DOCSLIB.ORG

A $1.4 Billion Project That Created a New Transit Hub and Improved Links to Six Subway Stations in Lower Manhattan Was Completed Last Year

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A $1.4 Billion Project That Created a New Transit Hub and Improved Links to Six Subway Stations in Lower Manhattan Was Completed Last Year AUTONOMOUSTHE FULTON CENTER SYSTEMS WEALTH CREATION A $1.4 billion project that created a new transit hub and improved links to six subway stations in Lower Manhattan was completed last year. The engineer and freelance writer Hugh Ferguson talked to Craig Covil, Principal of Arup and New York Project Director, to find out the main challenges and how they were overcome. The Fulton Center is a $1.4 billion subway changing platforms had to use cramped glass pavilion, surrounding a giant eight- interchange in New York, that improves passages, or rise to ground level and cross storey dome structure capped with a connections between six subway stations in busy streets. Peak hour ‘dwell times’ for 53ft-diameter oculus, inclined to draw the Lower Manhattan and has regenerated an trains had become unacceptably high, maximum amount of sunlight down area badly affected by the 9/11 attack in reducing train frequency and increasing through the building to the lowest 2001 and the economic crisis of 2008. With congestion still further, and the system- subterranean level. It is lined with a large- Arup as lead consultant, the project wide knock-on effects could affect services scale installation, the Sky Reflector-Net, The northwest corner of the Fulton Center, showing the dome and the oculus rising above the steel and glass pavilion. At the rear is combined a wide range of engineering skills, all day. which involved a detailed collaboration the west end of the Corbin Building projecting on to Broadway, with the eight-storey ‘interstitial’ building in between © James Ewing from modelling pedestrian movements to A key to the solution was a new central between engineering, art and architecture. underground work in difficult ground and interchange building, the Fulton Center, on However, it was underground that the managing the project through a succession a site facing Broadway, through which most real engineering challenges lay. Some 30 m of stops and starts caused by uncertain of the 300,000 passengers using the below ground was sound bedrock, too deep funding. The Fulton Center opened in stations each day could be routed. This and too difficult to reach by piling. Near the November 2014, and was announced in facility was designed in conjunction with surface was a typical mixture of urban fill. In October 2015 as the winner of this year’s three architects: UK firm Grimshaw between, where almost all the work was to British Construction Industry International Architects; the preservation architect Page take place, was a treacherous mixture of Award. Cowley; and, HDR/Daniel Frankfurt. The sands and silts including Manhattan’s THE FULTON The principal purpose of the Fulton Center was required to be much more than notorious ‘Bull’s Liver’ soil, a vibration- Center project was to join up six stations on a functional transport interchange with sensitive stratified silt and fine sand. This is 11 separate lines that were expressly built by retail space above. New York needed an prone to consolidation, causing settlement competing private railway companies (1902– exciting, welcoming gateway building to under construction vibrations, and rapidly 1933) so that they would not join up. Lower Manhattan that would symbolise loses strength when disturbed or wetted: in Constructed in the early 20th century, the and catalyse the area’s regeneration. The its saturated state, it can quake like jelly CENTER, NYC entrances were narrow; passengers result is a simple three-storey steel and when shaken, and even flow like a liquid. 24 INGENIA INGENIA ISSUE 65 DECEMBER 2015 25 AUTONOMOUSTHE FULTON CENTER SYSTEMS WEALTH CREATION testing and analysis, and combined this with excavated beneath the station, and the PROJECT PLAN its knowledge of the behaviour of cast-iron exposed mini-piles replaced with CLASSIC BUILDING RESCUED A lot of the construction work for the project Along the south side of the Fulton Center linings of a similar vintage in London tube permanent columns. Meanwhile train ran the risk of disturbing the existing tunnels stands the Corbin Building, which was tunnels. This was done to assess the ductility speeds on the Subway were restricted, to and stations, most of which had been scheduled for demolition at the start of the of the iron and the structural integrity of the reduce vibration but also to reduce the constructed by ‘cut-and-cover’ and all of project. The narrow eight-storey building, large horizontal forces caused by sharp which were ‘floating’ in the sands and silts, tunnels and, in particular, to determine the braking. wedge-shaped in plan built in the 1880s including the Bull’s Liver. At the start of the maximum deflection that could be tolerated It was early in one of these weekend was dull grey from a century and more of project, temporary station closures had been in the lining: fortunately, the iron proved less possessions that a serious loss of ground grime, its distinctive pepper-pot roofs long planned, but this was ruled out because of brittle than anticipated. was detected around one of the mini-piles gone and its façade littered with iron fire the transport disruption it would have Here, as elsewhere on the project, as it was being placed – so serious that the escapes and with air conditioning units caused. So, all the work had to be carried out potential movement was modelled and parts subway operator had to be informed that hanging from windows. The architect was around a live railway operating 24 hours a of the stations and tunnels were fitted with the work would not be complete for hand- Francis Hatch Kimball, described by day, with 300,000 passengers passing deflection monitoring equipment. Sometimes over and train operations at 5.00 am the contemporaries as ‘the father of the through each day, and with just occasional and in some places, the tunnel tubes were following Monday. Resources were brought skyscraper’. Although modest by modern weekend closures. tending to sink, at other times to float in from other sites and by concerted standards, at the time of its construction in On top of this, the team had very little How the new Fulton Center interconnects six subway stations on 11 lines. Running north-south is the upwards. Phasing of the work proved critical, oldest and busiest route, the 4 and 5 Lines, built in 1902, which separates the new Dey Street concourse efforts, the hand-over was only delayed by 1888-9 this was (briefly) Manhattan’s tallest space at ground level beyond the confines from the new Transit Center building with the Corbin Building in front. Running east-west is the newest not just to control deflection in the tunnel, half an hour, the biggest impact of any building. Kimball was a pioneer in the use of of the Fulton Center site itself, and no full and deepest, the A and C Lines constructed as cast iron tubes in 1933, with a large cut-and-cover but to cope at all times with pedestrians mezzanine above © Arup event during the project. ironwork and terracotta, both materials street closures were permitted. using the stations and mezzanine, and traffic The first challenge was the station with using Fulton Street overhead. the A and C tube lines beneath Fulton Street The new Fulton Center ‘floats’ on a which had been constructed in the 1930s in concrete box, built with secant (interlocking) an unusual way. First, the two running pile walls and a 1.7 m-thick raft laid directly tunnels had been driven, under compressed on the carefully prepared sands and silts. The air just below the ground water level, and walls were propped temporarily by heavy lined with cast-iron segments; then the steel struts and permanently by the space between had been opened up to diaphragm effect of the Fulton Centre’s form the platforms; and finally a long concrete floors. A similar technique was used mezzanine area had been built over the top for creating the new, wide passenger by cut-and-cover, for pedestrian ramps and concourse underneath Dey Street – see corridors. The mezzanine needed to be subway schematic. rebuilt to accommodate new lifts and The trickiest part was connecting the two, escalators, with an original line of columns by opening up the area under the 4/5 Line down the centre removed and a new steel station as a passage. First, some 120 steel A-frame roof installed to transfer loads to the mini-piles up to 30 m long were sunk to side columns. support the old station box, which was just The greatest concern was the effect all resting on the ground with shallow this work and the change of loading would insubstantial foundations. Most of the new have on the running tunnels beneath: if the mini-piles were sunk between the tracks cast-iron lining cracked, water would come during weekend possessions. Jet-grouting A 3D CAD/ BIM model used by different construction disciplines to look at the mechanical, electrical, in and the tunnel could flood. Arup used the structural, civil and plumbing elements of the Center. The model was uploaded into Bentley augmented was used to create two cut-off walls directly old as-built records, as well as taking cores of reality software and then used by engineers onsite with iPads to compare site conditions with ‘as-built under the station, forming the side walls of Looking across Broadway at the narrow west elevation of the Corbin Building, and the dome with its design records’ © Arup inclined oculus and skylight under construction to the north © Arup the original cast-iron lining for laboratory the new passageway. Then the soil could be 26 INGENIA INGENIA ISSUE 65 DECEMBER 2015 27 AUTONOMOUSTHE FULTON CENTER SYSTEMS WEALTH CREATION Throughout the critical underground operations, the building was fitted with deflection monitoring equipment, the readings linked via software to hand-held devices so that MASSMOTION The Arup software MassMotion, though including doors, stairs and passageways.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix H – Cultural Resources H-1 New York City Transit, Fulton Street Transit Center, New York
    PROPOSED FULTON STREET TRANSIT CENTER FULTON, DEY, CHURCH, & WILLIAM STREETS AND BROADWAY BLOCK 79, LOTS 15, 16, 18, 19 AND 21 NEW YORK, NEW YORK PHASE IA ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for: New York City Transit New York, New York Prepared by: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. New York, New York October 2003 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center DEIS APPENDIX H: CULTURAL RESOURCES H.1 INTRODUCTION New York City Transit (NYCT) is planning to construct the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC) in the vicinity of Fulton Street and Broadway, covering portions of Fulton Street, Dey Street, Church Street, William Street and Broadway, with direct impacts to Block 79, Lots 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21, New York City, New York (see Figures 1 and 2). The Proposed Action includes: • Construction of a new Entry Facility building at Block 79, Lots 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21, designed to connect subway passengers with other elements of the FSTC; • Construction of a pedestrian tunnel underneath Dey Street, the Dey Street Passageway, from the Entry Facility at Broadway and to the redeveloped World Trade Center (WTC) site and RW service at the Cortlandt Street station at Church and Dey Streets; • Improvements to the Fulton Street AC underground mezzanines and JMZ entrances and mezzanines, by widening the existing facilities; • Installation of stairways at the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection of Maiden Lane and Broadway, and installation of stairway, escalator and an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) elevator at the southwest corner of Dey Street and Broadway to improve street access; • Rehabilitation of the existing 23 and 45 stations at Fulton Street; and, • Creation of a new, paid RW - E and an unpaid E to the FSTC connections along Church Street at the Chambers Street and WTC - Cortlandt Street stations.
    [Show full text]
  • 180 Water Street
    THE RETAIL AT WATER S TREET 18FIDI/NYC 0 MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES EXTRAORDINARY EXPOSURE WATER STREET BETWEEN FLETCHER AND JOHN STREETS VIEW FROM JOHN AND PEARL STREETS LIMITLESS POTENTIAL Be surrounded by an ever-growing population of tourists, office workers and residents. 180 Water Street offers more than 9,200 SF of retail space located directly across from the Seaport District and in close proximity to the Fulton Street station and the Staten Island Ferry. Ground Floor Space B Proposed Division | Ground Floor UP TO 9,221 SF OF DIVISIBLE RETAIL (COMING SOON) LOCATED AT THE BASE OF A 573-UNIT, 34 3 IN FT, SPACE A 1,285 SF PEARL STREETPEARL REDEVELOPED LUXURY STREETPEARL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 1,535 SF 2,407 SF 62 FT SPACE B Ground Floor 4,012 SF WATER STREET WATER Space A 1,285 SF* (COMING SOON) 62 FT ELEVATOR Space B 4,012 SF* LOBBY *Divisible 58 SF Lower Level 65 FT 25 FT 6 FT 34 FT 3,924 SF JOHN STREET JOHN STREET Ceiling Heights Ground Floor Space A 26 FT Space B 13 FT 7 IN Lower Level 14 FT Lower Level Space B Proposed Division | Lower Level Features New Façade Potential dedicated entrance for Lower Level, see proposed division All uses considered including cooking SPACE B 3,924 SF 3,924 SF ELEVATOR A ROBUST MARKET 7,945 Hotel rooms in lower Manhattan as of 2018 14.6M Visitors to Lower Manhattan in 2018 87,979,022 S F Total office square footage in lower Manhattan 1,143 Retail stores and restaurants in Lower Manhattan (and rising), 105M Annual transit riders in Lower Manhattan 330 Mixed-use and residential buildings with an estimated
    [Show full text]
  • Manhattan Retail Market MID-2ND QUARTER 2016 REPORT Retail Activity in the News
    Manhattan Retail Market MID-2ND QUARTER 2016 REPORT Retail Activity In The News Virtual Restaurant Business Revolutionizing Traditional Food Delivery The growing convenience of home food delivery through services such as Seamless and GrubHub has prompted the launch of what can be best described as “virtual restaurants.” One company Green Summit Group currently operates 2-kitchens and boasts 8 “restaurant” brands, yet is void of any storefronts. The business model is banking on the projection that most New York City dwellers won’t care or realize that the food is not being prepared in a traditional restaurant. Green Summit has eliminated the burden of managing retail spaces, while also further benef ting from its ability to shift menu items more quickly to cater to the fast-evolving preferences of consumers by creating another online-branded “restaurant” that appeals to the f avor of the moment. If a particular brand does not meet f nancial expectations it is easily scrapped, incurring a relatively low cost of failure. Currently in expansion mode, in addition to existing kitchens in Midtown and Williamsburg, Brooklyn, the Green Summit plans to open 4 additional kitchens in the Financial District, Downtown Brooklyn, the Upper East Side, and the East Village in 2016 in order to be within delivery range of 90% of New York’s online food-ordering population according to the company’s projections. Generating about $10 million in revenue in 2015, expansion plans are reportedly expected to triple revenue in 2016. Success of the company launched about 2 and a-half years ago may be short-lived in the opinion of some skeptics of the virtual model, pointing out that consumers want to engage with the restaurant brand.
    [Show full text]
  • NYCT Bus & MTA Bus Employee On-Duty Lost-Time Accident Rate
    Bus Company Transit & Bus Committee Meeting June 2013 Committee Members M. Lebow, Chair F. Ferrer, Acting MTA Chairman J. Banks III, Vice Chair S. Metzger J. Sedore, Jr. M. Page J. Kay A. Albert C. Moerdler D. Paterson E. Watt A. Cappelli MEETING AGENDA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT & BUS COMMITTEE June 3, 2013 - 10:30 AM 347 Madison Avenue Fifth Floor Board Room, New York, NY AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 22, 2013 1.1 2. COMMITTEE WORK PLAN 2.1 3. OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ¾ April Operations Report 3.1 ¾ March Operations Report 3.34 4. FINANCIAL REPORTS ¾ March NYCT Financial & Ridership Report 4.1 ¾ March SIR Financial & Ridership Report 4.23 ¾ March MTA Bus Financial & Ridership Report 4.34 ¾ April NYC Transit & MTA Bus Flash Reports (under separate cover) ¾ Capital Program Status Report 4.47 5. PROCUREMENTS 5.1 ¾ NYCT Non-Competitive 5.5 ¾ NYCT Competitive 5.6 ¾ MTACC Competitive 5.10 ¾ MTA Bus Competitive 5.11 ¾ NYCT Ratifications 5.12 ¾ MTACC Ratifications 5.13 6. SERVICE CHANGES ¾ NYCT Implement B67 Extension to Brooklyn Navy Yard (For Approval) 6.1 ¾ NYCT Implement New B32 Bus Service in Brooklyn and Queens (For Approval) 6.8 ¾ NYCT Reroute M100 Bus Service in East Harlem 6.15 ¾ NYCT Bus Schedule Changes, Effective September 2013 6.19 ¾ MTA Bus Implement New Q70 Limited Stop Service (For Approval) 6.24 ¾ MTA Bus Schedule Changes, Effective September 2013 6.35 7. SPECIAL REPORTS & PRESENTATIONS ¾ April MetroCard Report 7.1 ¾ March MetroCard Report 7.5 8. STANDARD FOLLOW-UP REPORTS ¾ Escalator & Elevator Service Report 8.1 ¾ Transit Adjudication Bureau Report 8.24 ¾ NYC Transit & MTA Bus EEO Report 8.26 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Fulton Street Transit Center Project: 3D/4D Model Application Report
    CIFECENTER FOR INTEGRATED FACILITY ENGINEERING Fulton Street Transit Center Project: 3D/4D Model Application Report By Timo Hartmann, William E. Goodrich, Martin Fischer, & Doug Eberhard CIFE Technical Report #TR170 MAY 2007 STANFORD UNIVERSITY COPYRIGHT © 2007 BY Center for Integrated Facility Engineering If you would like to contact the authors, please write to: c/o CIFE, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., Stanford University Terman Engineering Center Mail Code: 4020 Stanford, CA 94305-4020 Fulton Street Transit Center Project: 3D/4D Model Application Report Timo Hartmann Ph.D. Student, CIFE Stanford University William E. Goodrich, P.E. Senior Project Manager, Parsons Brinckerhoff Fulton Street Project Martin Fischer Associate Professor Stanford University Doug Eberhard Chief Technology Officer Parsons Brinckerhoff 1 Executive Summary Within this report we describe the 3D/4D model implementation and application on the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC) project during July 2004 to July 2005. The Fulton Street Transit Center is one of the major subway reconstruction projects in New York City. With a budgeted project value of $750 Million the New York City Transit Authority (TA) plans to refurbish the seven subway lines around Fulton Street [Figure 1]. Furthermore, the TA plans to build a new above ground Transit Terminal. On this project a joint venture between Parsons Brinckerhoff and Bovis Lendlease formed the consultant construction management team to support the TA with the tasks of constructability review, bid packaging and site supervision. Figure 1: Subway Lines around Fulton Street in Lower Manhattan Early on in the project the CCM team decided to build a 3D/4D model of the project to visually support the necessary engineering decision making.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fulton Center: New York City, NY, USA Authors Design of the Cable Net Zak Kostura Erin Morrow Ben Urick
    Location The Fulton Center: New York City, NY, USA Authors design of the cable net Zak Kostura Erin Morrow Ben Urick Introduction At the corner of Fulton Street and Broadway, one block east of the World Trade Center site and two blocks south of City Hall Park, 11 New York City subway lines converge in a hub serving over 300 000 transit riders daily. With their dense tangle, these lines have evaded efficient connection for nearly a century, a legacy of disparate planning and construction practices common to the era of competitive, privatised transit operation — and despite being unified under a single state agency in 1968. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) enacted plans to redevelop this hub into an efficient transfer point, replacing the labyrinth of corridors, retroactively constructed to link existing lines, with an efficient system of pedestrian mezzanines, concourses and underpasses, complete with elevators and escalators to comply with the provisions of the Americans With Disability Act (Fig 2). And at the corner of Broadway and Fulton, the MTA planned a spacious 1. New Transit Key to MTA services Center building 150 William 1 Broadway Street - 7 Avenue Local Corbin Building West Underpass restoration Improvements to East 2 7 Avenue Express to PATH train mezzanine Improvements to and WTC New Dey Street 135 William 3 7 Avenue Express mezzanine headhouse Street 4 Lexington Av Express 5 Lexington Av Express A 8 Avenue Express C 8 Avenue Local Dey Street E 8 Av Local concourse J Nassau St Local Station R Nassau St Express Station rehabilitation 129 Fulton rehabilitation (weekday rush hours) Street Z Broadway Local New south entrances 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Fulton Center Sky-Reflector Net
    Fulton Center Sky-Reflector Net Lower Manhattan’s device; and the engineer wanted bustling transit hub to make sure, quantitatively, that is crowned with an daylight could penetrate Fulton Center’s lower levels.” ambitious tensile Kostura adds, “In a normal proj- structure that required ect, you can almost get away with rigorous collaboration dividing up the systems that support between designer, the interests of different stakehold- fabricator, and installer. ers. Here, achieving our goals required intensive collaboration.” Sky Reflector-Net was NAVIGATING AMONG NINE SUBWAY conceived by James Carpenter lines and the streets of Lower Design Associates (JCDA) in Manhattan, 300,000 people response to Arup and Grimshaw converge daily to walk through Architects’ initial 2003 design of Fulton Center, which opened to the Fulton Center pavilion. While the public on November 10, 2014. that scheme would go through Just as stunning as the number multiple iterations for value engi- of users is their initial reaction neering, the three-story structure to the new transit hub’s atrium consistently featured a dome pavilion. Spotting the artwork Sky whose south-facing, 53-foot- Reflector-Net that crowns the diameter oculus would top out eight-story hall, they turn from at 108 feet tall. JCDA namesake hardened commuters into tour- James Carpenter imagined ists: Travelers pause under, pho- suspending a skewed hyperbolic tograph, and orient themselves paraboloid—or hypar—armature by the skylit cable-net structure from the dome’s sloped oculus, cradling 952 Alanod-coated and tracing its double curvature in perforated anodized-aluminum panels that brighten and, evoking panels, each measuring 0.145 the New York subway system’s inches thick.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19Report POSTED 06302021.Xls
    Resident COVID Positive Resident Total Tested Residents COVID Facility Type Name Address City County Census Residents Census Residents Recovered Positive Staff Nursing Home A.G. RHODES HOME WESLEY WOODS 1819 CLIFTON ROAD, N.E. ATLANTA DEKALB 121 99 6 325 93 65 Nursing Home A.G. RHODES HOME, INC - COBB 900 WYLIE ROAD MARIETTA COBB 97 76 12 166 64 50 Nursing Home A.G. RHODES HOME, INC, THE 350 BOULVARD, S.E. ATLANTA FULTON 105 71 8 333 63 53 Nursing Home ABERCORN REHABILITATION CENTER 11800 ABERCORN STREET SAVANNAH CHATHAM 69 19 1 121 8 21 PCH ADDINGTON PLACE OF ALPHARETTA 762 NORTH MAIN STREET ALPHARETTA FULTON 43 26 1 41 25 0 Nursing Home ADVANCED HEALTH AND REHAB OF TWIGGS COUNTY 113 SPRING VALLEY ROAD JEFFERSONVILLE TWIGGS 88 89 18 0 71 0 Nursing Home ALTAMAHA HEALTHCARE CENTER 1311 WEST CHERRY STREET JESUP WAYNE 59 16 0 183 16 0 PCH ALTO SENIOR LIVING ALPHARETTA 4125 NORTH POINT PARKWAY ALPHARETTA FULTON 31 25 6 49 19 9 Nursing Home AMARA HEALTHCARE & REHAB 2021 SCOTT ROAD AUGUSTA RICHMOND 72 46 17 0 38 0 Nursing Home ANDERSON MILL HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER 2130 ANDERSON MILL RD AUSTELL COBB 118 93 20 94 73 37 PCH ANNANDALE VILLAGE 3500 ANNANDALE LANE SUWANEE GWINNETT 86 29 0 92 29 26 PCH ANNANDALE VILLAGE CENTER FOR CONTINUED CARE 3500 ANNANDALE LANE SUWANEE GWINNETT 25 7 0 0 7 4 Nursing Home ANSLEY PARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 450 NEWNAN LAKES BLVD NEWNAN COWETA 47 30 2 616 28 19 PCH ANTEBELLUM GROVE SENIOR LIVING 1010 KATHRYN RYALS ROAD WARNER ROBINS HOUSTON 48 15 5 58 7 14 PCH ANTEBELLUM JAMES BURGESS SENIOR LIVING 1520
    [Show full text]
  • Manhattan Community Board 4 October 7, 2015 Fulton Center Auditorium, 119 Ninth Avenue
    Manhattan Community Board 4 October 7, 2015 Fulton Center Auditorium, 119 Ninth Avenue PUBLIC HEARING\PRESENTATION BSA Application 136 West 24th Street Cal. 33-78-BZ – Transfer of Unused Development Rights ULURP Application 368 West 23rd Street # N. 150051 ECM – Chelsea Square Restaurant Enclosed Sidewalk Café Renewal BSA Application 98-100 10th Avenue Cal. 204 – 15- BZ – Special Permit for a Physical Culture Establishment (PCE) SoulCycle MEETING AGENDA Public Session Delores Rubin Adoption of Agenda Christine Berthet Adoption of Last Month’s Minutes Manhattan Borough President Andrew Lombardi Local Elected Officials Various District Manager Report Jesse Bodine Nominating Committee Report Ambur Nicosia Chair Report/Committee Reports Christine Berthet Meeting called to order at 6:37 by the Chair, Christine Berthet. PUBLIC HEARINGS: BSA Application 136 West 24th Street Cal. 33-78-BZ – Transfer of Unused Development Rights Introduction by Betty Mackintosh The Applicant was represented by Jay Segel of Greenberg Traurig. Transfer of development rights from 136 W 24 (5 story co-op) to 142 W 24. Betty had a question: sliver between the two buildings must be merged into the two lots. ULURP Application 368 West 23rd Street # N. 150051 ECM – Chelsea Square Restaurant Enclosed Sidewalk Café Renewal No speakers. BSA Application 98-100 10th Avenue Cal. 204 – 15- BZ – Special Permit for a Physical Culture Establishment (PCE) SoulCycle No speakers. At which point, the public hearings were closed. PUBLIC SESSION: First Vice Chair Delores Rubin called on the members of the public who signed up to speak. The public spoke on the following topics: 1. Amy Fitzgerald – HY/HK Alliance.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the a and C Lines
    Review of the A and C Lines ,. December 11, 2015 Page intentionally left blank AC Line Review Executive Summary Executive Summary The attached report provides a comprehensive review of operations on the A and C lines. Combined, the two lines serve 800,000 riders a day across three boroughs and connect to many of the most important intermodal hubs in New York City. The A differs from most other New York City Transit subway lines in that its route splits three ways at its southern end in eastern Queens. It is also exceptionally long, at 32 miles between 207 St and Far Rockaway-Mott Av. Like many other subway lines, it merges several times with other lines. The combination of these traits tends to reduce reliability. In contrast, the C is a shorter line scheduled to run less frequently than the A and many other lines. C service is relatively reliable, even though it has historically been assigned some of the oldest cars in the system. This review has been prepared within the context of NYC Transit’s service planning procedures, and all discussions of service levels take into account established guidelines for designing and scheduling service. NYC Transit determines how many trains run on a given line based on a number of factors, including line capacity, equipment availability, and the Rapid Transit Loading Guidelines. The Guidelines ensure that limited resources are equitably allocated throughout the system by establishing, by time of day, maximum passenger load levels and minimum service frequencies, where operationally feasible. The Guidelines are applied by evaluating average ridership levels at locations where trains are most heavily loaded (“peak load points”) to develop recommended service frequencies, where operationally feasible.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5. Historic Resources 5.1 Introduction
    CHAPTER 5. HISTORIC RESOURCES 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.1.1 CONTEXT Lower Manhattan is home to many of New York City’s most important historic resources and some of its finest architecture. It is the oldest and one of the most culturally rich sections of the city. Thus numerous buildings, street fixtures and other structures have been identified as historically significant. Officially recognized resources include National Historic Landmarks, other individual properties and historic districts listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, properties eligible for such listing, New York City Landmarks and Historic Districts, and properties pending such designation. National Historic Landmarks (NHL) are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. All NHLs are included on the National Register, which is the nation’s official list of historic properties worthy of preservation. Historic resources include both standing structures and archaeological resources. Historically, Lower Manhattan’s skyline was developed with the most technologically advanced buildings of the time. As skyscraper technology allowed taller buildings to be built, many pioneering buildings were erected in Lower Manhattan, several of which were intended to be— and were—the tallest building in the world, such as the Woolworth Building. These modern skyscrapers were often constructed alongside older low buildings. By the mid 20th-century, the Lower Manhattan skyline was a mix of historic and modern, low and hi-rise structures, demonstrating the evolution of building technology, as well as New York City’s changing and growing streetscapes.
    [Show full text]
  • Hidden Cities: Reinventing the Non-Space Between Street and Subway
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2018 Hidden Cities: Reinventing The Non-Space Between Street And Subway Jae Min Lee University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Architecture Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Lee, Jae Min, "Hidden Cities: Reinventing The Non-Space Between Street And Subway" (2018). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2984. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2984 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2984 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hidden Cities: Reinventing The Non-Space Between Street And Subway Abstract The connections leading to underground transit lines have not received the attention given to public spaces above ground. Considered to be merely infrastructure, the design and planning of these underground passageways has been dominated by engineering and capital investment principles, with little attention to place-making. This underground transportation area, often dismissed as “non-space,” is a by-product of high-density transit-oriented development, and becomes increasingly valuable and complex as cities become larger and denser. This dissertation explores the design of five of these hidden cities where there has been a serious effort to make them into desirable public spaces. Over thirty-two million urbanites navigate these underground labyrinths in New York City, Hong Kong, London, Moscow, and Paris every day. These in-between spaces have evolved from simple stairwells to networked corridors, to transit concourses, to transit malls, and to the financial engines for affordable public transit.
    [Show full text]