Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page 6-1
Chapter 6. Open Space and Recreational Facilities
Introduction
This chapter assesses the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on the quality, use and
maintenance of public open space and recreational facilities. According to suggested CEQR Technical
Manual guidance, open space is defined as publicly-accessible land (either publicly- or privately-owned)
designated for leisure, play, or sport. In addition, open space includes land set aside for the protection or
enhancement of the natural environment. A direct impact on open space occurs when such a resource is
physically altered or eliminated by a proposed action, when access to a resource changes as a result of an
action, or when an action results in increased noise levels, air pollutant emissions, odors, or shadows on
public open space. Indirect impacts occur when resources are overtaxed due to increases in residential
and/or nonresidential populations caused by a proposed action.1
Pursuant to suggested CEQR Technical Manual guidance, only open spaces and recreational
facilities that are accessible to the public on a regular basis or for designated daily periods are defined as
public and analyzed for impacts.2 Accordingly, private open spaces, which include resources that are not
publicly accessible or only available to limited users and not available to the public on a constant, regular
basis, are not analyzed for impacts. However, if a proposed action is expected to have indirect effects on
public open space due to increased utilization demands, the ability of private open space to influence and
help to alleviate those effects may be taken into account.
Overview
Within the open space and recreational facilities study area there are ten publicly-accessible
resources totaling approximately 31.05 acres. These resources contain active and passive spaces and are
used by both the residential and worker population within the open space study area. The Project Site
also contains a private recreational use, the athletic track and field facility (the “Herman Goldman
Center”), which is partially situated on the Development Parcel and is not publicly accessible. In the past,
local community sports leagues were permitted to use this facility under a limited license agreement with
CCNY that required the payment of a user fee. These limited license agreements expired in January of
2007 and have not been renewed. As discussed below in greater detail, currently use of the Herman
Goldman Center is limited to certain CCNY intercollegiate athletic teams and students from two nearby
public high schools for physical education classes.
Since the Proposed Project would generate new workers but no new residents, the primary open
space user population of concern is nonresidential and comprised of workers. As detailed below, the
Proposed Project would introduce approximately 456 additional employees to the Project Site. Although
the introduction of additional employees would decrease the nonresidential open space ratio, it would not
result in a significant and adverse open space impact.
1
2
CEQR Technical Manual, pp. 3D-1, 3D-2.
Ibid.
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page 6-2
Methodology
The open space study area is defined by the distance a person will typically walk to reach an open
space.3 For projects with a primary user population of nonresidents such as the Proposed Project, a onequarter mile radius from the work place is considered a reasonable walking distance (ten minutes). As
residents are more likely to travel farther to reach parks and recreational facilities, a one-half mile radius
typically is used to delineate a residential open space study area. Although the Proposed Project is
located within an area of substantial residential population, the Proposed Project would only add
nonresidents to the CCNY campus. Therefore, a quarter-mile radius around the Project Site was used to
develop the open space study area. Adjustments to the study area boundary were made to include census
tracts with at least half of their land area situated within the bounds of the quarter-mile radius. The census
tracts comprising the open space study area are displayed in Figure 6-1.
Demographic data were used to identify potential open space users (workers and residents) within
the study area. To estimate the worker population, data were compiled from the United States
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.4 United States Census 2000 data were
used to determine the residential population.
This open space assessment primarily focuses on passive open space resources because studies
indicate that worker populations tend to use passive rather than active open spaces. For Existing
Conditions, the ratio of useable passive open space acreage to the study area worker population, referred
to as the nonresidential open space ratio, was compared with established guidelines.5 Since the Proposed
Project is located within an area of substantial residential population, the passive open space ratio for the
study area’s combined residential and worker populations also was determined. The combined (worker
and residential) passive open space ratio was compared against the passive open space guideline for
residential users,6 which is considered conservative because workers require less passive open space than
residents.
For the Future No Build Condition, increases in worker and residential populations that are
expected to result from identified No Build projects were added to the existing populations. The Future
No Build passive open space ratios for the nonresidential and combined (worker and residential)
populations were then calculated and compared with established passive open space guidelines. For the
Future Build Condition, the additional worker population that the Proposed Project would introduce was
added to the Future No Build worker population. Passive open space ratios for the Future Build
Condition were then calculated for the study area’s nonresidential and combined populations, and
compared against applicable guidance values. The percent change in the passive open space ratios from
the Future No Build Condition to the Future Build Condition were then calculated. This analysis of the
change in open space ratios is referred to as the “quantitative” assessment. According to suggested CEQR
3
4
CEQR Technical Manual, p. 3D-3.
United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, CTPP 2000: CTPP 2000 Part 2,
Table 001.
5
CEQR guidelines indicate that 0.15 acre of passive open space per 1,000 nonresidents represents a reasonable amount
of open space (CEQR Technical Manual, p. 3D-5).
6
For planning purposes and large-scale proposals, the city seeks to attain a planning goal of 2.5 acres of open space per
1,000 residents, with 80 percent (2.0 acres) of active open space and 20 percent (0.5 acre) of passive open space per 1,000
residents, if appropriate and feasible. However, the median community district ratio for the city is 1.5 acres of city parkland per
1,000 residents and typically is considered adequate; open space ratios below 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents generally indicate an
open space shortfall (CEQR Technical Manual, pp. 3D-5, 3D-13). Applying the same planning goal breakdown of active versus
passive open space (80 percent and 20 percent, respectively), this assessment considers that 0.3 acre of passive open space per
1,000 residents is generally sufficient for a residential user population.
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page 6-3
Technical Manual guidance, a decrease in open space ratio that approaches or exceeds five percent is
considered to be a substantial change that warrants a more detailed analysis.
Open space ratios were calculated based on acreages derived from the New York City
Department of Parks and Recreation (“NYCDPR”) website7 in addition to acreage data obtained from
NYCDCP’s profiles for Manhattan Community Districts 9 and 10, and by using geographic information
system (“GIS”) software for areas where only portions of a resource exist within the open space study
area. The percentages of passive and active spaces within a given resource were estimated.
In addition to the quantitative assessment, a qualitative assessment of other factors that may affect
conclusions about the study area’s open space adequacy was conducted. As part of the qualitative
analysis, an inventory of all passive and active open space resources was compiled using NYCDCP’s
profiles for Manhattan Community Districts 9 and 10, along with land use maps derived from
MapPLUTOTM data and verified in the field.8 Also included in the qualitative analysis are descriptions of
the existing open spaces listed in the inventory, in addition to significant open spaces that fall just outside
of the open space study area.
Existing Conditions
An inventory of public parks, privately-owned public spaces, and greenstreets was compiled. A
greenstreet is a paved, vacant traffic median or island that has been landscaped through the citywide
Greenstreets program. NYCDPR currently maintains (waters, weeds, and cleans) greenstreets on a
regular basis. As illustrated in Figure 6-1, there are ten publicly-accessible open spaces within the
defined open space study area. Table 6-1 lists these open spaces according to their corresponding map ID
and provides the following information for each resource: location, open space type, total acreage, and
the percentage of active and passive space. Of the ten publicly-accessible open spaces, eight contain
active and/or passive spaces. Two of the ten open spaces are landscaped greenstreets with no benches or
pathways for sitting or strolling; therefore, these two greenstreets were not included in the quantitative
analysis.
Open Space Inventory. The following inventory provides details about the types of amenities at
each open space listed in Table 6-1 below. Photographs of each resource taken during fieldwork have
been included and are listed as Figures 6-2 through 6-9.
St. Nicholas Park. The largest resource in the study area is St. Nicholas Park, a 22.74-acre
expanse with natural and rugged terrain (see Figures 6-2 and 6-3). Bound by West 141st Street to the
north, St. Nicholas Avenue to the east, West 128th Street to the south, and St. Nicholas Terrace to the
west, this park offers several basketball and handball courts; children’s playground areas with safety
surfacing; benches and chess tables; a large, grassy lawn area; lighted, paved walkways; venues for
barbequing; and several comfort stations. Approximately 20 percent of the park can be characterized as
active open space and the remaining 80 percent as passive open space.
7
8
http://www.nycgovparks.org/
MapPLUTOTM GIS database, version 03C, New York City Department of City Planning.
Ri
ve
rsi
de
Pa
rk
Legend
Development Parcel
Census 2000 Tracts
(labeled with Census Tract #)
W
Development Parcels
88
W
14
Open Space and
313
Recreation Facilities
UD
6T
HS
T
231.01
4T
HS
T
DS
T
DS
T
7T
N
TO
IL
DE
HS
ER
SI
T
W
AM
13
H
9T
0T
TE
R
HS
TA
VE
227.01
T
10
HS
T
W
RI
V
6
8
14
RS
W
PL
HU
T
LT
ON
HS
14
1S
TS
W
T
PA
R
EA
VE
6T
HS
T
T
HS
T
2
217.01
221.02
213.01
HS
T
W
W
12
9T
13
0T
13
230
HS
T
8T
9
HS
T
HS
T
W
13
2N
T
21
ST
12
3R
DS
T
ST
.30
Miles
T
Sources: MapPLUTO,
NYCDCP; LION version 03D, NYCDCP.
201.01
W
12
W
4T
12
5T
HS
T
T
DS
T
DS
T
226
T
HS
T
EL
CP
OW
W
13
1S
AM
W
W
12
6T
HS
HS
T
HS
T
°
6T
12
9T
T
W
12
12
8T
13
TS
0T
222
T
HS
T
HS
T
HS
T
CCNY7THScience
Building/
ST
CUNY ASRC Project
LE
NO
EA
VE
GS
ID
RN
IN
.20
W
1
W
209.02
13
228
HS
W
207.02
MO
rn
in
Pa gsid
rk
e
Mo
S
13
7T
AD
AV
E
AM
TH
.10
T
HS
ST
ER
D
AM
11
9
PL
0 207.01
.050
232
HS
9T
HS
W
K
OC
T
203
W
4T
3R
213.02
209.01
13
SB
AS
GL
W
OU
FR
E
T
8T
T
TS
T
LV
D
12
217.02
DD
T
HS
ES
1S
DS
T
LB
W
9T
HS
LV
D
*
ST
AV
E
NT
MO
CL
AR
E
12
0T
ER
4
13
W
NC
12
13
HA
W
5T
T
W
211
13
TS
OL
A
R
DB
T
DS
XA
VE
1S
Y
WA
D
OA
DS
13
W
W
13
ICH
W
W
2N
3R
1
OL
12
0T
9
5
W
224
W
W
59
219
T
LL
W
NT
ADW
AY
HS
SA
ED
AVE
4T
14
2N
14
LAS
13
BRO
9T
PL
LA
14
GE
OA
BR
W
DS
T
W
CO
DW
AY
13
TN
NN
T
HS
12
223.01
SA
IN
RIVERSIDE DR
MA
2N
DS
T
0T
W
3R
TS
13
W
221.01
OLD
W
1S
13
13
W
MB
T
HO
H
W
TIE
7
HS
NIC
4T
SAI
13
W
13
T
T
AD
13
223.02
W
HS
HS
227.02
HU
DS
O
N
W
8T
BR
W
DR
12
TH
B
XI
TS
14
14
7T
14
HA
MI
NR
YH
HE
AV
E
8T
Open Space Study Area
KW
AY
E
T
3
Herman Goldman
Center (Athletic Track & Field) W 13
Waterbody
W
14
225
(# refers to Table 6-1)
*
3R
HS
NT
AV
E
#
14
2N
SO
N
PK
Y
Project Site
5T
W
229
Project
1/4-Site
Mile Study Area
14
W
CO
NV
E
200
W
233
W
208
Open Space and Recreation
Inventory and Study Area
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
200
Figure 6-1
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page 6-5
Table 6-1: Open Space and Recreation Facilities in Study Area
Map
ID
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Facility
Name
St. Nicholas
Park
Annunciation
Park
Hamilton
Place
Playground
Sheltering
Arms Park
Dorrance
Brooks Square
Montefiore
Square
Jacob H.
Schiff
Playground
Broadway
Malls
9
Greenstreet
10
Greenstreet
Notes:
Facility Address
St. Nicholas Avenue to St. Nicholas
Terrace from West 128th to West 141st
Streets
West 135th Street and Amsterdam
Avenue
Hamilton Place between West 140th and
West 141st Streets
West 129th Street and Amsterdam
Avenue
th
West 136 to West 137th between St.
Nicholas Avenue and Edgecombe
Avenue
Broadway, Hamilton Place, West 138th
Street
Amsterdam Avenue and West 136th
Street
Broadway between West 135th and West
142nd Streets
th
West 135 to West 136th between St.
Nicholas Avenue and Edgecombe
Avenue
West 141st to West 142nd between
Bradhurst Avenue and Edgecombe
Avenue
Passive %
Active
Acreage
Passive
Acreage
Active %
Park/Playground
22.74
20%
80%
4.55
18.19
Park/Playground
1.24
90%
10%
1.12
0.12
Park/Playground
0.81
90%
10%
0.73
0.08
Park, Pool, Playground
1.43
90%
10%
1.29
0.14
Triangle/Strip/Plaza/Sitting
Area
0.04
0%
100%
0.00
0.04
Triangle/Strip/Plaza/Sitting
Area
0.34
0%
100%
0.00
0.34
Park/Playground
3.85
80%
20%
3.08
0.77
Triangle/Strip/Plaza/Sitting
Area
0.60
0%
100%
0.00
0.60
Landscaped Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Landscaped Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total:
31.05
N/A
N/A
10.76
20.29
Percentages of passive and active spaces within each resource are estimates based on fieldwork and site photos.
According to suggested CEQR Technical Manual guidance, sitting areas are 100 percent passive (pg. 3D-7).
Assumed greenways with benches/greenstreets with benches were "sitting areas" and therefore 100 percent passive.
Source:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2007.
Passive/Active/Both
Total
Acreage
Type of Open Space
St. Nicholas Park (Map ID No. 1)
View from the east side of St. Nicholas Avenue between West 130 th Street and West 131st Street.
St. Nicholas Park (Map ID No. 1)
Play area-view from the east side of St. Nicholas Avenue between West 131st Street and West 132nd Street.
CCNY Science Building/
CUNY ASRC Project
Open Space Photographs
St. Nicholas Park
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Figure 6-2
St. Nicholas Park (Map ID No. 1)
rd
Basketball and handball courts- view from the east side of St. Nicholas Avenue between West 133 Street
th
and West 134 Street.
St. Nicholas Park (Map ID No. 1)
Grassy lawn area- view from the intersection of St. Nicholas Avenue and West 135th Street.
CCNY Science Building/
CUNY ASRC Project
Open Space Photographs
St. Nicholas Park
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Figure 6-3
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page 6-8
Annunciation Park. This park is located immediately west of the Project Site and is bounded by
West 135th to the north, Convent Avenue to the east, West 134th Street to the south and Amsterdam
Avenue to the west (see Figure 6-4). Basketball courts, play equipment with safety surfacing
accompanied by benches, a comfort station and an open asphalt activity area with game lines that
surrounds a large field are located within this 1.24-acre resource. This park is mostly used by families
and children and is kept in excellent condition. The field and asphalt activity area are generally used by
the adjacent school, P.S. 161 Pedro Albizu Campos School, but, according to NYCDPR, the field is open
to the public after school hours. Therefore, the field area was included in the open space assessment.
Hamilton Place Playground. The 0.81-acre Hamilton Place Playground is located northwest of
the Project Site at the corner of West 141st Street and Hamilton Place. This playground consists of play
equipment with safety surfacing, flower beds, basketball and handball courts, some benches and a
comfort station. This playground is frequented by families and children of the neighborhood and is kept
in good condition (see Figure 6-5).
Sheltering Arms Park. Sheltering Arms Park is located southwest of the Project Site, on the
corner of West 129th Street and Amsterdam Avenue and is a total of 1.43 acres with a house of worship
dividing this resource into two portions. The portion on the east side of the house of worship along
Amsterdam Avenue between West 126th and West 128th streets is labeled as a greenstreet. The rest of the
park consists of a playground with benches, a pool and handball courts. The park is open year round with
the exception of the pools. Generally, a small portion of the surrounding community frequents this
resource (see Figure 6-5 and 6-6).
Dorrance Brooks Square. Located between St. Nicholas Avenue and Edgecombe Avenue from
West 136th to West 137th Streets, Dorrance Brooks Square provides 0.04 acre of landscaping and benches
for sitting. This square provides a venue for passive activities such as people watching and relaxing. It is
kept in excellent condition and is frequented by people in the neighborhood (see Figure 6-6).
Montefiore Square. This landscaped seating area is located to the west of the Project Site
between West 137th and West 138th Streets at Hamilton Place and Broadway (see Figure 6-7). This
resource consists of 0.34 acre of landscaping and benches with a paved pathway through the middle.
Much like Dorrance Brooks Square described above, this area is generally used by the surrounding
community for people watching and relaxing. It is kept in good condition and remains busy throughout
the day (weather permitting).
Jacob H. Schiff Playground. Immediately west of the Project Site, the Jacob H. Schiff
Playground (P.S. 192) provides 3.85 acres of passive and active space for the surrounding community and
students of P.S. 192 (see Figure 6-7). This park is bound by West 138th Street to the north, Amsterdam
Avenue to the east, West 136th Street to the south and Hamilton Place on the west. This resource is kept
in excellent condition and includes play equipment with safety surfacing, basketball and handball courts,
a spray shower, sitting areas and a field (although generally used by P.S. 192, the field is open to public
use after school hours and, therefore, is considered open space).
Broadway Malls. The Broadway Malls are a series of block-long landscaped promenades, with
occasional sitting areas, located along the median of Broadway. The portion that lies within the open
space study area extends from West 136th Street north to West 142nd Street and covers an area of
approximately 0.60 acre. These areas are under the jurisdiction of NYCDPR, are well maintained, and
are generally used by people passing by (see Figure 6-8).
Annunciation Park (Map ID No. 2)
th
View from the north side of West 135 Street between Amsterdam Avenue and Convent Avenue.
Annunciation Park (Map ID No. 2)
View from the west side of Amsterdam Avenue between West 134th Street and West 135th Street.
CCNY Science Building/
CUNY ASRC Project
Open Space Photographs
Annunciation Park
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Figure 6-4
Hamilton Place Playground (Map ID No. 3)
View from West 141st Street facing south.
Sheltering Arms Park (Map ID No. 4)
th
View of playground from north side of West 126 Street facing northeast.
CCNY Science Building/
CUNY ASRC Project
Open Space Photographs
Hamilton Place Playground and Sheltering Arms Park
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Figure 6-5
Sheltering Arms Park (Map ID No. 4)
th
View from West 129 Street between Amsterdam Avenue and Old Broadway facing south.
Dorrance Brooks Square (Map ID No. 5)
View from the intersection of Edgecombe Avenue and Bradhurst Avenue facing north.
CCNY Science Building/
CUNY ASRC Project
Open Space Photographs
Sheltering Arms Park
and Dorrance Brooks Square
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Figure 6-6
Montefiore Square (Map ID No. 6)
th
View from West 138 Street between Hamilton Place and Broadway facing south.
Jacob H. Schiff (P.S. 192) Playground (Map ID No. 7)
View from West 136 th Street between Amsterdam Avenue and Broadway facing north.
CCNY Science Building/
CUNY ASRC Project
Open Space Photographs
Montefiore Square and Jacob H. Schiff Playground
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Figure 6-7
Broadway Malls (Map ID No. 8)
th
View from West 139 Street and Broadway facing north.
Broadway Malls (Map ID No. 8)
View from West 142nd Street and Broadway facing south.
CCNY Science Building/
CUNY ASRC Project
Open Space Photographs
Broadway Malls
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Figure 6-8
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page 6-14
Greenstreet at West 135th Street, St. Nicholas Avenue, and Edgecombe Avenue. From West 135th
to West 136th Streets between St. Nicholas Avenue and Edgecombe Avenue there is a landscaped strip
maintained by NYCDPR (See Figure 6-9). As there are no benches or paths for sitting or strolling, this
greenstreet was not included in the quantitative analysis of open space.
Greenstreet at West 141st Street, Bradhurst Avenue, and Edgecombe Avenue. Lastly, from West
141 to West 142nd streets between Bradhurst Avenue and Edgecombe Avenue there is a landscaped
traffic island maintained by NYCDPR (See Figure 6-9). Since there are no benches or pathways for
sitting or strolling, this greenstreet was excluded from the quantitative open space assessment.
st
The open space study area includes a total of approximately 31.05 acres of publicly-accessible
combined passive and active open space, of which approximately 20.29 acres are passive space. Using
data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the worker population in the open space study area was
estimated to be approximately 9,000 people (see Table 6-2). As shown in Table 6-3 below, the existing
nonresidential open space ratio of approximately 2.25 passive acres per 1,000 nonresidents is well above
the 0.15 acre per 1,000 nonresidents that implies an open space deficit.9 Using the 2000 Census data, the
total combined (residential and worker population) in the open space study area is approximately 51,995.
The existing passive open space ratio for the study area’s combined worker and residential population is
0.39 acre per 1,000 users, which is slightly below the planning goal of 0.5 acre of passive open space per
1,000 residents, but above the 0.3 residential passive open space ratio that indicates a shortfall.
Table 6-2: Existing Worker and Residential Population by Census Tract
Census Tract
213.01
213.02
217.01
217.02
219
221.01
221.02
223.01
225
227.01
227.02
Total
Worker
Population
385
60
1,160
145
2,395
870
180
875
720
2,140
70
9,000
Residential
Population
4,543
256
1,399
2,669
6,423
474
2,050
8,410
11,108
4,721
942
42,995
Combined Population
(Worker and Residential)
4,928
316
2,559
2,814
8,818
1,344
2,230
9,285
11,828
6,861
1,012
51,995
Sources: United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2000, United States 2000
Census.
9
CEQR Technical Manual, p. 3D-5.
Greenstreet / Landscaped Area (Map ID No. 9)
Greenstreet at West 135th Street, St. Nicholas Avenue, and Edgecombe Avenue.
View from intersection of St. Nicholas Avenue, Edgecombe Avenue, and West 135th
Street facing northeast.
Greenstreet / Landscaped Area (Map ID No. 10)
Greenstreet at West 141st Street, Bradhurst Avenue, and Edgecombe
Avenue. View from intersection of Edgecombe Avenue, Bradhurst Avenue
st
and West 141 Street facing northeast.
CCNY Science Building/
CUNY ASRC Project
Open Space Photographs
Greenstreets
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Figure 6-9
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page 6-16
Table 6-3: Passive Open Space Ratio (in acres per 1,000 users)
Nonresidential
Combined (Nonresidential
and Residential)
Existing
Conditions
2.25
Future No Build
Condition
2.14
Future Build
Condition
2.04
0.39
0.38
0.38
Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2007.
Other Open Space and Recreational Areas. There are several significant open space resources
situated just outside of the open space study area, as well as one private recreational facility located on the
South Campus that is not publicly accessible, known as the Herman Goldman Center. Additionally,
several community gardens or “greenthumb” areas are located within the open space study area but are
not considered publicly- accessible given the few hours when the gardens are open and that access is
limited to members. Although these resources were not included in the open space inventory and were
not factored into the quantitative analysis, they are valuable resources that may be considered
qualitatively in the assessment of potential open space impacts. These resources are described below.
Jackie Robinson Park. To the northeast of the Project Site, just outside of the study area is Jackie
Robinson Park. This resource is bound by West 155th Street to the north, Bradhurst Avenue to the east,
West 145th Street to the south and Edgecombe Avenue to the west. Jackie Robinson Park is 12.8 acres
and contains a recreation center, playgrounds, basketball and volleyball courts, roller skating areas, grassy
areas and a pool. This resource is generally used by the surrounding community and is kept in fair to
good condition.
Riverside Park. Located east of the Project Site along Riverside Drive is Riverside Park. This
49.6 acre waterfront park extends from West 72nd to West 158th Streets along the Hudson River. Some of
the parks amenities include handball, basketball, tennis courts, and volleyball courts in addition to softball
and football fields. Within this park, just on the outside edge of the open space study area, lies a paved
path with benches intermittently placed along it as well as Riverbank Playground.
Herman Goldman Center. The four-acre Herman Goldman Center (referred to elsewhere in the
EIS as the athletic track and field facility) is a private recreational facility located on the South Campus.
This facility consists of a 400-meter track, an artificial-surface playing field suitable for baseball, soccer,
softball and lacrosse, areas for field events, and spectator seating. The users of this recreational facility
are limited to CCNY intercollegiate athletic teams (specifically the men and women’s soccer and track
teams), and students in physical education classes from the High School for Mathematics, Science and
Engineering at City College (“MSE”) and the A. Philip Randolph Campus High School. In the past, local
community sports leagues were permitted to use the facility for specific, prescribed period of time under
special limited license agreements with CCNY that required the payment of a use fee. All of these uses
terminated when the limited license agreements expired in January of 2007 and were not renewed. Past
recipients of these limited license agreements included youth and adult soccer teams, youth
baseball/softball teams, youth lacrosse teams, as well as the Yeshiva University soccer team.
Prior to the expiration of the limited license agreements, records indicate that as many as 4,380
participants (including CCNY users) utilized this facility per week over the course of a 20-week spring
season. However, it should be noted that many of these participants would be the same people utilizing
the athletic track and field for multiple events throughout a given week (for practice and games or for
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page 6-17
multiple games). While it is not known which replacement options, if any, were selected by the groups
that formerly utilized the Herman Goldman Center, other active recreational areas that could be utilized
by adult and youth sports organizations exists within a reasonable distance from the campus. The
publicly-accessible resources that may represent suitable replacement options include: Jacob H. Schiff
Playground, Annunciation Park, Morningside Park, Colonel Charles Young Playground, Jackie Robinson
Park, P.S. 156 Holcombe Rucker Playground, Harlem River Drive Park, Randall’s Island, Thomas
Jefferson Park, Ward’s Island Park, Highbridge Park, Ft. Washington Park, Riverside Park, Riverbank
State Park, and several locations in Central Park. Also, with the initiation of the “Take the Field”
program in 2000, outdoor athletic facilities at some of New York City’s public schools have been rebuilt
and transformed into state-of-the-art athletic facilities. Although schools will always have first priority
over outside groups, “Take the Field’s” Community Use Program ensures that youth groups will also
have an opportunity to utilize the fields.10 Two schools in Manhattan participating in this program that
are within close proximity to CCNY include P.S. 161 Pedro Albizu Campos School and George
Washington High School. It is possible that the termination of the limited license agreements at CCNY
may have increased the utilization of these and/or other recreational areas.
Future No Build Condition
The construction of new publicly-accessible open spaces or recreation facilities is not anticipated
under the Future No Build Condition, nor is the displacement, loss or alteration of any such resource.
Planned projects within the area that are expected to be completed by the Build Year include the West
127th Street NYCHPD Cornerstone Project, the Mink Building Conversion Project, the SAUDLA Project,
the NYSBC Phase IV Project, and the CCNY Utility Project. As presented in Chapter 2, Regulatory and
Analytical Framework, the 127th Street NYCHPD Cornerstone Project will introduce an estimated 512
new residents and 15 workers to the open space study area, while the Mink Building Conversion Project
will generate up to 461 new employees. The SAUDLA Project entails the renovation of an existing
campus building and would not generate any new residents or employees. The CCNY Utility Project
involves infrastructure replacement and upgrades to provide heating, cooling and communication to South
Campus buildings and would not introduce new workers or residents. The NYSBC Phase IV Project will
result in the expansion of the existing NYSBC facility and is expected to generate three additional
NSYBC employees.
The No Build projects will add an estimated 476 workers and approximately 512 residents to the
open space study area, which will result in slight decreases in the nonresidential and combined (worker
and residential) open space ratios. Future No Build passive open space ratios have been calculated and
are presented in Table 6-3. The passive open space ratio for the nonresidential population (2.14) will
remain well above the passive open space guidance value. Similar to Existing Conditions, the combined
passive open space ratio for the Future No Build Condition (0.38) will be below the planning goal but
above the guidance value that indicates a shortfall of passive open space for a residential population.
Other Open Space and Recreational Areas. The only groups that will have access to the campus
athletic track and field in the Future No Build Condition are the CCNY’s men and women’s soccer and
track teams and the physical education classes from A. Philip Randolph Campus High School and MSE.
10
http://www.takethefield.org/index.html.
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page 6-18
Future Build Condition
Under the Future Build Condition, the Proposed Project would introduce up to 456 additional
workers to the Project Site.11 This additional worker population represents potential new demand for
passive open space. The displacement, loss, alteration, or the addition of new publicly-accessible open
spaces or recreational areas is not expected. Conversely, the Proposed Project would include a central
landscaped open space area (“Campus Green”) and would contain landscaped areas and walkways
surrounding the buildings. Benches would be provided in these areas and shade would be available from
trees planted as part of the Proposed Project. It is anticipated that many of the new workers introduced by
the Proposed Project would have their passive open space needs (i.e., where to spend their lunch break)
served by this on-campus resource.12 Given the presence of this attractive amenity and its proximate
location to the proposed buildings, it is expected that only a small percentage of workers would be
inclined to leave campus in order to utilize public open space in the community. However, to be
conservative, the open space analysis for the Future Build Condition includes all of these workers in the
nonresidential open space user population.
The Proposed Project is expected to introduce 456 additional workers to the Project Site who, due
to the nature of the proposed research buildings, would not be present on-campus at one given time. No
new residents would be introduced by the Proposed Project. A proposed action typically has to generate
500 or more employees or 200 or more residents to warrant an open space assessment. Although not all
workers would be present at the same time, since the number of employees being introduced to the
Project Site is close to 500, an open space assessment was conducted to verify that the Proposed Project
would not significantly affect the study area’s nonresidential open space ratio or combined (worker and
nonresidential) passive open space ratio. As detailed below, open space and recreation facilities would be
expected to operate similar to the Existing and Future No Build Conditions, with only minor changes to
the nonresidential and combined (worker and residential) passive open space ratios.
With the introduction of up to 456 new employees as a result of the Proposed Project, the worker
population in the open space study area would increase to approximately 9,932. This small increase in
the worker population would result in a 4.6 percent decrease in the open space ratio from the Future No
Build to the Future Build Condition. This decrease in the nonresidential open space ratio is below the
five percent threshold that typically warrants a detailed analysis. As indicated in Table 6-2, under the
Future Build Condition the nonresidential open space ratio (2.04) would remain well above the deficit
threshold of 0.15 acre per 1,000 nonresidents. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not significantly
alter the nonresidential passive open space ratio.
The Proposed Project would not generate residents, however, the combined (worker and
residential) population would increase by 456 due to the additional workers associated with the proposed
buildings. The Future Build passive open space ratio for the combined population would remain the same
as the Future No Build ratio (0.38 acre per 1,000 users), which is below the planning goal but above the
deficit threshold. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact the passive open space
ratio for the combined population.
11
The number of additional workers that the Proposed Project would generate includes 117 new full-time employees
and the average number of daily users of the ASRC Buildings (existing CUNY employees only), and was derived by summing
the totals of the “New Users” and “Users from CUNY Facilities” columns in Table 2-1 (see Chapter 2, Regulatory and Analytical
Framework).
12
In addition, the North Campus contains several plazas and landscaped quad areas that also might help meet the
passive open space needs of the new, project-generated workers.
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page 6-19
Other Open Space and Recreational Areas
The Proposed Project would result in the removal of the Herman Goldman Center, a private
recreational facility. Once demolished, this resource would no longer be available and may result in an
increased demand on other open spaces and recreational facilities. Although the Herman Goldman Center
is a valuable resource to CCNY and was previously utilized by local community organizations under
limited license agreements with CCNY, the facility is not a publicly-accessible recreational facility and,
therefore, was not included in this quantitative open space analysis. Under the Future Build Condition,
CCNY would no longer be able to host sporting events at this facility. CCNY athletic teams currently
utilizing the Herman Goldman Center would use other resources available on-campus such as high-speed
treadmills and weight facilities for training, and would need to participate in intercollegiate events at other
colleges within the CUNY system. The new fitness center in Wingate Hall (the “Wingate Fitness
Center”) contains cardiovascular training equipment and a weightlifting area with machines and free
weights, and indoor tracks are available in both the Wingate Fitness Center and the Nat Holman
Gymnasium (located in the basement of the Marshak Science Building).
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not cause the alteration, displacement, or loss of existing public open
space resources. Instead, the Proposed Project would add a central Campus Green and surrounding
walkways that would have benches and trees, and serve as an on-campus, passive, open space resource
for students, workers and visitors. It is anticipated that many of the new workers introduced by the
Proposed Project would have their passive open space needs, during lunch hour for example, served by
this on-campus resource.
No new residents would be generated and the additional 456 workers that would be introduced to
the Project Site as a result of the Proposed Project would not be substantial enough to result in a
significant decrease in the open space ratio. Not all of the workers from the Proposed Project would be
on campus at any one given time, and actions introducing less than 500 workers typically do not require
an open space analysis under CEQR. Furthermore, the nonresidential passive open space ratio would
remain well above the recommended 0.15 acre per 1,000 nonresidents, and the passive open space ratio
for the combined (worker and residential) population would remain below the planning goal but above the
0.3 acre per 1,000 residents that typically indicates a deficit of residential passive open space.
The Herman Goldman Center would be removed under the Proposed Project. This private
resource would no longer be available to meet the physical education and sporting needs of current
CCNY students and public high school students. Although this recreational facility was formerly viewed
as a valuable resource among CCNY students as well as local community groups, it is not publiclyaccessible open space. Therefore, the removal of the facility under the Proposed Project does not
constitute a significant adverse environmental impact.
Given the above, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact to
publicly-accessible open space and recreational facilities within in the study area.