manayunk river access

7/27/2019 Manayunk River Access

1/22

AN ILLUSTRATIVE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

River Acc t Mnayuk|Vec Islnd


2/22

THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR THE SCHUYLKILL PROJECT IN THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 2006

by Brown & Keener Bressi, with assistance from Urban Engineers

ank you to the following people for their help and input:

Gina Snyder, Executive Director of the East Falls Development Corporation

Kay Sykora, Executive Director of e Schuylkill Project

Joanne Dahme, Watershed Program Manager of the Philadelphia Water Department

Mike Blundetto,Manayunk Dragon Boat Team

Gwen Cohen, Programs Manager of e Schuylkill Project


3/22

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose of this Document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Initial Evaluation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Comparative Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Two Access Design Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Preferred Site: Technical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Appendix A: Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Appendix B: CAD Sketch in Plan View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix C: Early Prototype Designs and Visualizations . . . . . . . . . . . 17

TABLE OF CONTENTS


4/22

4 RIVER ACCESS AT MANAYUNK|VENICE ISLAND: AN ILLUSTRATIVE TECHNICAL MEMOR ANDUM

RELATED MAPS , IMAGES AND DRAWINGS


5/22

BACKGROUND

Manayunk is an urban miracle. A thriving river-side center of workshops and textile

mills through the 19th and 20th centuries, its stout stone buildings and narrow streets

now host a bustling array of shops, restaurants and galleries with sought-aer condos

on the upper floors above.

As Manayunks Main Street upscaled its offerings in the 80s and 90s, long-time residents

advocated for a public waterfront that provides locals as well as visitors opportunities for riverfront

recreation. is tension between the desire for a publicly accessible urban riverfront and the

inclination of developers to secure waterfront property for the exclusive use of project tenants is

part of a bigger story. roughout the city, rejuvenated interest in city living has brought profound

changes to the skyline, to the neighborhoods, to shopping streetsand most recently to the way

Philadelphias two rivers are occupied and experienced. e latent potential of our waterfronts

is an unturned key to the citys destiny. As more and more people find that Philadelphia is the

place they want to live, to shop, to do business and to have fun, rejuvenated interest in city living

has brought profound changes. An ongoing study by the Planning Commission will result in

consensus principles that should apply to development along the DelawareAND will investigatestrategies to connect new civic river places to neighborhoods, elevating and stabilizing property

values. It will also broaden awareness of a couple of fundamental truths:

1) All Philadelphians have something to gain as responsible stewards for the economic potential

of urban land near rivers.

2) We all have a shared stake in the beauty of riparian ecologies. In cities especially, people truly

cherish places to be next to nature, to see the sky, and be near the water.

A number of improvements continue to make the Schuylkill river-side experience a more

hospitable and fun part of city life. e Schuylkill River Heritage Corridor, a 130-mile corridor

stretching from Schuylkill County through Berks, Chester, and Montgomery Counties down toPhiladelphia celebrates the outstanding cultural, recreational and historic resources along the

river. e Schuylkill Banks project in Center City brought trail improvements from Locust Street

up to the Art Museum, attracting an even greater number of people to the river. An excursion

vessel based at Walnut Bridge affirms that the Schuylkill River is tour-worthy and of interest to

residents and visitors alike. Further up-river, Lower Venice Island will be transformed through

a Philadelphia Water Department initiative to create a new park, court sports, play facilities and

performing arts venue.


6/22



Looking at the canal between Manayunk and Venice Island


7/22

PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This document, Water Access at Manayunk |Venice Island, an Illustrative Memorandum

describes site selection process, technical considerations, preliminary design solutions and

construction costs for a boat landing and/or overlook on Manayunks Venice Island.

e Venice Island Landing is an element of the 2005 plan for the Lower Venice Island Park. Other

planned recreational and cultural features include a community center, a performing arts venue, a

pool or water play facility, as well as accommodations for basketball, street hockey, and ice skating.

Park activities are arrayed linearly between the river and the canal. e park is being constructed

over a 15 million gallon state-of-the-art stormwater/sewer retention facility that will eliminate

overflow into the river. e landing is proposed at the tip of the island where the river and a

restored canal converge. A river access facility here will be a landmark attraction for the Schuylkill

River Heritage Corridor, a 130-mile corridor linking the outstanding cultural, recreational and

historic resources along the river stretching from Schuylkill County through Berks, Chester, and

Montgomery Counties down to Philadelphia.

e project goals are to create a River Access Facility that will:

Make the river and canal locks a more integral part of the Manayunk | Venice Island

experience.

Expand opportunities for river-related recreation, educational opportunities and

activities further up the river. Currently all activities are concentrated in the area below

East Falls to the Fairmount Dam.

Enhance economic development by integrating/connecting river-related activities with

the areas other recreational, entertainment and retail offerings.


8/22



Pedestrian Bridge

Church & School

Senior Housing

School

e Canal

e Retaining Wall


9/22

INITIAL EVALUATION SUMMARY

The project kicked off on July 29 with a meeting and tour of the study site by the project

team, composed of Gina Snyder from East Falls Development Corporation, Kay Sykora

of e Schuylkill Project, Mike Gabor from Urban Engineers, and Mark Keener with

Veronica Polo from Brown & Keener Bressi.

It was agreed that the ideal arrangement would:

Provide ADA compliant access for people get close to the water for the simple pleasure

of being there.

Create a platform for watching wildlife and passing boaters or for fishing.

Provide a permanent landing structure to launch canoes and kayaks that are light

enough to be hand carried from the parking lot to the water. e potential for a rental

concession should also be considered.

Establish a place for dragon boats to land. is could support growing popularity of the

sport in a number of ways.

Provide for the future possibility of an excursion service that might operate on this reach

of the Schuylkill linking the Water Works, East Falls and Manayunk attractions.

e team looked at the canal area, the tip of the island, the shore at the southeast of the island, and

the area below the retaining wall.

e island tip forms a natural beach area where boaters currently access the river. It is also fairly

sheltered from the river current. It has a moderate grade from the Lock Street parking lot.

e south-eastern shore is thick with vegetation and the slope of the bank drops steeply to the

water. It has the advantage of deeper waters and good panoramas. Disadvantages are direct river

currents and accessibility difficulties due to steep grade.

e retaining wall area which is part of the southern shore shares the same advantages and

disadvantages. Additionally, the retaining wall itself forms an additional barrier to access the

water.

Lower Venice Island southern shore


10/22



Floating dock with gangway in Richland, WA

Overlook in Milwaukee, WI


11/22

The project team reviewed water access

projects and structures in other cities.

Waterfront projects in New York City;

Portland, Oregon; Milwaukee, Wisconsin;

Chattanooga, Tennessee; Baltimore; andRichland, Washington each include well-

designed small structures that enable access to

the water. Although some of these projects are

on a much larger scale, certain concepts are

transferable and various elements are applicable.

Below is a short summary of highlights.

Milwaukee and New York (Battery Park City)

each have interesting lookout structures along

water. Along Chattanoogas riverfront, access

ramps are a visually powerful landscape feature.Portland, Oregon and Varanasi, India provide

elegant examples of steps transitioning to the

waters edge. A floating dock in Richland,

Washington generated discussion for how

best to accommodate the changing level of

the Schuylkill. A landing in Baltimores Inner

Harbor also hosts a concessionaire, which could

serve as a model here as well.

Public art as part of landing or overlook

structures was also of interest. In Melbourne,Australia lighting solutions were integrated

in creative ways. Interpretive educational and

environmental components of Baltimores

waterfront, where native flora was displayed next

to illustrative display panels, was also of interest.

COMPARATIVE PLACES

Ramp in Chattanooga, TN

Baltimore Waterfront


12/22



Early prototype scheme included a set of steps and an ADA

ramp with overlook/switchback leading to a platform with

gangway and floating dock.

SCENARIO 1 A short ADA ramp leading to a fishing

platform, and a trail leading to the island tip.

SCENARIO 2 A longer ADA ramp leading to a fishing

platform and a trail leading to the island tip. A future

floating dock could extend from the platform.


13/22

Brown & Keener Bressi and Urban Engineers worked together to identify the most suitable

location of a water access structure. Early designs assumed that a dock structure parallel

to the shore would be accessed by a long ramp with a switchback/overlook (See Appendix

C and image on the le). is creates an accommodating and interesting approach to the river,

but from an engineering perspective there were several concerns. First, a dock and its structuralanchorage may be susceptible to damage from currents and debris. Second, the access ramp

necessary to reach the waters edge could be expensive. In response to these concerns, a more

modest alternative proposal was developed (see Scenario 1) focusing on the trail improvements

combined with overlooks and a fishing platform.

SCENARIO 1: VENICE ISLAND OVERLOOK

e less costly approach proposes a short ramp connecting the parking area to a fishing platform

overlook 18 feet over the water. Also recommended is a paved trail leading from the parking

area to the tip of the island. e cost estimates (see Appendix A) for this configuration includes

lighting, street furniture and landscape improvements, as well as an allowance for some special

feature marking the entrance of the trail. e natural beach area at the island tip could serve as a

sometimes muddy put-in location for small paddle cra. However, such an arrangement would

not enable dragon boaters to disembark here.

SCENARIO 2: VENICE ISLAND LANDING

A longer ramp connects the parking area to the island tip. It would end at a fishing platform/

overlook 4 feet above the water. A paved trail could also give people access to the beach area at

the island tip. A gangway from the fishing platform connects to a dock, for landing and putting in

small boats such as canoes and kayaks. Properly designed and sited, the dock would enable dragonboaters to land and disembark. Given adequate depth, the landing could accommodate a shallow

dra excursion vessel; though, as noted elsewhere in this document, it may be difficult to get

permitting for an excursion service operating motorized cra on this reach of the river. Scenario

2 cost estimates (see Appendix B) also include an allowance for artwork or some other special

feature at trail head as well as lighting, street furniture, and landscape. Additional costs for the

gangway, dock, and debris barrier are included as well.

TWO ACCESS DESIGN SCENARIOS


14/22



Rocky outcroppings limit navigation for larger vessels.

However, in the past, big boats plied this reach of the river regularly.

Fare on the comfortable steamer pictured above, was 12 1/2 cents to

go from Fairmount to Manayunk.


15/22

1

WATER DEPTH

T

he river around the Venice Island study areaexcept around the canal outfallis deep

enough to accommodate boats with shallow dras such as canoes and kayaks. ough

the water might be deep enough, it is unlikely that an excursion service could operate

motorized vessels herefor political, navigational, economic, infrastructure and operational

reasons. e Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission limits motored boats in this area to 10

horsepower or less, and there is little chance that these regulations will change. Additionally,

in the area around Venice Island there are places where shallow waters, rapids and outcrops

will make this a navigationally difficult or dangerous area for shallow dra (2 to 4 ) vessels.

However, it was noted that a pontoon party boat operated here just a few years ago and that in

the more distant past steam powered tour vessels operated seasonally along this reach of the river.

Dragon Boats can also navigate in this area, but they should proceed with caution due to rock

outcroppings.

FLOATING DEBRIS

Any water access structures built in the study area should be weary of flood, ice and debris

hazards. e sites on the river side of the island are particularly vulnerable to the full force of

the rivers current, which is particularly fast on this narrow portion of the river (about 65 yards

wide here versus 150 yards at East Falls). Any built structure, such as an overlook platform, would

have to withstand fast moving ice and debris. A floating dock would be particularly vulnerable,

although the vulnerability could be mitigated to some extent by providing a floating boom to

deflect ice and debris away from the dock.

PERMITS

Because the project is in a floodway, a range of permits and regulatory approvals would need

to be obtained from various agencies such as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, the Philadelphia Water Department,

the Philadelphia Art Commission, the Philadelphia Streets Department, and the Philadelphia

Department of Licenses and Inspections.

ACCESSIBILITY

ADA access is an important consideration due to the costs involved. Reasonable

accommodations need to be made. Fishing platforms and boating facilities need accessiblehandicap routes.

PREFERRED SITE: TECHNICAL SUMMARY


16/22



is drawing illustrates how a river access facility might look


17/22

1

is investigation, completed in the summer and fall of 2006, was initiated to propose design

concepts, explore technical considerations, and define probable costs for the proposed new Venice

Island Landing. e results are promising:

e rendered illustrations show that the landing can be an accessible, fun place to be.

e technical memorandum describes criteria such as current, water level, obstructions,

and regulatory matters that should be considered in siting the facility and proposes

solutions responsive to each of those issues.

A line-item budget clearly lays out the cost to build the landing, confirming that the

resources necessary are in line with similar recently completed projects.

e proposed new Venice Island Landing will certainly require further detailing and design,

as well as the continued support of funding and public agency partners. Now, with answers to

many of the initial questions in-hand, e Schuylkill Project is prepared to begin the next steps

committing the necessary resources, getting in place the necessary permitting and agreements,

and completing design and construction documents.

CONCLUSION


18/22



SCENARIO 2: ENHANCED

APPENDIX A: COST ESTIMATES

SCENARIO 1: MINIMAL

ItemNo. Description Unit Unit Price Quantity

Unit Price xQuantity

A Major Materials & Subcontracts

1 Artwork or fountain at the entrance area allow 10,000$ 1 10,000$2 Paving at entrance area sy 40$ 320 12,800$3 Lighting allow 10,000$ 1 10,000$4 Street furniture allow 10,000$ 1 10,000$

Subtotal, Major Materials & Subcontracts 42,800$

B Construction & Installation1 Mobilization, Demobilization, Erosion Control allow 10,000$ 1 10,000$2 Clear, Grub, rough grade allow 5,000$ 1 5,000$3 River Overlook / Fishing Platform (inc. approach walk) sf 120$ 800 96,000$4 Lighting Installation allow 15,000$ 1 15,000$5 Landscaping allow 30,000$ 1 30,000$

Subtotal, Construction & Installation 156,000$

Subtotal, Materials, Subcontracts, Construction & Installation 198,800$Contractor overhead & profit 20% 39,760$

Estimated Construction Cost 238,560$Design, Permitting, & Construction oversight 20% 47,712$

Project Cost 286,272$Contingency 20% 57,254$

Project Cost including Contingency 343,526$

ItemNo. Description Unit Unit Price Quantity

Unit Price xQuantity

AMajor Materials & Subcontracts1 Artwork or fountain at the entrance area allow 20,000$ 1 20,000$

2 Paving at entrance area sy 40$ 320 12,800$3 Aluminum Gangway 12' x 31' & Floating Dock 12' x 38' sf 45$ 828 37,260$4 Lighting allow 20,000$ 1 20,000$5 Street furniture allow 15,000$ 1 15,000$6 Debris Barrier lf 60$ 80 4,800$

Subtotal, Major Materials & Subcontracts 109,860$

B Construction & Installation1 Mobilization, Demobilization, Erosion Control allow 15,000$ 1 15,000$2 Clear, Grub, rough grade allow 15,000$ 1 15,000$3 New walkway to dock abutment (including landing area) sf 120$ 2100 252,000$4 Lighting Installation allow 30,000$ 1 30,000$5 Landscaping allow 30,000$ 1 30,000$

6 Gangway & dock install days 4,000$ 4 16,000$7 Debris Barrier installation days 4,000$ 2 8,000$

Subtotal, Construction & Installation 366,000$

Subtotal, Materials, Subcontracts, Construction & Installation 475,860$Contractor overhead & profit 20% 95,172$

Estimated Construction Cost 571,032$Design, Permitting, & Construction oversight 20% 114,206$

Project Cost 685,238$Contingency 20% 137,048$

Project Cost including Contingency 822,286$


19/22

1

SCENARIO 1: MINIMAL

APPENDIX B: CAD SKETCH IN PLAN VIEW


20/22



SCENARIO 2: ENHANCED

APPENDIX B: CAD SKETCH IN PLAN VIEW


21/22

1

APPENDIX C

EARLY PROTOTYPE DESIGNS AND VISUALIZATIONS

Drawing in Perspective

Drawing in Section


22/22

RELATED MAPS , IMAGES AND DRAWINGSAPPENDIX C

EARLY PROTOTYPE DESIGNS AND VISUALIZATIONS

Drawing in Plan

manayunk river access

Documents