DOCSLIB.ORG

Failure Consequences and Reliability Acceptance Criteria for Exceptional Building Structures a Study Taking Basis in the Failure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Failure Consequences and Reliability Acceptance Criteria for Exceptional Building Structures a Study Taking Basis in the Failure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Research Collection Report Failure consequences and reliability acceptance criteria for exceptional building structures A study taking basis in the failure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Author(s): Faber, Michael H.; Kübler, Oliver; Fontana, Mario; Knobloch, Markus Publication Date: 2004 Permanent Link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-004807495 Rights / License: In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more information please consult the Terms of use. ETH Library Background, motivation and scope of the research project Failure Consequences and Reliability Acceptance Criteria for Exceptional Building Structures A Study taking Basis in the Failure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Michael H. Faber, Oliver Kübler Mario Fontana, Markus Knobloch Institute of Structural Engineering Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich July 2004 1 Background, motivation and scope of the research project Preface The present research project was performed in the period April 2002-March 2004 and was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant number 2100-066770. During the project period a number of publications and presentations at conferences on the topics of the project have resulted in many interesting discussions with several researchers. These discussions have provided a valuable input to the project. Specifically the project team warmly thanks Prof. Dr.- Ing. habil. R. Rackwitz, Technical University of Munich, Germany, for valuable discussions and input concerning aspects of optimality and affordable societal life saving costs. Prof. Dr. M. Haller, University St. Gallen, Switzerland is greatly acknowledged for discussions and viewpoints in regard to the socio-economical impact of hazards on the society. Moreover, Yngve Abrahamsen from the Swiss Institute for Business Cycle Research, Zurich, Switzerland, contributed with helpful discussions on the topic of macroeconomics. Finally Prof. Dr. A. Dazio and research assistant D. Buzzini, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland, are sincerely thanked for their investigations regarding robustness of structures against progressive collapse. Zurich, July 2004 Michael Havbro Faber 3 Background, motivation and scope of the research project Table of Contents 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Background, motivation and scope of the research project 7 1.2 Executive summary and conclusions 7 2 Assessment and modeling of consequences 13 2.1 The WTC failure in the context of other insured losses 13 2.2 Categorization of consequences 16 2.3 Modeling of consequences 17 2.4 Consequences due to the failure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers 19 3 Decision theoretical framework 21 3.1 Objective of structural design 22 3.2 Expected life cycle benefit 23 3.3 Follow-up consequences and risk aversion 30 3.4 Interest rates and sustainability 31 4 Structural reliability and vulnerability assessment 35 4.1 Codified design of structures 35 4.2 Categories of exceptional structures 36 4.3 Principles of structural reliability analysis 37 4.4 Reliability and partial safety factors 40 4.5 Rare events, vulnerability and robustness 41 4.6 Modeling of system performance and structural damage 43 4.7 Vulnerability to fire loads 45 4.8 Robustness to impact and fire damage 50 5 Acceptance criteria and optimality for the design of extraordinary building structures 57 5.1 Design for ordinary load cases 57 5.2 Design for fire load cases 59 5 6 Conclusions and suggestions for further research 63 7 References 65 A The World Trade Center 75 A.1 Location of the World Trade Center 75 A.2 Historical review 75 A.3 Construction of the World Trade Center 76 A.4 September 11, 2001 83 A.5 Structural response of the buildings 85 B Detailed consequence assessment of the WTC failure 91 B.1 Rescue and clean-up costs 91 B.2 Property losses 93 B.3 Influence on the economy 99 B.4 Fatalities 119 B.5 Environmental consequences and loss of cultural assets 130 B.6 Risk perception 131 B.7 Total effect to society and liability 131 C Basics in macroeconomics 133 C.1 GDP 133 C.2 Multiplier effect 134 C.3 Price index and GDP deflator 136 C.4 Summary 139 D General project information 141 6 Background, motivation and scope of the research project 1 Introduction 1.1 Background, motivation and scope of the research project 1.1.1 Background and motivation The modern codes for the design of structures have been calibrated for normal structures, i.e. such that structures for normal purposes built in usual dimensions and designs, using well-known materials and constructed and maintained according to established procedures achieve an adequate and homogeneous level of reliability – in a cost efficient manner. Structures, which are not normal in the above-mentioned sense fall beyond the application area of the design codes and may be seen as exceptional structures. One particular type of exceptional structure is building structures with a high concentration of business enterprises and not least people and know-how. Failure of such structures may have enormous consequences not only for the owners of the buildings, the people and enterprises occupying the buildings but also for society in general. To establish a rational design basis for this type of buildings is a task involving the consideration of several aspects similar to the case when design codes for the design of ordinary structures is considered. However, significant differences arise in connection with the assessment of the optimal level of safety for such structures. Due to the potential enormous consequences in case of failure, the optimal level of safety to be applied as basis for the design may differ significantly from the optimal level of safety for so-called ordinary structures. This in turn may imply that when designing such structures, other load cases, failure modes and hazard scenarios need to be considered and new principles for the design may be relevant. 1.1.2 Scope of the research project Despite the atypical and senseless cause of the tragic failure of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers in New York on September 11, 2001 it might be possible to learn something from the event whereby the design basis of similar future structures could be enhanced. Of special importance is the assessment of the actual consequences in case of failure. The realistic assessment of these is a prerequisite for establishing an optimal level of safety of such structures, i.e. a corner stone in the design basis for such structures. The scope of the present project is to analyze the event of the failure of the World Trade Centre towers in regard to the consequences of the structural failure - not including the consequences attributable to the cause of the event (malevolence). The evaluations include an assessment of cost consequences on a societal level taking into account adverse effects due to the loss of lives, loss of businesses and material losses. Finally based on the findings in regard to consequences, initial principal studies are performed for the assessment of optimal safety strategies for such structures. 1.2 Executive summary and conclusions 1.2.1 Mapping, assessment and modeling of consequences The present research report is initially concerned about the mapping of the consequences following the incident of the failure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. A thorough reporting and assessment is given on the reported number of fatalities, economical losses as well as potential impacts to the environment and cultural assets. The main focus is, however, 7 Chapter 1 – Introduction devoted to the assessment and differentiation of economical losses. The types of consequences considered and their differentiation is illustrated in Figure 1.1. Rescue and clean-up Property losses WTC Twin Towers Surrounding buildings & facilities Buildings’ & facilities‘ inventory losses Influence on the economy Business interruption Material and economic and Material Lost rents Lost cultural assets losses Cultural Environmental consequences to environment Consequences Consequences due to fatalities Immaterial loss Dependents‘ lost income to persons Consequences Consequences due to High-Rise Building Failure Societal life saving costs Figure 1.1 Different types of consequences mapped and assessed within the present report. Table 1.1 Summary of assessed consequences following the failure of the WTC Twin Towers. Scenario Consequence type Low High Rescue & clean-up 1.7 1.7 Property 19.2 19.2 WTC Twin Towers 4.7 Other destroyed buildings 2.0 Damaged buildings 4.3 Inventory 5.2 Infrastructure 3.0 Fatalities 5.5 5.5 Environment & cultural assets 0.1 0.1 Impact to economy 9.1 66.2 Businesses 7.2 64.3 Infrastructure 0.7 0.7 Rents 1.2 1.2 Total 35.6 92.7 (in billion USD) In Table 1.1 the assessed losses corresponding to the differentiation in Figure 1.1 are summarized. The monetary value assigned to fatalities has been derived using the concept of the Life Quality Index which provides the amount of money which is necessary and affordable for the society to invest into life saving activities (1·million USD per statistical life). Moreover, the compensation of fatalities may also depend on the societal and legal system of the considered country. In case of the failure of the WTC Twin Towers the Victim Compensation Fund compensated the dependents of the fatalities. Based on the compensation scheme an average compensation of 2.0 million USD per fatality can be calculated summarizing to a total cost of compensation 5.5 billion USD. A major observation from Table 1.1 is that the consequences which would normally be understood as the direct consequences (traditionally forming the basis for optimal design considerations), i.e. the property losses corresponding to the Twin Towers alone plus perhaps rescue and clean-up only amounts to about 12% to 33% of the total loss depending on the assessment of the economic losses.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TM 3.1 Inventory of Affected Businesses
    N E W Y O R K M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O U N C I L D E M O G R A P H I C A N D S O C I O E C O N O M I C F O R E C A S T I N G POST SEPTEMBER 11TH IMPACTS T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M NO. 3.1 INVENTORY OF AFFECTED BUSINESSES: THEIR CHARACTERISTICS AND AFTERMATH This study is funded by a matching grant from the Federal Highway Administration, under NYSDOT PIN PT 1949911. PRIME CONSULTANT: URBANOMICS 115 5TH AVENUE 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003 The preparation of this report was financed in part through funds from the Federal Highway Administration and FTA. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do no necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, FTA, nor of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M NO.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 Manhattan Hotel Market Overview Page 1 of 28
    HVS Hospitality Services : 2007 Manhattan Hotel Market Overview Page 1 of 28 Manhattan Hotel Market Overview HVS Hospitality Services, in cooperation with New York University's Preston Robert Tisch Center for Hospitality, Tourism, and Sports Management, is pleased to present the tenth annual Manhattan Hotel Market Overview. A slight uptick in Manhattan’s occupancy level in 2006 led to a record high of 85.0%. Despite a virtually stable occupancy, the Manhattan lodging market registered a 13.4% increase in RevPAR compared to 2005, continuing its impressive performance. The market’s RevPAR gain was supported by double-digit growth in average rate each month of the year, with the exception of December, causing year-end 2006 average rate to exceed the 2005 level by 13.2%. The high rates registered by the Manhattan lodging market were caused primarily by continued strong demand levels in 2006, allowing hotel operators to be more selective with lower-rated demand and increasingly boost rates, thereby accommodating greater numbers of higher-rated travelers. We note that the market’s overall occupancy level of 85.0% in 2006 highlights the underlying strength of the Manhattan market, which continued to operate at near-maximum-capacity levels. Because of a further decline in supply in 2006, the market continued to experience many sell-out nights, causing a significant amount of demand to remain unaccommodated. Given the larger-than-ever construction pipeline in Manhattan, a substantial portion of previously unaccommodated demand is expected to be accommodated in the future. Manhattan’s marketwide occupancy and average rate both achieved new record levels in 2006, and we expect the positive trend to continue in 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING PERFORMANCE STUDY Table of Contents
    FEMA 403 / May 2002 Federal Emergency Management Agency Federall iinsurance and Miitiigatiion Admiiniistratiion,, Washiington,, DC FEMA Regiion IIII,, New York,, New York FEMA 403 / May 2002 Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Washington, DC FEMA Region II, New York, New York Report Editor: Team Leader: Therese McAllister Gene Corley Chapter Leaders and Authors: Team Members: Executive Summary Gene Corley William Baker, Partner, Ronald Hamburger Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP Therese McAllister Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering, Chapter 1 Therese McAllister Worcester Polytechnic Institute Jonathan Barnett John Gross David Biggs, Principal, Ryan-Biggs Associates Ronald Hamburger Gene Corley, Structural Engineer, Senior Vice President, Jon Magnusson Construction Technology Laboratories Chapter 2 Ronald Hamburger William Baker Bill Coulbourne, Principal Structural Engineer, Jonathan Barnett URS Corporation Christopher Marrion Edward M. DePaola, Principal, James Milke Severud Associates Consulting Engineers, PC Harold “Bud” Nelson Chapter 3 William Baker Robert Duval, Senior Fire Investigator, National Fire Protection Association Chapter 4 Jonathan Barnett Richard Gewain Dan Eschenasy, Chief Structural Engineer, Ramon Gilsanz City of New York Dept. of Design & Construction Harold “Bud” Nelson John Fisher, Professor of Civil Engineering, Chapter 5 Ramon Gilsanz Lehigh University Edward M. DePaola Richard Gewain, Senior Engineer, Christopher Marrion Hughes Associates,
    [Show full text]
  • July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005
    World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan— Historic Resources Report January 2006 INTRODUCTION This report on Historic Resources for the World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan (Approved Plan) is prepared pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement among the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC), as a recipient of community development block grant assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which was signed on April 22, 2004, and stipulated that LMDC would provide semi-annual reports to SHPO and ACHP to summarize measures it has taken to comply with the terms of the Programmatic Agreement. The organization of this report generally follows the stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement. In addition meetings with the Consulting Parties, the Memorial Center Advisory Committee, the Families Advisory Committee, New York/New Visions, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) are described in the final section. 1. PROJECT SITE DOCUMENTATION UNDER STIPULATIONS 1 AND 5 As previously reported the Port Authority completed the program of HABS/HAER documentation of the WTC Site in accordance with Stipulation 5 and submitted the documentation to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in August 2005. 2. ADHERENCE TO TREATMENT PLANS LMDC continued working to create a Memorial to remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and February 26, 1993 and to record the events of September 11. Planning for the Memorial is discussed in more detail in the section which follows. A draft Construction Protection Plan was prepared in connection with the demolition of 130 Liberty Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Estate 08/28/2020 01:45 PM Account List by Location Page 1
    Belfast Real Estate 08/28/2020 01:45 PM Account List by Location Page 1 Account Card Name / AddressLocation Map/Lot 03765001 CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY 00T-00D ONE CITY CENTER 5TH FLOOR PORTLAND ME 04101 01598001 BELFAST WATER DISTRICT ACHORN RD 009-078 PO BOX 506 BELFAST ME 04915 00283001 BELFAST WATER DISTRICT ACHORN RD 009-120 285 NORTHPORT AVENUE PO BOX 506 BELFAST ME 04915 0506 01603001 BELFAST WATER DISTRICT ACHORN RD 009-078-D 285 NORTHPORT AVENUE PO BOX 506 BELFAST ME 04915 0506 01601001 BELFAST WATER DISTRICT ACHORN RD 009-078-C PO BOX 506 BELFAST ME 04914 01605001 BELFAST WATER DISTRICT 8 ACHORN RD 009-079 PO BOX 506 BELFAST ME 04915 0506 01604001 SWEETLAND, TIMOTHY C. 37 ACHORN RD 009-078-E 37 ACHORN RD BELFAST ME 04915 01606001 DYER, CHRISTOPHER D 38 ACHORN RD 009-080 38 ACHORN ROAD BELFAST ME 04915 01607001 SMALL, KEVIN R. 71 ACHORN RD 009-081 SMALL, MICHELLE M. 71 ACHORN ROAD BELFAST ME 04915 Belfast Real Estate 08/28/2020 01:45 PM Account List by Location Page 2 Account Card Name / AddressLocation Map/Lot 01608 001 PEACH, HENRY E LIVING TRUST DATED 72 ACHORN RD 009-082 PEACH, HENRY E, NOWERS, DEBORAH K 72 ACHORN RD BELFAST ME 04915 01621001 GURNEY, CARROLL 79 ACHORN RD 009-086-D GURNEY, HAROLD c/o Matthew Hill, DHHS-OACPDS 91 CAMDEN ST. ROCKLAND ME 04841 01620001 RIPLEY, REBECKA 83 ACHORN RD 009-086-C COLE II, ZANE 83 ACHORN RD BELFAST ME 04915 01609001 SYLVESTER, PAUL 84 ACHORN RD 009-082-A 84 ACHORN ROAD BELFAST ME 04915 00863001 PERRYMAN FAMILY TRUST DATED ADNEY PLACE 004-055-A PERRYMAN, WILLIAM D, PERRYMAN, 3 ADNEY
    [Show full text]
  • 1.Introduction
    1.Introduction The original idea for a world trade center in New York is generally credited to David Rockefeller, one of industrialist John D. Rockefeller's many grandsons. In fact, the idea was proposed soon after World War II, a decade before Rockefeller ever got involved, but he was the one who actually got the ball rolling. In the 1950s and '60s, while serving as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, Rockefeller was dedicated to revitalizing lower Manhattan. He hoped to energize the area with new construction, in much the same way his father revitalized midtown Manhattan in the 1930s with Rockefeller Center. As part of his plan, David Rockefeller proposed a complex dedicated to international trade, to be constructed at the east end of Wall Street. Rockefeller believed that the trade center, which would include office and hotel space, an exhibit hall, a securities and exchange center and numerous shops, would be just the thing to spur economic growth in the area. The original World Trade Center featured landmark twin towers(1 WTC and 2 WTC), which opened on April 4, 1973. The North Tower (left), with antenna spire, is 1 WTC. The South Tower (right) is 2 WTC 33 2.Contruction of the World Trade Center The construction of the World Trade Center was conceived as an urban renewal project, spearheaded by David Rockefeller, to help revitalize Lower Manhattan. On September 20, 1962, the Port Authority announced the selection of Minoru Yamasaki as lead architect, and Emery Roth & Sons as associate architects. Originally, Yamasaki submitted to the Port Authority a concept incorporating twin towers, but with each building only 80 stories tall.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Construction Worker Safety During Building Decommissioning and Deconstruction
    An Analysis of Construction Worker Safety during Building Decommissioning and Deconstruction Tanyel Bulbul, PhD 430C Bishop-Favrao Hall, Department of Building Construction, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA 24061. Phone: (540) 231-5017; E-mail: [email protected] An Analysis of Construction Worker Safety during Building Decommissioning and Deconstruction Abstract: This paper reports the initial findings from our pilot research on understanding construction worker safety issues in building end-of-lifecycle operations specifically decommissioning and deconstruction. Although deconstruction is more environmentally friendly than demolition, it is more labor intensive and it requires more careful planning for critical health and safety issues. The data for this study comes from four buildings surrounding the World Trade Center. The buildings were damaged after September 11 and needed to come down. Keywords: building deconstruction, worker safety, building decommissioning 1. Introduction A building’s end-of-lifecycle operations include various activities from decommissioning and remodeling to deconstruction and demolition. According to the United States Energy Information Administration (US EIA) 74% of all commercial buildings in the US are built before 1990 and 17% built before 1945 (CBECS, 2003). Similarly, 76% of all the housing units are built before 1990 and 19% is built before 1950 (RECS, 2005). Since the US building stock is relatively old, demolition or deconstruction of buildings to open space for new construction or, building renovation for new purposes have a significant impact on the construction industry. For example, in 2006, residential and commercial building renovation activities cost 36% ($438 billion) of the all building construction activities ($1.22 trillion) (DOE, 2006). Building end-of-lifecycle operations also cause the construction industry to produce one of the largest shares of waste in the US.
    [Show full text]
  • World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan
    LOWER MANHATTAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan Record of Decision and Lead Agency Findings Statement June 2004 RECORD OF DECISION AND LEAD AGENCY FINDINGS STATEMENT FOR THE WORLD TRADE CENTER MEMORIAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK Table of Contents 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT...................................................................................1 1.1 Overview..................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Purpose and Need ........................................................................................2 1.3 Description of the Selected Project..........................................................................3 1.3.1 Project Site...................................................................................................3 1.3.2 Project Description.......................................................................................3 1.3.3 Site Plan .......................................................................................................3 1.3.4 Below Grade ................................................................................................4 1.3.5 Vehicular Circulation and Northern Service Option ...................................5 1.3.6 Memorial Mission Statement, Program, and Design...................................6 1.3.7 Site Design/Design Guidelines ....................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Neighborhood Character
    CHAPTER 10. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER 10.1 INTRODUCTION 10.1.1 CONTEXT The Twin Towers were a defining element of the New York City skyline, and were recognized around the world. The Twin Towers symbolized the power and commercial vitality of New York City and the nation as a whole. These extraordinary structures and the rest of the World Trade Center (WTC) were also the symbolic and functional centerpiece of Lower Manhattan’s reputation as a vital, international economic center. They were a focal point of New York City’s newest (Battery Park City) and oldest (Financial District) neighborhoods. The streets and sidewalks surrounding the WTC bustled with traffic and with pedestrians going to work, shop, sightsee, and travel to other areas. The WTC superblock, bounded by Vesey, Church, and Liberty Streets and Route 9A (WTC Site), replaced a series of smaller blocks. Although it was a busy nexus of transportation and an important destination itself, the WTC Site was often a barrier for residents, workers, and visitors of the three distinct neighborhoods surrounding it— Tribeca to the north, Battery Park City (BPC) to the west, and the Financial District to the east and south. The collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage to the rest of the WTC and adjacent areas on September 11, 2001, dramatically altered the character of the immediate area and surrounding neighborhoods. The attacks tore through the urban fabric of Lower Manhattan, leaving in their wake death and destruction, untold grief and emotional trauma, and now an enormous physical and economic void. The loss of life, jobs, infrastructure, and open and office space severely affected the Financial District, devastated area residents, workers, and businesses, and continues to undermine the vitality of Lower Manhattan.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Manhattan Hotel Market Overview
    HVS Hospitality Services: 2009 Manhattan Hotel Market Overview Manhattan Hotel Market Overview HVS Global Hospitality Services, in cooperation with New York University’s Preston Robert Tisch Center for Hospitality, Tourism, and Sports Management, is pleased to present the twelfth annual Manhattan Hotel Market Overview. Stephen Rushmore President & Founder, HVS Global Hospitality Services Once again, in 2008 Manhattan was the top-performing hotel market in the U.S. in terms of RevPAR. Occupancy remained impressive, in the mid-80% range. However, average rate gains were more modest than in the previous four years because of the heightened economic crisis in the last quarter of 2008. Despite the recent tumultuous economic times and the previous recessions that affected the Manhattan hotel market, all segments and all neighborhoods averaged growth in demand stronger than the growth in supply from 1987 to 2008; these fundamentals highlight the strength of the Manhattan market across the board. As a result of these favorable supply and demand dynamics, average rate grew well above the inflation rate during the historical period reviewed, pushing RevPAR up, and sustaining fairly high values. Considering the current climate, HVS forecasts that the Manhattan market will bottom out in 2011, with RevPAR returning to close to its 2008 peak level by 2013. We expect hotel values in Manhattan to follow a similar trend, reaching their low point in 2010 and returning to the previous peak level in 2013; this scenario assumes that the current recession will not fundamentally change corporate and transient customersʹ travel patterns over the long term and that financing returns to normal leverage levels.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2007
    World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan— Historic Resources Report January 2007 INTRODUCTION This report on Historic Resources for the World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan (Approved Plan) is prepared pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement among the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC), as a recipient of community development block grant assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which was signed on April 22, 2004, and stipulated that LMDC would provide semi-annual reports to SHPO and ACHP to summarize measures it has taken to comply with the terms of the Programmatic Agreement. The organization of this report generally follows the stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement. In addition meetings with the Consulting Parties and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) are described in the final section. 1. PROJECT SITE DOCUMENTATION UNDER STIPULATIONS 1 AND 5 As previously reported the Port Authority completed the program of HABS/HAER documentation of the WTC Site in accordance with Stipulation 5 and submitted the documentation to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in August 2005. The Port Authority completed the Phase IB Archaeological Investigation for the East Bathtub and the report was accepted by SHPO on August 24, 2006. 2. ADHERENCE TO TREATMENT PLANS LMDC continued working to create a Memorial to remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and February 26, 1993 and to record the events of September 11. Planning for the Memorial is discussed in more detail in the section which follows.
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Meeting Date
    MONTHLY MEETING DATE: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 TIME: 6:00 PM PLACE: PS/IS 89 - Auditorium 201 Warren Street and the Westside Highway R E V I S ED A G E N D A I. Public Session A) Comments by members of the public (3 minutes per speaker) II. Business Session A) Adoption of Minutes B) Chairperson’s Report J. Menin C) District Manager’s Report N. Pfefferblit D) Treasurer’s Report J. Kopel III. Committee Reports A) Tribeca Committee C. DeSaram 1) Route 139 Rehabilitation Project Update, NJDOT – Report 2) Greening of Tribeca – Report 3) Washington Market Park Comfort Station - Resolution 4) 40 Walker Street, CPC application for 74-711 special permit to allow residential use in floors 2 through 6 and office and/or retail space in the cellar and ground floor – Resolution 5) 25 N. Moore Street, rescinding of previous resolution for an application for on- premises (OP) license 200 Water Group LLC Inc. – Resolution 6) 25 N. Moore Street, reconsideration of previous CB1 resolution for on-premises (OP) liquor license for 200 Water Group LLC Inc. – Resolution 7) 130 Duane Street, application for wine and beer license for 130 Duane Street Hotel – Resolution 8) 181 Duane Street, application for renewal of wine license for 181 Duane Ristorante, Inc. d/b/a MAX – Resolution 9) 189 Franklin Street, application for liquor license for New York Steak & Burger Co. Inc. – Resolution 10) 22 Warren Street, application for liquor license for Tom Stagias/or Corp. to be Formed – Resolution 11) 190A Duane Street, application for new unenclosed sidewalk café for ROC Restaurant – Resolution 12) 78-82 Reade Street, application for renewal of unenclosed sidewalk café for Cup Café NY LLC d/b/a MOCCA – Resolution 13) 136 West Broadway, application for renewal of unenclosed sidewalk café Edwards – Resolution B) Quality of Life/Affordable Housing P.
    [Show full text]