order to improve its rating of “poor” in the 2002 New York City Bridges and Tunnels Annual Condition Report. The construction, begun in 1999 and scheduled for completion in 2004, is estimated to cost $145 million. A seismic retrofit project of the bridge and viaduct, scheduled for 2012-2013, is estimated at $36 million.³ In the case of movable bridges, improvement projects often involve mechanical and electrical systems rather than structural deficiencies. From 1989-2002 the University Heights Bridge was fitted with a new electrical and mechanical control system, as part of a $35 million reconstruction project undertaken by the New York State Department of Transportation.⁴

Often, as a result of projects intended to update their use, the bridges’ aesthetic details become inconspicuous or lost. Although open to pedestrians, the Washington Bridge’s fine details are obscured to close observers by a chain link fence that was imposed over the original iron railings. Though its condition rating in the 2002 Condition Report is “good” and no improvement projects are currently planned⁵, the Washington could be significantly improved aesthetically so that the public can be aware of and enjoy its historic value. Indeed, lack of public awareness of the historic, cultural, technological, and aesthetic value of all the Harlem River Bridges makes them particularly susceptible to destructive change that could be better managed.

The last of the issues facing the Harlem River bridges in the central area is the loss of pedestrian access. All of the bridges except the Hamilton were originally designed to be accessible to travelers on foot. Over time, this use has diminished as the approaches and land-use on either side of the bridges become less people-friendly and more oriented towards vehicular traffic. This, in turn, erodes the cultural meaning of the bridges as urban structures connecting the portions of city that lie on either side of the Harlem River.

The High Bridge

The Roman Aqueduct-styled High Bridge, which boasts a pedestrian oriented promenade with spectacular views up and down the river, also faces access-related issues as it is currently closed to the public.

The High Bridge also has a number of conservation issues, beginning with the original cast iron water main located inside the bridge. There is presently a great deal of deterioration of the pipe itself. But the main concerns here are the rusted bearings, which are located on the brackets that support the pipe. The original function of these bearings was to allow for any horizontal differential movement – due to temperature-related expansion and contraction – of the pipe that it supports. But the fact that these bearings are rusted to the adjoining brackets inhibits this differential movement, which, because the brackets are affixed to the masonry floor inside the bridge, poses a threat to the structural integrity of the bridge as a whole.

Another conservation issue involves the gatehouse structures at either end of the bridge. The roofs and existing parapet walls are in poor condition and need to be restored. As funds become available, the New York City Parks Department will install new roofs and rain leaders and stabilize the parapet walls. The Manhattan side will require additional shoring for the concrete and brick ceiling/roof, which has a severe crack.⁶ Conservation measures also need to be taken to address the vandalization of these structures, along with a number of other historic structures gracing Highbridge Park.

The High Bridge also faces some design issues regarding the pedestrian rail on top of the bridge. The height of the current, original wrought iron rail does not meet the current DOT requirements, so it needs to be replaced. The question here is how to conduct this in a way that is reminiscent and respectful of the original while addressing safety concerns at the same time. Currently, the New York City Parks Department is looking into this issue.⁷

Challenges in Industrial Sites and Structures

The following discussion pertains to issues related to conservation of the historic fabric and character of sites in the study area that are typically industrial, manufacturing, or exclusively maritime in nature. These problems are not necessarily unique to the areas discussed; however, the specifics of each site and their place in the hierarchy of significance inform the recommendations made in the following sections.

Development Rights and Ownership

For many of the sites located in the study area, the common denominator is municipal participation in the construction or maintenance of the resource, a legacy that is still evident in the regulation of their use today. In most of these situations, the needs and decisions of the city agency involved would take precedence over calls to conserve. These city agencies include the Department of Sanitation, the Department of General Services, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and Consolidated Edison (a publicly held company), among others.

Currently, expansions to programs by the relevant city agencies may take priority over saving the historic fabric located at a site. For example, the MTA maintenance facility is presently capable of servicing a large number of subway trains. If a new line was introduced to the region, or more trains added to the existing service, the need for larger, more advanced facilities would potentially compete with the need to preserve the legacy of transportation infrastructure that helps define this part of Inwood.

If new development is spurred by renewed economic activity or changes to zoning designations, then pressure to develop the underutilized properties will be greater. While it is an option for city agencies to forfeit their property rights or adopt easements, it is unlikely. The result of such development could be a reduction in the amount of extant built fabric dating to the first waves of investment in the area. For example, the land surrounding the Manhattan Incinerator plant may soon be desirable or integral to plans for community based park and greenway systems. It is difficult to qualify the importance of the now defunct plant when popular alternatives for use exist.

Likewise, on property owned by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection in Marble Hill, under-built fabric (of a contemporary character) was eliminated to accommodate new commercial uses hailed by Bronx politicians and residents alike. The new structures overwhelm the historic connections to the waterfront and old Spuyten Duyvil Creek that existed on the site before. However, the development has also brought renewed economic activity and real estate speculation to the community. Perhaps these uses are in keeping with the speculative nature of early twentieth century development along Broadway in Marble Hill after all.

Finally, as resources available to the city and its departments become scarce, with looming budget cuts and growing constituencies, the maximization of assets and property will become increasingly important. The potential response could encompass changes to use or scope that are incompatible with existing structures and/or programs. Additionally, if the structures and sites become available to new development, with the stipulation that there can be no wholesale teardowns, the issue of pollution and public safety/welfare becomes significant. Adaptive reuse can only work if the new program can be reconciled with the environmental conditions particular to a site. In the most obvious example, the lots controlled by ConEd at the edge of Sherman’s Creek remain saturated with toxins and carcinogens. Plans to establish publicly accessible greenways and waterfront must consider the present state of the land, and factor in these conditions when attempting to reprogram the site. It may be an unfortunate consequence that the lasting legacy of a meaningful industrial site is not its built fabric, but its chemical residues.

Challenges in Recreation

There is an abundance of recreational opportunities serving both natives and visitors throughout the Central section of the Harlem River Study Area. As previously discussed, one of the major issues affecting these resources is the fact that physical access to these parks and waterfront is currently limited by transportation infrastructure that has run along the shorelines of the Harlem River since the middle of the nineteenth century. The train tracks of the historic Harlem River Line (MetroNorth) and the twentieth century thoroughfares of the Major Deegan Expressway and the Harlem River Drive present obstacles to realizing the full potential of existing recreation opportunities – particularly along the water’s edge. As limited access discourages use, these physical barriers promote apathy for these precious resources, resulting in the defacement of public property, less routine maintenance, and the perception of these locations as unsafe.

Parks

Roberto Clemente State Park serves as the largest expanse of uninterrupted open space along the Bronx side of the Harlem River. It offers relief from the chain link fencing and private ownership of waterfront lands in the study area, but is physically separated from inland areas by both the Major Deegan Expressway and MetroNorth rail lines. With only two pedestrian passageways to take visitors over these major infrastructures, safely reaching this recreational resource becomes an additional issue. During non-summer months, when the park around the Harlem River Park Towers is less populated, the aforementioned apathy manifests itself in the throwing of garbage and refuse from the apartments above, giving the plaza an unsavory reputation during most of the calendar year.⁸

Similarly, access is an important issue concerning the Manhattan Greenway at the historic Harlem River Speedway pedestrian promenade, which is physically severed from the community by the Harlem River Drive. Currently, only two entrances, one at either end of the Greenway, serve as limited access along the entire two-mile stretch of this park. Limited access has made it difficult for pedestrians to take advantage of this newly rehabilitated recreational resource.

General apathy has resulted in further deterioration of nearby infrastructure within Highbridge Park. Vandalism of historic remnants, like the archway and grand stairway that formerly led to a subterranean passageway just south of the Washington Bridge, is the result of severe neglect. Within the park itself, overgrown vegetation and derelict elements including benches, railings, and stairs add to the perception of this area as insignificant and irrelevant, and perpetuate a cycle of abandonment and disrepair. The situation here exists in contrast to the corresponding area on the Bronx side of the waterfront, beneath the High Bridge, where a recently restored staircase leading to the shoreline and the Bronx section of Highbridge Park are maintained by the attendant community.

Furthermore, the issue of access to the existing recreational areas in the Central section of the study area is one of limited connections between the shoreline and the inland communities these resources are meant to serve. While the 1993 Manhattan Greenway plan attempted to make physical connections between New York’s parks and the neighboring communities, this vision is not yet realized. The revitalization of the historic, 1.5 mile-long Harlem River Speedway pedestrian path is hindered by obstacles to the completion of the Greenway plan between Dyckman and West 201st Streets in Inwood. In the lower Inwood area in particular, the waterfront is difficult to access due to the numerous owners of lots along the river (including ConEd, the NYC Transit Authority and the Department of Sanitation), with much of the area currently fenced off and inaccessible to the public.⁹ Zoned for industrial use, fenced off, and hidden from public view, the public perception is that these areas are dangerous and inhospitable; however, this is not necessarily the case, as many of the lots serve simply as transportation depots or warehouse parking. Perhaps as the Central area identity is reinforced as a historic layering of uses – industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational – a sense of pride and increased enjoyment will ensue.

Water-related Activities

Few structures physically remain that depict the historic use of the Harlem River as a center for rowing at the turn of the nineteenth century. The boathouses and docks that currently exist near Sherman’s Creek, although accurate in their location, are contemporary structures and are aesthetically different from those of the earlier period. These boathouses also pose environmental problems in an already polluted riverfront environment. In contrast, the New York Restoration Project boathouse, by architect Robert Stern, will reintroduce the memory of rowing along this portion of the Harlem River. Deciding the best way to reference this era in the history of the region, and how to depict it, are important aspects in the interpretation of recreational history within Harlem River Study Area.

Challenges in High-density Housing Developments

High-density housing developments in the Central area are successful in that they provide large quantities of affordable units, decent living conditions and, for the most part, well maintained facilities. In spite of New York City’s success with its housing programs – relative to other major U.S. cities– the issues that plague these developments are detrimental to their future stability and continuing functionality.

One challenge associated with high-density housing in the central area includes a number of problems caused by close proximity to either the Harlem River Drive or the Major Deegan Expressway. Resulting from the automobile pollution released from these major thoroughfares is the high asthma rate within these developments. These two transportation arteries also adversely affect access to the waterfront: with the exception of the Harlem River Park Towers, the five remaining high-density housing developments have been cut off from both the waterfront and the nearby parks. The Department of City Planning is currently addressing this access-related issue with the Greenway Plan, which provides connections from the residential buildings to the waterfront and parks.

Harlem River Park Towers

Adhering to the principles of the “tower in the park” theory – a major concept behind high-density housing development – included designing a large amount of green space, which allows greater ventilation and is intended to provide an open outdoor area for the residents to enjoy. Although an in-depth analysis of the housing in the central section would be required to verify this, the consequence of having a large span of open space is uncontrolled and unmonitored areas surrounding the development, which is generally an issue in any area with a wide expanse of land. For example, the Harlem River Park Towers, located in Roberto Clemente Park, has recently had problems with security and safety. The residents feel unsafe due to the lack of security, instilling “fears that diapers, glass bottles and home appliances flying from the screen-less windows will strike them.”¹⁰ Recently, the tenants have dealt with shootouts, flying bullets, drug dealers, and gangs, complicating the already tenuous management situation there.

One of the major problems concerning the Harlem River Park Towers is the neglect and lack of maintenance it has suffered at the hands of its private management company. As early as 1979 (four years after its completion), residents complained about the deteriorating living conditions and unresponsiveness of the owners. Many apartments are vacant and residents have cited various problems, including floods, rats, fires, and dog feces in the hallway.¹¹

Marble Hill Houses

Recently, public housing in the city has also faced structural and maintenance problems due to a lack of funding. Congress is the sole financial source for the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), but severe cuts in Federal aid have resulted in the deferment of major capital repairs like the spalling problems at the Marble Hill Houses. Until things can be adequately addressed or replaced, any funding received is applied towards essentials such as heating, aging plumbing, and wiring. Due to these structural safety issues, the vacancy rate in the developments is increasing. Authorities have considered turning the buildings over to private managers and charging higher rents, increasing the number of working-class tenants, and thereby turning away the people who really need affordable and subsidized housing.¹²

The City’s involvement in addressing the needs of the public housing projects has been largely positive in reference to developments managed by NYCHA. The structural integrity of the buildings has been maintained and the agencies recent approval of innovative design proposals for the community center between the Ralph Rangel Houses and the Polo Grounds Towers indicates that they recognize the changing needs of the communities they are charged to serve.

¹ New York City Department of Planning. Comprehensive Waterfront Plan – Plan for the Bronx Waterfront – Reach 6: Hudson and Harlem Rivers. New York. (1993). P. 17.

² The Major Deegan Expressway was extended in 1950 and merged with Interstate I-87, connecting New York City to Montreal, Canada. Source: Travisano, Mikel. Project III: Columbia University Historic Preservation Studio I. Fall 2003.

³ New York City Department of Transportation website, from the web page http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/pdf/part3annualbridge.pdf, p.46. Accessed April, 2004.

⁴ New York City Department of Transportation website, from the web page http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/pdf/harlemrvbdrpt.pdf. Accessed April, 2004.

⁵ New York City Department of Transportation website, from the web page http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/pdf/part3annualbridge.pdf, p.40. Accessed April, 2004.

⁶ Krawchuk, John, e-mail message to Darby Noonan, April 19, 2004.

⁷ For specifics regarding the design standards required by the DOT, please contact the New York City Parks Department. 

⁸ Proquest Newspapers, New York Times, October 8, 2000, “Gunshots and Flying Debris Replace Residents High Hopes,” pg. CY9.

⁹ “Manhattan Waterfront Greenway: Dyckman to the Broadway Bridge.” Online. Department of City Planning Website. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/mwg/maps_2_2_10.html

¹⁰ Proquest Newspapers, New York Times, October 8, 2000, “Gunshots and Flying Debris Replace Residents High Hopes,” pg. CY9.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Proquest Newspapers, New York Times. November 11, 1997, “Public Housing Shows Its Age.” Pg. B1.