[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. Now what New York Magazine calls New York's First Climate Adaptation Battle. The new article by the writer Keith Gessen called The Destroy-It-to-Save-It Plan for East River Park. New York's first climate adaptation battle is here. Keith Gessen joins me now. Keith, thanks for coming on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Keith Gessen: Thank you for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Before we get into the particulars of East River Park, basically the park between the river and the FDR Drive from around 12th Street South. I think the big picture frame of the headline is really interesting, New York's First Climate Change Adaptation Battle. Can you remind people what we mean by adaptation to climate change as opposed to the prevention of climate change through lower emissions, which is what we more often talk about?

Keith Gessen: Sure. You're right, on the one side of it, we want to lower our carbon emissions so that we can prevent global warming. On the other hand, a certain amount of global warming is already baked into what we've done and the seas are going to rise. Weather is going to become more extreme, we're going to have more rain, stronger hurricanes. Adaptation is the process of preparing for that. It's building flood protection, it's increasing the capacity of our drainage systems in cities, but in this case, it means flood prevention along the river.

Brian Lehrer: Even if we are wildly successful in stopping climate changes march through better prevention, there is enough of it already in the pipeline that humans are having to adapt mightily to what we have already wrote, which brings us to Superstorm Sandy and East River Park. For people who do not live in or near the East Village, Keith, what's wrong with East River Park?

Keith Gessen: East River Park, like a lot of Lower Manhattan, did not use to exist. It was built into the river, in this case, in the 1930s. I mean, Lower Manhattan, if you look at a map of what it was like in 1609 when Europeans first came here it was smaller. We've been building into the river and expanding Manhattan for several centuries, and during Sandy that became apparent.

Basically, what happened was we went back to the 1609 borders, the river came into the parts of Lower Manhattan that had been built into the river by man. All of Lower Manhattan was flooded, the Lower East Side when you look at the dramatic photos from Sandy, they tend to be cars floating on water, or police station underwater. A lot of that is from that area on the Lower East Side. It got hit really hard and people didn't have electricity, the grocery stores closed down, so it was a really difficult time down there.

Brian Lehrer: It's important to remember this is not just about the park, it's also about the NYCHA and other lower-income residential buildings nearby and other things that affect people in their homes as you've just been describing. When Sandy hit, as you wrote in the article, Houston Sreet became the river, Delancey Street became the river, the FDR Drive became the river. What's this plan that your headline describes as destroying the park to save it?

Keith Gessen: After Sandy, the city and the federal government saw that this was a real problem, did not want to go through that again. The federal government- this was the Obama administration, initiated a fairly innovative way of trying to come up with a flood protection strategy for the future. They inaugurated a design competition. They brought in design and architecture firms from all over the world and had a competition for various plans to prevent flooding in the future.

Eventually, seven plans were awarded a total of a billion dollars. In Manhattan, the big plan was something called the Big U. It was this very, at the time, very innovative idea of basically creating a U running from about Midtown in the East to Midtown in the West. A U that would envelop Lower Manhattan and protect it from flooding in the future.

That went through, so that won the design competition in 2014. It went through several rounds of community input, where people would have meetings with architects and say, "We would like better access to the park. We would like more amenities inside the park itself."

I skipped over a part, which is that the city asked the designers to prioritize the Lower East Side. This was actually the Bloomberg administration and of course, the Bloomberg administration liked doing public-private partnerships. They were always looking for a way to get the private sector to pay for various projects. In the Lower East Side, they felt like there wasn't a public-private solution and that the city and the federal government were going to have to pay for whatever happened there.

They said, "Let's prioritize the Lower East Side for flood protection first, and the plan in the Big U for the Lower East Side, which mostly consisted of flood protection around East River Park was to build a berm behind the park, alongside the FDR. That was the plan that went ahead after 2014, and for the next four years, this was the plan that was discussed and developed, and improved.

Then in 2018, the city mysteriously changed the plan very suddenly and what they said and which turns out to be the case, they did something called the value engineering study, where they got all the planners together with an outside group of engineers and they said, "Is this plan feasible? Is this a good idea? Can we build this in the way that we said we were going to build this?" It turned out there were a number of problems.

The biggest problem was that the berm was supposed to be built atop these high-voltage Con Ed lines that run under the park next to the FDR. It was going to require a tremendous amount of work mostly by Con Ed to either move the lines or protect the lines.

The other big issue was that the parks department, under this plan, the berm would be in the back of the park, which would mean that if there was flooding, the park itself would be flooded and the buildings behind it would not be flooded because of the berm, but the park would be, and the parks department did not like that. [chuckles] They have enough trouble clearing trees from the park because of strong wind.

Brian Lehrer: Why are we sacrificing the park to these storms? Do we have to sacrifice the park to save the buildings?

Keith Gessen: The Dutch, it's a concept called room for the river. This is something that the Dutch have been pioneering for decades, where they say, "Well, you have to let the water come in and then it'll leave and you just have to prepare for that." It is being done in various places even in Hoboken, they're going to have a floodable park.

In this case, the East River Park is the largest park in Lower Manhattan. It has a lot of ball fields, baseball fields, soccer fields, and the Parks Department really felt like it did not want to be responsible for a park that was flooding all the time. It could not pay for that. The Parks Department really never liked the plan.

Once the engineers said, "Well, it's going to be a real hassle to build on top of the Con Ed lines. Is there another way?" They came up with this new plan, which was to basically bury the park in eight feet of dirt, and that would mean that the park would no longer flood if there was even a Sandy-type storm.

Brian Lehrer: When they say bury the park to save it, it's really put the park on stilts to save it, right? Because when we talk about burying something, we're thinking of digging a hole in the ground as it exists and putting something in there, burying something, but really, you're saying they're building an additional eight-foot layer on top of the park as it exists now, and putting those ball fields and everything back up there eight feet higher, am I hearing you right?

Keith Gessen: Yes, that's right. That's right.

Brian Lehrer: Who doesn't like this, and why?

Keith Gessen: It's become very controversial. There's multiple groups, but there's one group in particular called East River Park Action, which loves the park, very attached to the park, feels that the plan is incredibly destructive, unnecessarily so, and that some version of the old plan, which would also have required a lot of construction, a lot of work in the park, but would have preserved certainly more trees than this plan, would have preserved some of the historic buildings in the park, that that was the superior plan, and there was no good reason to change it. So that's the opposition.

Brian Lehrer: A listener writing on Twitter asks, "Hoping you'll ask why we can't bury the highway, not the park? Why can't we deck over the FDR, turn it into a tunnel-style highway with a storm resilient infrastructure above, increased green space, and access?" Writes Meredith on Twitter?

Keith Gessen: Great question. The estimate that was given to me by one city official for a plan like that was $30 to $40 billion, a kind of once-in-a-generation expenditure, and the city certainly would not be able to cover something like that on its own.

One of the things that comes up when you start thinking about this is, "At what scale should the city be thinking?" Ideally, the listener is absolutely right, we would want really to have a master plan, where we think through, "What do we want New York to look like 100 years from now? Do we really want this giant-ugly Highway in the middle of New York City called FDR Drive? Do we want a BQE?" All sorts of things, and then go from there.

From inside, the way the city does things and by necessity, they're not thinking in those terms. They got some money from the federal government. They're adding quite a bit of city money to that, and they want to try to protect this part of the city as soon as possible because as the city officials say repeatedly, hurricane season comes every year, and every year that we don't build this, we're rolling the dice.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we can take a few phone calls for Keith Gessen from New York Magazine. Maybe you see his article in this week's edition called, "The Destroy-It-to-Save-It Plan for East River Park. New York's First Climate Adaptation Battle is Here. 646-435-7280. 646-435-7280. Do the opponents have an alternative? Oh, they like that old plan.

Keith Gessen: They do?

Brian Lehrer: Building the U in the water basically to stop the water from coming toward the shore, is that it?

Keith Gessen: No. The old plan would be the berm in the back of the park next to the FDR. Some version of that, which the city has basically said is impossible, or it would take too much time.

Brian Lehrer: I see. Let me jump in because our time is limited, and there's at least one additional element here that I think it's really important to get to and that is the perennial New York City Flashpoint real estate. People are afraid that saving East River Park in this way will become an excuse to develop it? Or near it?

Keith Gessen: Yes. This is kind of a now well-documented process called green gentrification, where you put in these sustainable amenities, you make a place greener, you make it more flood-proof. You do it to protect the residents who are there. This somewhat paradoxical effect, or in some cases, the desired effect is to increase land values.

There's not a ton of room on the Lower East Side for further developments but there is this idea of the blueprint for NYCHA, where you fill in some of the NYCHA developments with more private development. There is the two bridges development that's going on down there. There is this fear that even if this plan works out, and it's a very nice park that you end up with at the end, actually, what that will do is displace the current residents.

Brian Lehrer: Your article includes a lot of division within the neighborhood opponents of the current East River plan, including a charge by some that the opponents of the plan are mostly white, older, nimbyism proponents not in my backyard, who are actually not caring about the larger interests of the community, including the interest of equity, because a lot of lower-income people live around there. What's that point of view or conflict?

Keith Gessen: Unfortunately, basically, the way the city, and really the city bears a lot of the blame here, the way they changed the plan in secret and very suddenly, was really divisive. It created this division within the community where some people said, "How can you do this to us? We worked on this plan for so many years, and it's a nice plan, and it doesn't destroy the park, why did you do this?"

On the other hand, a lot of the people who live closer to the water, who live right on the water, a lot of these people happen to live in NYCHA developments, which were built along the water when living along the water was actually not so appealing to a lot of people. They really suffered during Sandy and certainly, the elected tenant leaders of the NYCHA developments have been pretty adamant in saying, "Look, whatever it takes to get this built as quickly as possible, that's the plan we support."

There have been very emotional and contentious meetings, and then this spills out into social media, where people who live along the water tend to be a bit more supportive of the plan, and then as you get further inland-- [sound cut]

Brian Lehrer: Whoops. Keith, your line is breaking up a little bit, so I'm going to bring on a caller. Susie in the neighborhood in Kips Bay, you're on WNYC. Hi, Susie.

Susie: Hi, Brian. I work for Riverkeeper-- Well, one day a year, I work for Riverkeeper, and I get volunteers and we clean up parts of the East River along the shore. This is my park and I've been to all the meetings. I know the plans, the burying the park. I believe it is actually burying the park. My understanding is that they're going to put dirt on top, like eight feet of dirt. It's not going to-- Anyway.

Brian Lehrer: Right. In that respect, it's burying the pack. Yes?

Susie: Yes. Our park will be gone. It will be-- Anyway. I do not believe that there's not going to be tremendous corruption. It is the hugest plan and it's just so much money. They have started doing it on my corner, 23rd Street and the FDR. They're building something. I've talked to my representatives, and they won't tell me exactly what they're doing. They're not making it safe for everybody. They have not been transparent at all.

Brian Lehrer: What's your real concern about outcomes? Because, of course, transparency is a value in and of itself, corruption prevention is a value in and of itself, but I think often in cases like this when people raise those things, it's really because you're afraid of a certain outcome in the content of the project that you're trying to prevent. What is the ultimate outcome that you're afraid of here?

Susie: I'm afraid it's not going to work. I live one block from the river. My fear is that they're going to spend this money and it's not actually going to work. They're not going to do the construction right. There's going to be corruption and they're going to do it poorly, that when the next Hurricane Sandy comes, I'll be wiped out. That we will not be protected and we will have lost our park.

Brian Lehrer: The city says that's the reason to support the plan. What's the alternative?

Susie: Honestly, I don't know what the alternative is, but I just don't trust they're going to do it right. Like your guest said, it goes all the way down to the Lower East Side. When has the city cared about Black and brown people? I don't trust them.

Brian Lehrer: Susie, thank you very much. Keith, you want to comment on that?

Keith Gessen: Yes. One of the ironies and situations, the city really did prioritize this area for exactly the reasons that Susie mentions, that it's a vulnerable lower-income area. The irony is that they'd never done this before. The process has been far less than ideal and the divisiveness that has emerged is largely a function of this very imperfect process of the city.

Yes, I think not being transparent and they've apologized for their lack of transparency, but then they have not been particularly transparent since then either. It's tough. I don't know how the city comes back from it. I think their hope is they're just going to start building and do the project and keep their heads down, and at the end of it, everyone will feel like actually it worked out.

Brian Lehrer: How far up-- I may have misspoke at the beginning of the segment, how far up would this go? I was thinking East River Park is like 12th Street and below, is it higher than that?

Keith Gessen: There's two parts of it and there's a part that goes up to-- There's the East River Park part of it, and then there's a part up to 23rd Street and that part is, as Susie mention, that part, they have begun construction there already.

Brian Lehrer: Walter in the East Village, you're on WNYC. Hi, Walter.

Walter: Hi, I just wanted to say, I was talking to a lady who's been very busy fighting against the whole concept of this park. One of the things that came up when we were talking is that this plan is not being properly thought through because it's really going to put Battery Park City at risk. [sound cut] The East River Park, it's going to have to find its next closest place which is the whole of Battery Park City, which is going to end up being flooded.

Brian Lehrer: And Battery Park City is more on the West Side, right?

Walter: Yes. That's when all the water surges and comes in, that's where the water is going to end up going if this park is built.

Brian Lehrer: Walter, thank you. Keith, is that the way it works? I'm not sure the water goes around the bottom of the Island in the Harbor that way, but maybe.

Keith Gessen: In my imperfect understanding of the hydrological situation, East River is actually part of the ocean. In my understanding, the water would go back into the ocean if it was rebuffed in East River Park. It is the case that until they build-- Actually, Battery Park City is in a pretty good position, it was built pretty high up, but the financial district and the Seaport is low lying and they haven't done anything yet. The city hasn't gotten to them.

It is the case that this is happening first, it's been a huge headache, and it's way behind schedule, but until some of the other areas in Lower Manhattan get protection, they will be vulnerable. That's that's true.

Brian Lehrer: Terry in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi, Terry.

Terry: Hi. How are you doing? Just one comment. I'm a very heavy user of that park and have been for decades. I run there, I bike there. Back in the old days, my kid played little league there. The one thing I would point out is that the park has always been subservient to the FDR. You get a lot of fumes from cars and trucks, but also, walking down the park and it's rained, you will get, when a truck goes by, a bathtub full of water poured on you, okay. Nobody has ever cared about this, but it's always been very affected by the FDR.

Now that climate change is a problem, sea level rise is a problem, we're going to give up the park, which, I just might add, is one of the main bicycle thoroughfares down the East Side of Manhattan to get people downtown and back up town at night because a lot of people don't feel comfortable riding on those roads. That is all going to be gone for 10 to 15 years while they do this. The people on the FDR will not even know it's happening and they are the people seeing the climate change.

They will be completely unaffected. My suggestion is that, for the duration, you turn the FDR into essentially open streets, it become a substitute park. That idea will probably be viewed as crackpot, but it's only fair when the people who are causing climate change, it's only fair that they be in some modest way affected by it for a little while. That's my thought.

Brian Lehrer: Or maybe one lane in each direction, but, Terry, interesting. Have you heard a lot of that because I will say that among the listeners calling in and writing in, disproportionately, people are bringing this up, this comparison between closing off the green space and letting the cars continue willy-nilly on the drive?

Keith Gessen: I think that's a great idea. When I put that to the head of the DDC, which is the Department of Design Construction, which is in charge of this project, he laughed. To a certain urban planning perspective, that's just a pipe dream. It's utopian, but we've seen closing down streets is very popular and it works and it's wonderful. I think that's totally a conversation we should be having.

Brian Lehrer: We're going to leave it there unresolved, and I guess I should give you a quick last word on it being unresolved because your article ends by saying, "Who was right? I no longer knew," but did you come to a conclusion at all for yourself after reporting the story for the last five months?

Keith Gessen: I didn't and I feel like it's not my place to, even though I attempted to. I mean, I will say just to the last caller, the city says it's going to take not 10 to 15 years, but another four years. We should keep them to that. If it's four years, I think that's something that we can live with. Well, it's a lot.

Brian Lehrer: Even that. Four years? Four years? Actually, close the park for four years.

Keith Gessen: They are going to phase it, so some part of the park will always be open. That's one of the concessions that the community got. So we'll see.

Brian Lehrer: Keith Gessen's article in New York Magazine is called The Destroy-It-to-Save-It Plan for East River Park. New York's first climate adaptation battle is here and it ends like this. He writes, "I walked back through the park, then caught the ferry across the river to Brooklyn at Corlears Hook. From the water, you could see how close the city was to the ocean, how precarious, how magnificent. You could see the park and the highway and the high-rises and the bridges. An incredible city if only we could keep it." Keith, thanks a lot.

Keith Gessen: Thank you, Brian.

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.