Gothamist77%

NYC health department has questions about the floating pool set for the East River 0%

By Liam Quigley0%

4/6/2026, 1:43:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Primacy Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 38.7% saturation with 211 hits. Analysis detected 684 faulty-reasoning hits from 545 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

A floating pool that could one day offer New Yorkers a chance to swim in water filtered from the East River is moving forward despite delays caused by ice floes and blizzards and seaweed. 
The latest iteration of the plan, now referred to as POOL1, is essentially 25% of the size of the original pool and will be towed into place for testing this summer on the shore of Lower Manhattan beneath the FDR Drive. 
The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is demanding a strict ‘dry run’ of the pool without bathers. 
The pool is still waiting for six approvals from the health department and its creators are still hoping to open it for swimming by the summer of 2027. 
The team is adding a chlorine dosing system to the pool at the request of the health department that would only be used to clean the pool in the event of an emergency. 
For normal operations, it would rely on mechanical filtration of water from the East River. 
The project is a collaboration between designers and architects, first announced in 2010. 
It gained the backing of Gov. 
Hochul and then-mayor Eric Adams, who touted the pool in 2024, promising New Yorkers they’d be splashing away by the summer of 2025. 
The project’s managing director, Kara L. 
Meyer said the delays were a necessary step toward making the five boroughs a “swimmable city.” 
“We have advanced so far in the process, thanks to the leadership and direction of the NYS Health Department and the collaboration of the NYC Health Department,” she wrote. 
“We are very excited to work with the new health commissioner and the new administration to take river access [to] the finish line.” 
+POOL representatives shared the hurdles from the health department at a local community board meeting in March, which was first reported on by East of the Bowery. 
Once the testing is done this summer, the plus pool will be towed away, where it will get outfitted with showers, lockers and other finishing touches to prepare it for the summer of 2027. 
Health department spokesperson William Fowler said that while the floating pool is an innovative and exciting concept, it needs to be safe for swimmers. 
“The city and state health departments have established detailed protocols to guide +POOL in meeting health and safety requirements and have been reviewing submissions and working with Plus Pool as they refine their design,” he said. 
“Outstanding questions regarding water quality, filtration reliability and swimmer safety do remain and will require further testing to take place,” Fowler added. 
Health officials said that the pool’s proximity to sewer pipes that discharge raw sewage into the river during storms is a concern and that the agency wants more data on water quality before letting swimmers cannonball into the filtered East River water. 
Trever Holland, chair of the parks committee at the Manhattan Community Board 3 that adjoins the future site of the pool, said he hoped that it could move quickly through the red tape. 
“We’d like to make sure this happens and we really hope the Department of Health can speed up the process.” 
This story has been updated with additional information. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 2.2%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 4.8%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.5%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Liam Quigley: 10.2%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.6%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.9%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 38.7%Liam Quigley: 5.5%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias38.7%This article: 4.0%Liam Quigley: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias4.0%This article: 22.0%Liam Quigley: 8.7%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias22.0%This article: 5.3%Liam Quigley: 2.9%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.3%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 2.0%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Liam Quigley: 1.0%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Liam Quigley: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect10.3%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.2%Liam Quigley: 4.6%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority17.2%This article: 6.2%Liam Quigley: 2.2%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma6.2%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.0%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 4.4%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.2%Liam Quigley: 1.0%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon4.2%This article: 7.7%Liam Quigley: 8.0%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion7.7%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.8%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 3.5%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 2.9%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 3.7%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

545 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers41%attributed speech324writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Health and Mental Hygiene • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageKara L. Meyer • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKara L. Meyer • 29 words • 0.0% coverageKara L. Meyer • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Fowler • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Fowler • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Fowler • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageTrever Holland • 33 words • 0.0% coverageTrever Holland • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kara L. Meyer

100%flagged-word coverage
68 attributed words31% of attributed speech64% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.