[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
HUDSON WATERFRONT WALKWAY HOBOKEN N.J. ffli M 17d Prep IN 14 ared for: r r The U, an N I Community Development Agency Sao I, K, City of Hoboken, N.J. Final Design Report, Comprehensive Plan & ", @41 T7 Executive Summary December 19, 1986 a Q5 MlEj-- ow HT 168 Gaudy, Hadley assmiates MIN I Lllfrl" A63 Architecture Environmental Design Planning Landscape Architecture H83 1986 Introduction The third phase, or Task Three of the Preliminary Design for Hoboken Riverwalk is comprised of three parts, included here as follows: 1. The Final Design Report, including the exact alignment of the lFiverwalk, typical sections of the Riverwalk and its Overlooks, preliminary construction details and recommenda- tions for the management of maintenance and security. 2. The Comprehensive Planj, illustrating the Hoboken River- walk's connection to the Hudson Waterfront Walkway. 3. The Executive Summary, a compilation of all work completed under the Coastal Management Agency grant suitable for public distribution. I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I Final Design Report I :7 7 7L L 959M; 7. w m''W'. INTERSECTION HUDSON CASTLE POINT TERRACE SINATRA & 11TH STS. STEVENS IN MUTE ELYSIAN FIELD p A SINATRA DRIVE FOR X; MAXWELL HOUSE COFFEE EMPLOYEE UNION DRYDOCK PARKIN6 HUDSON RIVER MEN& 14 Arr_--RIAL VIEW OF STUDY AREA 77 A4P I STE VENS PARK -now -wiloorl. T, 16. oil f jr BLUNT PROMONTORY PATH PROPOSED PICNIC AREA SINATRA DRIVE UNION DRYDOCK HUDSON RIVER AERIAL VIEW OF STUDY AREA C T I T IA -r t A IL v. bic.p e r p 9 C A @j A till% e,- IL w 6 1 v X A L If IV. OVA -C 11 it A I XoL T c2,v pr rp rr_ IL S A P L g jL La or. v TwO Y _3 IL p x K T Tv F op jcK it. aif r6t.. 1 0 LAP "-L. - OY I X T - L- 'A AA A. IL A cT A 16 FL: t-T, IG @i!-Taofw xf., at I's vu -)4 L 16. o. T%'( P I VP =--SUM "-kt v F@A P to 14 r, A f 0 Pl Of C W It P, Lr ?-.- e-T L it VArio,. r Lt. L. A It r fI,%r.jVjpK3 : 3. V_. S.V I- Ir A AA I TQ t It @ A. $6 L uj At.L A Z T S Po fry c-7 I L CU T mv it vi 0 00 r) E-A f- 6 . !!@ 9 T Vj A-L f- T 0 c5) D (TL( P) i r v e::@r 14 A. TV @,)-L F-P f-@ L A 11 T V E-F- 5, 7 a a @A F- a-e (-@-O @CaTft'(@tr ( pit, -ro F- X) r 7 1 (4 A@ 0 % A L I V T tJ 1@-' P T 1 N tj (5? VJ O-L- L Typica I Cross Section Through Walk k "U, 'T" 4PL T Z, IL ILI 9 tot T OF T%) f 1 t4 W 0 0 D )c 1A v 1) P. F";,.-, s p -C T-tj P) ool) W a 2 'C'T GE L WIOE FI@APqE 0 A*D cp" FL -o w tj i) Tk@ to 0 r K a a FL (91 I E )(I.T T CT 1 714,1 L 6 A L C Y,4 i. o TYpical Detail Section at Walk <14v_ A 9 TA-L FAIL 2,(,'JPLc:5ift 90t" @IDIS' WOOP -0 S@rrppL spmo" It T I Y" r&T^Tj.Q4 A@ b P N Typical Section at Overlook Area ................ VIEW FROM OVERLOOK AREA 07-1 '19 Proposed Location for Entry Portal at North/Elysian Field Park V Entry Portal at North/ Elysian Field Park V Existing' Conditions Next to Retaining Wall �r i ArA 16 ARM& 04; 1 0 MMPP' AdMANOF -,dVAWAW JIMAMAMI PUNWAWAINI rw WAM ;dWj Perspective Looking South Along Walk- Typical Treatment .A*2. 1!04' Ow .00F eel, UK. ofx At L Jlv@e PW .1N its View of South Entry MANAGEMENT OF MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY Maintenance Gaudy-Hadley Associates, P.C., recommends that a management schedule be set up to determine the necessary maintenance of the project. In the interest of saving time, money and manpower, the responsibilities for these different aspects could then be divided among all of those in- volved in development of the waterfront. A detailed schedule could include types of services to be performed and their associated frequency, cost, manpower, hours, tools, etc., The program could be expanded or reduced accordingly in order to accommodate those participating. Security Since completely securing the Riverwalk will be impossible, a psycho- logical deterrent will be implemented in the form of bollards and chains with hours posted on nearby signs. These would be placed at entry portals and other strategic locations. It is also recommended that an agreement be worked out with Stevens Institute and their Security personnel to patrol the Riverwalk as part of their regular rounds. Eventually, as other projects are developed, an overall security system for the Walkway may be instituted by participants of development. Comprehensive Plan Hoboken's 1.8 mile river frontage is comprised of both public and privately owned land. Some of this land is currently being planned and developed, other portions will remain as working industries, and still other portions have future development ideas still in their infancy. The Hoboken Riverwalk proposed in this report will provide residents with development of high recreational value. But this link must ultimately be connected to other developments to form the Hudson Waterfront Walkway. A comprehensive plan to link the Riverwalk with walks to the north and south is hereby outlined. In order to connect the walk to the Seaport Plaza to the north and until Union Drydock and Maxwell House develop their portions of the overall Riverwalk, this report recommends that an alternate route along the sidewalk in front of Maxwell House and Union Drydock be developed. To the south, the proposed projects by Stevens Institute and Hartz Mountain, as well as the Hudson Center Development, will eventually link the Waterfront Walkway to Jersey City's walkway. Temporarily, it is recommended that the existing sidewalks be utilized to allow users direct access to the waterfront. Handicapped people access to the Hudson Waterfront Walkway shall be provided by handicapped curb cut ramps, pedestrian crosswalks with traffic light control, and temporary alternative sidewalk routes. The Hoboken Riverwalk, as designed in this report, will constitute one of the very attractive and picturesque links of the Hudson Waterfront Walkway. I 911:HM11111111111 S T a rr"rr. cc um, Lu 1@ zli n n HUDSON STREET ELYSIAN 0. 4f STEVENS L -oil FIELD 1 0 4 T TERRAC( I 4 INSTITUTE TIMM-ARCH MLDEVa6EN T ,@MRIDGE IV % PROPO S TEVENS INSTITUTE Z MOUNTAIN HWAY @#* 0* SCENIC XWE L HOUSE c S OVER K CO FEE T D 171t GENERAL FOODL N -1) 06 SCENIC OVERLOOK STEVENS and HARTZ DEVELOPMENT L p"RIMTH 9- _G@4_14 nmL@La b=ind I I I limull M141HULUihw P11011"w".7 fj ............... @n @n L_dE V rH (JWE CO L OUSE F GE E!AL FOC Study Area Plan 3 ROUTE 2: THE WEST SIDE STREET*LEVEL"ROUTE uj 4101 uj ir w ROUTE > THE, EAST SIDE ROUTE R 416 ROUTE 3: THE WEST SIDE w w OVERLOOK ROUTE a6 u C3 J I Z ='r 0 cn STEVENS 449 INSTITUTE tit ALTERNATIVES FOR THE RIVERWALK ROUTE SCALE: 1"= 2001 At Ins will JNWPA@',- 7z, z ra-r F Y r2 r; C 0 It A 7 @ " '. A-Al M%t6 V Typical Section for Riverwalk Alternative at Grade The Riverwalk Route- Linking to Hoboken Waterfront Walkway & Alternatives There is presently, an existing -fooripath running along the top' of the cliff above Sinatra Drive from the southern end of Elysian Field to the middle of Castle Point, terminated by a thirty foot drop from the top of a stone retaining wall. There are many positive aspects of this route. Due to the elevation of this cliffside route, many un- desirable views of the adjacent parking areas, traffic, drydock equip- ment and street utilities are either eliminated or partially screened by the vegetation. This route has a lovely park-like setting. There are wonderful views along the route of the New York skyline and the Hudson River. According to the Wallace, Roberts & Todd Report (1984), existing overlooks should be developed to take advantage of the out- standing views and negative factors should be eliminated or reduced as much as possible. The cliffside route is considerably less noisy than the street levej- route alternatives. The vegetation and eleva- tion of the cliffside route dissipate the sounds, smells, and nega- tive views. Conversely, the routes on grade level have more negative than posi- tive aspects. The route along the west side of Sinatra Drive would be extremely difficult to develop due to the e X4 sting rock outcrop- pings that, in many areas, comes right down to the street curb. A portion of the east side of Sinatra Drive does not have an existing sidewalk nor are there current plans for development by the present owner. In summary, the cliffside route is the best possible one since, in addition to its natural beauty, it offers the potential to link this portion of the Riverwalk with a linear park which Stevens Institute is planning nearby on the promontory. It also offers the advantage of incorporating a picnic spot on the flat area to the south (at grade level) on the west side of Sinatra Drive. Because the cliff- side route accommodates the handicapped at both ends only, this re- port recommends that an alternative sidewalk be developed along the east side of Sinatra Drive to provide an accessible linkage to the overall Riverwalk because the Union Drydock and Maxwell House por- tions are not *available for development at present. In the future, if the waterfront properties belonging to Maxwell House and Union Drydock are developed for residential or recreational use, a por- tion of the Riverwalk adjacent to these properties can be incorporat- ed into the development of these properties. I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary I . I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1980, an idea was born to develop a continuous waterfront walkway from Fort Lee to Bayonne, New Jersey running parallel to the Hudson River. This walkway would link points of interest, existing parks and local residential communities, while providing access to paths ascending the Palisades cliffs. This proposal became known as the Hudson Waterfront Walkway. The firm of Wallace, Roberts & Todd published a report in 1984, the HUDSON WATERFRONT WALKWAY: PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES, to outline the criteria for development of this future Walkway. The first part of this Walkway to be developed-in Hoboken, between Elysian Field and Castle Point, is known as the Hoboken Riverwalk. Gaudy-Badley Associates, P.C. have designed the Riverwalk in compliance with the Wallace Roberts & Todd report after studying the City of Hoboken's waterfront. This study enabled the firm to choose the best possible route for the proposed walk. The River- walk wil begin at the southern end of Elysian Field and run along the cliffs above Sinatra Drive, providing picturesque views across the Hudson River while removing the user from the noise of the roadway below. The Riverwalk will have handicapped people access from the Elysian Field entry portal to "he Scenic Overlook at the northern end, and to the Picnic Area (accessible from street level at the pedestrian crosswalk) at the southern end. It is also recommended that a sidewalk at grade level be developed along the east side of Sinatra Drive to provide the handicapped with ar accessible linkage to the waterfront opportunity, while the Union Dry Dock and Maxwell House portions of the Riverwalk are not available. The Riverwalk will be constructed of wood decking on a steel frame with concrete footings and will have a metal handrailing for safety. The Picnic Area will have a crushed stone surface with grills and picnic tables provided for the public's use. In the Overlook areas, benches will allow the user to rest and look toward the city's spectacu. lar skyline. Residents, citizens' groups, organizations, de- velopers and municipal, county, state, and fed- eral agencies, working together, can provide Hoboken's 42,000 residents with a project which recalls the beginnings of the community as a 11peaceful riverside resort for visitors from Manhattan who wandered along its six mile river- walk to Elysian Field". This first part of the Riverwalk will eventaully link various projects which are presently being designed along the riverfront. The proposed Hoboken Riverwalk will provide the user with unmatched views of the New York skyline, while the natural cliffside setting in one of the most densely populated and dramatic urban settings in the world, will provide the residents and visitors to Hoboken with a rare and exciting recreational experience. i "W Appendix V Iq S' E 71 p p crq A0 o rz JZW4 v Ic A (:q s -rrj .57,r sps INSTITIA-rf W M4 jz. OV ra- JZ L 0 OK Pedestrian Linkage to Stevens Institute FL.1 t@T WITIt IN oti, A-L 1 P-4 a -rh- 114 114 c5f Lk 000 P 961C 1" lot tfl- Y e Kl,@Tl" ftw aft f- A-lip dftw T I C? FTA I L Typical Lighting Detail r) re- f ZF K 1; t-1 Y (@5rT U 'r Tif It C:7 'k a? &vi Or)D 0 PU L. E A- e * I ca IN AL L- A- I L- A 0 11, T t7l:: VWJ 0 c!5-,) D ji A 1 L S (1-4 P) x I v r I tj e:,,t 14 A- TVI-fi-L -P Fct* L A V T V f- Lr M 5. L- F iL A hA C-0 tj E -r 2 FOOTIV(stf, PIN TO D c7i- ) -r x Ic 0 5 C;@ T rl Or L o tJ <:@!ir C T I tj c9i. P T 114 tj Ot W P&-L- L T. NOTt T It E @'T B E L f @ 114A E ,v Wom @TFffi w I L-L- @R CGW@ LACTF-D IN MODIAL-F,!; OF Typical Cross Section Through Walk P. Am f I C 1 F, ci,tj r F- r 1 0 v, TA-L T IA TE I\N JZ 1,46, PS P c7 0 VJ A- L- 0 V W, A. U V T* iL A 0 i T OV F, 1@- A.(; /Al-T F,@ 1@li4T V a 5, T A 114 t P T 9 V E N.9 X W 3 T I TI& T E OV@j LOO EL 2. 01 T@ P AT 2 S. o r u v a c-r x 114 Ar i v g M E L V T I ON PA@1', r4ll'2@S,02' L w .6. r 0 . '0,r Section of Overpass from Stevens Institute Stevens Institute of Technology Castle Point, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 Office of the Pre@ident 201 - 420 - 5213 December 22, 1986 Mr. John R. Weingart Director, Division of Coastal Resources N. J. Department of Environmental Protection CN 401 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Dear Mr. Weingart: I am taking this opportunity to write to you about a proposed walkway on property along the Hudson River waterfront owned by Stevens Institute of Technology. This past summer during a period of time when a request for proposal for a feasibility' study was awaiting response, I met with a representative of the Hoboken Community Development Agency. During this meeting I was presented with a preliminary plan for the construction of a walkway along the land bank below the Institute which was presumed to be property for which the city of Hoboken had an easement. Later review of the various documents concerning the property in question revealed that the property proposed to be used for the walkway was in fact owned by Stevens Institute of Technology. over the past couple of months a contract award was made to Landscape Architects, Gaudy-Hadley Associates of South Nyack, N. Y. to conduct the feasibility study for said walkway. Their report has been received and was the subject of a public hearing held on Monday December 1, 1986 by the Hoboken Community Development Agency with Mr. Thomas Norris of your department present. While -we certainly think that the land might lend itself to such a walkway, and that some rather interesting ideas have gone into the study, we feel obligated to point out to you that Stevens has several problems with the proposal, some major and some minor. The first major problem presented by the proposal involves the pre-empting of the access to the northern part of our campus from Sinatra Drive. The second major problem is the iikelihood that further development to the east of Sinatra Drive on Stevens Waterfront owned property might be foreclosed, especially as to height of any project. Mr. John R. Weingart Page@ Two December 22, 1986 Over the past few years Stevens waterfront development has been discussed at great length with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. More recently negotiations for a major office and research development structure has been under negotiation with Hartz Mountain Industries. One of the considerations of these prior and current negotiations is the relocation of our building housing our Physical Plant operations. One of the identified sites for such relocation has been the Northern extremity of our campus with access to and from Sinatra Drive. In addition to the relocation of the physical plant building, Stevens also owns both the air rights over Sinatra Drive and property east of Sinatra Drive out to the pier head line. While no current plans are in place for this area, Stevens purchased the property with the intention of developing the waterfront area at some future date. To build a walkway which could limit building heights due to view corridor visibility would present distinct and unacceptable sacrifices to Stevens in the use of its property. Had any of these discussions taken place prior to the granting of the feasibility study, some understandings might have been agreed upon prior to this time. Unfortunately, none of these serious difficulties were raised previously due to the fact that the Community Development Agency did not take Stevens' plans and intentions into consideration before embarking upon the current feasibility study. Stevens now finds itself in the unenviable position of trying to work around a fait accompli or of objecting to a project in which public money has already been spent. Neither prospect is attractive to Stevens. When I mentioned above that in addition to two major difficulties, there were several minor ones as well; I was referrina to all the unanswered questions about maintenance, safety and liability difficulties which must be addressed after the costs of building a cliffside walkway have been determined. This still says nothing about the precedents created by the extreme reduction in width (from 30 feet wide to 6 feet wide); the planning and continuity elements in crossing Sinara Drive twice in the course of 1,500 feet in Hoboken; and the advisability of expending public monies to put a "waterfront walkway" on the west side of a roadway which must serve traffic and developmental needs both to the north and south of the walkway. Mr. J. R. Weingart Page Three December 22, 1986 Stevens Institute finds itself in the position of being opposed to the continuation of the planning of the present segment of walkway over Stevens property on the west side of Sinatra Drive for all the above reasons. Unless and until some adjustments and understandings can be reached with the City of Hoboken and with your Department, Stevens would recommend not proceeding further with such walkway planning. As I mentioned before, Stevens does plan a waterfront development in conjunction with Hartz Mountain which should be finalized in the very near future. This development includes a waterfront walkway in the full required width to the east of the development along the entire length of the Stevens property from approximately 10th to 5th Streets. Stevens will be seeking permitting for this development and is willing to meet the requirements for DEP permitting. We would like to request that all decisions on a cliffside walkway be delayed until Stevens' alternative plans are ready for review. In the meantime, my office is ready to discuss any and all elements of this letter at our mutual convenience. I wish you a happy holiday season. incer ly yours 7 R ert A. Hand RAH:ais Vice President c: Mr. Michael Coleman, Director Hoboken Community Development Agency Ms. Catherine Spina, Principal Planner, Hoboken CDA V/ Mr. Thomas Norris, New Jersey DEP 4 The Hoboken Reporter December 14, 1986 Board., bl.asts., cli*ffside path More problems with walkway Waterfi0nt`wa'lk-'w'_a'y*. 4, The walkway would become.a. place to ou hang t, drink beer, and light fires, Board plannedlor', cliff's .2.,.N_,@;J, members felt. It would be unsafe at night, they suggested. ier. @IVW By Wendy Hester 4q The walkway would also make it eas to scale the cliffs and enter the Stevens cam- fM@ 'trouble there, Seligman added. The CDA's plans for a proposed w ter- front walkway to be built along the cliffs pus to cause In addition, if Stevens were to develop overlooking Sinatra Drive were harshly' their portion of the waterfront, the view criticized by the planning board earler this from the walkway would be blocked. Star- month. i rett said a DEP representative at the public The walkway, which would extend along, hearing suggested that the walkway's view the eliffs in front of Stevens Institute from should be protection against any develop- Elysian Field park to a point on Sinatra ments. Starrett said he did not think Stevens 'Drive, would cost an estimated $317,885. would want to donate their land for the pro- There is no funding for the project at this ject and then be told they couldn't build on time, said Kathy Spina of the CDA. their own property in front of it. The public path would be built of wood r '--Limited handicap access Z 'decking and measure six feet in width, ex- cept at three overlook points where the walk Only a limited portion of the walkway, would widen. Benches would be placed which varies in elevation from 18 to 63 feet, along the path, and.a picnic area-near the would allow handicapped access. While Sinatra Drive entrance is. h1so included in handicapped access to a small portion'of the plans. the walk would be possible from Elysian Planning Board objects i7he cum-nit cHffsI4@_stalrc-a"s'e down to Sinatra Dvive. The CDA . ree.eady .. presented plans--Field Park, a ramp at the other- end would. for a waterfront walkway that goes up and down the Stevens cliffs. The Plon Is sumosed lead only to the picnic area. From the pic- Planning Board members objected to the to be part of a walkway extending from Bayonne to the George Washington Bridge. nic area, the main walkway can only be plans after examinitig the study-at their reached by a twisting staircase. Deceilber 2 nicedrig; Board Secretary Jim goes nowhere, and is not related to any- the proposed walkwa@-, Planning Bbafd The study was prepared for the CDA by Su@rvtt is cuffently drafting-a letter to the thing," said Starrett. "They treated a members were concerned about the lack of Gaudley/Hadley Associates, an environ- CDA detailing the Board's specific ob- limited segment that made no effort to in- handicapped access, and the safety and jections. tegrate itself with current plans." security of the walkway. continued on page -Y According to Starrett, who attended.the The plan is 'ludicrous' blic k&Rpg,,,%ihere the plans were in- PU "We weren't included in the design. We troduced. Neither Stevens nor the Planning Board were consulted over the walkway, w@ren't consulted," said Ralph Seligman" City Planner. When he first heard of the even though part of the proposed walkway :would be on Stevens property. proposal, Seligman said, I thought it was "Stevens said they would be willing, if ludicrous they should plan such a thing." they haVe any development (along the Seligman asked that the letter to the CDA waterfront), to put in a walkway that would state that the Board felt the planning func- meet the state requirement of 30 feet (in tion was not properly addressed, and that width)," said Starrett. "The CDA plan of information on the proposal was not pro- six feet would go against efforts to enforce perly coordinated. the state requirement. In addition to concerns about the nar- "They're talking about a thousand-foot rowness of the walkway.and the lack of 3oard blasts path continued from page 4. mental design and architecture firm. Still because the pubfic will have input at many in the preliminary stages, the study was points later on, according to Peggy Thomas funded by. the Department of Environmen- of the CDA. tal Protection. The plan is intended to tie in with a pro- A finalized version of the design is ex- posed waterfront walkway that would pected to be completed in several weeks. It stretch from the George Washington Bridge will incorporate suggestions made by the to Bayonne. The walkway is still highly public at the December meeting. A public theoretical, and no cohesive overall plan has hearing will not be held on the final plans, been worked out. 0 HUDSON WATERFRONT C WALKWAY 'HOBOKEN, N,J, Entry Portal at North/ Elysian Field Park Perspective Looking South Along Walk - Typical Treatment `%L- 4q (D Cc 0 Cc AT Prepared for: .5 The Community Development Agency City of Hoboken, N.J. View of South Entry & Picnic Area EXECUTIVE SUMMARY a T I 'r T 14 'r i In 1980, an idea w@s born to develop a continuous 71% waterfront walkway from Fort Lee to Bayonne, New J Hudson River. This ersey running parallel to the Id link points of interest, existing walkway wou parks and local residential communities, while provi,ding access to paths ascending the Palisades cliffs. This proposal became known as the Hudson The firm of Wallace, Roberts Waterfront Walkway. Todd published a report in 1984, the HUDSON WATERFRONT WALKWAY: PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES, 01, S I N A T RA D R I V E Mss@ to outline the criteria for development of this future walkway. The first part of this Walkway to be developed in Hoboken, between Elysian Field and Castle Point, is known as the Hoboken Riverwalk. Gaudy-Hadley Associates, P.C. have designed the Riverwalk in compliance with the Wallace Roberts & Todd report Project Area Plan after studying the City of Hoboken's waterfront. This study enabled the firm to choose the best possible route for the proposed walk. The River- walk wil begin at the southern end of Elysian Field and run along the cliffs above Sinatra Drive, providing picturesque views across the Hudson River while removing the user from the noise of the roadway below. The Riverwalk will have handicapped people access from the Elysian Field entry portal to the Scenic Overlook at the northern end, and to the Picnic Area (accessible ?JtL V it, ar from street level at the pedestrian crosswalk) Xma,-, wqw at the southern end. It is also recommended C.06b6t "u"rAL that a sidewalk at grade level be developed along _@L I v E, or @Ytirri"a the east side of Sinatra Drive to provide the 9 CCnf= T@L&C CtsT TA-fpltlah W A4-L psta, handicapped with an accessible linkage to the P waterfront opportunity, while the Union Dry Dock and Maxwell House portions of the Riverwalk are (T,1P) not available. ------I V T so t1) W, ct@ CA The Riverwalk will be constructed of wood decking on a steel frame with concrete footings and will w141*2 CrSEL have a metal handrailing for safety. The Picnic w1ol F1.AV4?1 S 40110y Area will have a crushed stone surface with grills lo Oct and picnic tables provided for the public's use. Do,- 05 In the Overlook areas, benches will allow the user to rest and look toward the city's spectacu7 IZI_ lar skyline. 2(le J C.VIL:6 ',R A.$ Trill. Residents, citizens' groups, organizations, de- 16 t _(.C-tt@v st velopers and municipal, county, state, and fed- eral agenqies, working together, can provide xc I Hoboken's 42,000 residents with a project which recalls the beginnings of the community as a peaceful riverside resort for visitors from Manhattan who wandered along its six mile river- walk to Elysian Field". This first part of the Riverwalk will eventaully link various projects which are presently being designed along the Section at Section Detail riverfront. The proposed Hoboken Riverwalk will Typical Section/ r P IC@ I4a,_ provide the user with unmatched views of the Deck Along Existing Overlook Area New York skyline, while the natural cliffside setting in one of the most densely populated Retaining Wall and dramatic urban settings in the world, will provide the residents and visitors to Hoboken with a rare and exciting recreational experience. GAYLORD No. 2333 PRIULD it! Ll 5 A L 3- 6368 14107 9576