The 2016 Report Card On Parks - New Yorkers For Parks
The 2016 Report Card on Parks:Spotlight on the Community Parks InitiativeT H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S i
Orchard Beach, the Bronxi i N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K S
Table of Contents23462428Introduction to the Report Card on ParksMap of Survey SitesReport Card on Parks SurveyScores6 Feature Scores10 Feature Findings12 The Bronx14 Brooklyn16 Manhattan18 Queens20 Staten Island22 Park FindingsRecommendationsAppendices28 Park Exterior Scores28 Weekend Scores29 Detailed MethodologyT H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 1
Introduction to theReport Card on ParksThe Report Card on Parks is the only independent,citywide evaluation of the maintenance and conditions ofNew York City’s public parks.In 2003, New Yorkers for Parks (NY4P)released the first Report Card on Parks,an award-winning, data-driven evaluationof the maintenance conditions of playgrounds, small and large parks, beaches,and turf fields. Over the past fourteenyears, we have published thirteen ReportCards, evaluating almost 300 parks, andcovering thousands of acres of parkland.The Report Card on Parks was designedto achieve the following goals: Provide an independent assessmentof park performance against definedmaintenance benchmarks. Highlight high-performing parks,drawing attention to the lessons wecan learn from their successfulmaintenance and upkeep. Shine a spotlight on low-performingparks, drawing attention to immediatemaintenance issues and encouraging amore efficient and equitable distributionof limited resources towards the parksthat are most in need.2 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K SFor the latest Report Card on Parks:Spotlight on the Community ParksInitiative, NY4P returns to evaluatingneighborhood parks, sized between 1 and20 acres, for the first time since 2008.Unlike the larger, high-profile parks inNew York City, neighborhood parks areoften solely dependent on public funding and, as previous Report Cards havedocumented, often receive inadequatemaintenance attention.Neighborhood parks in New York Cityare the subject of renewed attention andreinvestment under the administration ofMayor Bill DeBlasio. NYC Parks Commissioner Mitchell Silver announced theadministration’s commitment to equityin parks, the Community Parks Initiative(CPI), in 2014. CPI identifies 55 prioritypark investment zones across New YorkCity’s five boroughs, and has funded theredesign and reconstruction of 47 parkswithin the first two years of the program.NYC Parks followed a data-driven processto determine which parks to invest in. Theagency analyzed 20 years of capital investment data for parks citywide, identifying215 parks across the city that received lessthan a quarter million dollars ( 250,000)between 1992 and 2013. Additionally,the agency identified priority zones:55 neighborhoods that are densely populated, growing, and home to a higher-than-average percentage of familieswith incomes below the poverty line. Inall, 134 parks were identified as havingextreme capital, or big-budget, needswithin the priority zones.1 To date, investment commitments made in CPI zoneshas been limited to parks that are smallin size – less than five acres, on average.1 “NYC Parks: Framework for an Equitable Future,”2014, pp 12, 14.NY4P designed the 2016 Report Card tofocus on the maintenance conditions ofthe neighborhood parks, between 5 and20 acres in size, in priority zones. Theseparks were too large to be included inCPI’s transformative model. 35 parksmeet NY4P’s criteria for inclusion, andwere surveyed for this report. Trainedfield researchers visited and assessed theseparks, collecting thousands of data pointson conditions and maintenance. NY4P’sanalysis of these true neighborhood parksin CPI priority zones will help agencyand elected officials continue to prioritizemaintenance and capital improvements inthe communities that need them the most.
2016 Report Card on Parks: Map of Survey SitesBRONX1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.Aqueduct WalkBarretto Point ParkBridge ParkConcrete Plant ParkMill Pond ParkRainey ParkStarlight ParkTremont ParkMANHATTANLEGEND Col. Young PlaygroundHarlem River ParkJackie Robinson ParkJ. Hood Wright ParkRiverside Park (135th to153rd Streets)24. Sara D. Roosevelt Park25. Thomas Jefferson Park26. Tompkins Square Park19.20.21.22.23.Survey sitesn New York City Parksn Community ParksInitiative 4.15.16.17.18.Betsy Head ParkBreukelen BallfieldsBrower ParkBushwick Inlet ParkCooper ParkHerbert Von King ParkLincoln Terrace ParkLindower ParkMaria Hernandez ParkSt. John’s Recreation CenterQUEENS27.28.29.30.31.Beach 9 PlaygroundBeach 17 PlaygroundBeach 30th Street PlaygroundElmhurst ParkHallets Cove Playground262412STATEN ISLAND32.33.34.35.Cpl. Thompson ParkHeritage ParkVon Briesen ParkWalker Park171411301318915321033351634292827T H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 3
The SurveyThis report builds on New Yorkers for Parks’ awardwinning Report Card on Parks survey methodology,first implemented in 2003.In 2005, the Report Card on Parksreceived a Community Indicators Awardfrom the Community Indicators Consortium, a program of the BrookingsInstitution’s Urban Markets Initiative. Afull discussion of the methodology canbe found in the Detailed Methodologysection of this report.PARK SELECTIONThe Report Card on Parks: Spotlight onthe Community Parks Initiative surveysNYC Department of Parks and Recreation(NYC Parks) properties between 5 and20 acres in size in the 55 CPI zones. Thefollowing types of properties were removedfrom the study: highway properties, undeveloped parkland, islands, golf courses,marshes, beaches, and forests. The finalsurvey universe includes 35 parks, listedon the previous page.4 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K SSURVEY SCHEDULESurvey work was conducted in thesummer months of 2015, beginning inlate June of 2015, and concluded in lateAugust. Surveyors, working in teams ofat least two, visited parks between 10amand 5pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, andThursdays. Surveyors did not visit parksthe day after the Fourth of July to allowNYC Parks staff time to clean after holidaycelebrations. A subset of parks was re-surveyed on Saturdays, between 10 a.m. and5 p.m. The results of those evaluations canbe found in the Appendix of this report,on page 28.SURVEY PROTOCOLThe Report Card on Parks examines 12categories of park features: athletic fields,bathrooms, courts, drinking fountains,immediate environment, lawns, naturalareas, pathways, playgrounds, sitting areas,trees, and water bodies. Each feature isevaluated for performance in four categories: maintenance, cleanliness, safety,and structural integrity. Surveyors recordfeature assessments on tablet computersand provide photographic documentationfor each unique feature evaluation.LETTER GRADESEach park received a feature score (0 to100) for each of the 12 features present inthe survey zones. Parks were not penalizedif they did not contain all 12 features.Feature scores were then aggregated andweighted to arrive at an overall park scoreof 0 to 100. A detailed accounting of thescoring methodology can be found in theAppendix. Overall park numerical scorescorrespond to the following letter gradeconversions:GradesRaw Numerical 260-6959 and belowLetter GradeA AAB BBC CCDF
ScoresT H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 5
Feature ScoresThe Report Card on Parks assesses the conditions of 12 features within each of the 35 parks in our survey.During a typical field visit, surveyors evaluate the condition of each bathroom, court, drinking fountain, field, lawn,natural area, playground, and sitting area. Surveyors evaluate the park-wide condition of trees, pathways, and water bodies.This section discusses the performance ofpark features across the 35 parks surveyed,citing the conditions and areas that scoredpoorly, and that are therefore in greatestneed of attention. These scores considereach feature form individually, providinga system-wide grade for each park feature.As combined scores, these figures maskconsiderable variability in the performanceof features from park to park. Nonetheless, they provide a high-level view of thesystemic conditions in parks, whethergood or bad.GradesRaw Numerical 260-6959 and belowLetter GradeA AAB BBC CCDFAthletic Fields69Harlem River ParkBushwick Inlet ParkThe athletic fields score reflects theconditions found at natural grass, asphalt,and synthetic fields for sports like soccer,football, and baseball.The most common problems with athleticfields were general maintenance needs.Nearly a quarter of natural grass fieldshad unacceptable bench and bleacherconditions. Two thirds of asphalt fieldshad extensive cracking and weed growthon the playing surfaces. Almost half ofsynthetic turf fields exhibited maintenanceneeds like loose seams or areas where thesurfacing has worn away.6 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K SBathrooms76Lindower ParkMill Pond ParkThe bathrooms score reflects the conditionsfound at each bathroom, often calledcomfort stations by NYC Parks.Two out of every five bathrooms evaluatedhad stall doors that could not lock. Bathrooms had clear day-to-day maintenanceissues, as well. One in five bathrooms didnot have sufficient toilet paper. One thirdof all bathrooms did not have sufficienthand soap or sanitizer present. One in fivebathrooms had unacceptable foul odorsand/or dirty conditions.
CourtsDrinking Fountains84Maria Hernandez Park55Harlem River ParkThe courts score reflects the conditionsfound at all outdoor basketball, handball,tennis, bocce, volleyball and hockey facilities.Half of the courts surveyed showed poorgeneral maintenance conditions. Crackedsurfaces and holes, creating dangeroustrip hazards, affected 16% of the courts. Athird of all courts lacked basic equipmentsuch as basketball nets.Col.Young ParkBreukelen BallfieldsThe drinking fountains score reflects the conditions found at each drinking fountain.Two out of every five drinking fountainsautofailed due to thoroughly unsafe,unclean, or inoperable conditions. Somedrinking fountains had multiple negativeconditions that would independentlycause the feature to autofail. 17% of thefountain basins showed evidence of algaeor other unsanitary substances. 15% ofthe fountains were blocked by standingwater or other debris. One in five fountains showed signs of needing maintenance attention for less egregious conditions, such as having deteriorated paint.Immediate Environment90Bridge ParkTompkins Square ParkThe immediate environment score reflectssurveyor evaluations of how well a park is insulated from potential negative impacts fromits surroundings. Intrusive odors, emissions,exhaust, and excessive noise are monitored,and park access is taken into consideration.One in five parks was found to benegatively affected by disruptive noiseemanating from the park’s exterior, suchas highway, truck, train, or constructionnoise pollution. Surveyors noticed noxiousodors surrounding almost 20% of theparks surveyed.Lawns76Tompkins Square ParkBarretto Point ParkThe lawns score reflects conditions found atall lawns, landscaped areas, and gardens, aswell as the conditions of trees found withinlawns, landscaped areas, and gardens.28% of the areas surveyed had unacceptable conditions, such as patches of overgrown grass, discolored grass, or bare earth.One in five areas was infested with weeds,had trees that were not in good condition, and/or was impaired by dangerousamounts of broken glass. Two in five areashad general unresolved maintenance issues,such as poor plant maintenance.T H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 7
Feature Scores (continued)Natural AreasPathways85Bridge ParkPlaygrounds88Riverside ParkThe natural areas score reflects conditionsfound in spaces that retain some degree ofwild nature and native ecosystems, providinghabitat for native plants and animals. Theseare non-manicured spaces such as wetlands,forests, and meadows.A third of the natural areas in the parkswere infested by invasive plant species,and two in five of them had unresolvedmaintenance issues like needing litter tobe picked up.8 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K SAqueduct WalkSitting Areas88Beach 17 PlaygroundThe pathways score reflects conditions foundin park walkways made of asphalt, dirt, turf,pavers, brick and concrete. The pathwaysscore includes benches along pathways, aswell as fencing lining pathways.Ten percent of the pathways in parkshad cracks or holes that were significantenough to affect a user’s ability to navigatethe path. Fifteen percent were sufferingfrom structural deterioration, includingspalling paving stones or missing segments.A third of pathways had some unresolvedmaintenance issue, such as needing newpaint on benches.Sara D. Roosevelt Park87Walker ParkThe playgrounds score reflects conditionsfound at all playground areas and for allplayground equipment.The most consistent challenges to safetyand clean conditions at playgrounds weredegraded safety surfacing and the presence of litter. One in ten playgrounds wasfound to have safety surfacing that wascracked, peeling, or wearing away, and/orsignificant amounts of litter.Lindower ParkStarlight ParkThe sitting areas score reflects conditionsfound at places in parks that contain agrouping of benches, picnic tables, chesstables, and other discrete areas for sitting,including barbeque areas.Persistent maintenance issues negativelyaffected the scores of sitting areas in manyparks. Although one in ten sitting areashad benches showing significant damage,more persistent were incidences of litterand general maintenance needs such aspaint and repairs.
TreesWater Bodies90St. John’s Recreation Center77J. Hood Wright ParkHallets Cove ParkStarlight ParkThe trees score reflects conditions foundfor trees contained within tree pits in thepark. Trees on lawns are evaluated inthe lawns score.The water bodies score reflects conditionsfound on inland water bodies, such as lakesand creeks, as well as shoreline areas alongthe harbor and rivers.The most significant problems identifiedfor trees in tree pits were consistentlyrelated to the health and status of thetrees themselves. 15% of the parks haddead or low-hanging branches, and oneout of five parks had stumps or dead treesrequiring removal. In addition, tree pitswere often in poor physical shape: one outof five parks had tree pits with disruptedpavers, weed growth, or general maintenance problems like poor mulching or thepresence of litter.Litter and general maintenance needswere consistent challenges to clean andwell-maintained water bodies and waterfront areas. Over half of the water bodiessurveyed were affected by man-made litterand/or undesirable natural debris.T H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 9
Feature FindingsNY4P has identified key findings about features common throughout parks,leading to system-wide insights about maintenance and capital needs.Drinking FountainsAthletic FieldsThe lowest-scoring feature evaluated,Drinking Fountains, scored 55 out of 100.The second lowest-scoring feature evaluated in the study, Athletic Fields, scored 69out of 100. Each type of field presentedclear maintenance failures.143 fountains were evaluated bysurveyors. Of that group, 60 (42%)autofailed upon receiving automatic scoresof zero for meeting one of five majorthreshold conditions. A drinking fountainwill autofail if one or more egregious conditions are found to be present, detailedin the table below.Condition% of all fountainsDangerous conditions orunsanitary litter or broken glass8%Lacks water pressurerequired to drink12%Algae or unsanitary substancein basin or around the base17%Standing water, broken glass,or litter in the fountain basin15%Leaks in the fountain structure8%1 0 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K SDrinking fountains with standing waterare automatically failed.Most of these conditions can be remedied,or prevented, with the frequent attentionof skilled laborers, such as plumbers. 50fountains, 35% of all fountains evaluated,autofailed due to conditions that could beremedied by frequent repair checks doneby trained staff.In addition, other day-to-day maintenanceconcerns contributed to the low scoresachieved by many fountains evaluatedfor the study. Peeling paint, graffiti, weedgrowth, and litter are frequent culprits oflow-scoring drinking fountains.Natural grass fields suffered from bothstructural deficiencies and day-to-daymaintenance problems. Surveyors foundthat one in four fields had unacceptableconditions in amenities like benches andbleachers. One in five fields had problemswith fences, backstops, and caging. Theplaying surface was found to be unevenlygraded in one in five natural grass fields.Asphalt fields were found to have similarmaintenance failures. One in five asphaltfields were found to have unacceptableconditions in benches and bleachers, and/or backstops, fencing, and caging. Twothirds of asphalt playing fields evaluatedfor the study had cracks and holes in theplaying surfaces, rendering them unsafefor recreation.Long grass, a sign of little maintenance,prevents field use at Betsy Head ParkAlmost half of the synthetic turf fieldshad clear maintenance needs such as looseseams, holes in the playing surface, orworn-away areas.Unreliable playing surfaces and substandard field amenities for teams andother park users are clear impediments tohealthy and safe physical recreation.
BathroomsBathrooms scored 76 out of 100 whenexamined across all parks.The low scores received by bathrooms arelargely due to day-to-day maintenancefailures. 40% of the bathrooms surveyedhad stall doors that did not lock, effectively taking those stalls out of service forusers concerned with privacy. One in fivebathrooms were found to lack toilet paper.One third of all bathrooms did not havesoap and/or hand sanitizer. When comfortstations persistently lack basic supplies,they pose a threat to public health conditions. Hand-in-hand with this distressingabsence of supplies were unacceptabledirty and unsanitary conditions found inbathrooms. One in five bathrooms wasfound to have foul odors and/or dirtyconditions.Portable toilets are often locked and inaccessible,like these at Lincoln Terrace Park.To be useful and inviting to park users,bathrooms must be clean and safe. Theymust also be on site and accessible. Onein four parks evaluated for this study doesnot have a permanent bathroom that is reliably open to the public. Of the 35 parksevaluated, three (9%) have bathroomsinside recreation centers, which closewhen the recreation center closes – as earlyas 4:00 pm on some weekend days. Sevenparks (20%) have no permanent bathrooms whatsoever, including two parks(6%) which are only served by portabletoilets that are frequently plagued by unsanitary conditions or locked altogether.T H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 1 1
The BronxAverage BronxPark Score80SurveySites nSurvey SiteBronx Parksn Community ParksInitiative Zones1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.Aqueduct WalkBarretto Point ParkBridge ParkConcrete Plant ParkMill Pond ParkRainey ParkStarlight ParkTremont Park138745621 2 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K S
AqueductWalkBarretto PointPark83B82B-ATHLETIC 100-8989DRINKING 054PLAYGROUNDS9188--100-10094SITTING AREAS85901009573-9791TREES--100-1008978-WATER BODIES-82834565-94-UniversityHeightsHunts PointHighbridgeHunts PointNorthHarlem RiverLongwoodWest FarmsTremont141716178171715Bronx 7Bronx 2Bronx 4 & 5Bronx 2Bronx 4Bronx 2Bronx 9Bronx 6811761581215BronxPark ScoresSCOREGRADEIMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENTLAWNSNATURAL AREASNEIGHBORHOODCOUNCIL DISTRICTCOMMUNITY BOARDACRESGRADING C ATEGORIESn EXCELLENT 97-90n VERY GOOD 89-80BridgeParkConcretePlant ParkMill PondPark90 78 88A- C B n SATISFACTORY 79-70n CHALLENGED 69-60RaineyPark74CStarlightParkTremontPark70 79C- C n UNSATISFACTORY 59 and belowT H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 1 3
BrooklynAverage BrooklynPark Score83SurveySites n4Survey SiteBrooklyn Parksn Community ParksInitiative Zones1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.Betsy Head ParkBreukelen BallfieldsBrower ParkBushwick Inlet ParkCooper ParkHerbert Von King ParkLincoln Terrace ParkLindower ParkMaria Hernandez ParkSt. John’s Recreation Center59631071281 4 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K S
BrooklynPark ScoresBetsy HeadParkBrowerParkBreukelenBallfieldsBushwickInlet ParkCooperParkHerbertVon ezParkSt. John’sRecreationCenter73 90 87 87 92 73 73 88 77 93C A- B B A- C C B C ASCOREGRADEATHLETIC 6-COURTS729684--6692818793DRINKING FOUNTAINS755084551000591003396IMMEDIATE YGROUNDS-9288859294829686100SITTING 85------BrownsvilleCrownHeightsEastNew villeMill lyn 16Brooklyn 8Brooklyn 18Brooklyn 1Brooklyn 1Brooklyn 3Brooklyn 8Brooklyn 18Brooklyn 4Brooklyn 81171696820779NATURAL AREASPATHWAYSTREESWATER BODIESNEIGHBORHOODCOUNCIL DISTRICTCOMMUNITY BOARDACRESGRADING C ATEGORIESn EXCELLENT 97-90n VERY GOOD 89-80n SATISFACTORY 79-70n CHALLENGED 69-60n UNSATISFACTORY 59 and belowT H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 1 5
ManhattanAverage ManhattanPark Score72SurveySites4 nSurvey SiteManhattan Parksn Community ParksInitiative Zones1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.51Col. Young PlaygroundHarlem River ParkJackie Robinson ParkJ. Hood Wright ParkRiverside ParkSara D. Roosevelt ParkThomas Jefferson ParkTompkins Square Park27861 6 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K S3
Col.YoungPlaygroundHarlem RiverParkJ. HoodWright ParkJackieRobinson ParkRiversideParkSara D.RooseveltPark74C51F75C72C-87B 63DATHLETIC 8938548493709085NATURAL -887392588682SITTING AREAS8685788774836287TREES--8989100759289WATER BODIES--------HarlemHarlemWashingtonHeightsSugar HillHamiltonHeightsLower East SideEast HarlemEast Village98, 91097182Manhattan 10Manhattan 11Manhattan 12Manhattan 9, 10Manhattan 9Manhattan 3Manhattan 11Manhattan 3767131381311ManhattanPark ScoresSCOREGRADEDRINKING FOUNTAINSIMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENTLAWNSNEIGHBORHOODCOUNCIL DISTRICTCOMMUNITY BOARDACRESGRADING C ATEGORIESn EXCELLENT 97-90n VERY GOOD 89-80n SATISFACTORY 79-70n CHALLENGED 69-60ThomasJefferson ParkTompkinsSquare Park71 79C- C n UNSATISFACTORY 59 and belowT H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 1 7
QueensAverage QueensPark Score88SurveySites nSurvey SiteQueens Parksn Community ParksInitiative Zones1.2.3.4.5.Beach 9 PlaygroundBeach 17 PlaygroundBeach 30th Street PlaygroundElmhurst ParkHallets Cove Playground5431 8 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K S21
Beach 9PlaygroundBeach 17PlaygroundBeach 30th St.PlaygroundElmhurstParkHallets CovePlayground89B 83B97A 97A 74C-79100100751009210077-COURTS83---81DRINKING 10010010010089PLAYGROUNDS94969710087SITTING AREAS8790100100-TREES8686-10086----67Far RockawayFar RockawayWave CrestElmhurstAstoria3131312522Queens 14Queens 14Queens 14Queens 4Queens 1614766QueensPark ScoresSCOREGRADEATHLETIC FIELDSBATHROOMSIMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENTLAWNSNATURAL AREASPATHWAYSWATER BODIESNEIGHBORHOODCOUNCIL DISTRICTCOMMUNITY BOARDACRESGRADING C ATEGORIESn EXCELLENT 97-90n VERY GOOD 89-80n SATISFACTORY 79-70n CHALLENGED 69-60n UNSATISFACTORY 59 and belowT H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 1 9
Staten IslandAverage Staten IslandPark Score842 0 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K SSurveySites nSurvey SiteStaten Island Parksn Community ParksInitiative Zones1.2.3.4.Cpl. Thompson ParkHeritage ParkVon Briesen ParkWalker Park2143
Cpl. ThompsonParkHeritageParkVon BriesenParkWalkerPark79C 89B 83B86BATHLETIC FIELDS90--90BATHROOMS93--83COURTS78--75DRINKING 10091100PLAYGROUNDS88--88SITTING AREAS--8510067--100----West New BrightonWest New BrightonFort WadsworthRandall Manor49495049Staten Island 1Staten Island 1Staten Island 1Staten Island 11110145Staten IslandPark ScoresSCOREGRADEIMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENTLAWNSNATURAL AREASTREESWATER BODIESNEIGHBORHOODCOUNCIL DISTRICTCOMMUNITY BOARDACRESGRADING C ATEGORIESn EXCELLENT 97-90n VERY GOOD 89-80n SATISFACTORY 79-70n CHALLENGED 69-60n UNSATISFACTORY 59 and belowT H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 2 1
Park FindingsVery poor conditions, comprised of maintenance and capital failures, were observedby surveyors at two neighborhood parks in particular. Sara D. Roosevelt andHarlem River Parks, the only sites to achieve grades below “C,” are clear candidatesfor a targeted renewal approach.Harlem River ParkSara D. Roosevelt ParkSurveyors documented poor day-to-daymaintenance throughout Harlem RiverPark. Drinking Fountains in the park werefound in particularly poor condition, andscored a mere 31 out of 100. Four of thesix fountains were automatically failed dueto maintenance conditions including having no water flow, standing water in basins,and general uncleanliness. Several lawns inthe park received poor scores due to litterand maintenance issues. Some featuresin Harlem River Park were automaticallyfailed due to particularly dangerous andunsanitary conditions: park pathways, andhalf of the lawns, were automatically faileddue to the presence of human feces andused condoms.Poor maintenance practices contributedto several low-scoring park features inSara D. Roosevelt Park. Bathrooms inthe park scored 60 out of 100, becauseof dirty conditions and graffiti observedwithin the facilities. In addition, severalkey amenities within the bathrooms didnot work, including stall doors that didnot close, and toilets that did not operate.Drinking Fountains in the park scored 22out of 100. Four out of the six fountainsautomatically failed due to conditionsstemming from poor maintenance, such asthe presence of algae and standing water inthe fountain basins.Yet maintenance attention alone cannotsolve the poor conditions present at Harlem River Park. The athletic fields are inneed of special synthetic turf maintenance:surveyors found multiple uneven sections,2 2 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K SHarlem River Park is cut off from the neighborhoodby streets and highway bridges.and many gaps and holes in the playingsurfaces. Fences and bleachers were alsofound to be in poor condition in this park.Perhaps most importantly, Harlem RiverPark has no bathroom. It was not penalized for not having one, but the effectsfrom the absence of this vital amenity arereflected in the dangerous and unsanitaryconditions found elsewhere in the park.Capital problems also contributed topoor scores in the Sara D. RooseveltPark evaluation. One field was underconstruction when NY4P surveyed SaraD. Roosevelt Park, however a secondasphalt athletic field within the park wasautomatically failed, as the playing surfacehas significant structural deterioration.Playgrounds in the parkThis popular neighborhood park is aging and does nothave adequate maintenance.scored 48 out of 100, with one playground automatically failing due tomissing play equipment, dangerous areasin need of repair, and haphazard safetysurfacing that creates slip and trip hazards.
RecommendationsT H E 2 0 1 6 R E P O RT C A R D O N PA R K S 2 3
Recommendations1.Expand Park Investment2.Hire Maintenance StaffProgramsTo keep our parks clean and well cared-for,NYC Parks must add more full-time maintenance and operations staff for day-to-daywork in parks.NY4P recommends that NYC Parks expand the scope and reach of the Community Parks Initiative to prioritize investment and steer resources to all park withinthe CPI zones, regardless of size.NYC Parks has two terrific programsintended to prioritize parks with thehighest needs and greatest reach for capitalinvestment: the Anchor Parks programand CPI. The Anchor Parks program,which was announced in August 2016,identified one park in each borough toreceive 30 million for a complete capitaltransformation. CPI has targeted 60 parksand playgrounds located in 55 underserved neighborhoods for improvementsince launching in 2014. In reaching forgreater equity in how public resourcesare allocated, these programs are bringing much-needed attention to the rightcommunities, but by only including smallparks and playgrounds in CPI, the city isleaving more important parks out of thepicture. We know that larger-sized parks –what we are calling neighborhood parks –really strengthen a community, providing2 4 N E W YO R K E R S F O R PA R K SOnly small parks like Astoria Health Playground inQueens have been the focus of CPI.spaces for active play, sports, and familygatherings, as well as places to be quiet,contemplative, and connected to the natural world all at once. Despite their importance, these critical neighborhood parksare often overlooked in New York City’sparks system: while they are large enoughto serve diverse groups of park users, theyare often too small to be a borough-wideor city-wide draw.In neighborhood parks throughout theCPI priority zones, NY4P found consistent maintenance issues and aging, worninfrastructure in need of renovation orreplacement. Too many of New YorkCity’s neighborhood parks in these zoneswill continue to languish unless they areawarded transformative capital change.The de Blasio administration has createdvery successful models for that change,and should seize the opportunity toexpand them.NY4P commends the recent efforts byNYC Parks to manage staffing throughinnovative techniques that improve theefficiency and timeliness of sta
1 "NYC Parks: Framework for an Equitable Future," 2014, pp 12, 14. NY4P designed the 2016 Report Card to focus on the maintenance conditions of the neighborhood parks, between 5 and 20 acres in size, in priority zones. These parks were too large to be included in CPI's transformative model. 35 parks meet NY4P's criteria for inclusion, and
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Glossary of Social Security Terms (Vietnamese) Term. Thuật ngữ. Giải thích. Application for a Social Security Card. Đơn xin cấp Thẻ Social Security. Mẫu đơn quý vị cần điền để xin số Social Security hoặc thẻ thay thế. Baptismal Certificate. Giấy chứng nhận rửa tội
Cards on KSU 64 If card is a Loop card 64 If card is a T1 card 64 If card is a PRI card 65 If card is an ETSI PRI card 66 If card is a DID card 66 If card is an E&M card 66 If card is a BRI-U2, BRI-U4 or BRI-ST card 66 If
