The proposed project would enliven a vacant historic pier in Hudson River Park and introduce approximately 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space. The proposed project would also introduce new commercial, educational, and cultural uses to the project site, creating new demands for open space in the area. Because the proposed project would add a new worker and visitor population to the area, this chapter examines the proposed project’s potential significant adverse impacts on open space in the area in accordance with the 2012 City Environmental
Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual . This chapter examines potential direct effects of the proposed project on nearby publicly accessible open spaces as well as indirect effects created by changes in demand for and use of the area's open spaces. The proposed project would not introduce any new residents, and the analysis therefore focuses on the potential impacts of the project’s worker population on study area open spaces.
PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS
Based on the methodology of the CEQR Technical Manual , a preliminary analysis of the proposed projects’ indirect effects on open space was conducted to determine the need for a detailed analysis. The preliminary analysis concluded that the proposed projects would not result in a significant adverse impact on open space and that a detailed analysis was not necessary.
Table 5-1 provides a summary of the open space analysis including a comparison of conditions with and without the proposed project. As shown in the table, the proposed project would result in an increase in the passive open space ratio for workers in the study area. The open space ratio for workers in the study area would remain well over the City’s recommended guideline ratio, and the open space conditions in the area would be greatly improved with the addition of new open space on the waterfront and the enlivening of a vacant and underutilized portion of Hudson
River Park. By creating 2.5 acres of public open space in the area, and improving an underutilized portion of Hudson River Park, the proposed project would improve open space conditions. Furthermore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse direct impacts to open space related to shadows, air quality, or odors. In addition, although noise levels in the proposed open space would be above the 55 dBA L
10(1) guideline noise level, this noise level would not constitute a significant adverse direct impact on the proposed open space because it would be comparable to the existing noise levels in Hudson River Park, and noise levels in a number of open space areas that are also located adjacent to heavily trafficked roadways, including Brooklyn
Bridge Park, Riverside Park, Bryant Park, Fort Greene Park, and other urban open space areas.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on open space in the study area.
5-1

Pier 57 Redevelopment
Ratio
Passive Acreage
Per 1,000 Workers
City Guideline
Ratio
0.15
Open Space Ratios (Acres/1,000 Workers)
Existing
Conditions
Future Without the Proposed
Project
Future With the
Proposed Project
Incremental Change
Future Without to
Future With the
Proposed Project
0.44 0.40 0.42 5.5%
DIRECT EFFECTS ANALYSIS
According to the CEQR Technical Manual , a proposed project would directly affect open space conditions if it causes the loss of public open space, changes the use of an open space so that it no longer serves the same user population, limits public access to an open space, or results in increased noise or air pollutant emissions, odor, or shadows that would temporarily or permanently affect the usefulness of a public open space. This chapter uses information from
Chapter 6, “Shadows,” Chapter 15, “Air Quality,” and Chapter 17, “Noise,” to determine whether the proposed project would directly affect any open spaces near the project site. A proposed project can also directly affect an open space by enhancing its design or increasing its accessibility to the public. The direct effects analysis is included in the “Probable Impacts of the
Proposed Projects” portion of Section C, “Preliminary Assessment.”
INDIRECT EFFECTS ANALYSIS
As described in the CEQR Technical Manual , open space can be indirectly affected by a proposed action if the project would add enough population, either residents or non-residents to noticeably diminish the capacity of open space in an area to serve the future population.
Typically, an assessment of indirect effects is conducted when a project would introduce 200 or more residents or 500 or more workers to an area; however, the thresholds for assessment are slightly different for areas of the city that have been identified as either underserved or wellserved by open space. Because the project site is not located within an area that has been identified as either underserved or well-served, the 200 resident and 500 worker thresholds were applied in this analysis.
The proposed project would not introduce any new residents into the study area. As such, an analysis of potential impacts on residential users of open space is not warranted.
Because the proposed project would introduce approximately 800 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers to the project site, it would exceed the CEQR Technical Manual ’s threshold for employees. Therefore a quantitative assessment was conducted to determine the potential of the proposed project to have indirect effects on open space in the area. Following the CEQR
Technical Manual ’s methodology, a preliminary assessment was first conducted to determine whether a more detailed analysis was appropriate.
Using the methodology described in the CEQR Technical Manual , the adequacy of open space in the study area was assessed by comparing the ratio of existing publicly accessible open space acreage to population—the open space ratio—to that recommended by the City. This comparison is also applied to open space conditions in the future with and without the proposed
5-2

Chapter 5: Open Space project in order to determine the proposed project’s potential incremental impact on open space resources in the study area. A qualitative assessment is also used to supplement this quantitative analysis in order to fully examine the effects of the proposed project.
STUDY AREA
The CEQR Technical Manual recommends first establishing and mapping a study area for an open space analysis. Residential and commercial projects require different open space study areas, each defined by the reasonable walking distance that residents and workers would travel to reach local open space or recreation areas. Workers tend to use passive open spaces within ¼mile, or a typical walking distance, from their workplaces. Therefore, projects that would add a substantial worker population require an analysis of their effects on passive open spaces within approximately ¼-mile of the project site. Because the proposed project would not introduce a residential population, this open space analysis is limited to the impacts on passive open space resources in the commercial study area. Therefore the study area for the proposed project was defined as the area within a ¼-mile radius of the project site.
The CEQR Technical Manual explains that this ¼-mile study area should be modified to include all census tracts with at least 50 percent of their area within the study area. As shown in Figure
5-1 , the study area for this analysis has been defined as census tracts 79, 83, 89, and 99. The project site is located in census tract 99, which extends from West 14th Street north to West 38th
Street. Although much of this census tract is located more than ¼-mile from the project site, it was included in the study area because the project site is located within this tract. Although none of the other three study area census tracts have at least 50 percent of their areas in the ¼-mile area, they were included in the study area to account for adjacent areas where the project would be likely to affect open space conditions.
USER POPULATIONS
Existing Conditions
The worker population in the study area was estimated using 2010 employment data from ESRI,
Inc., a commercial data provider.
The Future Without the Proposed Project
As described in Chapter 1, “Project Description,” the proposed project’s build year is 2015. The analysis of the future without the proposed project, or No Action condition, assumes that none of the proposed discretionary actions are approved at that time and the proposed project is not developed at the site. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy,” there are several new developments in the area that are expected to be constructed by 2015 in the ¼mile study area. To estimate the worker population expected to be generated in the study area, standard employment density ratios were applied to the expected square footage for each of the uses generated by projects to be completed by the 2015 build year.
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project
The worker population introduced by the proposed project was estimated and added to the worker population expected in the No Action condition to determine the total passive open space user population in 2015 with the proposed project, or With Action condition.
5-3

HUDSON RIVER
Project Site
Study Area Boundary (1/4-Mile Perimeter)
Open Space Study Area
Census Tract Boundary
79 Census Tract Number
HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57
99
W. 41ST ST.
W. 40TH ST.
W. 39TH ST.
W. 38TH ST.
W. 37TH ST.
W. 36TH ST.
W. 35TH ST.
W. 34TH ST.
N
W. 33RD ST.
W. 31ST ST.
W. 30TH ST.
W. 29TH ST.
W. 28TH ST.
W. 27TH ST.
W. 26TH ST.
W. 25TH ST.
W. 24TH ST.
W. 32ND ST.
BROADWAY
89
83
W. 22ND ST.
W. 21ST ST.
W. 20TH ST.
W. 19TH ST.
W. 18TH ST.
W. 17TH ST.
W. 16TH ST.
W. 15TH ST.
79
LITTLE 12TH ST.
GANSEVOORT ST.
GREENWICH ST.
HORATIO ST.
JANE ST.
W. 14TH ST.
WAVERLY PL. GREENWICH AVE.
W. 12TH ST.
BETHUNE ST.
BANK ST.
HUDSON ST.
BLEEKER ST.
W. 4TH ST.
W. 11TH ST.
W. 11TH ST.
W. 10TH ST.
W. 9TH ST.
W. 8TH ST.
WAVERLY PL.
W. WASHINGTON PL.
CHARLES LN.
CHARLES ST.
W. 10TH ST.
CHRISTOPHER ST.
0
SCALE
1000 2000 FEET
Figure 5-1

Pier 57 Redevelopment
INVENTORY OF OPEN SPACE RESOURCES
The CEQR Technical Manual defines public open space as open space that is regularly open to the public during designated daily periods. Open spaces that do not fit this definition because they are not available to the public on a regular basis or are available to a limited set of users are considered private open space and are not included in the quantitative open space analysis. A private, fee-charging health club or roof deck for residents of a particular building are examples of a private open space.
All publicly accessible open spaces and recreational facilities within the study area were identified. The inventory of open spaces was assembled based on field visits conducted in July
2011 and information from the New York City DCP and the Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT).
Published environmental impact statements (EISs) for recent projects in or near the study area were also consulted.
During the July 2011 field visits, the size, character, condition, and use of the public open spaces within the commercial study area were recorded. Each space was further examined in terms of the amount of active and passive space and amenities included. Active open space is intended for sports, exercise, or active play. Active facilities include playgrounds, sports fields and courts, pools, greenways, and golf courses. Passive open space is intended for relaxation and invites sitting, strolling, picnicking, and dog walking. Passive spaces include walking paths, gardens, and yards with sitting areas. Spaces such as lawns and esplanades can accommodate both active and passive uses.
In addition to the open spaces located in the commercial study area, open spaces falling outside of the study area were considered in the qualitative analysis as they may be used by the worker population.
ADEQUACY OF OPEN SPACE RESOURCES
Comparison to City Guidelines
Using the methodology of the CEQR Technical Manual , the adequacy of the open space in the study area was quantitatively assessed by comparing the ratio of useable open space acreage to the study area population (or the “open space ratio”) to guidelines established by DCP. For nonresidential or worker populations, 0.15 acres of passive open space per 1,000 workers is considered an adequate ratio.
Impact Assessment
Impacts of the proposed project were assessed based on how the project would change the open space ratios in the study area. According to the CEQR Technical Manual , if a proposed project would result in a decrease approaching or exceeding five percent, it is considered to substantially change open space conditions and a detailed analysis may be warranted. However, in areas that are extremely lacking in open space, a reduction as small as 1 percent may be considered significant, depending on the area of the City. Furthermore, in areas that are well-served by open space, a greater change in the open space ratio may be tolerated.
The CEQR Technical Manual recommends that the quantitative open space analysis described above be supplemented by an examination of qualitative factors. These factors include the proximity to “destination” resources and the nature of any open space added by the proposed project.
5-4

Chapter 5: Open Space
A preliminary assessment of open space consists of calculating total population, tallying the open space acreage within the area, and comparing the open space ratios for existing conditions and the No Action and With Action conditions.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
OPEN SPACE USER POPULATION
According to 2010 data, the study area has a non-residential worker population of 37,878 (see
Table 5-2 ).
Worker Population Tract
79
83
89
99
TOTAL
9,622
11,950
3,227
13,079
37,878
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, Inc, Business Summary Report
OPEN SPACE INVENTORY
The study area contains a total of 7 publicly accessible open spaces, including several portions of Hudson River Park, which contain a total of 30.89 acres of public open space, of which 16.79 acres are passive open space and 14.10 acres are active open space (see Table 5-3 and Figure
5-2 ). As previously described, the proposed project would generate workers and no additional residents. The total open space in the study area is presented below for information purposes, but only the passive space is examined in the analysis that follows. Notable passive open spaces in the study area are described below.
Approximately 21.27 acres—over two thirds of the total open space in the study area—fall within
Hudson River Park. The site of the proposed project at Pier 57 is one of a few areas of the park currently in the development process. Once all of the segments are complete, Hudson River Park will stretch for five contiguous miles from Battery Place West to West 59th Street, where it will connect to Riverside Park South. It will include 550 acres in and along the Hudson River. Passive open space accounts for approximately 8.22 acres of the portions of Hudson River Park included in the study area. Hudson River Park is in excellent condition and is heavily used throughout the study area.
The portions of the Hudson River Park included in the study area are divided into distinct components. The study area includes approximately 1.7 miles of the Hudson River Greenway, a pedestrian and adjacent bike path that extends along the entire length of the park. In the southern portion of the study area, the Greenway runs along the Greenwich Village Esplanade, which also includes grass lawns and seating areas. The study area includes four of the Hudson River Park renovated piers and adjacent upland areas. Piers 62, 63, 64, and 66 contain various active open space features, as well as a network of paths and seating areas. 14th Street Park is separated from
5-5

PIER 76
W. 41ST ST.
W. 40TH ST.
W. 39TH ST.
W. 38TH ST.
W. 37TH ST.
W. 36TH ST.
W. 35TH ST.
W. 34TH ST.
N
2B
W. 33RD ST.
PIER 72 W. 32ND ST.
PIER 66
2F
2G
W. 31ST ST.
W. 30TH ST.
W. 29TH ST.
W. 28TH ST.
W. 27TH ST.
W. 26TH ST.
W. 25TH ST.
W. 24TH ST.
BROADWAY
PIER 64 2E
PIER 63 2D
PIER 62
PIER 61
2C
PIER 60
PIER 59
2I
5
2H
2B
7
4
3
3
6
W. 22ND ST.
W. 21ST ST.
W. 20TH ST.
W. 19TH ST.
W. 18TH ST.
W. 17TH ST.
W. 16TH ST.
W. 15TH ST.
W. 14TH ST.
PIER 57
1
PIER 54
Project Site
Study Area Boundary (1/4-Mile Perimeter)
Open Space Resource
Open Space Study Area Boundary
LITTLE 12TH ST.
GREENWICH ST.
HORATIO ST.
JANE ST.
PIER 52
2J
PIER 51
2A
W. 12TH ST.
BETHUNE ST.
W. 11TH ST.
BANK ST.
HUDSON ST.
BLEEKER ST.
W. 4TH ST.
WAVERLY PL. GREENWICH AVE.
W. 11TH ST.
W. 10TH ST.
W. 9TH ST.
W. 8TH ST.
WAVERLY PL.
W. WASHINGTON PL.
CHARLES LN.
CHARLES ST.
W. 10TH ST.
CHRISTOPHER ST.
0
SCALE
1000 2000 FEET
HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57
Figure 5-2

Pier 57 Redevelopment the Greenway and piers by Route 9A but is part of in Hudson River Park and serves to connect the waterfront to the surrounding commercial and residential uses. The park is entirely comprised of passive open space in the form of a grass oval surrounded by seating. Similarly,
Chelsea Waterside Park is a stand-alone component of Hudson River Park at 23rd Street, and includes many active open space resources, connected by passive paths and seating.
Name and Location Owner Features
Rockrose
Dvlpmt Corp.
Water feature, seating, trees, planters
Size (Acres)
Passive
Space
Active
Space
Total
Space
Condition/
Utilization
1 99 Jane Street
2 Hudson River Park
2
0.23 0 0.23 Excellent/Moderate
2A
2B
Greenwich Village Esplanade (from
Bank to Gansevoort Streets)
Route 9A Bikeway (from Gansevoort
Street to W 22nd Street and W 29th
Street to W 38th Street)
HRPT
Running and biking paths, benches, grass lawn, children’s playground 1.09 1.09 2.18 Excellent/High
2C Pier 62 and upland area
2D Pier 63 and upland area
2E Pier 64 and upland area
2F Pier 66 and upland area
2G
Route 9A Bikeway and Hudson River
Park upland (from W 24th Street to W
29th Street)
2H 14th Street Park
2I Chelsea Waterside Park
2J Pier 51
3 Fulton Houses Open Space
4 Fulton Houses Playground
5 The High Line
6 Dr. Gertrude B Kelly Playground
7 Clement Clarke Moore Park
Notes:
Sources:
NYSDOT
HRPT
HRPT
HRPT
HRPT
HRPT/
NYSDOT
HRPT
HRPT
HRPT
NYCHA
NYCHA
DPR
DPR
DPR
Running and biking paths
Skate Park, carousel, garden, seating
Esplanade, seating, grass lawn, garden
Grass lawn, seating
Boathouse and docks
0
1.13
2.25
1.13
0.15
2.49
1.12
2.25
1.12
0.15
2.49
2.25
4.50
2.25
0.30
Excellent/High
Excellent/High
Excellent/High
Excellent/High
Excellent/High
Running and biking paths, benches, grass lawn 1.15
Grass lawn, tables, benches, and chairs, trees, and flowers 0.60
Sports field, basketball court, dog run, children's playground with water features
Children’s playground with water and sand features, seating
0.63
0.09
Basketball courts, benches
Children's playground, benches
1.37
2.68
0.00
1.87
0.28
0.20
3.83
0.60
2.50
0.37
1.57
0.03 0.04 0.07
Paths, landscaping, seating
Play equipment, basketball courts, handball courts, benches
6.73 0.00 6.73
0.11 0.42 0.53
Swings, play equipment, sprinkler, benches, picnic tables 0.10 0.39 0.49
Study Area Total 16.79 14.10 30.89
Excellent/High
Excellent/Moderate
Excellent/High
Excellent/High
Moderate/Low
Moderate/Low
Excellent/High
Good/High
Good/High
1. See Figure 5-2 for open space locations.
2. The portion of Hudson River Park in the study area is comprised of open spaces 2A through 2I, which are presented separately for clarity and because of location and active/passive features.
HRPT = Hudson River Park Trust; DPR = New York City Department of Parks and Recreation; NYCHA = New York City Housing
Authority
Although a portion of Hudson River Park Pier 54 is currently open to the public as a learn-to-bike area, large sections of the pier have been closed because of deteriorated structural piles. Therefore, it is conservatively excluded from this analysis.
New York City Department of Parks and Recreation open space database; Hudson River Park Trust; AKRF, Inc. field surveys
July 2011; NYCHA open space acreage calculated using GIS data.
The High Line is also located in the study area. The park was reconstructed from an elevated former freight line stretching from Gansevoort and West 30th Streets. The first section of the
High Line from Gansevoort Street to West 20th Street opened to the public in June 2009. The second section opened two years later in June 2011, doubling the park’s length to one mile by
5-6

Chapter 5: Open Space extending it to West 30th Street. The park includes 6.73 acres of landscaped grasses, shrubs, and trees along concrete pathways at an elevation of approximately 25 feet. The High Line provides passive open space only.
ADEQUACY OF OPEN SPACES
As described above, the analysis focuses on passive open spaces because these are the open spaces that workers introduced by the proposed project would be most likely to use. Table 5-4 compares the ratio of existing passive open space per 1,000 workers in the study area with the City guidelines. The study area has a passive open space ratio of 0.44 acres per 1,000 workers, which is far above the City’s guideline of 0.15 acres of passive open space per 1,000 workers.
Worker
Population
37,878
Guideline
Ratios
(Acres/1,000
Workers)
Passive Acres
Needed to Meet
Guidelines
Passive Acres
Present Actual Ratio
0.15 5.7 16.79 0.44
Qualitative Analysis
As shown in Table 5-2 , the open space resources in the study area are mostly in good or excellent condition and are moderately or highly used. Overall the area is well-served by passive open space resources.
As noted above, Hudson River Park, which is a major destination open space in the City, extends beyond the study area boundaries both to the north and south. Workers within the study area are also served by the portions of Hudson River Park located just outside the study area.
In addition, there are several other open spaces that provide passive recreation resources located just outside the study area. These include Chelsea Park, on the south side of West 28th Street running from Ninth Avenue to Tenth Avenue; Corporal John A. Seravalli Playground, on
Hudson Street between Gansevoort and Horatio Streets; Bleecker Playground on Bleecker Street between Bank and West 11th Streets; and Jackson Square and Abingdon Square, two small passive open spaces on Eighth Avenue at West 13th Street and West 12th Street, respectively.
These nearby spaces add a total of 2.04 acres of public open space, of which approximately 0.77 acres are passive.
THE FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT
OPEN SPACE USER POPULATION
In the No Action condition, the project site will remain vacant with no employees on site. As described in Chapter 2, “Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy,” several new developments in the study area are planned or under construction and are expected to be completed by 2015. These
5-7

Pier 57 Redevelopment developments will introduce approximately 4,489 new workers and visitors to the study area.
1
The total worker population in the study area will increase to approximately 42,367 workers.
OPEN SPACE INVENTORY
The Whitney Gansevoort Museum, described in Chapter 2, “Land Use, Zoning, and Public
Policy,” will add 0.2 acres of publicly accessible passive open space in the form of an outdoor plaza or “largo.” Section 3 of the High Line, from West 30th Street to West 34th Street, is expected to be developed in the future, but there are currently no plans for this project. None of the other developments expected to be completed by 2015 would add any open space to the study area. With the completion of the outdoor plaza at the Whitney Gansevoort Museum, the total passive open space in the study area will increase to 16.99 acres.
ADEQUACY OF OPEN SPACES
Quantitative analysis
Though the development projects expected to be completed in the study area in the No Action condition would generate a substantial number of workers and therefore place more demand on the open spaces in the study area, the area would remain well-served by open space resources.
The ratio of passive open space per 1,000 workers would be 0.40 acres, still well above the
City’s guideline ratio of 0.15 acres per 1,000 workers (see Table 5-5 ).
Worker
Population
42,367
Guideline
Ratios
(Acres/1,000
Workers)
Passive Acres
Needed to Meet
Guidelines
Passive Acres
Present Actual Ratio
0.15 6.36 16.99 0.40
Qualitative analysis
In the No Action condition, as in existing conditions, the workers in the study area will continue to be served by the parks located just outside of the study area. In addition, in the longer-term future it is expected that a large new portion of Hudson River Park will open on the Gansevoort
Peninsula (near Piers 52 and 53) once the City of New York Department of Sanitation uses are relocated and HRPT secures funding for construction. This open space will provide additional recreational resources for the study area population.
1
Employment density ratios were applied to the expected square footage for each use to estimate future employment. The ratios used assume one worker each per: 400 square feet of retail space; 200 square feet of restaurant space; three hotel rooms (600 square feet per hotel room); 250 square feet of office space; 800 square feet of community facility space; 1,000 square feet of industrial space; and 50 parking spaces. For the proposed project, additional standards of 11 FTE workers per theater and 6 FTE workers per each 100-slip marina were used.
5-8

Chapter 5: Open Space
PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
DIRECT EFFECTS
The With Action condition would have a positive direct effect on open space by creating a publicly accessible open space on the project site and enlivening a vacant pier structure within
Hudson River Park. Approximately 2.5 acres of publicly accessible open space would be developed on the project site, both at grade through the addition of a perimeter walkway, and on the rooftop. The proposed project would not have any adverse impacts on open space in terms of air quality, odors, or shadows.
Noise levels in the new project-created open space areas would be above the 55 dBA L
10(1) guideline noise level prescribed by CEQR criteria due to a combination of high existing noise levels generated by traffic on Route 9A, amplified sound from events at the proposed project, and operation of the proposed project’s marina and water taxi landing, and would therefore constitute a significant adverse noise impact. There are no practical and feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce noise levels to below the 55 dBA L
10(1) guideline within the proposed open space areas. However, noise levels within the open space would be comparable to the existing noise levels in Hudson River Park, and noise levels in a number of open space areas that are also located adjacent to heavily trafficked roadways, including
Brooklyn Bridge Park, Riverside Park, Bryant Park, Fort Greene Park, and other urban open space areas. The 55 dBA L
10(1)
guideline is a worthwhile goal for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet; however, due to the level of activity present at most New York City open space areas and parks (except for areas far away from traffic and other typical urban activities) this relatively low noise level is often not achieved. Therefore, the significant adverse noise impact would not affect the usefulness of the proposed open space, and thus would not result in a significant adverse direct impact on the proposed open space.
See Chapter 6, “Shadows,” Chapter 15 “Air Quality,” and Chapter 17, “Noise” for additional information.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Open Space User Population
The proposed project would result in the development of new retail, restaurant and other commercial uses, educational and cultural uses, public open space, parking and a marina. The proposed project is estimated to introduce approximately 800 FTE workers. In addition, the number of visitors to the project site would be expected to reach approximately 2,920 during a peak hour on weekends during non-event conditions, resulting in a maximum of 3,720 new workers and visitors in the study area. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to increase the study area’s worker and non-residential population to 46,087.
It is expected that visitors to the proposed project would utilize the open space on the rooftop of the headhouse or areas of Hudson River Park immediately adjacent to the project site, although they may also use other nearby open spaces, including the High Line. Therefore, the analysis that follows conservatively includes this peak-hour visitor population in the assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project.
5-9

Pier 57 Redevelopment
Open Space Inventory
As previously described, the proposed project would create approximately 2.5 acres of publicly accessible open space on the project site. In the With Action condition, the study area’s total passive open space acreage would increase to 19.49 acres. This new open space would consist of walkways and a landscaped roof on the renovated headhouse of the pier. The existing perimeter walkway around the pier would be repaired and extended to connect with the existing Hudson
River Park waterfront esplanade. New public walkways would also be constructed parallel to the existing bulkhead to widen the public park space adjacent to a busy circulation area. These new walkways would extend north and south just east of the headhouse. The majority of the open space added by the proposed project would be built on the rooftop of the pier shed, and would be designed to accommodate up to 2,500 people for some programmed events. This open space would consist of open areas on the eastern and western portions of the rooftop with a pavilion in the center. The open areas on the eastern and western portions of the rooftop would provide flexible space for seating, relaxation, and views of the river. These areas could include some wooden decking, hardscape, paving, and small lawn areas. The center of the rooftop would contain a pavilion with a public deck on the roof, and wide stairs on the east that would function as seating areas during some events.
All of these open space components would be considered passive, though some occasional temporary installations associated with rooftop programming could include active recreational facilities. This is not considered in the quantitative analysis because it does not represent permanent active open space. In addition, it should be noted that the rooftop space, while primarily public, would periodically be used by the Tribeca Film Festival for film screenings, art or other cultural and sports-related installations. These events would be free to the public but capacity may be limited by ticketing.
Adequacy of Open Spaces
Quantitative Analysis
In the With Action condition, the ratio of passive open space acreage per 1,000 workers would increase from 0.40 in the future without the proposed project to 0.42, an increase of 5.5 percent
(see Table 5-6 ). The passive open space ratio would remain well above the City’s guideline of
0.15 acres per 1,000 workers.
Worker and
Visitor
Population
46,087
Guideline
Ratios
(Acres/1,000
Workers)
0.15
Passive Acres
Needed to Meet
Guidelines
6.91
Passive Acres
Present
19.59
Actual Ratio
0.42
Qualitative Analysis
By creating 2.5 acres of new public open space and activating an underutilized section of the waterfront, the proposed project represents a substantial improvement to open space resources in the area. The open space at Pier 57 will be easily accessible from the Hudson River Greenway, and would open a new portion of the waterfront to public access. In addition, as mentioned above, it is expected that a large new portion of Hudson River Park would open on the
Gansevoort Peninsula (near Piers 52 and 53) in the longer term future. This open space would provide additional recreational resources for the study area population.
5-10

Chapter 5: Open Space
As discussed above, the proposed project would increase the passive open space ratio in the study area by 5.5 percent over the No Action condition. The open space ratio for workers in the study area would remain well over the City’s recommended guideline ratio, and the open space conditions in the area would be greatly improved with the addition of new open space on the waterfront and the enlivening of a vacant and underutilized portion of Hudson River Park.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not result in any adverse direct effects to open space related to shadows, air quality, or odors. In addition, although noise levels in the proposed open space would be above the 55 dBA L
10(1) guideline noise level, this noise level would not constitute a significant adverse direct impact on the proposed open space, as described above. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on open space in the study area, and a more detailed analysis is not warranted. 
5-11