FREDERICK DOUGLASS BOULEVARD STUDY

Office of the Manhattan Borough President Hon. C. Virginia Fields

Urban Technical Assistance Project (UTAP) Columbia University PROJECT STAFF

Lionel McIntyre, Director Ghislaine Hermanuz, Consultant

Project Coordinator Nicole Comp

Planning and Design Staff Anthony Borelli Joseph Idris Solnes Urena

Planning and Design Interns Bojan Boric Nakeyshia Kendall Emily Lin Adrienne Watson

Office of the Manhattan Borough President Hon. C. Virginia Fields

Urban Technical Assistance Project (UTAP) Columbia University FREDERICK DOUGLASS BOULEVARD STUDY

TABLE of CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3

Urban Design Assessment 3 Physical Conditions 5 Demographics 12

III. DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 20

Development of Existing Housing Stock 22 Retail Development Potential 27

IV. PROPOSED PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 29

Urban Design Guidelines 29 Streetscape Principles 33

V. RECOMMENDATIONS 36

VI. APPENDICES

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 1: Three-dimensional Model - Project Area ...... 2 Figure 3. 1: Four Sectors...... 21 Figure 4. 1: R7X Bulk Diagrams ...... 31 Figure 4. 2: Proposed R7X Zoning...... 32 Figure 4. 3: Streetscape Elevations: 123rd to 119th Streets...... 33 Figure 4. 4: Streetscape Elevations: 119th to 115th Streets...... 34 Figure 4. 5: Frederick Douglass Boulevard: Proposed Sidewalk Treatment...... 35 Figure 4. 6: Sidewalk Plan ...... 35 Figure 4. 7: Side Street: Proposed Sidewalk Improvements...... 35

LIST OF MAPS Map 2. 1: Context Map ...... 3 Map 2. 2: Land Use ...... 5 Map 2. 3: Occupancy Status ...... 6 Map 2. 4: Building Conditions...... 7 Map 2. 5: Retail Occupancy ...... 8 Map 2. 6: Retail Distribution...... 9 Map 2. 7: Existing Zoning...... 10 Map 3. 1: Planning Concept...... 20 Map 3. 2: Publicly-Supported Housing ...... 22 Map 3. 3: Tax Arrears...... 23 Map 3. 4: Lien Status...... 25 Map 3. 5: Lien Status...... 26 Map 4. 1: Zoning Concept ...... 29 Map 4. 2: Streetscape Concept ...... 30

LIST OF TABLES Table 2. 1: Land Use...... 6 Table 2. 2: Occupancy Status ...... 6 Table 2. 3: Building Exterior/Facade Conditions...... 7 Table 2. 4: Retail Distribution by SIC Division - Major Group(s) ...... 9 Table 2. 5: Total Population, 1980 - 1990...... 12 Table 2. 6: Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1980 - 1990 ...... 13 Table 2. 7: Age Distribution, 1980 - 1990 ...... 13 Table 2. 8: Educational Attainment, 1980 - 1990...... 14 Table 2. 9: Total Households by Family Type, 1980 - 1990 ...... 15 Table 2. 10: Median Household Income, 1980 - 1990...... 15 Table 2. 11: Household Income Distribution, 1980 - 1990...... 16 Table 2. 12: Poverty Status by Age, 1980 - 1990...... 16 Table 2. 13: Public Assistance, 1980 - 1990...... 17 Table 2. 14: Labor Force Participation, 1980 - 1990...... 17 Table 2. 15: Employment by Occupation, 1980 - 1990...... 18 Table 2. 16: Employment by Industry, 1990 ...... 18 Table 3. 1: Publicly-Supported Housing...... 24 Table 3. 2: Tax Arrears...... 24 Table 3. 3: Tax Liens ...... 24

LIST OF CHARTS Chart 2. 1: Retail Distribution by SIC Division...... 9 Chart 2. 2: Total Population, 1990...... 12 Chart 2. 3: Total Population, percent change 1980 - 1990 ...... 12 Chart 2. 4: Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1990...... 12 Chart 2. 5: Age Distribution, Total Population, 1990 ...... 13 Chart 2. 6: Educational Attainment, 1990 ...... 14 Chart 2. 7: Households by Family Type, 1990 ...... 14 Chart 2. 8: Median Household Income, 1990...... 15 Chart 2. 9: Median Household Income, percent change 1980 - 1990 ...... 15 Chart 2. 10: Household Income Distribution, 1990...... 16 Chart 2. 11: Poverty Status by Age, 1990...... 16 Chart 2. 12: Public Assistance, 1990...... 17 Chart 2. 13: Labor Force Participation, 1990...... 17 Chart 2. 14: Employment by Occupation, 1990...... 18 Chart 2. 15: Employment by Industry, 1990 ...... 18

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. INTRODUCTION

At the request of the Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields, the Urban Technical Assistance Project (UTAP) in collaboration with the City College Architectural Center (CCAC) undertook a study of Frederick Douglass Boulevard from 110th Street to 135th Street, one of the most devastated areas in Harlem. The study was to produce a planning strategy and urban design guidelines that reflect concerns for contextually, appropriateness of development mechanisms, and development in the public interest.

Twenty-five years of selective demolition and obsolescence have made Frederick Douglass Boulevard a desolate streetscape of vacant lots and vacant buildings. Recent interventions have failed to transform its image. Thus its redevelopment is not only an opportunity to increase the neighborhood’s population by more than 6,000 people, it is also a means to bring needed amenities and investments that will help the corridor regain prestige.

The proposed guidelines are designed to maximize the benefits of development for both existing and future residents of the Frederick Douglass Boulevard corridor. These guidelines also serve to insure that new developments fit into and enhance the present qualities of Harlem’s urban fabric, and demonstrate how the use of contextual zoning and quality housing standards can make the area supportive of current stake holders and attractive to new buyers. The large number of City-owned and distressed properties, often viewed as a hindrance to development, has been considered here to be an opportunity for recreating an equitable and vibrant community.

II. EXISTING CONDITIONS

Urban Design Characteristics

The study area, bounded by 110th Street to the South; Morningside and St. Nicholas Parks to the West; 135th Street to the North, and Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard to the East, is not distinguished by historically and architecturally significant artifacts. Rather, it is the homogeneity of its urban fabric, with built-to-the-street-line development of uniform frontages and continuous street walls, which is valuable. Frederick Douglass Boulevard is less wide than other avenues of Harlem and does not enjoy planted medians; thus it reads as a residential avenue rather than a public promenade. There are slight differences in the fabric along the Boulevard. The southern end consists of mid-rise, high coverage, and high-density buildings, whereas the northern portion consists of higher-rise, low coverage, high-density buildings.

Land Use

Reflecting the predominant land use of Harlem, lots in the Project Area are used for residential purpose. Properties along 125th Street are the exception. Only 5 percent of the lots are used primarily for commercial purposes and the majority is located at the intersection of Frederick Douglass Boulevard with 116th, 125th and 135th Streets. Of the 226 storefronts along the targeted corridor, 40 percent are vacant. Vacant lots are scattered throughout the area, although most large concentrations front Frederick Douglass Boulevard. Zoning of the area reflects existing land use patterns: R7-2 for the most part, with R8 for areas fronting Morningside and St. Nicholas Parks, and various commercial districts and overlays along the corridor and its East - West commercial streets.

Demographics

The population living within Frederick Douglass Boulevard corridor represents nearly a third of Community District 10’s total residents. The corridor has experienced a population decline of 8 percent, between 1980 and 1990 (compared to 6 percent for the District). Although the Hispanic and white populations nearly tripled in size during this same decade, they are still proportionally small by comparison to the black population (87 percent of the residents). The statistical data show a decrease in moderate, low and very low-income households, while the number of households earning greater than a moderate income has increased.

III. DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

One of the greatest hindrances to past efforts to redevelop Frederick Douglass Boulevard has been the lack of stability of the surrounding neighborhoods. Review of the data for City-owned occupied units and distressed properties indicates the need for a two-fold development strategy that addresses the existing housing stock as well as the opportunities for new construction and rehabilitation. Furthermore, the development strategy must recognize that along the Boulevard, opportunities for redevelopment must respond to existing land use patterns and building typologies, and allow for the insertion of amenities necessary to support the increase in population. To enhance the old urban fabric, rehabilitation should also be considered, particularly in the southern portion of the study area. North of 125th Street, new construction should prevail.

Of the 30 sites that can be considered for development in the study area, sixteen have been identified as critical to the transformation of the boulevard. Together, they represent approximately 13 acres of land. Redevelopment of these sites would yield up to 650 rehabilitated units and over 1,500 units of new construction. The total number of units can increase from approximately 1,600 as-of-right to 2,000 dwelling units with contextual zoning. Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields i The planning and development strategy recognizes that redevelopment of the City-owned occupied housing stock offers the greatest potential for mitigating displacement and encouraging public/private interventions that could have an extraordinarily positive impact on revitalization efforts. There are currently 189 City-owned occupied buildings containing 4,496 dwelling units within the study area. City-owned occupied housing units represent 30 percent of the total 14,605 occupied housing units in the study area.

Retail Development Potential

The designated area for retail development contains 157,000 square feet of retail space, of which 77,000 square feet is vacant. A total of 83,000 square feet of newly constructed retail space can be created within the designated urban design areas. This new retail space plus the existing vacant 77,000 square feet of retail space will total 160,000 square feet of developable space.

Expenditure potential analysis has shown that area incomes will support an additional 54,000 square feet with the infusion of new households as a result of new construction and rehabilitation along the corridor. Since redevelopment of the designated areas would yield 160,000 square feet of retail space, and area incomes will support only 54,000 square feet a surplus of 106,000 square feet could be generated. It is anticipated that the build-out of the area’s surplus retail space potential will depend on housing development beyond the corridor.

It is suggested that the full build-out of the area’s retail capacity be implemented in stages and proceed conservatively. Recreation, community services, and professional services are several commercial categories not found within the area because they require large concentrations of space that are not readily available within the existing configuration and distribution of available space.

IV. PROPOSED PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

To make development attractive to both the community and developers, it is important to maximize the buildable square footage without changing the quality of the fabric. The zoning strategy is built on these two concerns. It proposes to consider R7X as the most appropriate mechanism to redevelop the corridor. As quality-housing standards are mandatory with contextual zoning, the quality of individual dwelling units and common shared spaces will be insured, and livability will be improved.

Streetscape Principles

The Boulevard and intersecting cross streets offer the only opportunity to create usable, public open spaces for the residential community. The streetscape principles include the development of public spaces as focal points at major intersections along the Boulevard. The principles also provide for general improvement of lighting, paving, planting and street furniture. Streetscape principles establish a new image for the Boulevard, while reinforcing the continuity of its fabric. Sidewalk treatments will insure safe outdoor places for residential activities. These principles can be used to determine the type and amount of public investments necessary to improve the public environment.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis of the Frederick Douglass Boulevard corridor, between 110th and 135th Streets, has shown that planning policies and design principles to guide its future development have to reflect the strengthening of the area as a mixed-income, mid- density residential neighborhood.

There are four major sets of recommendations that stem from this study:

• The first set relates to actions to be taken to maintain the existing City-owned housing stock, enhance its quality, and stabilize low and moderate income residents before an influx into the area of a higher income population, attracted by the renovated and new housing.

• The second tier of recommendations reflects the opportunity to recapture through site development of new construction, the quality of Harlem’s urban fabric. In particular, the patterns of bulk distribution generated by the low-rise, high- density buildings that are still extant, the quality of light and air, and the mix of land uses can be enhance through development.

• The third set focuses on the physical transformation of the boulevard’s image and its development into a coherent, formal residential streetscape that takes advantage of the large number of development sites fronting the boulevard.

• Finally, to demonstrate the urban design and streetscape concepts of this study, a "First Action Streetscape Improvements Plan” is recommended. The "First Action" plan targets the area formed by the intersection of St. Nicholas Avenue and Frederick Douglass Boulevard for the development of a public space through streetscape improvements.

Together, these recommendations, will not only maximize the benefits of development for both existing and future residents of the corridor, they will also shape the public investments. It is the conclusions of this study that urban design guidelines, streetscape improvements and outreach to residents, are necessary elements to attract developers and guide them in the elaboration of relevant proposals that take full advantage of the development potential of Frederick Douglass Boulevard. Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields ii

M I. INTRODUCTION lower portion of the Boulevard. The Central Park Conservancy has been instrumental in preparing a At the request of the Manhattan Borough President C. proposal for the reconstruction of the Frederick Douglass Virginia Fields, a study of planning and design issues Circle, while the Steven L. Newman Real Estate Institute related to the redevelopment of Frederick Douglass has undertaken a design study of the lower portion of the th th Boulevard has been prepared. The Boulevard corridor, Boulevard from 110 to 117 Streets. A few new from West 110th Street to West 135th Street, is considered residential buildings have appeared along the boulevard, one of the most devastated areas in Harlem. It is also the or within its corridor. Redevelopment plans for various least redeveloped of all of Harlem’s major corridors. The vacant properties at the southern end are going forward Urban Technical Assistance Project (UTAP) in with the New York Housing Partnership. But still there is collaboration with the City College Architectural Center no sense that Frederick Douglass Boulevard is being (CCAC) undertook this study to provide a set of planning transformed into the major, formal public space that it can and urban design guidelines for the redevelopment of this be for Harlem. major boulevard, identify potential development sites as well as streetscape principles. UTAP and CCAC were asked to prepare planning, urban design and streetscape guidelines to reflect a coherent Frederick Douglass Boulevard has not received the conceptual framework for the redevelopment of the th th development and design attention it deserves. Selective Boulevard from 110 Street to 135 Street. The study demolition and obsolescence have left behind a desolate area was established to show Frederick Douglass streetscape of vacant lots and vacant buildings. Recent Boulevard as a critical component of the community. The interventions were not developed to create or fit into a statistical data was compiled for an area bounded by West th new image for the boulevard. Thus the redevelopment of 110 Street to the South; Morningside and St. Nicholas th the Boulevard is not only an opportunity to increase the Parks to the West; West 135 Street to the North, and neighborhood population by 6,000 people, but it is also an Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard to the East. The opportunity to create major public spaces and bring urban design and streetscape recommendations are amenities that will help the corridor gain prestige through focused on the Boulevard proper. good planning and urban design. This approach will allow for public and private partnerships to maximize the Site surveys were conducted in March 1999. They insertion of sorely needed commercial, cultural and social recorded information on land use, building occupancy, facilities while enhancing those that are presently being and conditions of exteriors for GIS applications. developed. Commercial surveys were used to determine the various types of active retail uses currently operating within the Ten years ago, the Harlem Urban Development area. A thumbnail sketch of population characteristics Corporation (HUDC) undertook the study of that portion was compiled from the 1980 and 1990 Census data. of Frederick Douglass Boulevard which links Central (Population projections for the year 2000 were reviewed Park and 110th Street to the commercial corridor of 125th and deemed unreliable due to the area’s potential for Street. The study was to define a set of guidelines for a redevelopment because of vacant land.) development strategy that would increase residential density, create an income mix, improve the livability of The guidelines and zoning concept presented in this study the neighborhood, maximize opportunities for new represent a response to community and private sector construction, and create new public spaces. The HUDC development objectives that are appropriate in the Harlem proposal submitted a redevelopment strategy that blended context. Through presentations and discussions with reconstruction with preservation. It built on the energy of community leaders, key stakeholders within the area, the recent rehabilitation of 125th Street, and proposed to planning and design experts, colleagues of other expand it down to 110th Street. It submitted a building disciplines and the staff of the Manhattan Borough typology, which included community service buildings, President’s Office, we have attempted to incorporate the residential hotels, and parking facilities. It proposed a concerns for contextuality, appropriateness of residential building type to conform to the traditional development mechanisms, and development in the public street profile, while maximizing height and bulk toward interest. The results represent a distillation of the most the interior of the blocks. The study suggested guidelines relevant and successful approaches that have generated a for the rehabilitation of old buildings as well as for small revitalization of Harlem for its present residents and new infill construction. It also proposed approaches to future members of its neighborhoods. reintegrate new, but non-conforming development, into the new public spaces thus recreated. Spring 1999

Since then, portions of Frederick Douglass Boulevard have been redeveloped under major comprehensive revitalization plans. North of West 135th Street to West 140th Street, the Striver’s Center Plan incorporated housing and commercial rehabilitation of the boulevard, while the Bradhurst Plan undertook the redevelopment of the corridor from West 140th to West 155th Streets. Various interventions have also taken place at the intersection of Frederick Douglass and 125th Street, such as building rehabilitation by the United House of Prayer, as well as the construction of a major commercial facility, Harlem USA. Neither of these two interventions are part of a comprehensive approach to the revitalization of the Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 1 Figure 1. 1: Three-dimensional Model - Project Area

Frederick Douglass Boulevard

W. 135th Street

W. 125th Street

W. 120th Street

W. 116th Street

Central Park North (W. 110th Street)

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS

URBAN DESIGN ASSESSMENT

An overview of Frederick Douglass Boulevard in W 145TH ST the context of Central Harlem shows that within

HARLEM RIVER W 144TH ST the portion under consideration in this study MALCOLM X BLVD.

W 143RD ST FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. there are very few historically significant places BRADHURST AVE. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. located along the boulevard itself. Nor does the W 142ND ST FIFTH AVE.

W 141ST ST boulevard immediately abut the two large parks of the area, Morningside Park and St. Nicholas W 140TH ST

Park. The few trees located along Frederick W 139TH ST EDGECOMBE AVE. ST. NICHOLAS AVE. NICHOLAS ST. W 138TH ST Douglass Boulevard are planted in front of recent

construction or rehabilitation projects and the W 137TH ST

Police Station. Except for the Circle, at 110th W 136TH ST CONVENT AVE. Street, and the recent proposal to redesign it as a AMSTERDAM AVE. W 135TH ST memorial to Frederick Douglass, there are no St. Nicholas Park W 134TH ST major public spaces along the boulevard, not

W 133RD ST

even where it intersects 125th Street. Thus, it is safe to say that the boulevard reads as a large W 132ND ST

W 131ST ST FIFTH AVE. MADISON AVE residential avenue rather than as a citywide MALCOLM X BLVD. ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. heritage trail, as Adam Clayton Powell Jr. or

Malcolm X Boulevards do. W 129TH ST COMMUNITY BOARD 10 COMMUNITY BOARD 11 COMMUNITY BOARD

W 128TH ST

Existing Land Use Patterns W 127TH ST

W 126TH ST Traditional land use patterns in Harlem show CONVENT AVE. commercial development located along East- W 125TH ST West corridors, rather than along North - South W 124TH ST AMSTERDAM AVE.

ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST avenues. Furthermore, major cross streets are

W 122ND ST Marcus Garvey specialized in different commercial /institutional Park

th activities. For example, 135 Street is a cultural W 121ST ST OMNT OR 9 BOARD COMMUNITY th 10 COMMUNITY BOARD

W 120TH ST strip; 116 Street provides neighborhood retail; MADISON AVE th MALCOLM X BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. FIFTH AVE. MORNINGSIDE AVE. and 125 Street provides citywide comparative FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD COMMUNITY BOARD 10 COMMUNITY BOARD 11 COMMUNITY BOARD shopping. Another cross street - 120th Street - W 118TH ST

acts as an institutional corridor, linking several

W 117TH ST schools to one of the entrances to Morningside

W 116TH ST Park.

W 115TH ST

W 114TH ST Morningside Provision of retail and support services should Park

follow the urban patterns observed in this part of W 113TH ST

Harlem. Emphasis should be placed on W 112TH ST th FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE.

W 111TH ST FIFTH AVE. redeveloping 116 Street as a neighborhood MALCOLM X BLVD. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

th retail strip; emphasizing 125 Street as a CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST) regional commercial corridor and 135th Street as Central Park W 109TH ST the site for community/cultural amenities.

Frederick Douglass Boulevard would absorb the Historic Districts, Designated Landmarks, Community Landmarks spill over from these streets, where they intersect. 120th Street’s role as neighborhood Significant Residential Structures institution link can be enhanced with proper Landscaped Areas streetscaping. Frederick Douglass Blvd. Corridor Continuity of Street Walls Community District Boundary

The old urban fabric shows built-to-the-street- Open Space line development, with uniform frontages and continuous street walls, even when these are constituted of buildings designed by different constructors.

The assemblage of full frontage sites for new construction or for rehabilitation along the boulevard should be encouraged so as to achieve uniformity of bulk distribution and consistent treatments of facades and sidewalks.

Map 2. 1: Context Map

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 3 Density and Coverage 100’ There are differences in the urban fabric along the Boulevard between its southern portion (110th Street to 125th Street) and its northern portion (125th Street to 135th Street). The southern end consists of mid-rise, high coverage, and high-density buildings, whereas the northern portion consists of higher-rise, low coverage, high-density buildings. Frederick Douglass Boulevard

Appropriate strategies will be developed in recognition of the diversity of the contexts of intervention. Strategies will be specifically related to sectors along the avenue. A change from the present zoning (R7-2) to a contextual zoning (R7X and R7A) would allow for the development of appropriate building types both in the northern section and in the southern section of the Boulevard.

Light and Air

Contrary to other avenues in Harlem, Frederick Douglass Boulevard is only 100 feet wide, as compared to 150 feet for Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard or Malcolm X Boulevard. It also Frederick Douglass Boulevard does not enjoy planted medians, as the other two avenues. Thus, in order to preserve good light and air for present and future development of the Boulevard, without losing the quality of 150’ continuity of the street wall, maximum building heights along the boulevard are critical, as well as the preservation of mid-block open spaces within residential developments.

Contextual zoning may be the single-most efficient tool for reproducing what is good about the present environment and introducing further improvements with new developments. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard/Malcolm X Boulevard

Malcolm X Boulevard

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 4 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

W 136TH ST

There are 1,465 tax lots within the boundaries of W 135TH ST the Frederick Douglass Boulevard Project Area. Lots were classified according to land use,

St. Nicholas occupancy status, building condition, and W 134TH ST Park

ownership.

Land Use W 133RD ST

• Reflecting the primary land use in Harlem, W 132ND ST

the Frederick Douglass Boulevard corridor is predominately residential. UTAP's site

survey found that 1,042 lots or 71 percent of W 131ST ST

the lots in the Project Area are used for this ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE

purpose. With the exception of the blocks ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD.

along 125th Street, nearly every block in the ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

area is predominantly residential. W 129TH ST

• Only 78 lots (5 percent) are used primarily

W 128TH ST for commercial purposes. Most of these are found at the intersection of Frederick

th Douglass Boulevard and West 125 Street. W 127TH ST

Other concentrations of commercial activity are located where the retail strips of West 116th and West 135th Streets intersect W 126TH ST

Frederick Douglass Boulevard. CONVENT AVE.

W 125TH ST • Sixty-six lots scattered throughout the

Project Area contain public or institutional

uses - the largest of which are occupied by W 124TH ST public schools. Other institutional uses

include numerous religious institutions, a ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST new facility housing local Police Athletic League activities, Police Stations and Fire

W 122ND ST

Houses. (See Appendix A: Services.)

• Three lots contain parks owned by the NYC W 121ST ST

Department of Parks and Recreation. These parks consist of landscaped triangles at the W 120TH ST intersections of St. Nicholas Avenue and th rd MANHATTAN AVE. West 116 and West 123 streets, MORNINGSIDE AVE. respectively, and at the intersection of FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD Manhattan and Morningside avenues.

W 118TH ST • Industrial use occupies just one lot in the Project Area. An MTA utilities facility rd W 117TH ST

occupies a lot on West 133 Street between St. Nicholas Avenue and Frederick Douglass Boulevard. W 116TH ST

W 115TH ST

W 114TH ST

Morningside Park

Residential W 113TH ST

Commercial

Public/Institutional W 112TH ST

Industrial FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST

Vacant Lot ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

Open Space

CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Central Park Map 2. 2: Land Use

W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 5 • Approximately 19 percent of all lots in the

W 136TH ST neighborhood consist of vacant land.

Vacant lots are scattered throughout the

Project Area, although most large W 135TH ST concentrations are found along Frederick

Douglass Boulevard. Of the total 275 St. Nicholas W 134TH ST individual vacant lots in the Project Area, Park nearly 50 percent front the boulevard or abut

fronting lots. W 133RD ST

W 132ND ST Table 2. 1: Land Use

Total Lots 1,465 100.0% W 131ST ST

Residential 1,042 71.1% ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD.

Public/Institutional 66 4.9% ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. Open Space 3 0.2%

Vacant Land 275 18.7% W 129TH ST

Industrial 1 0.1% Commercial 78 5.3% W 128TH ST

Source: UTAP site survey

W 127TH ST

W 126TH ST Occupancy Status CONVENT AVE.

W 125TH ST • Sixty-seven percent (979) of the lots in the area have occupied buildings, while there are 208 lots with vacant buildings. W 124TH ST

• All but eight of the vacant buildings are

residential buildings, and nearly all have ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST

poor exterior conditions.

W 122ND ST • Eighty-eight of the 1,042 residential

buildings (42 percent) are vacant city-owned buildings. W 121ST ST

W 120TH ST

Table 2. 2: Occupancy Status MANHATTAN AVE. MORNINGSIDE AVE.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD

Total Lots 1,465 100.0%

Occupied Buildings 979 66.8% W 118TH ST Vacant Buildings 208 14.2%

Vacant Land 275 18.7% W 117TH ST Open Space 3 0.2%

Source: UTAP site survey W 116TH ST

W 115TH ST

W 114TH ST

Morningside Park

W 113TH ST Occupied

Vacant Building

W 112TH ST Vacant Lot

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

Publicly-Owned

CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Central Park Map 2. 3: Occupancy Status

W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 6 Building Exterior / Facade Conditions

W 136TH ST • Approximately half (573, or 48 percent) of

the buildings in the area have W 135TH ST exteriors/facades in fair condition. Thirty- one percent (371) of the buildings have

St. Nicholas W 134TH ST exteriors/facade in good condition. About Park

20 percent (243) of the buildings have exteriors/facades in poor condition.

W 133RD ST

• Buildings in poor condition are scattered throughout the neighborhood. However, W 132ND ST

such buildings tend to be small and are often

clustered in the inner portion of the block. W 131ST ST

• The City owns 100 of the buildings with ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD.

exteriors/facades in poor condition. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

W 129TH ST

Table 2. 3: Building Exterior/Facade Conditions

W 128TH ST

Buildings 1,187 100.0%

Good 371 31.2% W 127TH ST Fair 573 48.3% Poor 243 20.5% W 126TH ST

Source: UTAP site survey CONVENT AVE.

W 125TH ST

W 124TH ST

ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST

W 122ND ST

W 121ST ST

W 120TH ST

MANHATTAN AVE. MORNINGSIDE AVE.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD

W 118TH ST

W 117TH ST

W 116TH ST

W 115TH ST

W 114TH ST

Morningside Park

Poor W 113TH ST

Fair

W 112TH ST Good

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. Publicly-Owned

CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Map 2. 4: Building Conditions Central Park

W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 7 Retail Conditions W 136TH ST The following describes the occupancy status

and distribution by type of commercial W 135TH ST establishments along the Frederick Douglass Boulevard corridor and the immediate bordering

St. Nicholas W 134TH ST east/west retail strips. Park

• There are 226 storefronts along the targeted W 133RD ST corridor of Frederick Douglass Boulevard.

• Over 40 percent or 92 of these storefronts W 132ND ST

are vacant.

W 131ST ST • Retail trade establishments account for 31.9

percent (72 stores) of all storefronts within ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD.

the Project Area. These retail groups can be ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. described as any business engaged in selling

merchandise for personal or household W 129TH ST

consumption and in rendering services

associated to the sale of these goods. W 128TH ST

• Food stores comprise 37.5 percent (27 W 127TH ST stores) of the Retail Trade establishments and 11.9 percent of the total number of

stores surveyed. W 126TH ST

• Service centered establishments comprise CONVENT AVE. the third largest group with 22.9 percent of W 125TH ST the storefronts along the targeted section of

the Boulevard. All service establishments W 124TH ST within the Project Area are classified under these groups: Personal, Business and Other. ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST

• Personal Services account for 80 percent of all the service establishments within the W 122ND ST

Project Area, and represent the largest

number, 18.1 percent, of retail W 121ST ST establishments within the Project Area.

W 120TH ST

MANHATTAN AVE.

MORNINGSIDE AVE.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD

W 118TH ST

W 117TH ST

W 116TH ST

W 115TH ST

W 114TH ST Morningside Park

W 113TH ST

W 112TH ST

Occupied Store

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST

Vacant Store ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

Vacant Lot

CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Central Park Map 2. 5: Retail Occupancy

W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 8 W 136TH ST

Table 2. 4: Retail Distribution by SIC Division - Major Group(s)

SIC Division % SIC % All W 135TH ST Major Group(s) Division Stores

St. Nicholas Retail Trade 72 31.9% Park W 134TH ST Food Stores 27 11.9%

Eating/Drinking Places 18 8.0% W 133RD ST

Other 15 6.6%

Apparel/Accessories 9 4.0% General Merchandise 3 1.3% W 132ND ST

Services 51 22.6% W 131ST ST Personal 41 18.1% Other 9 4.0% ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE ST. NICHOLAS AVE. Business 1 0.4% FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD.

ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

Vacant/Not Occupied 92 40.7% W 129TH ST

F.I.R.E. 3 1.3% Manufacturing 1 0.4% W 128TH ST Non-Classifiable 7 3.1%

Total Retail Outlets 226 100.0% W 127TH ST

W 126TH ST CONVENT AVE.

W 125TH ST

Services Vacant

22.6% 40.7% W 124TH ST

ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST

W 122ND ST

Retail Other Trade 4.9%

31.9% W 121ST ST

W 120TH ST

Chart 2. 1: Retail Distribution by SIC Division MANHATTAN AVE.

MORNINGSIDE AVE.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD

W 118TH ST

W 117TH ST

W 116TH ST

W 115TH ST

W 114TH ST Morningside Park

W 113TH ST

Trade

W 112TH ST Services FIRE/Manufacturing

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST

Non Classifiable Establishment ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

Map 2. 6: Retail Distribution CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST) Central Park

W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 9 Existing Zoning

W 136TH ST Residential District - R7-2 C1-2C1-2 R7-2 is a general residence district that C1-2C1-2 R8R8 W 135TH ST encourages medium density apartment buildings C1-2C1-2 found in much of Upper Manhattan and the C1-2C1-2 St. Nicholas W 134TH ST Bronx. Allowances typically produce 6-story Park buildings built to the street line to 14-story R7-2R7-2 buildings that are set back from the street and W 133RD ST have greater open spaces at the base. Parking R8R8 requirements reflect the fact that, in general, most of these districts have good access to public W 132ND ST

transportation. Parking spaces must be provided C1-2C1-2

for at least 50 percent of new dwelling units. W 131ST ST

Examples of recent housing construction on ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE R8R8 ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. R7-2R7-2 Frederick Douglass Boulevard under R7-2 R7-2R7-2 ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. regulations include the Charles Hill Towers at C1-2C1-2 th th West 111 Street, Prince Hall at West 113 W 129TH ST

Street, and Canaan Baptist Senior Housing at West 118th Street. It is estimated that W 128TH ST approximately 96 buildings or 51 percent of all structures fronting Frederick Douglass R8R8 Boulevard in the R7-2 district are built to a bulk W 127TH ST

greater than the maximum allowable FAR of C1-2C1-2 C1-2C1-2

3.44. W 126TH ST

C4-4C4-4 C4-7C4-7 Residential District - R8 C4-4C4-4 C4-7C4-7 CONVENT AVE. R8 is a general residence district that allows W 125TH ST development to occur at approximately two- C4-5C4-5 C4-4C4-4 C4-4C4-4 thirds greater density than what is allowed in R7 W 124TH ST districts. R8 districts are found across from the R8R8 C2-2C2-2 major parks bordering the Project Area to the R7-2R7-2

West and South. Two other R8 districts ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST accommodate two large apartment buildings in the context area: one built by St. Phillip's Church W 122ND ST

R8R8 on West 133rd Street and another, the Ennis th C2-2C2-2 Francis Houses, at the corner of West 124 Street and Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard. W 121ST ST

Parking spaces are required for 40 percent of C1-2C1-2 C2-2C2-2

W 120TH ST new units constructed in R8 districts.

C1-2C1-2 MANHATTAN AVE. MORNINGSIDE AVE.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD

W 118TH ST R7-2R7-2

C1-2C1-2

W 117TH ST Commercial

C1 - 9 C1-2C1-2 R7-2R7-2 W 116TH ST

C4 - 4 C1-2C1-2

C4 - 5 W 115TH ST C4 - 7 R8R8

C1 - 2 overlay W 114TH ST Morningside C2 - 2 overlay Park

Residential W 113TH ST R7-2R7-2

C1-2C1-2

R7 - 2 W 112TH ST

R8 FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

Open Space R-8R-8

C1-9C1-9 CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Map 2. 7: Existing Zoning Central Park

W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 10 Commercial District - C1-2 C1-2 is a local shopping and services district that is designed to accommodate the retail and personal service shops needed in residential neighborhoods. These districts are often mapped as an overlay in otherwise residentially zoned neighborhoods. Commercial overlays allow a small portion of a residential district - usually the first and second floors of buildings fronting major avenue or wide streets - to be used for retail and service stores. Typical uses include grocery stores, small dry cleaners, restaurants, barber shops and other businesses that cater to the daily needs of the immediate neighborhood.

Commercial District - C2-2 C2-2 is also a local shopping and services district, but it permits a wider range of establishments than C1-2 districts and is intended to serve a larger neighborhood. Like C1 districts, C2-2 districts are often mapped as an overlay in otherwise residentially zoned neighborhoods. Additional permitted uses in C2 districts include funeral homes, business and trade schools, bowling alleys and other businesses that could not be supported by a smaller neighborhood.

Within the Project Area, a C1-2 overlay occurs along most of Frederick Douglass Boulevard with three exceptions. On the western side of the boulevard, the block between West 110th and West 111th Streets, where Towers on the Park is located, is zoned C1-9. Between West 122nd and West 126th Streets, C4-4 and C4-5 zoning allow for heavier commercial activities. A C2-2 overlay stretches down along Frederick Douglass Boulevard from the heavier commercial districts along West 125th Street to West 121st Street.

A C1-2 overlay also occur along most of Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard, the eastern portion of St. Nicholas Avenue between West 121st and West 119th Streets, and along the cross-town shopping corridors of West 135th and West 116th Streets. A C2-2 overlay occurs along Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard from West 124th Street to West 120th Street.

Commercial Districts - C4-4, C4-5 and C4-7 Middle portions of the Project Area near West 125th Street are zoned C4. C4 districts are general commercial districts that provide for shopping centers and offices in areas of moderate density. Located outside of the central business districts, C4 districts allow department stores, theaters and other commercial uses that serve a larger area. C4 districts are not mapped as overlays and do not permit uses that would interrupt the desired continuous retail frontage. C4-4 allows building densities up to 3.4 FAR and C4-5 bulk regulations are equivalent to those of R7. In addition to shopping centers, C4-7 districts accommodate office buildings that may be built with an FAR of up to 12 with bonuses. As in most other high- density commercial districts, C4 districts are exempt from parking requirements for commercial uses.

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 11 DEMOGRAPHICS

The Frederick Douglass Boulevard Project Area occupies the southern boundary of Community District 10. It is comprised of twenty-seven block groups in fourteen th 8th Ave. census tracts that extend from West 110 Street to West Community th Project Site 135 Street between Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard Dis tr ict 10 28.6% to the east and Manhattan, Morningside and St. Nicholas 71.4% Avenues along its western boundary. The following pages contain data and summaries on the following demographic characteristics: population, race and ethnicity, age and educational attainment, households and income, labor force and employment, and poverty status. Chart 2. 2: Total Population, 1990 The data is organized to highlight the prevailing population trends between 1980 and 1990 within the boundaries of the Project Area. 10% Total Population Manhatta n In 1990, the total population of the Project Area was 8th Ave. 5% 4.2% 28,199, or approximately 28.6 percent of all persons Project CD 10 living in Community District 10. Site -6.3% -7.9% 0% The Project Area population decreased by 2,407 persons or 7.9 percent between 1980 and 1990 in tandem with the population of Community District 10, which decreased at -5% a slightly lower rate of 6.3 percent.

-10%

Chart 2. 3: Total Population, percent change 1980 - 1990 Table 2. 5: Total Population, 1980 - 1990 % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990

Manhattan County 1,428,285 1,487,536 4.1% Community District 10 105,412 71.4% 98,747 6.6% -6.3% 8th Ave. Project Area 30,606 29.0% 28,199 28.6% -7.9%

Source: US Census

Distribution by Race and Ethnicity

• In 1990, the Black and Hispanic population totaled 27,010 persons or 95.8 percent of the Project Area's total population despite a decrease of 10.7 percent between 1980 and 1990. White 3.0% • During this period the Black population within the Black Other area decreased by 16.7 percent while the Hispanic 87.0% 1.3% population tripled in size to comprise 8.8 percent. Hispanic 8.7% • The number of White persons also tripled in size between 1980 and 1990 to equal 3 percent of the Project Area's population in 1990 as opposed to 0.9 percent in 1980.

• Although the number of persons within the 'Other' Chart 2. 4: Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1990 racial group only represented 1.3 percent of the population in 1990, it also increased dramatically between 1980 and 1990.

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 12 Table 2. 6: Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1980 - 1990 % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990

Black (Non Hispanic) 29,475 96.3% 24,539 87.0% -16.7% White (Non Hispanic) 269 0.9% 836 3.0% 210.8% Other (Non Hispanic) 91 0.3% 353 1.3% 287.9% Hispanic 771 2.5% 2,471 8.7% 220.5%

Total Persons 30,606 28,199 -7.9% Source: US Census

Age Distribution

• The number of persons under 20 years old decreased by 4.2 percent between 1980 and 1990, and accounted for 28.5 percent (8,040 persons) of the Project Area’s total population.

• The number of persons 20-44 years old increased by 11.7 percent between 1980 and 1990 to equal 39.2 percent of the area’s total population in 1990.

• The population ages of 45-64 decreased significantly by 31.6 percent during the same period, and represented 18.5 percent of the Site’s total population (5,218 persons) in 1990.

• The number of persons over 65 years and older also decreased by approximately 25 percent since 1980 to 13.8 percent of the total population in 1990.

Table 2. 7: Age Distribution, 1980 - 1990 % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990

Under 5 years 1,907 6.2% 2,217 7.9% 16.3% 5-9 1,688 5.5% 1,985 7.0% 17.6% 10-14 2,232 7.3% 1,784 6.3% -20.1% 15-19 2,567 8.4% 2,054 7.3% -20.0% 20-24 2,367 7.7% 2,613 9.3% 10.4% 25-34 3,821 12.5% 4,712 16.7% 23.3% 35-44 3,711 12.1% 3,732 13.2% 0.6% 45-54 3,324 10.9% 2,686 9.5% -19.2% 55-64 4,310 14.1% 2,532 9.0% -41.3% 65-74 3,146 10.3% 2,348 8.3% -25.4% 75 and older 1,533 5.0% 1,536 5.4% 0.2%

Total Population 30,606 28,199 -7.9% Source: US Census

Chart 2. 5: Age Distribution, Total Population, 1990

75 and older 1,536 2,348 55-64 2,532 2,686 35-44 3,732 4,712 20-24 2,613 2,054 10-14 1,784 1,985 Under 5 yrs 2,217

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 13 Educational Attainment

• In 1990, 44.1 percent of the Project Area’s total High population 25 years or older did not have a high Some School school diploma. College Diploma/G 20.0% ED • Exactly 26 percent had a high school diploma and 26.0% 29.9 percent had at least some college experience. Four or more • years of The number of Project Area residents with some college college experience and those with four years or more 9.9% both increased between 1980 and 1990 by 157.3 Less than percent and 155.5 percent respectively. 9th-12th 9th grade grade 16.5% • Although the total number of persons 25 years or 27.7% older without a high school diploma decreased by 33.3 percent, the change was primarily evident within Chart 2. 6: Educational Attainment, 1990 the group of those with less than a 9th grade education, which dropped by 52.1 percent.

• The number of persons with only a High School/GED education also decreased by 24.2 percent.

Table 2. 8: Educational Attainment, 1980 - 1990 % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990

Highest grade/degree completed Less than 9th grade 6,026 30.6% 2,887 16.5% -52.1% 9th-12th grade 5,579 28.4% 4,853 27.7% -13.0% High School Diploma/GED 6,016 30.6% 4,559 26.0% -24.2% Some College 1,365 6.9% 3,512 20.0% 157.3% Four or more years of College 679 3.5% 1,735 9.9% 155.5%

Persons 25 years old or older 19,665 17,546 -10.8% Source: US Census

Households by Family Type

• In 1990, only 53.2 percent of all households within the Area were family households − the majority of Male which were represented by Single Female Headed He ade d families (61.1 percent) and Married Couple families 6.0% (27.6 percent). Married Non- Couple Fam ily • Between 1980 and 1990 the number of Married 14.7% 46.9% Couple families decreased by 38.5 percent, while the number of Male and Female Headed families increased by 46.6 and 16.2 percent. Fem ale • Approximately half of all Family households had at He ade d least one member under 18 years old; single parents 32.5% headed 72.3 percent of those households.

Chart 2. 7: Households by Family Type, 1990 • Approximately 46.9 percent of all households were categorized as non-Family households1. This group decreased by 19.3 percent between 1980 and 1990.

1 Non Family Households are comprised of singles living alone or unrelated individuals living together. Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 14 Table 2. 9: Total Households by Family Type, 1980 - 1990 % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990

Married Couple Families 2,707 20.9% 1,664 14.7% -38.5% w/ children < 18 yrs 1,073 39.6% 651 39.1% -39.3% w/out children < 18 yrs 1,634 60.4% 1,013 60.9% -38.0%

Male Headed Families 461 3.6% 676 6.0% 46.6% w/ children < 18 yrs 134 29.1% 238 35.2% 77.6% w/out children < 18 yrs 327 70.9% 438 64.8% 33.9%

Female Headed Families 3,165 24.5% 3,679 32.5% 16.2% w/ children < 18 yrs 1,915 60.5% 1,944 52.8% 1.5% w/out children < 18 yrs 1,250 39.5% 1,735 47.2% 38.8%

Non-Family Households 6,589 51.0% 5,316 46.9% -19.3%

Total Households 12,922 11,335 -12.3% Source: US Census

Median Household Income

• The median household income for the Project Area was $12,802 − 39.7 percent of the Manhattan's median in 1990 and 4.5 percent higher than the median income of all households in Community District 10.

• Between 1980 and 1990, the median household income in the Project Area increased by 5 percent while the median income for Community District 10 decreased by 8 percent.

Table 2. 10: Median Household Income, 1980 - 1990 % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990

Manhattan County 23,553 32,262 37.0% Community District 10 13,314 12,251 -8.0% 8th Ave. Project Area 12,196 12,802 5.0%

Source: US Census

Manhattan Manhattan $32,262 37.0% 32000 40 8th Ave. 8th Ave. 24 Project 24000 Project CD10 Area CD 10 Area 8 -8.0% 5.0% 16000 $12,251 $12,802 -8 8000 -24 0

Chart 2. 8: Median Household Income, 1990 Chart 2. 9: Median Household Income, percent change 1980 - 1990

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 15 Household Income Distribution

• Approximately three-quarters of all households in the Project Area earned less than the citywide median 42,500 or more household income in 1990. 13.2% $35,000- 42,499 • Households earning very low incomes (under 5.3% $10,000) decreased by 12.7 percent between 1980 $27,500- Under and 1990 yet represented the highest percentage (44 34,999 $10,000 percent) of all household income groups in 1990. 6.5% 44.0%

$17,500- • In 1990, households earning $42,500 or more 27,499 accounted for 13.2 percent of all households, 14.3% compared to 4.2 percent in 1980. Among these $10,000- households, those earning greater than $60,000 more 17,499 than quadrupled between 1980 and 1990. 16.6%

Chart 2. 10: Household Income Distribution, 1990 Table 2. 11: Household Income Distribution, 1980 - 1990 % Change 1980* 1990 1980-1990

Household Income Under $10,000 5,712 44.2% 4,988 44.0% -12.7% $10,000 - 17,499 3,411 26.4% 1,885 16.6% -44.7% $17,500 - 27,499 1,762 13.6% 1,624 14.3% -7.8% $27,500 - 34,999 981 7.6% 740 6.5% -24.6% $35,000 - 42,499 512 4.0% 604 5.3% 18.0% $42,500 - 59,999 389 3.0% 795 7.0% 104.4% $60,000 or more 155 1.2% 699 6.2% 351.0%

Total Households 12,922 11,335 -12.3% Source: US Census *Adjusted to 1990 dollars.

Poverty and Dependency

• In 1990, nearly one half of the Project Area’s population was living below the poverty level despite a 15.7 percent decrease between 1980 and 1990. Below • Approximately one third of the population living Pov. Level under 18 Above under the poverty level were under 18 years of age. 13.9% Pov. Level 59.2% • Nearly 30 percent of all households in the Project Area received income support in the form of Aid to Below Pov. Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or Home Level Relief in 1990. over 18 26.9%

• The number of publicly assisted households decreased by 14.5 percent between 1980 and 1990. Chart 2. 11: Poverty Status by Age, 1990

Table 2. 12: Poverty Status by Age, 1980 - 1990 % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990

Above Poverty Level 17,165 56.3% 16,319 59.2% -4.9% Below Poverty Level 13,341 43.7% 11,251 40.8% -15.7% Under 18 years - 3,832 34.1% - 18 years and over - 7,419 65.9% -

Persons for whom poverty status is determined 30,506 27,570 -9.6% Source: US Census

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 16 Table 2. 13: Public Assistance, 1980 - 1990 % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990

Households w/ public assistance 3,908 32.1% 3,342 29.5% -14.5% Households w/o public assistance 8,284 67.9% 7,993 70.5% -3.5%

Total Households 12,192 11,335 -7.0% Source: US Census

Labor Force

• In 1990, the labor force of the Project Area consisted of 11,244 persons or 51.5 percent of all persons 16 years or older; this represents an increase of 11.7 percent since 1980 when the labor force was only 41.5 percent of the total population within the area.

• Unemployment decreased slightly between 1980 and w/out Public Assist. 1990 from 18.4 percent of the labor force in 1980 to Public Assist. 29.5% 17.1 percent in 1990. 70.5%

• Male unemployment decreased by 0.9 percent between 1980 and 1990, while female unemployment increased by 9.3 percent. Although both groups represent double-digit unemployment rates, 21 and Chart 2. 12: Public Assistance, 1990 13 percent respectively.

Table 2. 14: Labor Force Participation, 1980 - 1990 % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990

In Labor Force 10,070 41.5% 11,244 51.5% 11.7% Males 5,290 21.8% 5,475 25.1% 3.5% Employed, not military 4,134 78.1% 4,329 79.1% 4.7% Unemployed 1,156 21.9% 1,146 20.9% -0.9% Females 4,780 19.7% 5,769 26.4% 20.7% Employed, not military 4,074 85.2% 4,997 86.6% 22.7% Unemployed 706 14.8% 772 13.4% 9.3%

Total Employed 8,208 81.5% 9,326 82.9% 13.6% Total Unemployed 1,862 18.5% 1,918 17.1% 3.0%

Not in Labor Force 14,205 58.5% 10,603 48.5% -25.4% Males 5,598 23.1% 4,092 18.7% -26.9% Females 8,607 35.5% 6,511 29.8% -24.4%

Persons 16 years or older 24,275 21,847 -10.0% Source: US Census

Employment by Occupation

• Between 1980 and 1990, the number of persons with Managerial and Professional Specialty jobs doubled. Not in This group is generally characterized by high wage Labor In Labor jobs and in 1990, 19.6 percent of the Project Area’s Force Force labor force was occupied in these fields. 48.5% 51.5%

• The number of persons in Sales and Service occupations increased by 5.2 percent between 1980 and 1990, and continued to represent the largest group with 59.9 percent of all the residents’ Chart 2. 13: Labor Force Participation, 1990 occupations in 1990.

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 17 • Although there was a decrease, 3.7 percent between 1980 and 1990, of persons in Manual labor-intensive occupations, they represented the second highest employment group with 20.5 percent of the Project Area’s labor force in 1990.

Table 2. 15: Employment by Occupation, 1980 - 1990 % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990

Occupation Category Managerial & Prof. Specialty 912 11.1% 1,825 19.6% 100.1% Tech, Sales & Admin. Support 2,675 32.6% 3,364 36.1% 25.8% Service 2,635 32.1% 2,224 23.8% -15.6% Farming, Forestry & Fishing 105 1.3% 67 0.7% -36.2% Precision, Craft & Repair 613 7.5% 566 6.1% -7.7% Operator/Fabricator/Laborer 1,268 15.4% 1,280 13.7% 0.9%

Total Employed Persons 8,208 9,326 13.6% Source: US Census

Employment by Industry

• In 1990, the Professional/Related Services industry was the largest employer accounting for 33.4 percent Service of all jobs held by Project Area residents. 23.8% Farm, Forest & Fish • This industry group was closely followed by the Tech, 0.7% Prec,Crft Transportation/Communication/Utilities and Sales & & Repair Construction/Manufacturing industries, which Admin. 6.1% combined employed 22.2 percent of the Project Support 36.1% Area's residents. Oper./Fab ./Lab • The Wholesale/Retail Trade and Service industries 13.7% accounted for 26.2 percent of all employed residents Man. & followed by the Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Prof. Spec industry, which accounted for 9.8 percent of the jobs 19.6% held by residents within the Project Area. Chart 2. 14: Employment by Occupation, 1990 • The industry group with the least number of residents (Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing industry) only represented 0.3 percent of the Project Area's employed labor force.

Table 2. 16: Employment by Industry, 1990 Whole/Ret. 1990 Trade Trans./ 13% F.I.R.E Industry Category Comm./Util 10% Agr/Forestry/Fish/Mining 32 0.3% 10% Construction/Manufacturing 1,103 11.8% Pers./Bus. Trans./Comm./Utilities 972 10.4% Constr./ Enter./Rec. Services Wholesale/Retail Trade 1,233 13.2% Manftr. 13% Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 913 9.8% 12% Pers./Bus./Enter./Rec. Services 1,209 13.0% Professional/Related Services 3,112 33.4% Public Public Administration 752 8.1% Admin. Prof. & 8% Related Services Total Employed Persons 9,326 34% Source: US Census

Chart 2. 15: Employment by Industry, 1990

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 18 Summary unemployment rate is nearly 21 percent. While the number of people within the area who are not in the labor The overall demographic profile of the Frederick force has decreased from 58.5 percent to 48.5 percent, it Douglass Boulevard Project Area is in some respects can be safely assumed that the change has mainly been consistent with the make-up of the Community District the result of a shift in the area’s population size. 10. In other ways it is different to the degree that its shift in composition appears to be more fluid and reflects a In structural terms the area is witnessing gentrification more intense degree of change. This corridor within its that is ever present through the out flow of poor East and West boundaries represents nearly 30 percent of households and the entry of higher income residents. the Community Board 10’s population. The Frederick Whereas, the racial change has, in some instances, the Douglass Boulevard corridor also continues to experience effect of offsetting as great a change in certain variables, population decline as Community Board 10, but to a in others, such as income distribution and household slightly greater degree, approximately six and eight composition, the changes are significant. The data percent respectively. Although, the size of population presented only records that information of the 1990 decrease is significantly lower than the double-digit census in comparison to 1980, but clearly, as we review figures of the 1970’s and 80’s when the area lost more other sectors of neighborhood data, it becomes evident than 30 percent of its population. In context of the that the year 2000 census will more than likely document Borough of Manhattan during that same period population greater structural shifts in the population and their loss was the dominant trend, as well, by the 1990’s the characteristics. Borough had reversed this trend, while the study area and the District continue to show decreases.

In reviewing other population characteristics such as race, income, employment, and poverty, it is evident that African American households, as the predominant racial group within the area, are most affected by the shifts identified within these categories. Between 1980 and 1990, the Hispanic and white population nearly tripled in size, although it is important to note that these populations are proportionally and relatively small in contrast to the black population, which comprises 87 percent of the area’s residents. During that same period Blacks were the only racial group to lose population by 16 percent, which accounts for an approximate 5,000-person decline that is not reflected in the overall population decline figures. The income data presented also shows a decrease in moderate, low and very low-income households and an increase of households earning greater than the moderate incomes gained. While very low-income households are proportionally a high percentage of all households, the trend is towards a small number of households earning a greater share of the area’s incomes.

Correspondingly, the number of residents in the upper occupational structure of managerial, technical and administrative employment has increased in size and the proportion of tradesmen and laborers has decreased. In contrast to the city’s economy, unemployment continued in the high double digits (17 percent) while the city’s unemployment rate was less than half that at eight percent for the same period. Particularly for males in the area, the

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 19 III. DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY W 136TH ST

Introduction

W 135TH ST In the following section, data and concepts 15 presented take into consideration the 16 St. Nicholas W 134TH ST redevelopment of Frederick Douglass Boulevard Park from the standpoint of its development potential and design characteristics. Considering its W 133RD ST

redevelopment in context of new construction and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock, W 132ND ST particularly its tenure and financial condition,

the following data is presented in brief as a basis for an approach to the revitalization of the W 131ST ST Boulevard.

ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. Rehabilitation and New Construction

W 129TH ST There are over 30 sites that can be considered for

development in the blocks fronting Frederick th th W 128TH ST Douglass Boulevard, from 110 Street to 135 Street. These sites consist of a combination of at 14

least three properties (vacant lots, vacant W 127TH ST buildings, buildings in poor condition), whether 13 privately or publicly owned. Of these, 16 have W 126TH ST been identified as critical to the redevelopment of the boulevard. (See Appendix B: Property CONVENT AVE. Inventory, Sites 1 - 16.) They consist of the W 125TH ST

largest sites and are directly connected to the

Boulevard frontage. Together, they represent approximately 13 acres of land and therefore, the W 124TH ST potential for over 1,700 dwelling units, as-of-

ST. NICHOLAS AVE. right, under the present zoning (R7-2). W 123RD ST

But not all sites should be considered for new W 122ND ST construction. As a way of maintaining and enhancing the old urban fabric, rehabilitation

should be considered, particularly in the W 121ST ST th southern portion of the study area, from 110 nd th 12 Street to 122 Street. North of 125 Street, new W 120TH ST construction should prevail. To insure that new

10 MANHATTAN AVE. 11 construction site frontages blend with the old MORNINGSIDE AVE.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST fabric in the southern section and with the mix of ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD tenements and towers in the northern section, 8 9

contextual zoning should be considered. W 118TH ST

Each site should be carefully reviewed to 7 W 117TH ST

establish how best to redevelop it. A quick overview of the potential redevelopment of the 6

16 sites shows that total redevelopment would W 116TH ST

yield over 650 rehabilitated units and approximately 1,500 units of new construction. 5 The exact number of units will increase from W 115TH ST 1,612 as-of-right (R7-2) to 2,000 dwelling units 4 when contextual zoning R7X is used along the W 114TH ST Morningside avenue and R7A for parcels within the block. Park (See Appendix C: Development Potential of 3 Sites.) W 113TH ST 2

W 112TH ST Occupied 1 Vacant Building FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

Vacant Lot

CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Publicly-Owned Central Park

Map 3. 1: Planning Concept W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 20 Sectional Strategy Residential Towers The planning strategy relies on the recognition that, along the Boulevard, opportunities for redevelopment follow existing land use patterns th and building typologies, and respond to the need W. 135 St. to insert the services and public spaces necessary to support the increase in population. Four sections have been identified along the Boulevard, between 110th Street and 135th Street.

126th Street to 135th Street Four large sites (sites 13 - 16) for redevelopment exist in this area. They should be developed following the pattern of bulk that exists in the area, i.e. higher rise towers with setbacks from the street wall line. Frederick Douglass Boulevard will appear "widened", when the 126th - 135th streets upper portion of new buildings will match the height and setback of existing towers. Commercial

122nd Street to 126th Street This is the commercial core of Harlem. The boulevard frontages should catch the retail overflow from 125th Street. The image of a busy commercial strip such as 125th Street can be stretched down to the intersection of Frederick Douglass Boulevard and St. Nicholas Avenue, with streetscape principles that continue the W. 125th St. streetscape features of the 125th Street corridor. Retail uses at ground levels should be extended to buildings as far down as 120th Street. 122nd - 127th streets 116th Street to 122nd Street

This section offers the best opportunity to Institutional transform the streetscape image of Frederick Douglass Boulevard, because of the large number of sites available for new construction on currently vacant land (sites 6 – 12). It also offers the opportunity to express the intersection of the boulevard with 116th Street as a major public focus and transportation node for the community. Residential amenities (i.e. professional offices, community services, etc.) rather than retail should be considered to fill the W. 120th St. numerous vacant ground-level frontages in existing buildings and in the new ground level spaces of new construction.

110th Street to 116th Street 115th - 123rd streets As it contains a large number of vacant buildings, this section is a candidate for a mix of rehabilitation and new construction. The mix of Vacant Buildings privately and publicly owned properties would determine the possibilities of assemblages (sites 1 – 5). The goal is to achieve full-frontage sites, so as to maximize the creation of a unified streetscape. Developments not conforming to the street wall continuity of the boulevard will be redesigned as part of the streetscape improvement plan. The re-use of vacant retail W. 116th St. space will be determined by the expenditure potential analysis.

Figure 3. 1: Four Sectors 110th - 117th streets

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 21 DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING

W 136TH ST STOCK

W 135TH ST

Most recent studies refer to the need to conduct redevelopment with a concern for displacement

St. Nicholas of low-income households, while introducing an W 134TH ST Park

income mix with higher income households. Our review of the data of City-owned occupied units and other distressed properties indicate that W 133RD ST

redevelopment of Frederick Douglass Boulevard necessitates a two-fold strategy that addresses W 132ND ST the existing housing stock as well as the

opportunities for new construction and rehabilitation. W 131ST ST

ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD.

ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. City Owned Occupied Stock

• There are currently 189 city-owned W 129TH ST occupied buildings containing 4,496

W 128TH ST dwelling units within the Project Area, which represent 30 percent of the existing

occupied housing units in the study area. W 127TH ST

• Of all city-owned occupied buildings, nine are within HPD’s Division of Alternate W 126TH ST Management Programs (DAMP). Seven of

these are being managed through the TIL CONVENT AVE. W 125TH ST program.

• Four city-owned occupied buildings have W 124TH ST been identified as candidates to enter into a

program under the Mayor's Building ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST Blocks! initiative. (One privately owned vacant building containing eight units is in

W 122ND ST

the NEP pipeline.)

• There are 22 HDFCs scattered throughout W 121ST ST

the area with the majority concentrated below 125th Street. In total, approximately W 120TH ST 574 housing units are contained in HDFCs. MANHATTAN AVE. MORNINGSIDE AVE. • Another form of housing development is the FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD 38 row houses on West 114th Street

developed and managed by NYCHA. W 118TH ST

• All but four buildings sold to tenants

W 117TH ST

through the TIL program are scattered throughout the portion of the Project Area below West 125th Street. Many of these W 116TH ST

HDFCs are large apartment buildings.

• Although approximately a quarter of all W 115TH ST

city-owned occupied residential buildings are involved in a housing management W 114TH ST

Morningside program, this represents only 11 percent of Park

such housing units, while 138 occupied buildings and 3,991 dwelling units are W 113TH ST presently under no program for disposition.

W 112TH ST HDFC

DAMP FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. Building Blocks! pipeline

City-Owned Occupied in Central Management CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Central Park Map 3. 2: Publicly-Supported Housing W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 22 Tax Arrears

W 136TH ST • More than half (883, or 60 percent) of the

lots in the Project Area are in tax arrears. W 135TH ST The owners of three-fourths of these lots (654) owe less than $10,000, while the

St. Nicholas W 134TH ST remaining quarter (229) of landlords in Park

arrears owe more than $10,000.

W 133RD ST • Between $10,000 and $100,000 is owed on

194 lots, and between $100,000 and $500,000 on 29 lots. The owners of three of W 132ND ST

the remaining six lots owe arrears in excess

of $1 million. W 131ST ST

• One hundred and seventy-nine properties in ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD.

arrears greater than $10,000 have either ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. active residential uses or are vacant

residential buildings. Half of all occupied W 129TH ST

units in the Project Area are on property in arrears. Thirty-nine are vacant lots. W 128TH ST

• Of the lots on which the arrears amount to greater than $10,000, 127 are owned by the W 127TH ST city: 87 by HPD, 37 by DCAS and the

remaining three by other agencies. One W 126TH ST hundred and two are in private hands.

Housing Development Fund Corporations CONVENT AVE. (HDFCs) owns eight of these properties, W 125TH ST representing 387 units.

W 124TH ST

ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST

W 122ND ST

W 121ST ST

W 120TH ST

MANHATTAN AVE. MORNINGSIDE AVE.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD

W 118TH ST

W 117TH ST

W 116TH ST

W 115TH ST

W 114TH ST

Morningside Park

W 113TH ST

W 112TH ST

Tax Arrears > $10,000 FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

Publicly-Owned

CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Central Park Map 3. 3: Tax Arrears

W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 23 Table 3. 1: Publicly-Supported Housing

Occupied Residential Occupied Residential Buildings Units Total 842 100% 14,605 100%

City Owned 189 22.4% 4,496 30.8% No Management Program 138 73.0% 3,991 88.8% Management Status 51 26.9% 505 11.2% DAMP 9 4.8% 160 3.6% Pipeline (Building Blocks!) 4 2.1% 47 1.0% NYCHA* 38 20.1% 298 6.6%

HDFCs (Privately-owned) 22 2.6% 574 3.9%

*Excludes St. Nicholas Houses Source: NYCHA, NYC Dept. of Housing Preservation and Development

Table 3. 2: Tax Arrears

Total Lots Occupied Residential Occupied Residential Buildings Units Total 1,465 100% 842 100% 14,605 100%

No Tax Arrears 582 39.7% 438 52.0% 8,825 60.4% In Tax Arrears 883 60.3% 404 48.0% 5,780 39.6% Less than $10,000 654 44.7% 275 32.6% 2,966 20.3% $10,000 or more 229 15.6% 129 15.3% 2,814 19.3%

Source: UTAP site survey, NYC Dept. of Finance

Table 3. 3: Tax Liens

Total Lots Occupied Residential Occupied Residential Buildings Units Total 1,465 100% 842 100% 14,605 100%

No Tax Liens 1,202 82.0% 680 52.0% 11,916 81.6% With Tax Lien History 263 18.0% 162 48.0% 2,689 18.4% Sold in 1997 14 0.9% 4 0.4% 23 0.1% Auction List, 1998 152 10.4% 90 10.7% 1,741 11.9% Auction List, 1999 146 9.9% 97 11.5% 1,410 9.7%

Multiple Listing 49 3.3% 29 3.4% 485 3.3%

Source: UTAP site survey, NYC Dept. of Finance

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 24 Tax Liens

W 136TH ST • Approximately 18 percent (263) of the lots

in the Project Area currently have tax liens W 135TH ST or have a recent history of tax liens. Forty- nine properties listed with liens in 1998

St. Nicholas W 134TH ST appear again on the 1999 auction list. Park

• Of the lots with tax lien histories, 162 have W 133RD ST occupied residential buildings on them.

Approximately 18 percent of all occupied residential units in the Project Area (2,689 W 132ND ST

units) are on properties that have had tax

liens in 1997, 1998 and/or in 1999. (See W 131ST ST Appendix D: Lien Status, May 1997 & May

1998.) ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD.

ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. • Two-thirds of all tax liens identified for

auction this May apply to occupied W 129TH ST

residential property. Five of these properties, representing 187 units, are W 128TH ST

owned by HDFCs. Seven other HDFCs had

liens in 1998. W 127TH ST

Summary

W 126TH ST One of the greatest hindrances to past efforts to develop Frederick Douglass Boulevard has been CONVENT AVE. the lack of stability of the surrounding W 125TH ST neighborhoods. The two most graphic examples of this problem are the preponderance of City- owned occupied and vacant buildings and land, W 124TH ST and numerous distressed properties. As

recognized in previous studies, displacement is ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST an issue of future development that all agree should be addressed. The most immediate W 122ND ST potential for displacement exists within the City- owned occupied housing and other distressed

properties. W 121ST ST

Although, these properties are often viewed as a W 120TH ST hindrance to development, it is the view of this MANHATTAN AVE. study that they are a tremendous development MORNINGSIDE AVE. opportunity for creating an equitable and vibrant FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD community. Within this context, Frederick

Douglass Boulevard is central as a connector of W 118TH ST various neighborhoods and residents, existing and new, through revitalization of the corridor

W 117TH ST and encouraging development within the neighborhoods.

W 116TH ST

W 115TH ST

W 114TH ST

Morningside Park

W 113TH ST

W 112TH ST

Lien Sale, May 1999 FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

Publicly Owned

CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Central Park Map 3. 4: Lien Status

W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 25 In the first instance, the planning and

W 136TH ST development strategy recognizes that redevelopment of the City-owned occupied housing stock offers the greatest potential for W 135TH ST mitigating displacement. City-owned occupied

residential buildings have historically St. Nicholas W 134TH ST represented the primary source of homeless Park households displaced by abandonment during

the previous two decades. Secondly, distressed W 133RD ST privately held properties such as those in tax arrears have been a significant source as well. W 132ND ST

Some would predict that in the coming decades development would be the next factor

contributing to the out flow of Harlem’s W 131ST ST

traditional households. As presented in the

demographic section of this report, population ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD.

lost has not been abated and the percent loss of ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

moderate and low-income households is very high relative to the overall population. W 129TH ST

W 128TH ST

Again, this is an opportunity for public/private intervention that could have an extraordinarily positive impact on the revitalization efforts, W 127TH ST considering the large concentration of buildings and units, 216 buildings with approximately 4,500 dwelling units and an estimated population W 126TH ST of 10,000 persons. In most instances the buildings are of appropriate scale for moderate CONVENT AVE. rehabilitation and consolidation, considering W 125TH ST actual unit vacancies that possibly exist. Also,

within this area, the organizing of tenant W 124TH ST associations within this stock by community based organizations has begun to register

successes in moving buildings through the ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST development process, particularly in the Tenant

Interim Lease Program and to HDFC status. W 122ND ST

It is recognized that this is not a simple problem W 121ST ST to tackle, but with the resources of the UMEZ,

Columbia University, Elected Officials and City

W 120TH ST agencies the solution is within reach. It is clear that the work to organize the tenants within these MANHATTAN AVE. MORNINGSIDE AVE. buildings is significantly under capacity and FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD resources available for programs such as TIL have been reduced and redirected. (See

Appendix E: City-owned Occupied Housing W 118TH ST

Clusters.)

W 117TH ST

W 116TH ST

W 115TH ST

W 114TH ST

Morningside Park

W 113TH ST

W 112TH ST

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

Lien Sale, Properties May 1998 reappearing May 1999

Publicly Owned CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Central Park

Map 3. 5: Lien Status W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 26 RETAIL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 1999. The increased expenditure capacity is expected to spill over to regional markets; nevertheless, the area is estimated to capture 28 percent or $23.1 million of its This section of the report examines the increased expenditure potential. expenditure potential impacting future retail growth in the area. The Project Area is divided into two sub-areas, Supportable Retail Space using 125th Street commercial corridor as a median. This area contains approximately 169,190 square feet of Definition of Primary Market Area & Analysis existing commercial space. Over 67,930 square feet is occupied by various goods and service establishments The primary market area for Sub-area One is bounded by (62,000 square feet) and non-conforming use or 110th Street to the South, Morningside/Manhattan unclassifiable establishments (15,930 square feet). The Avenues to the West, 124th Street to the North and Adam remaining 90,260 square feet of retail space is vacant. Clayton Powell, Jr. Boulevard to the East. The primary market area for Sub-area Two is bounded by 126th to the Based upon its expenditure potential and capture rate South, St. Nicholas Avenue to the West, 135th Street to standards, the Project Area has the capacity to support 63 the North and Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Boulevard to the additional stores or the reuse of approximately 47,000 East. square feet by next year and 83,000 square feet by the year 2002. According to the analysis, most of the new Potential secondary markets for both sub-areas would commercial development should include the retail include other areas of Harlem, Manhattan and the other categories of Food Stores, Eating and Drinking Places, four boroughs of New York City. For the purpose of this Apparel and Accessories, and Other Retail (i.e. Books, study, however, we focused only on the primary market Drug Stores, Newsstands, Florist, etc.). (See Appendix areas. We examined population and household F1: Expenditure Potential Model – Sub-area One.) formations as well as changes within the area's household income distribution.2 Sub-area Two

Sub-area One Projected Population Impact In 1990, the area was comprised of 4,463 households, a Projected Population Impact resident population of 10,778 persons and an average In 1990 the area contained nearly 16,524 persons and household size of 2.42 persons. The addition of 666 new 6,569 households with an average household size of 2.52 housing units to the area will increase the resident persons. It is projected that the inclusion of 1,399 new population by 1,612 persons or 15 percent and increase housing units into the area will increase the population by the number of households to 5,129. an estimated 3,497 persons and increase the number of households within the area to 7,968 households. This Projected Income Distribution & Expenditure Potential represents an increase of over 20 percent in population The proportionate number of households within the area from 16,524 to 20,021 persons based on an average with annual incomes under $10,000 will be reduced from household size of 2.52 at the completion of the new 44 percent to 38 percent while the number of households development. These figures represent a considerable with annual incomes of at least $40,000 per year is reversal of the area's prevailing negative trends. projected to increase to 25 percent from 14 percent. The average and median household income levels for the area Projected Income Distribution & Expenditure Potential will also increase by the year 2002 by approximately The housing strategy seeks to progressively increase the three percent and eight percent respectively. proportionate number of moderate to high-income Subsequently, the TPI within the area is projected to households within the area. Consequently, the proposed increase by $21.7 million to equal $123.2 million by the distribution of new units is based upon a proportionate year 2002. decrease of very low-income households (under $10,000) from 44 percent to 37 percent while increasing the The expenditure potential for goods and services for this percentage of moderate to middle income households area is estimated at $47.8 million by the year 2002 from ($40,000 and over) from 16 percent to 31 percent. $47.6 million in 1999. Although, the change in expenditure is relatively small, the sub-area is still In addition, both the average household income and estimated to capture a significant portion of its median household income are projected to increase into expenditure potential - $13.2 million. the next century by approximately six percent and eight percent respectively. The Total Personal Income (TPI) is Supportable Retail Space projected to increase by $61.9 million or 40 percent from Sub-area Two contains approximately 127,175 square feet $159.5 million in 1999 to $217 million in 2002. This of commercial/retail space. Approximately 87,500 square number results from aggregating the incomes from feet of it is occupied while the remaining 39,672 is proposed new households with those of existing vacant, occupied by a non-conforming or an households. unclassifiable use. Consequently, the area is under-served although it has the potential for future growth. This is The expenditure potential for goods and services, as supported by the area's household expenditure potential derived from the housing strategy, is estimated to total which indicates its capacity to support an additional 16 $80.9 million by the year 2002 from $57.8 million in retail trade or service establishments by the year 2000 or the reuse of a total of 38,400 square feet (23

2 establishments) by 2002. Again, most of the supportable Demographic information was obtained from Geolytics, Inc. and the retail/commercial development is within the retail 1990 U.S. Census. categories of Food Stores, Eating and Drinking Places, Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 27 Apparel and Accessories, and Other Retail (i.e. Hardware Store, Gift Shop, Personal Care Products, Pet Shop, etc.). (See Appendix F2: Expenditure Potential Model – Sub- area Two.)

Summary

Based upon the characteristics and figures considered within this study, the entire Project Area appears to have a sufficient amount of existing retail space to support both its present and prospective retail activity. Consequently, there is a potential for creating a surplus of retail space as a result of the proposed new construction within the area.

The designated area for retail development contains 157,000 square feet of retail space, of which 77,000 square feet is vacant. A total of 83,000 square feet of newly constructed retail space can be created within the designated urban design areas. This new retail space plus the existing vacant 77,000 square feet of retail space will total 160,000 square feet of developable space. (See Appendix F3: Retail Development Potential.)

Expenditure potential analysis has shown that area incomes will support an additional 54,000 square feet with the infusion of new households as a result of new construction and rehabilitation along the corridor. Since redevelopment of the designated areas would yield 160,000 square feet of retail space, and area incomes will support only 54,000 square feet a surplus of 106,000 square feet could be generated. It is anticipated that the build-out of the area’s surplus retail space potential will depend on housing development beyond the corridor.

It is important to note that our analysis is based upon a limited market area and only considers the development of new residential units proposed in this study. This analysis was designed to provide a preliminary sketch of the area’s retail market potential. We assume that a full- scale market study will provide a more definitive analysis. Based upon our preliminary findings, we suggest that the full build-out of the area’s retail capacity be implemented in stages and proceed conservatively.

Recreation, community, and office services are several of the commercial categories not found within the area because they require large concentrations of space that are not readily available within the existing configuration and distribution of available space. The level of new construction suggested as part of the proposed strategy presents the opportunity to increase service capacity within the missing retail categories through the provision of additional square footage.

In particular, the proposed strategy affords the opportunity to create available space for residential amenities that incorporate cultural, educational, recreational, and professional office activity on a community-wide basis. These services can initially begin to address the interests and needs of all social and economic strata of the community, such as childcare, legal, medical, and educational facilities and progressively or concurrently incorporate attractions such as entertainment and cultural centers.

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 28 IV. PROPOSED PLANNING AND DESIGN W 136TH ST GUIDELINES C1-2C1-2 R8R8 W 135TH ST

URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES

R7XR7X C1-2C1-2

St. Nicholas W 134TH ST The goal of this study was to prepare planning, Park urban design and streetscaping concepts to guide R7-2R7-2 C1-2C1-2 developments along Frederick Douglass C1-2C1-2 W 133RD ST th th Boulevard, between 110 Street and 135 Street. R8R8

The guidelines were designed to maximize the benefits of development for both existing and W 132ND ST

future residents of the corridor; to insure that C1-2C1-2

new developments fit into and enhance the W 131ST ST present qualities of Harlem's urban fabric; to

demonstrate how the use of contextual zoning ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE R8R8 ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. R7-2R7-2 and quality housing standards can make the area R7-2R7-2 ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD. supportive of current stake holders and attractive C1-2C1-2

to new buyers. W 129TH ST

W 128TH ST Maximize construction opportunities R7XR7X R8R8 To make development attractive to both W 127TH ST developers and the community, it is important to C1-2C1-2 maximize the buildable square footage without C1-2C1-2

changing the quality of the fabric. Upzoning is W 126TH ST neither necessary nor is it desirable. But, C4-4C4-4 C4-7C4-7 CONVENT AVE. upgrading zoning from R7-2 (which allows a W 125TH ST maximum FAR of 3.44) to contextual zone R7X C4-5C4-5 C4-4C4-4 (which allows for a maximum FAR of 5.0) can C4-4C4-4 create more units, while maintaining the special W 124TH ST R8R8 quality of the urban fabric. As quality-housing C2-2C2-2 standards are mandatory with contextual zoning, ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST the quality of individual dwelling units and common shared spaces will be substantially W 122ND ST upgraded. (See Appendix G1: Summary of R7X R8R8 R7BR7B

Building Volume and Density Controls.) C2-2C2-2

W 121ST ST

C1-2C1-2 C2-2C2-2

W 120TH ST R7XR7X

C1-2C1-2 MANHATTAN AVE. MORNINGSIDE AVE.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST

Commercial ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD R7AR7A

C1 - 9 W 118TH ST R7-2R7-2

C4 - 4 C1-2C1-2

W 117TH ST C4 - 5

C4 - 7 C1-2C1-2

C1 - 2 overlay W 116TH ST

C1-2C1-2 C2 - 2 overlay

W 115TH ST R8R8 Residential

R7XR7X W 114TH ST MorningsideR7XR7X Park R7AR7A Existing R7 - 2

Existing R8 W 113TH ST R7-2R7-2

Proposed R7X C1-2C1-2

W 112TH ST Proposed R7A

Proposed R7B FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

Open Space R-8R-8

C1-9C1-9 CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Central Park Map 4. 1: Zoning Concept

W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 29 Improve/create public spaces W 136TH ST

Opportunities to create public focal points exist

at the intersection of Frederick Douglass W 135TH ST

Boulevard with major cross streets and/or ! avenues: St. Nicholas Park W 134TH ST th • At 110 Street: the proposal for the Circle

developed by the Cityscape Institute should W 133RD ST

be supported.

• At 116th Street: the creation of corner public W 132ND ST

space with new construction should be

mandated as well as improvement to subway W 131ST ST entrances and maintenance of green spaces th

(community gardens) off 116 Street, near ST. NICHOLAS TERRACE ST. NICHOLAS AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD.

Morningside Park. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

• At 120th Street: setbacks along new W 129TH ST

construction and tree planting will

emphasize the street's role as an institutional W 128TH ST

connector. Locating other community amenities as infill along it should be W 127TH ST considered.

• At St. Nicholas Avenue: expanding and W 126TH ST improving the two triangles off 121st Street

as public spaces should be mandated. CONVENT AVE. W 125TH ST

• Specific sidewalk improvement designs

related to development sites fronting the W 124TH ST avenue and developments non-conforming to the continuous street wall will be

ST. NICHOLAS AVE. W 123RD ST implemented. Public amenities, such as bus

stops will be tied to improved sidewalks, wherever possible. W 122ND ST

Improve livability W 121ST ST

Contextual zoning is proposed as a means to slightly increase building density while W 120TH ST

mandating strict housing standards and allowing ! MANHATTAN AVE.

for the various building configurations that MORNINGSIDE AVE. FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. W 119TH ST correspond to the bulk constraints at the southern ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD and northern ends of the boulevard. R7X can achieve the two desired building envelopes. It W 118TH ST can be used along the Boulevard, as it is a wide B street. W 117TH ST

M M

W 116TH ST ! M M

W 115TH ST

W 114TH ST Morningside Park Institutional Frontages

Commercial Frontages W 113TH ST

B Sidewalk Treatment

W 112TH ST Landscaped Areas

B

Access to Park FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD. MANHATTAN AVE. W 111TH ST M Subway Entrance Improvements ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR. BLVD.

B New Bus Shelters CENTRAL PARK N (W. 110TH ST)

Central Park

Map 4. 2: Streetscape Concept W 109TH ST

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 30 R7X offers an increase of FAR over the present R7-2 (from 3.44 to 5.0) and, with proper disposition requirements, allows for the following desirable features: Maximum bldg. height: • Differentiation of building base from 125’ building above, with street wall controls. Minimum base height: • Expression of building corners. 60’ 10’ min. 15’ setback • Increasing the number of entrances along a setback frontage (residential and commercial entrances).

Furthermore, a change from R7X along the Boulevard to R7A along side streets will improve the fabric quality and make it more contextual.

Develop a new image

The proposed zoning strategy is built on two concerns. The first is to maximize the number of new residential units that can be built along the corridor, without taking away from the consistency and quality of the urban fabric. The Maximum second is to try and recreate the old fabric bulk base height: while insuring housing quality standards. It is 85’ proposed that R7X is the most appropriate mechanism to meet the concerns for the corridor.

The present building type (5 to 6-story tenements with 80- to 90 percent coverage) is not in compliance with the present zoning of R7-2. The existing FAR is close to 4.5, and therefore much larger than the 3.44 of R7-2. It is also substantially below the FAR of R8A, which has been suggested as an upzoning necessary to insure profitable redevelopment of the area. R7X offers the FAR closest to what presently exists and reflects the scale and density of extant buildings. In particular, the frontages along the Boulevard are in compliance with the proposed R7X. The inner portion of the block, along the side streets, is not as dense, and therefore would be redeveloped under R7A. (See Appendix G2: Comparison of R7X, R8 and R8A Bulk Controls.)

Contextual zoning establishes maximum heights for the base of buildings as well as maximum building heights. It allows thus for two types of building configurations. The first allows a maximum base height of 85 feet with a penthouse setback. The other allows for a building with the minimum base height of 60 feet with the rest of the bulk constituting a tower up to 125 feet. These two building types fit the requirements for two different responses to the development of sites in the southern portion and in the northern portion of Frederick Douglass Boulevard. The lower street wall with setback towers will be used for sites North of 125th Street, while the denser, 85 foot building base will be used in the southern sector.

Figure 4. 1: R7X Bulk Diagrams

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 31 Figure 4. 2: Proposed R7X Zoning

120th Street

Frederick Douglass Boulevard 117th Street St. Nicholas Avenue

Residential

Retail/ Residential Amenities

Entrances

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 32 STREETSCAPE PRINCIPLES

The streetscape is the most fragile aspect of any large reconstruction project. Yet, within the study area, the Boulevard and intersecting cross streets offer the only opportunity to create usable, public open spaces for the residential community. The streetscape should include focal points, safe places for residents’ activities as well as general improvement of lighting, paving, planting and street furniture. Streetscape principles will establish a new image for the Boulevard. They will determine the type and amount of public investments necessary to improve the public environment. 122nd St. Focal Points • At Frederick Douglass Circle (110th Street and Frederick Douglass Boulevard): the implementation of the proposed construction of a public memorial to Frederick Douglass is recommended.

• At St. Nicholas Avenue intersection with Frederick Douglass Boulevard: this intersection should be treated similarly to St Nicholas' intersections with other avenues. The very large sidewalk around the triangular block between 120th and 121st Streets will become a public extension of the commercial ground floor of the structure in the center. It will face the new, expanded green triangle, located between 121st and 121st St. 122nd Streets.

• Following the pattern of land use in Harlem, where streets rather than avenues are the commercial/institutional strips, special attention will be given to the land use and streetscape improvements of 110th Street (green; pedestrian) 116th Street (neighborhood convenience shopping and park access), 120th Street (institutional link and access to Morningside Park) and 135th Street (cultural/commercial and access to St Nicholas Park).

• Historical markers and signage at significant points can be added to the streetscape to th provide some historic context. 120 St.

Figure 4. 3: Streetscape Elevations: 123rd to 119th Streets

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 33 119th St.

Continuity • Encourage a staggered pattern of new construction and rehabilitation sites along the Boulevard to allow a better interface of the old and the new fabrics.

• Streetscape elements should expand on or be sympathetic to principles used in the redesign of 110th Street, 125th Street and 135th Street, respectively, near their intersection with the boulevard. The location and style of lighting standards and the choice of street furniture should conform to guidelines established for these areas.

118th St. • Visual continuity will be enhanced through the planting of trees. Tree planting along the avenue will be configured to support the residential presence along the Boulevard.

• New developments should complement the continuity of the existing fabric and its character (low and dense). Non-conforming recent developments should have their interface with the public realm redesigned.

• Special construction requirements would promote the detailing of the first two levels of new buildings as the services/retail base of the buildings. This will help transform the boulevard by giving it a more formal image. 117th St.

Sidewalk treatment • As Frederick Douglass Boulevard is much less wide than Adam Clayton Powell Jr. or Malcolm X Boulevard (100 ft. vs. 150 ft.), increase of the public space can only be achieved with a widening of the sidewalks through setback into properties or expansion of the sidewalk into the street bed.

• To remedy the deficit of public spaces and usable open space, new building footprints and first levels of buildings should maximize the creation of publicly used space at the ground level. Supervised as they will be by corner retail/services activities, these spaces will be safe gathering th spaces, increasing the utilization of the 116 St. Boulevard and side streets.

• Access to green open spaces (Morningside and St Nicholas Parks) should be improved where topography does not prevent use of the park space. The sidewalks of 116th, 120th and 135th Streets should receive special paving treatment and tree planting as they approach the Parks.

• Streetlight fixtures of a smaller scale than the existing light standards should be added to new sidewalks to bring lighting to pedestrians.

Figure 4. 4: Streetscape Elevations: 119th to 115th Streets

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 34 Figure 4. 5: Frederick Douglass Boulevard: Proposed Sidewalk Treatment

Figure 4. 6: Sidewalk Plan Frederick DouglassBoulevard Building Entrance

Pedestrian Lighting

Sidewalk Treatment

Benches

Building Entrance

Trees

20’

Figure 4. 7: Side Street: Proposed Sidewalk Improvements

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 35 V. RECOMMENDATIONS • Increasing the amount of public spaces available to residents along the boulevard and its The analysis of the Frederick Douglass Boulevard sidewalks; corridor, between 110th and 135th Street, has shown that planning policies and design principles to guide its future • Specifying special disposition requirements to development have to reflect the strengthening of the area control setbacks, building base expression; as a mixed-income, mid-density residential neighborhood. corners, entrances, etc. as well as landscaping principles. There are four major sets of recommendations that stem from this study: 4. Finally, to demonstrate the concepts contained in this study, a "First Action" plan is proposed. The "First 1. The most crucial aspects of the proposed Action" plan is designed to provide interventions by development strategy relate to actions to be taken to the Borough President's Office that target an area maintain the existing city-owned housing stock, along the corridor that would receive specific types enhance its quality, and stabilize low and moderate of streetscape treatments, leverage public assets and income residents before the influx into the area of a optimize public procedure. (See Appendix H: First higher income population attracted by the renovated Action Plan Study Area.) and new housing. Specifically: This can be achieved through: • The node formed by the intersection of St. • Investing in capacity to outreach to city-owned Nicholas Avenue and Frederick Douglass buildings and their tenant organizations; Boulevard should be considered the target for the development of a public space. • Creating mechanisms for assessing buildings and programming a strategy for their redevelopment; • The streetscape principles and design guidelines should be applied (to the extent possible) to this • Identifying resources for the development of area. When appropriate, public and private needed support services and coordinating access properties will be solicited to adapt to development resources from Federal, State improvements that enhance the streetscape. and/or City agencies. • City-owned occupied buildings within the First 2. The second tier of the proposed strategy reflects the Action area should be targeted for outreach, opportunity to recapture the quality of Harlem’s physical assessment, and exterior improvements. M urban fabric. In particular the patterns of bulk distribution generated by the low-rise, high-density • The Manhattan Borough President’s staff should buildings that are still extant, the quality of light and coordinate the involvement of all public agencies air, and the mix of land uses. and capital budget resources to maximize efficiency of public investment. This can be achieved through:

• The use of contextual zoning, and a proposed Together, these four sets of recommendations will not upgrade of the R7-2 areas to R7X, along the only maximize the benefits of development for both boulevard and R7A, in the interior of the blocks; existing and future residents of the corridor, they will also shape the public investments, from streetscape • The use of the Quality Housing Program as improvements to outreach to residents, that are necessary required in contextual zones, to insure the to attract developers and guide them in the elaboration of production of a quality residential environment; relevant proposals that take full advantage of the development potential of the boulevard. The Staff of this study should be prepared to assemble a First Action Plan • The reinforcement of retail patterns particular to this part of Harlem, i.e. retail along major cross- for immediate implementation. streets and immediately off their intersection with avenues.

3. Finally, the third set of recommendations, focuses on the physical transformation of the boulevard’s image and its development into a coherent, formal residential streetscape that takes advantage of the large number of development sites fronting the boulevard.

This can be achieved by:

• Assembling sites with continuous street frontages, even though they might mix new construction and rehabilitation;

Office of the Manhattan Borough President UTAP Hon. C. Virginia Fields 36 VI. APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: SERVICES

APPENDIX B: PROPERTY INVENTORY, SITES 1 – 16

APPENDIX C: DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF SITES

APPENDIX D: LIEN STATUS, MAY 1997 & MAY 1998

APPENDIX E: CITY-OWNED OCCUPIED HOUSING CLUSTERS

APPENDIX F1: EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL MODEL – SUB-AREA ONE

APPENDIX F2: EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL MODEL – SUB-AREA TWO

APPENDIX F3: RETAIL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

APPENDIX G1: SUMMARY OF R7X BUILDING VOLUME AND DENSITY CONTROLS

APPENDIX G2: COMPARISON OF R7X, R8 AND R8A BULK CONTROLS

APPENDIX H: FIRST ACTION PLAN STUDY AREA