DOCSLIB.ORG

Reserved and Existing Street Names Updated July 15, 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reserved and Existing Street Names Updated July 15, 2021 Reserved and Existing Street Names Updated July 15, 2021 Street Name Subdivision Phase Type Abbey Lane Willow Ridge 3 & 4B Existing Aberdeen Star Trail Proposed Abram Lane Lakewood Proposed Acacia Parkway Windsong Ranch 1A Existing Acie Star Trail Proposed Adair Windsong Ranch Proposed Adams Place Artesia ETJ Agarita Lane Windsong Ranch 2C-1 Proposed Agave Drive Windsong Ranch 1A Existing Ainsbury Way Star Trail 9 Existing Airline Star Trail Proposed Alabasta Windsong Ranch Proposed Albright Windsong Ranch 3C Proposed Alexis Star Trail Proposed Allen Street Crestview at Prosper 2 Existing Almeda Windsong Ranch 1C Existing Alton Windsong Ranch 1C Existing Alvarado Drive Artesia ETJ Amanda Lane Greens at legacy Proposed Amber Valley Star Trail Proposed Ambergate Lane Star Trail Proposed Amberly Lane Tanners Mill 2 Proposed Amberwood Lane Amberwood Farms Existing Amherst Drive Lakes of La Cima 7C Existing Amistad Avenue Artesia ETJ Amistad Drive Lakes of La Cima 1, 2, & 4 Existing Amsler Windsong Ranch Proposed Andover Lane Tanner's Mill 1 Proposed Angelina Lane Windsong Ranch 1C Existing Aquilla Way Artesia ETJ Arbol Way Lakes of La Cima 6A Existing Arborglen Court Whitley Place 5 Existing Arcadia Star Trail Proposed Arches Lane Whitley Place 1 Existing Archgate Lane Star Trail Proposed Aris Drive Preserve at Doe Creek 2 Proposed Arlong Park Windsong Ranch Proposed Armstrong Lane Legacy Garden 1 Proposed Arrowhead Drive Lakes of La Cima 3 Existing Atherton Court Lakewood 5 Proposed Artesia Boulevard Artesia ETJ Ascot Court Parks at Legacy 1 Existing Ash Creek Windsong Ranch Proposed Ashbury Star Trail Proposed Ashton Ridge Drive Prosper Lake on Preston Proposed Aspen Street Christie Farms 1 Existing Aurora Way Whitley Place 1 Existing Austin Drive Lakes of La Cima 6B Existing Austin Lane Artesia ETJ Autumn Glen Drive Prosper Lake on Preston Proposed Autumn Sage Drive Windsong Ranch 1A, 1C & 2A Existing Autumnwood Ct Star Trail 2A, 5 Existing Avocet Windsong Ranch Proposed Azealia Drive Hills at Legacy Proposed Bainbridge Lane Tanner's Mill 1B & 2 Proposed Balboa Park Dr Artesia ETJ Balboa Park Drive Artesia ETJ Balloch Drive Wildwood Estates 2 Existing Baltmore Parkside Proposed Banbury Drive Lakewood Proposed Bandera Court Windsong Ranch 2C-2 Proposed Barclay Lane Lakewood 5 Proposed Barefoot Lane Lakes at Legacy 1 Existing Barnhill Lane Lakes of Prosper 4 Existing Barrington Drive Glenbrooke Estates 1 Existing Bass Way Villages at Legacy Proposed Basildon Court Wildwood Estates Proposed Bates Drive Lakewood Proposed Beachtree Drive Lakewood 1 Proposed Beacon Hill Drive Lakes of Prosper 2A Existing Beacon Hill Drive Lakes of Prosper North 1 Existing Bear Creek Drive Preston Lakes Existing Beaver Trail Deer Run Existing Bedford Bend Lakewood Proposed Beechwood Drive Whitley Place 7 Proposed Belknap Windsong Ranch 3A-2 Existing Bellardia Drive Windsong Ranch 4A Existing Bellingrath Drive Whitley Place 1 Existing Belo Drive Windsong Ranch 7G, 7E Proposed Belton Drive Artesia ETJ Benbrook Boulevard Artesia ETJ Bendbrook Trail Gentle Creek Estates 3 Existing Benito Drive Lakes of La Cima 6A Existing Benjy Windsong Ranch Proposed Benson Windsong Ranch Proposed Bergdorf Way La Trevi Proposed Berkshire Drive Village at Prosper Trail 2 Existing Bertrand Windsong Ranch Proposed Betts Lane Prestonview Estates Existing Berylline Windsong Ranch Proposed Beveridge Windsong Ranch Proposed Beverly Drive Legacy Garden 1 Proposed Bidwell Park Drive Artesia ETJ Big Sky Drive Star Trail Proposed Biltmore Lane Parkside Existing Binkley Ave Legacy Garden 1 Proposed Birdsong Star Trail Proposed Bishop Avenue Star Trail Proposed Blackpool Lane Saddle Creek 2A Existing Blackpool Lane Tanner's Mill 1 Proposed Blackthorn Drive Gentle Creek Estates 3 Existing Blue Forest Drive Highland Meadows 2 & 3 Existing Blue Mist Lane Prosper Lake on Preston Proposed Blue Quail Drive Preserve at Doe Creek Proposed Blue Ridge Drive Willow Ridge 4B Existing Blue Sage Drive Windsong Ranch 4A Existing Bluegill Lane Lakes at Legacy 1 Existing Bluestem Drive Windsong Ranch 1A Proposed Bolton Lane Tanner's Mill 1B Proposed Bonham Drive Lakes of La Cima 6B Existing Bonner Ct Windsong Ranch 5A Existing Booker Court Whitley Place 5 Existing Bottlebrush Drive Hills at Legacy Existing Bozman Trail Frontier Estates 1 Existing Braden Star Trail Proposed Bradford Drive Bradford Farms Existing Brant Windsong Ranch Proposed Brazoria Drive Windsong Ranch 4A Existing Breezypoint Circle Gentle Creek Estates 6 Existing Brelsford Place Artesia ETJ Briarcliff Drive Whitley Place 7 & 9 Proposed Bridgeport Drive Preston Lakes Existing Bridges Windsong Ranch Proposed Brinker Street Windsong Ranch 7H Proposed Bristleleaf Lane Windsong Ranch 1A, 1B & 2A Existing Brittany Way Trails of Prosper 1 Existing Brittany Way Wildwood Estates 1 Existing Broadhurst Lane Lakewood 1 Existing Broadmoor Lane Whispering Farms 1 & 2 Existing Broadway Street Downtown Existing Broderick Lane Wildwood Estates 2 Existing Broken Bend Drive Gentle Creek Estates 3 Existing Brook Hollow Court Whispering Farms 2 Existing Brook View Court Stone Creek Existing Brookfield Star Trail Proposed Brookgreen Court Whispering Farms 1 Existing Brookhill Court Lakes of Prosper 2C Existing Brookside Drive Chapel Hill 1 Existing Brownwood Boulevard Artesia ETJ Brush Creek Road Cedar Ridge Estates 1 Existing Brushy Creek Star Trail Proposed Bryan Street Trails of Prosper 2 Existing Bryant Park Avenue Artesia ETJ Bryn Mawr Star Trail Proposed Buchanan Drive Lakes of La Cima 1 Existing Buckhorn Drive Frontier Estates 1 Existing Buckingham Way Village at Prosper Trail 2 Existing Buckskin Trail Saddle Creek 1, 2B Existing Buffalo Springs Drive Lakes of La Cima 1 & 3 Existing Bulrush Trail Lakes at Legacy Existing Burnet Court Whitley Place 5 Existing Business Drive Prosper Business Park Proposed Butchart Drive Whitley Place 1 & 2A Existing Buttercup Drive Hills at Legacy Existing Butterfly Drive Hawk Ridge Existing Button Branch Lane Windsong Ranch 3C Proposed Caddo Court Lakes of La Cima 2 Existing Calaveras Court Lakes of La Cima 3 Existing Calcot Manor Way Lakewood Proposed Calderdale Court Lakewood Proposed Calla Lily Lane Hawk Ridge Existing Camden Way Willow Ridge 3 Existing Camellia Lane Windsong Ranch 2C-2 Proposed Cameron Court Lakewood 1 Proposed Campell Windsong Ranch Proposed Canal Street Lakes at Legacy 1 Existing Canary Grass Drive Hills at Legacy Existing Candler Drive Artesia ETJ Cannon Drive Parks at Legacy 1 Existing Canterbury Drive Glenbrooke Estates 1 Existing Canton Circle Artesia ETJ Canvasback Lane Lakes at Legacy Existing Canyon Creek Star Trail Proposed Canyon Ridge Artesia ETJ Caribou Drive Deer Run Existing Carillon Place Star Trail 3 Existing Carlisle Court Lakes of Prosper 1 Existing Carolina Lane Cambridge Park Estates 1 Proposed Carson Street Lakewood Proposed Caruth Drive Legacy Garden 1 Proposed Cascades Court Prosper Lake on Preston 1 Existing Cassiano Windsong Ranch 3A-2 Existing Castle Drive Falls of Prosper 1 Existing Castleton Drive Whitley Place 4 Existing Cattle Drive Frontier Estates 1, 2 Existing Cavasback Lane Lakes at Legacy Proposed Cavitt Court Windsong Ranch 2C-2 Proposed Cedar Bend Court Highland Meadows 2 Existing Cedar Bend Drive Highland Meadows 2 Existing Cedar Crest Parkside Proposed Cedar Hollow Drive Cedar Ridge Estates 1 Existing Cedar Lake Drive Lakes of La Cima 1 Existing Cedar Oak Lane Lakewood Proposed Cedar Ridge Drive Cedar Ridge Estates 1 Existing Cedar Springs Drive Lakes of La Cima 2 & 4 Existing Cedarbrook Drive Greenspoint 1 Existing Celestial Drive Hills at Legacy Existing Celtic Lane Village at Prosper Trail 2 Existing Centenary Drive Star Trail 1B, 2A, 4, 5 Existing Central Garden Lane Artesia ETJ Central Park Drive Artesia ETJ Chalkstone Drive Chapel Hill 1 Existing Chama Drive Whitley Place 1 Existing Champlain Drive Prosper Lake on Preston 1 Existing Chandler Circle Raewood on Preston Existing Chapala Court Lakes of La Cima 1 Existing Chapel Hill Drive Chapel Hill 1 Existing Chapelbrook Drive Greenspoint 1 Existing Chasen Drive Lakewood Proposed Chaucer Parks at Legacy 2 Proposed Cherrywood Drive Whitley Place 10 Existing Cheshire Court Village at Prosper Trail 2 Existing Cheyenne Drive Frontier Estates 1, 2 Existing Chickadee Windsong Ranch Proposed Childrens Health Place Children's Complex Proposed Childrens Parkway Children's Complex Proposed Childrens Prosper Drive Children's Complex Proposed Childrens Way Children's Complex Proposed Chimney Rock Drive Whitley Place 1 Existing Chisholm Trail Frontier Estates 1 Existing Christie Farms Boulevard Christie Farms 1 Existing Church Street Downtown Existing Circle J Trail Saddle Creek 1 & 2A Existing Clarendon Court Lakewood 1 Existing Clear Ridge Drive Gentle Creek Estates 5 Existing Clearlake Drive Preston Lakes Existing Clearview Drive Lakewood Proposed Clearwater Parks at Legacy 1, 2, & 3B Existing Cliff Creek Drive Whitley Place 2B Existing Cliffside Star Trail Proposed Clinton Star Trail Proposed Clipston Drive Saddle Creek 1 Existing Cloud View Court Willow Ridge 2 Existing Cloverfield Drive Star Trail 9 Existing Club Oak Court Lakes of Prosper 1 Existing Coit Road Major Thoroughfare Existing Colchester Drive Glenbrooke Estates 2 & 2A Existing Cold Water Drive Lakes of La Cima 5 Existing Coleto Creek Drive Lakes of La Cima 4 Existing Coleto Creek Trail Artesia ETJ Collin Court Collin Green Existing Collin Green Boulevard Collin Green Existing Colonial Court Northchase Estates Existing Columbia Court Whitley
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Leseprobe 9783791384900.Pdf
    NYC Walks — Guide to New Architecture JOHN HILL PHOTOGRAPHY BY PAVEL BENDOV Prestel Munich — London — New York BRONX 7 Columbia University and Barnard College 6 Columbus Circle QUEENS to Lincoln Center 5 57th Street, 10 River to River East River MANHATTAN by Ferry 3 High Line and Its Environs 4 Bowery Changing 2 West Side Living 8 Brooklyn 9 1 Bridge Park Car-free G Train Tour Lower Manhattan of Brooklyn BROOKLYN Contents 16 Introduction 21 1. Car-free Lower Manhattan 49 2. West Side Living 69 3. High Line and Its Environs 91 4. Bowery Changing 109 5. 57th Street, River to River QUEENS 125 6. Columbus Circle to Lincoln Center 143 7. Columbia University and Barnard College 161 8. Brooklyn Bridge Park 177 9. G Train Tour of Brooklyn 195 10. East River by Ferry 211 20 More Places to See 217 Acknowledgments BROOKLYN 2 West Side Living 2.75 MILES / 4.4 KM This tour starts at the southwest corner of Leonard and Church Streets in Tribeca and ends in the West Village overlooking a remnant of the elevated railway that was transformed into the High Line. Early last century, industrial piers stretched up the Hudson River from the Battery to the Upper West Side. Most respectable New Yorkers shied away from the working waterfront and therefore lived toward the middle of the island. But in today’s postindustrial Manhattan, the West Side is a highly desirable—and expensive— place, home to residential developments catering to the well-to-do who want to live close to the waterfront and its now recreational piers.
    [Show full text]
  • Now 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE
    Landmarks Preservation Commission December 6, 2016, Designation List 491 LP-2582 CITICORP CENTER (now 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE) including SAINT PETER’S CHURCH 601 Lexington Avenue (aka 601-635 Lexington Avenue, 139-153 East 53rd Street, 140-160 East 54th Street, 884-892 Third Avenue), Manhattan Built, 1973-78; architects, Hugh A. Stubbins & Associates and Emery Roth & Sons Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 1308, Lot 7501 (1001, 1002, 1005) On September 13, 2016, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation of Citicorp Center (now 601 Lexington Avenue), including Saint Peter’s Church, and the proposed designation of the related landmark site. The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with provisions of law. Four people spoke in support of designation, including representatives of Saint Peter’s Church, Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer, the New York Landmarks Conservancy, and the Municipal Art Society of New York. The principal owner, Boston Properties, and the Real Estate Board of New York submitted written testimony in support of designation. Summary The former Citicorp Center is a major example of late 20th century modern architecture. Designed by Hugh A. Stubbins & Associates, in association with Emery Roth & Sons, this early mixed-use complex contains three interlocking buildings: a 59-story office tower, a 6-story retail-and-office structure, and Saint Peter’s Church. Commissioned by First National City Bank (now Citibank), the 915-foot-tall office tower is one of New York City’s most recognizable skyscrapers. Important for its slanted top, four “super” columns that rise over 100 feet and generous public spaces, it plays a major role on the Manhattan skyline.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5: Shadows
    Chapter 5: Shadows A. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the detailed shadow study that was conducted to determine whether the proposed One Vanderbilt development would cast any new shadows on sunlight-sensitive resources. Sunlight-sensitive resources can include parks, playgrounds, residential or office plazas, and other publicly accessible open spaces; sunlight-dependent features of historic resources; and important natural features such as water bodies. Since the preparation of the shadow analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the height of the proposed One Vanderbilt development was increased. The shadow analysis in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been revised to reflect this change including Figures 5-1 to 5-22 and 5-27. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS This analysis compared shadows that would be cast by the proposed One Vanderbilt development, which would be built to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 30, with those that would be cast by the 15 FAR building that would be developed absent the proposed actions (the 15 FAR No-Action building). As described below, the analysis concluded that the proposed 30 FAR One Vanderbilt development would cast new shadows on Bryant Park, the west windows of Grand Central Terminal’s main concourse and several other sunlight-sensitive resources. However, the new shadows would be limited in extent, duration and effects and would not result in any significant adverse shadow impacts, as demonstrated in detail below. B. DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY This analysis has been prepared in accordance with CEQR procedures and follows the guidelines of the 2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. DEFINITIONS Incremental shadow is the additional, or new, shadow that a structure resulting from a project would cast on a sunlight-sensitive resource.
    [Show full text]
  • “The 1961 New York City Zoning Resolution, Privately Owned Public
    “The 1961 New York City Zoning Resolution, Privately Owned Public Space and the Question of Spatial Quality - The Pedestrian Through-Block Connections Forming the Sixth-and-a-Half Avenue as Examples of the Concept” University of Helsinki Faculty of Arts Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies Art History Master’s thesis Essi Rautiola April 2016 Tiedekunta/Osasto Fakultet/Sektion – Faculty Laitos/Institution– Department Humanistinen tiedekunta Filosofian, historian, kulttuurin ja taiteiden tutkimuksen laitos Tekijä/Författare – Author Essi Rautiola Työn nimi / Arbetets titel – Title The 1961 New York City Zoning Resolution, Privately Owned Public Space and the Question of Spatial Quality - The Pedestrian Through-Block Connections Forming the Sixth-and-a-Half Avenue as Examples of the Concept Oppiaine /Läroämne – Subject Taidehistoria Työn laji/Arbetets art – Level Aika/Datum – Month and year Sivumäärä/ Sidoantal – Number of pages Pro gradu Huhtikuu 2016 104 + 9 Tiivistelmä/Referat – Abstract Tutkielma käsittelee New Yorkin kaupungin kaavoituslainsäädännön kerrosneliöbonusjärjestelmää sekä sen synnyttämiä yksityisomisteisia julkisia tiloja ja niiden tilallista laatua nykyisten ihanteiden valossa. Esimerkkitiloina käytetään Manhattanin keskikaupungille kuuden korttelin alueelle sijoittuvaa kymmenen sisä- ja ulkotilan sarjaa. Kerrosneliöbonusjärjestelmä on ollut osa kaupungin kaavoituslainsäädäntöä vuodesta 1961 alkaen ja liittyy olennaisesti New Yorkin kaupungin korkean rakentamisen perinteisiin. Se on mahdollistanut ylimääräisten
    [Show full text]
  • New York: the Revitalization of Public Space
    New York: the revitalization of public space Recent interventions in the Manhattan grid EURAU’12 ABSTRACT. During the past 200 years, New York´s grid has been a format for new approaches to “making city”. This past decade has been profitable for New York´s public space. Recent events such as 9/11 and the new Bloomberg administration’s commitment to sustainable growth have provided a driving force behind the revitalization of urban life in the city. This revitalization could not have been possible without the existing elements that foster public space: the grid, public legislation and the citizen. The citizen plays a role as user, critic and promoter of the public space in the city he lives, works and plays in. In some cases, it is not so evident for whom the public space is created. This can be seen through three different types of users in the city and the creation of public space for each of them: the neighbor, the citizen and the visitor. According to Jane Jacobs, “The cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” (JACOBS, 1961. 238) KEYWORDS: New York, Manhattan, revitalization, public space, grid, superblock Ana Morcillo Pallarés Morcillo + Pallarés Arquitectos Paseo, nº 69 – bajo 30530 Cieza (Murcia) Spain, [email protected] 00 34 968 761 764 1. New York. The revitalization of the public space In 2011, the New York grid turned 200 hundred years old and NYC celebrated its new public spaces that grew from its influence. 2011 saw the realization of interventions in Hypar Pavilion at Lincoln Center; New York´s first Urban Design Week in the BMW Guggenheim Labs pavilion and throughout the city, the opening of the second section of the High Line and the long awaited inauguration of the WTC Memorial.
    [Show full text]
  • Revitalizing the Southeast Corner of Ocean and Pine: Activating Victory Park
    Revitalizing the Southeast Corner of Ocean and Pine: Activating Victory Park Prepared for the Downtown Long Beach Associates By April Economides, Green Octopus Consulting May 2015 ABOUT THIS PAPER This paper aims to offer inspiring and practical ideas of ‘what could be.’ It explains the benefits Long Beach will enjoy by restoring and activating Victory Park; it describes what ensures successful pocket parks, as well as what to avoid; it looks at successful pocket parks in other cities, including best practices in park management and activation; and it puts forth recommendations about how to move forward. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO LONG BEACH? The intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Pine Avenue is one of the most important intersections in Long Beach. It serves as a main thoroughfare for pedestrians, including many conventioneers and tourists, and has a high volume of vehicular traffic. Located next to the Convention Center, it links the attractions, hotels and restaurants of South and North Pine Avenue and is one of the main intersections used by Downtown visitors. The intersection is also heavily used by nearby residents, Downtown workers, business visitors and transit commuters. Prospective developers and business owners looking to relocate or open anew in Downtown regularly pass through this intersection, as do many of the Convention Center’s current and prospective clients. Two thriving businesses – the Renaissance Hotel and Rock Bottom Brewery – grace the north corners, and exciting plans are in the works for the Ocean Center Building located on the southwest corner. In contrast to this activity, the approximately 11,000-square-foot property on the southeast corner is vacant, surrounded by a fence.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture Mark Francis
    A Case Study Method For Landscape Architecture Mark Francis Mark Francis, FASLA is professor and Abstract: Case studies are widely used in most professions, including medicine, law, past chair of landscape architecture engineering, business, planning, and architecture. This practice is becoming increasingly com- at the University of California, Davis. mon in landscape architecture as well. The primary body of knowledge in landscape architec- Trained in landscape architecture and ture is contained in the written and visual documentation—that is, stories—of projects, be it urban design at the University of Cal- well-known ones such as New York’s Central Park, or more modest projects such as a small ifornia, Berkeley and Harvard, his neighborhood park. Together, these cases provide the primary form of education, innovation, and work focuses on the use and meaning testing for the profession. They also serve as the collective record of the advancement and devel- of the built and natural landscape. opment of new knowledge in landscape architecture. This article summarizes a research project Much of this research has utilized a commissioned by the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) in 1997 to develop a case case study approach to study and study method for landscape architecture. The project concludes that the case study method is a design parks, gardens, public spaces, highly appropriate and valuable approach in landscape architecture. This article presents a streets, nearby nature, and urban case study methodology for landscape architecture including it limits and benefits, a suggested public life. He is the author of sev- methodology and format, and an example case study of Bryant Park in New York City.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Cincinnati
    UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date:___________________ I, _________________________________________________________, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in: It is entitled: This work and its defense approved by: Chair: _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ Rethinking the Process and Role of Redesigning Public Spaces A Thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Community Planning School of Planning College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning University of Cincinnati 2008 by Soumi Basu Bachelor in Architecture, Maharaja Sayajirao University, India, 2004 Committee: Chair: Menelaos Triantafillou, AICP, ASLA Advisor: Nnamdi Elleh, Ph.D. Abstract Public spaces have always been an important component of urban design and city making. With the changing dynamics of cities, the public realm has been substantially affected and has changed the way such spaces are perceived and used. Substantial literature is available on public spaces and their design, the star designer associated with the space, and the description of the design virtues. In addition, there is a growing body of literature focusing on the production of space, the concept of place, and cultural/sociological issues on the use of the space. However, there is a substantial lack of knowledge on the redevelopment and redesign processes, or how redesigning can potentially destroy the character and meaning of a public space and how a designer should ideally approaches the process. The focus of this research is to identify all the factors that play an important role in the proper redesign and redevelopment of a public space project, more specifically urban parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Parks, Squares and Political Events
    Parks, Squares and Political Events: Difference in accessibility for political events depending on ownership structures Abstract Publicly accessible urban spaces in New York City are subject to different ownership models. Some are privately owned by corporations, which are called POPs. Others are publicly accessible urban spaces publicly owned by the Department of Parks and Recreation. Because there is little research about how the ownership structures of these two different ownership structures affect the accessibility and use of their different publicly accessible urban spaces, in regards to the organisation of political events. I hypothesise that there is a difference in accessibility and use, for different ownership structures, regarding political events. Political events was chosen as the main use due to the change within the political climate in the United States of America, during Donald J, Trump’s presidency. The main research question is: Is there a difference in the accessibility and use of publicly accessibly urban spaces in New York City for political events depending on their ownership structure? For each of the different ownership structures three case studies’ urban design features and rules and regulations were introduced and analysed. Following this chapter, different types of political events are introduced by including events that took place within the case studies. From which, certain urban design requirements were identified that were necessary to host different political events. After comparing the case studies’ urban design elements and rules AR2A011 Architectural History Thesis and regulations with the identified requirements of different types 15-4-2021 (Q1/2) of political events, it was concluded that there is indeed a difference Technical University Delft, Architecture in accessibility and use of publicly accessible urban spaces in New York City for political events.
    [Show full text]
  • Share Your Thoughts on the Met Park Public Space Draft Design Concepts (370 Submissions)
    Metropolitan Park Public Space Community Comments May, 2020 Share Your Thoughts on the Met Park Public Space Draft Design Concepts (370 Submissions) Jump to the following sections: Page # Featured Elements 1 Balancing Interests 5 What features do you like the most in the social garden draft design? 6 What features do you like the least in the social garden draft design? 28 What features do you like the most in the forest walk draft design? 53 What features do you like the least in the forest walk draft design? 80 Additional thoughts 101 Generally, can you envision these concepts as part of a future metropolitan 125 park? FEATURED ELEMENTS Which features would you MOST like to see in the Met Park Public Space? ELM STREET PROMENADE 89 THE MEANDER & TRELLIS 126 SITE FURNITURE 68 1 Metropolitan Park Public Space Community Comments May, 2020 CENTRAL GREEN 102 2 DOG RUNS 51 1 DOG RUN 67 FITNESS GARDEN 48 ART WALK 156 PLAY GARDEN 64 DISCOVERY PLAYGROUND 42 GAME LOUNGE 27 OVERLOOK 118 ORCHARD TABLE 59 CULINARY GARDEN 59 MEADOW LOUNGE 49 Which features would you LEAST like to see in the Met Park Public Space? 2 Metropolitan Park Public Space Community Comments May, 2020 ELM STREET PROMENADE 43 THE MEANDER & TRELLIS 31 SITE FURNITURE 17 CENTRAL GREEN 52 2 DOG RUNS 206 1 DOG RUN 67 FITNESS GARDEN 76 ART WALK 35 PLAY GARDEN 79 DISCOVERY PLAYGROUND 96 GAME LOUNGE 138 OVERLOOK 28 ORCHARD TABLE 55 CULINARY GARDEN 85 MEADOW LOUNGE 26 3 Metropolitan Park Public Space Community Comments May, 2020 4 Metropolitan Park Public Space Community Comments May, 2020 BALANCING INTERESTS NOTE: "Average Allotted Budget" refers to a numerical value, not a monetary value.
    [Show full text]
  • Energized Public Spaces Design Guidelines
    Attachment A Designing Public Spaces Energized Public Spaces Design Guidelines Working Draft December 2018 THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION Abstract The Designing Public Spaces: Energized Public Spaces Design Guidelines should be used in conjunction with Sector Plan Design Guidelines. This document will be used to guide the design of public spaces within the Energized Public Spaces Functional Master Plan (EPS Plan) Study Area as outlined in more detail in these guidelines. The guidelines are based on existing conditions analysis, stakeholder input and current best practices in public space design from the region and beyond. Design guidelines help provide information about how plan recommendations and zoning code requirements can be met, and the overall context for the different types of spaces within an integrated system of public spaces in the County. Design guidelines are approved by the Montgomery County Planning Board for use by public entities and developers in preparing design proposals, and planners and the Board in reviewing them. These guidelines may need to be reviewed and updated by the Planning Board as best practices and conditions in the EPS Plan Study Area evolve overtime. Sources of Copies Montgomery County Department of Parks The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 9500 Brunett Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20901 Online at www.montgomeryparks.org ii DESIGNING PUBLIC SPACES - ENERGIZED PUBLIC SPACES DESIGN GUIDELINES • WORKING DRAFT • DECEMBER
    [Show full text]
  • University Village
    Landmarks Preservation Commission November 18, 2008, Designation List 407 LP-2300 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE, 100 and 110 Bleecker Street (aka Silver Towers I & II, 98-122 Bleecker Street and 40-58 West Houston Street) and 505 LaGuardia Place (aka 487-507 LaGuardia Place and 64-86 West Houston Street). Built 1964-67; I. M. Pei & Associates, architect; James Ingo Freed, chief designer. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan, Block 524, Lot 1 and Lot 66, in part, beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 1 and extending northerly along the western property line of Lot 1 coincident with the easterly side of LaGuardia Place 248 feet; then easterly along a section of the northern property line of Lot 1 that runs parallel to Bleecker Street 124 feet; then northerly 130.18 feet along a section of the western property line of Lot 1 that parallels LaGuardia Place; then easterly along the northern property line of Lot 1 and a section of the northern property line of Lot 66 coincident with the southerly side of Bleecker Street 302.24 feet; then southerly and parallel to Mercer Street 336.52 feet; then easterly and parallel with West Houston Street 9.92 feet; then southerly and parallel with Mercer Street to the southern property line of Lot 66; then westerly along a section of the southern property line of Lot 66 and the southern property line of Lot 1 coincident with the northerly side of West Houston Street 437.35 feet to the point of beginning. On June 24, 2008 the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation of University Village and the proposed designation of the related Landmark site.
    [Show full text]