Image

Climate Change Isn't
Coming, It's Here

The Financial District and Seaport Climate Resilience Master Plan aims to build Lower Manhattan’s resilience to climate risks, including daily tides and coastal storms. We are developing a comprehensive plan to secure the future of the region.
LEARN MORE

Building Our Plan

How Are We Building Our Plan?

In partnership with the communities of Lower Manhattan, we are designing infrastructure that responds to the unique constraints and climate hazards the Financial District and Seaport neighborhoods face while creating implementation plans to ensure these designs come to life in the future.

The project team identified opportunities and constraints to guide the type of flood protection infrastructure and alignments we can build in this area.

Stay Updated!

We will continue to update this page with our findings and proposed flood protection options.
Sign up for updates as we release new information.

What Flood Protection Alignments Are We Studying?

We focused our options to only those that meet our project goals and are feasible. After studying wider shoreline extensions, we removed them from consideration because of the permitting challenges and potential impacts to currents, boat navigation, and ecology. We are continuing to study on-land project options for the northern and southern parts of our project where it may be viable to construct the flood protection on-land. For more information on challenges with on-land options, see here.

Learn more about the flood protection options and considerations for each section of our study area below.

REACH A

REACH B

REACH C

REACH D
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

In Reach A, we are exploring options to connect the flood protection back to higher ground:

  1. One option is to construct the flood protection along the Battery Park Underpass. This would require the flood protection to run through the Whitehall Ferry Terminal and then be located just inland of the Battery Maritime Building. This would require only partial reconstruction of the Whitehall Ferry Terminal but would leave the Battery Maritime Building vulnerable to flooding.
  2. Another option would route the flood protection outboard of the Battery Park Underpass. The Battery Park Underpass would be protected from storms, but the flood protection would run through both the Whitehall Ferry Terminal and the Battery Maritime Building.
  3. One variation of the second option would be to also locate the flood protection outboard of the Battery Maritime Building. This would protect the historic building but would also require more fill, which is harder to permit, and the existing ferry uses would need to be relocated.

In Reach B, there is limited space on-land so we are studying options to create new land to site the flood protection while maintaining universal access back to the waterfront.

We are studying options that keep the FDR Drive viaduct as-is as well as options that transform the FDR Drive into an at-grade boulevard. In both instances, we are studying a narrow to moderate shoreline extension to allow for the appropriate slopes and grade changes to ensure access for all. The exact width will vary throughout the project area.

In locations where we cannot build to the target design flood elevation, flood gates will be needed. However, the gates must be used with passive measures to ensure a reliable, operable, and maintainable coastal defense system.

In Reach C we are examining pathways to protect historic assets while navigating the buildings at Pier 17. Two options are still being evaluated:

  1. Option 1 goes through the Tin Building. While this option minimizes fill, it would heavily impact the Tin Building, a recently reconstructed landmarked building. Both the Tin Building and Pier 17 would be outboard of the flood protection and left vulnerable to coastal storms and waves.
  2. Option 2 runs the flood protection between the Tin Building and Pier 17. In this option, the Tin Building would be protected but Pier 17 would still be left unprotected.
In Reach D, we are exploring how to minimize fill while still allowing for connections to the waterfront to protect habitats in the water. Given the complex site conditions, further study – including aquatic sampling & testing and wave modeling – is required to advance our study of flood protections alignments in this reach.

In Reach A, we are exploring options to connect the flood protection back to higher ground:

  1. One option is to construct the flood protection along the Battery Park Underpass. This would require the flood protection to run through the Whitehall Ferry Terminal and then be located just inland of the Battery Maritime Building. This would require only partial reconstruction of the Whitehall Ferry Terminal but would leave the Battery Maritime Building vulnerable to flooding.
  2. Another option would route the flood protection outboard of the Battery Park Underpass. The Battery Park Underpass would be protected from storms, but the flood protection would run through both the Whitehall Ferry Terminal and the Battery Maritime Building.
  3. One variation of the second option would be to also locate the flood protection outboard of the Battery Maritime Building. This would protect the historic building but would also require more fill, which is harder to permit, and the existing ferry uses would need to be relocated.

In Reach B, there is limited space on-land so we are studying options to create new land to site the flood protection while maintaining universal access back to the waterfront.

We are studying options that keep the FDR Drive viaduct as-is as well as options that transform the FDR Drive into an at-grade boulevard. In both instances, we are studying a narrow to moderate shoreline extension to allow for the appropriate slopes and grade changes to ensure access for all. The exact width will vary throughout the project area.

In locations where we cannot build to the target design flood elevation, flood gates will be needed. However, the gates must be used with passive measures to ensure a reliable, operable, and maintainable coastal defense system.

In Reach C we are examining pathways to protect historic assets while navigating the buildings at Pier 17. Two options are still being evaluated:

  1. Option 1 goes through the Tin Building. While this option minimizes fill, it would heavily impact the Tin Building, a recently reconstructed landmarked building. Both the Tin Building and Pier 17 would be outboard of the flood protection and left vulnerable to coastal storms and waves.
  2. Option 2 runs the flood protection between the Tin Building and Pier 17. In this option, the Tin Building would be protected but Pier 17 would still be left unprotected.
In Reach D, we are exploring how to minimize fill while still allowing for connections to the waterfront to protect habitats in the water. Given the complex site conditions, further study – including aquatic sampling & testing and wave modeling – is required to advance our study of flood protections alignments in this reach.

REACH A

Image

In Reach A, we are exploring options to connect the flood protection back to higher ground:

  1. One option is to construct the flood protection along the Battery Park Underpass. This would require the flood protection to run through the Whitehall Ferry Terminal and then be located just inland of the Battery Maritime Building.
  2. Another option would route the flood protection outboard of the Battery Park Underpass. The Battery Park Underpass would be protected from storms, but the flood protection would run through both the Whitehall Ferry Terminal and the Battery Maritime Building.
  3. One variation of the second option would be to also locate the flood protection outboard of the Battery Maritime Building. This would protect the historic building but would also require more fill, which is harder to permit, and the existing ferry uses would need to be relocated.

REACH B

Image

In Reach B, there is limited space on-land so we are studying options to create new land to site the flood protection while maintaining universal access back to the waterfront.

We are studying options that keep the FDR Drive viaduct as-is as well as options that transform the FDR Drive into an at-grade boulevard. In both instances, we are studying a narrow to moderate shoreline extension to allow for the appropriate slopes and grade changes to ensure access for all. The exact width will vary throughout the project area.

In locations where we cannot build to the target design flood elevation, flood gates will be needed. However, the gates must be used with passive measures to ensure a reliable, operable, and maintainable coastal defense system.

REACH C

Image

In Reach C we are examining pathways to protect historic assets while navigating the buildings at Pier 17. Two options are still being evaluated:

  1. Option 1 goes through the Tin Building. While this option minimizes fill, it would heavily impact the Tin Building, a recently reconstructed landmarked building. Both the Tin Building and Pier 17 would be outboard of the flood protection and left vulnerable to coastal storms and waves.
  2. Option 2 runs the flood protection between the Tin Building and Pier 17. In this option, the Tin Building would be protected but Pier 17 would still be left unprotected.

REACH D

Image
In Reach D, we are exploring how to minimize fill while still allowing for connections to the waterfront to protect habitats in the water. Given the complex site conditions, further study – including aquatic sampling & testing and wave modeling – is required to advance our study of flood protections alignments in this reach.

REACH A

Image

In Reach A, we are exploring options to connect the flood protection back to higher ground:

  1. One option is to construct the flood protection along the Battery Park Underpass. This would require the flood protection to run through the Whitehall Ferry Terminal and then be located just inland of the Battery Maritime Building. This would require only partial reconstruction of the Whitehall Ferry Terminal but would leave the Battery Maritime Building vulnerable to flooding.
  2. Another option would route the flood protection outboard of the Battery Park Underpass. The Battery Park Underpass would be protected from storms, but the flood protection would run through both the Whitehall Ferry Terminal and the Battery Maritime Building.
  3. One variation of the second option would be to also locate the flood protection outboard of the Battery Maritime Building. This would protect the historic building but would also require more fill, which is harder to permit, and the existing ferry uses would need to be relocated.

REACH B

Image

In Reach B, there is limited space on-land so we are studying options to create new land to site the flood protection while maintaining universal access back to the waterfront.

We are studying options that keep the FDR Drive viaduct as-is as well as options that transform the FDR Drive into an at-grade boulevard. In both instances, we are studying a narrow to moderate shoreline extension to allow for the appropriate slopes and grade changes to ensure access for all. The exact width will vary throughout the project area.

In locations where we cannot build to the target design flood elevation, flood gates will be needed. However, the gates must be used with passive measures to ensure a reliable, operable, and maintainable coastal defense system.

REACH C

Image

In Reach C we are examining pathways to protect historic assets while navigating the buildings at Pier 17. Two options are still being evaluated:

  1. Option 1 goes through the Tin Building. While this option minimizes fill, it would heavily impact the Tin Building, a recently reconstructed landmarked building. Both the Tin Building and Pier 17 would be outboard of the flood protection and left vulnerable to coastal storms and waves.
  2. Option 2 runs the flood protection between the Tin Building and Pier 17. In this option, the Tin Building would be protected but Pier 17 would still be left unprotected.

REACH D

Image

In Reach D, we are exploring how to minimize fill while still allowing for connections to the waterfront to protect habitats in the water. Given the complex site conditions, further study – including aquatic sampling & testing and wave modeling – is required to advance our study of flood protections alignments in this reach.

What Neighborhood Conditions Must We Consider?