Chapter 4: Social Conditions

A. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This chapter addresses a variety of issues that support social conditions, including population and housing characteristics, community facilities and open spaces, and neighborhood character. The discussion of social conditions considers the entire MESA study area (depicted in Figure 3-1 in Chapter 3, above) with particular focus on the project corridor—the routes proposed for the various project alternatives—where the greatest potential for change would occur. Because none of the project alternatives have the potential to change social conditions in the secondary study area, where Build Alternatives 1 and 2 would add service along an existing subway line, this analysis is of the primary study area only. The analysis was conducted by first compiling existing data for population and housing, com- munity facilities and open spaces, and neighborhood character. The source for the population and housing data is the 1990 Census of Population and Housing. The inventory of community facilities is based on Community District Needs (1997) for ’s Community Boards, the Department of Parks and Recreation’s Property Lists (dated November 4, 1996), supplementary information provided by the various Community Boards within the study area, and the informa- tion gathered for the analysis of land use, zoning, and public policy in Chapter 3. The assessment of neighborhood character is based on information gathered for other chapters of this document, particularly including the analyses of land use (Chapter 3) and visual and aesthetic considerations (Chapter 6). After assessing the existing conditions in the study area, the expected changes in the future are considered, based on information compiled in Chapter 3. Then, each alternative’s effects on population and housing, community facilities and open spaces, and neighborhood character are evaluated. This chapter assesses the potential impacts that may result during operation of each project al- ternative. Impacts on social conditions during construction are documented in Chapter 15, “Con- struction and Construction Impacts.” B. EXISTING CONDITIONS

OVERVIEW OF STUDY AREA

POPULATION AND HOUSING As described in Chapter 3 (“Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy”), much of the study area is residential. In fact, the MESA study area is home to 45 percent of Manhattan’s total population (see Table 4-1). The portion of the study area with the greatest number of residents is the Upper (with more than 30 percent of the study area’s population and nearly 14 percent of Manhattan’s total population), followed closely by the (27.7 percent of the study area’s population) and then East Midtown. Although East is also predominantly

4-1 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

Table 4-1 Study Area Population

1980-1990 1990 1990 Percent Percent of Percent of Zone 1970 1980 1990 Change Study Area Manhattan 10,445 13,725 23,631 72.2% 3.5% 1.6% Lower East Side 200,442 177,207 186,176 5.1 27.7 12.5 East Midtown 133,253 141,950 150,140 5.8 22.4 10.1 199,280 197,343 202,690 2.7 30.2 13.6 154,751 112,915 108,468 -3.9 16.2 7.3 Study Area Total 698,171 643,140 671,105 4.4 100.0 45.1 Manhattan Total 1,539,233 1,428,285 1,487,536 4.4 -- -- Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1970, 1980, 1990. residential, it is less populated than those three zones. Table 4-1 shows the population in each of the study area zones. More detailed information on selected population characteristics is pro- vided in Table 4-2 and information on the study area’s labor force is provided in Table 4-3. Within the study area are a full range of income levels. The areas with the highest median annu- al household income are in the Upper East Side and East Midtown zones (as well as in ), while those with the lowest median incomes are the Lower East Side (with a median household income at 56 percent of the study area’s median household income) and East Harlem (at 36 percent). More than 27 percent of the households on the Lower East Side and 39 percent of the households in East Harlem are living below the poverty level, compared with 18 percent for the study area as a whole. In 1990, minority groups constituted 35 percent of the study area’s population. Most of the study area’s minority residents live on the Lower East Side and in East Harlem—some 54 percent of the residents of the Lower East Side and 78 percent of those in East Harlem are minority resi- dents. Many of the minority residents on the Lower East Side (as well as in the northern part of Lower Manhattan) are Asian people living in Chinatown: in both the Lower Manhattan and Lower East Side zones, approximately 30 percent of the total population is Asian. In addition, 30 percent of the population of the Lower East Side is Hispanic and 10 percent is African- American. In East Harlem, the large proportion of residents are African-American and/or Hispanic: a total of 49 percent of this zone’s residents are African-American and more than half (52 percent) are Hispanic. (Hispanic is an ethnic group that can include members of any race, such as Caucasian or African-American). The study area includes a labor force of more than 391,000 people, of whom 93.4 percent (365,528) were employed in 1990. The employed labor force is concentrated in the same zones and neighborhoods as the population: on the Lower East Side (with 23.7 percent of the study area’s employed labor force), in East Midtown (with 27.3 percent), and on the Upper East Side (with 36.2 percent of the study area’s employed labor force).

4-2 5.6 5.0 5.7 5.4 7.0 4.9 3.9 5.8 8.1 17.8 20.5 39.4 36.6 43.0 14.2 13.4% 23.0 15.7 27.3 28.6 25.4 Level Below Poverty Population (Percent)** Table 4-2 $42,473 $32,262 $59,030 $15,490 $17,238 $13,231 $60,633 $56,255 $59,763 $53,088 $39,160 $48,398 $49,554 $50,172 $46,755 $72,489 $47,660 $23,616 $17,780 $29,154 $47,926 Annual Median Income Household 1990 Population Economic Profile 1.91 1.99 1.75 2.64 2.61 2.67 1.61 1.53 1.68 1.52 1.52 1.42 1.93 1.67 2.07 1.67 2.28 2.70 1.88 1.56 1.65 Size (Persons) Household 2.1 2.7 14.1 13.3 13.2 11.6 11.8 11.5 18.1 20.5 15.4 14.5 10.2 14.3 12.4% 12.8 19.2 13.2 15.3 10.4 15.7 Age 65 Percent and Over , 1980 and 1990. 5.7 4.5 4.6 5.2 5.2 4.7 6.9% 7.3 3.6 5.6 6.6 26.0 19.9 52.3 57.0 46.3 10.5 12.2 29.4 30.2 28.4 Hispanic* Selected Characteristics of the Study Area Selected Characteristics 7.4 3.8 1.7 2.7 0.5 4.3 5.2 4.0 7.3 6.7 7.9 7.6 7.6 12.2 10.7 30.6% 39.1 14.9 10.5 28.7 44.3 Asian 2.9 1.7 1.7 2.4 3.8 8.6 2.1 7.9% 8.1 3.5 4.9 4.9 22.0 12.8 48.6 40.8 58.6 17.4 10.4 10.1 10.7 Black Population Race and Ethnicity (Percentage) 58.3 65.4 91.9 21.8 27.2 14.9 93.0 92.4 92.3 84.8 80.8 90.2 58.9% 69.7 49.5 80.6 85.7 85.8 45.7 30.9 65.6 White U.S. Census of Population and Housing 4.1 4.4 6.4 2.7 4.2 5.8 5.1 6.9 2.7 -3.9 -3.7 -4.2 -1.7 -5.7 -0.8 23.2 14.4 72.2% 82.3 26.4 100.0 Percent Change, 1980-1990 2,326 5,574 60,708 47,760 88,772 26,148 23,416 41,065 13,845 23,631 15,731 45,666 79,465 Total 108,468 671,105 113,918 202,690 150,140 186,176 106,711 1,487,536 An ethnic group that can include members of all different racial categories, including African-American and Caucasian residents. An ethnic group that can include members of poverty level; poverty level varies depending on household size. Percent of persons with incomes below the established Zone * ** U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, /Yorkville Southern East Harlem Northern East Harlem Upper East Side/Medical Ctr. East Midtown Grand Central/UN /Medical Ctr. Murray Hill Financial District /Civic Center Battery Park City Lower Fifth Lower East Side/Chinatown East Village Manhattan Notes: Source: East Harlem Study Area Upper East Side Lower Manhattan East Midtown Lower East Side

4-3 4.4 8.1 7.0 7.0 5.9 6.5 7.6 8.7 7.6 8.1 7.3 3.4 3.7 2.9 6.8 7.1 7.9% 8.0 3.0 6.2 10.6 Other Table 4-3 40.9 23.6 38.0 26.4 40.2 46.0 48.0 40.7 21.9 31.2 14.6 15.7 17.6 13.2 28.9 22.6 40.5% 38.2 40.2 40.5 32.3 Walk 7.9 14.0 11.8 15.6 15.3 13.6 14.5 16.7 18.7 21.7 21.7 21.6 14.7 15.2 14.1 17.0 15.9 14.7% 14.3 17.5 12.9 Taxis Autos & (Percentages) 9.2 2.5% 2.4 2.7 2.2 15.7 18.0 27.0 14.3 16.5 15.2 11.9 17.5 15.9 18.8 20.6 20.3 21.1 16.2 14.0 12.4 Bus Journey to Work Characteristics Journey-to-Work. 40.9 21.4 31.3 23.2 37.8 31.1 38.4 24.3 26.1 16.6 12.5 20.0 45.5 43.3 48.7 36.2 31.5 42.6 32.2 36.8 34.4% Railroad Subway/ , 1990, 1990 Labor Force and Journey-to-Work 1990 Labor Force -- Selected Characteristics of the Study Area Selected Characteristics 8.0 7.6 2.8 4.4 4.6 9.1 5.4 3.8 0.4 2.2 1.2 3.7% 11.5 27.3 36.2 16.0 20.2 23.7 12.2 100.0 Employed Percent of Study Area Employed as 90.8 95.4 95.9 94.6 96.1 95.8 95.3 96.1 96.4 95.9 84.3 85.7 82.5 93.4 91.9 85.4 94.9 97.2 90.7 90.6 94.5% Force Labor Employed Percent of Labor Force U.S. Census of Population and Housing 1,379 7,894 4,400 42,034 99,693 29,200 27,624 10,041 15,974 16,854 58,436 73,805 33,406 19,637 13,769 86,515 44,481 13,673 132,241 365,528 770,084 Employed Labor Force 1,615 8,315 4,527 46,266 30,427 29,176 10,445 16,672 17,674 60,568 76,915 39,600 22,911 16,689 95,333 49,067 14,457 Force 104,394 137,483 391,267 837,158 Total Labor Zone U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the East Village Lower Fifth Midtown South/Medical Ctr. Murray Hill Grand Central/UN East Midtown Upper East Side/Medical Ctr. Carnegie Hill/Yorkville Southern East Harlem Northern East Harlem Financial District Tribeca/Civic Center Battery Park City Lower East Side/Chinatown East Midtown Upper East Side East Harlem Study Area Manhattan Source: Lower East Side Lower Manhattan

4-4 Chapter 4: Social Conditions

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND OPEN SPACES As would be expected in residential neighborhoods, the study area is also home to numerous community facilities and open spaces. For purposes of this assessment, community facilities ex- amined include public and private schools, libraries, hospitals, police and fire stations, and reli- gious institutions. Open spaces include public parks, plazas, and sitting areas. Such resources are located throughout the study area, with particular concentrations where the population is great- est. Consequently, Lower Manhattan has fewer community facilities, while the other study area zones—and particularly the Lower East Side and East Harlem—have dense concentrations. Community facilities close to any of the project alignments are listed in Table 4-4 and shown in Figures 4-1 through 4-5.

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER The different neighborhoods in the MESA study area vary widely in character, covering the full range of types present in Manhattan. These include the dense Commercial Business Districts of Lower Manhattan and East Midtown, where the streets are lined with tall office buildings and busy with traffic and pedestrians on weekdays, but quiet during nights and weekends. They also include mid- and high-rise residential neighborhoods in East Midtown and the Upper East Side, characterized by the city’s regular street grid, busy traffic patterns, and by taller buildings on major avenues with shorter buildings in the midblocks. The study area’s neighborhoods also in- clude those on the Lower East Side and in East Harlem, where mixes of low-rise older residen- tial and industrial buildings with large blocks of public housing are common. These neighborhoods have less traffic and the associated noise than the more densely developed parts of the city.

LOWER MANHATTAN

POPULATION AND HOUSING In 1990, Lower Manhattan contained just 3.5 percent of the study area’s population. These resi- dents live predominantly in and near Battery Park City, in Southbridge Towers (just south of the Bridge), and in the small portion of Chinatown that extends south of and west of the . With the construction of Battery Park City in the 1980’s (adding more than 4,000 apartments by 1990) and the conversion of former loft space in Tribeca, Lower Manhattan experienced a near-doubling of its population between 1980 and 1990 (from 13,725 to 23,631). These trends, coupled with the recent initiative toward redevelopment of the Financial District for residential use, contributed to recent increases in population in this zone and will continue to do so in the near future. Between 1980 and 1990, population in the Financial District increased by 82.3 percent, and that in Tribeca by 26.4 percent, and these increases have continued since 1990. Reflecting the proximity of Lower Manhattan’s residential units to the Central Business District, this zone has a relatively high percentage (67.6 percent, compared with 61.2 percent for the study area as a whole) of adults of working age (ages 25-64). The median household income in this zone ($49,554) is higher than the study area median ($42,473) and second only to the Upper East Side zone; of all the neighborhoods in the MESA study area, Battery Park City has the highest median income ($72,489), some 20 percent higher than the next highest neighborhood

4-5 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

Table 4-4 Community Facilities Near Project Alternatives No. Community Facility Location Lower Manhattan 1 Vietnam Veterans Plaza , , Old Slip 2 Hanover Square Park Hanover Square and 3 Engine 4—Ladder 15 42 South Street 4 Seaport Park Pearl, Fulton, Water Streets 5 Engine 6 49 Beekman Street 6 NY Downtown Hospital 170 William Street 7 Pace University 1 Pace Place 8 Printing House Square and Spruce Streets 9 , Park Row, Chambers Street 10 African Burial Ground/Hist. Dist. Park Row at Dover Street 11 Farmers' Market Chambers and Lafayette Streets 12 Murray Bergtraum High School 411 Pearl Street 13 Police Headquarters 1 Police Plaza 14 Worth and Pearl Streets 15 Thomas Paine Park Lafayette and Worth Streets 16 Chinatown Health Clinic 125 Walker Street 17 5th Precinct 19 Elizabeth Street Lower East Side 1 Sara Delano Roosevelt Park 2 I.S. 131—Dr. Sun Yat Sen School 100 Hester Street 3 Fire Engine 9 Ladder Co. 6 75 Canal Street 4 Center Plots Allen Street 5 Straus Square Canal, Rutgers and East Broadway 6 Educational Alliance 197 East Broadway 7 Essex and East Broadway 8 Seward Park Library 192 East Broadway 9 Captain Jacob Joseph Playground Rutgers, Henry and East Broadway 10 Tifereth Israel School 141 East Broadway 11 Fire Engine 15 269 12 P.S. 134 Playground Montgomery, Henry and East Broadway 13 P.S. 134—Henrietta Szold School 293 East Broadway 14 Ahearn Park Grand and East Broadway 15 P.S. 110 Playground Delancey and Lewis Streets 16 P.S. 110—Florence Nightingale School 285 17 Seward Park High School 350 18 CPC Health Care Delancey at 19 7th Precinct 19 Pitt Street 20 Fire Engine 17 25 Pitt Street 21 Beth Jacob School 142 22 Schiff Pkwy Center Plots Delancey Street, Bowery to Essex Streets 23 Teatro Solidaridad Humana School Rivington at Suffolk Street 24 P.S. 142—Amalia Castro School 100 Attorney Street

4-6 Chapter 4: Social Conditions

Table 4-4 (Continued) Community Facilities Near Project Alternatives No. Community Facility Location 25 Houston and Pitt Streets 26 Hamilton Fish Library 415 East 27 I.S. 22/Leadership Secondary School 111 Columbia Street 28 Gustav Hartman Square Houston Street, , 2nd Street 29 P.S. 97—Mangin School 525 East Houston Street 30 P.S. 188/P.S. 94 442 East Houston Street 31 Lillian Wald Houses Playground East Houston Street 32 P.S. 15—Roberto Clemente School 333 East 33 Dry Dock Pool and Park () 10th Street and 34 P.S. 34—Franklin D. Roosevelt School 730 East 12th Street 35 Immaculate Conception School 419 East 13th Street 36 Fire Engine 5 344 East 37 NY Eye/Ear Infirmary 310 East 14th Street 38 Fire Station, Ladder 3 108 East 13th Street 39 Yeshiva University 55 40 Parsons School of Design 25 East 13th Street 41 New School 13th-14th Streets at Fifth Avenue 42 Union Square Park 14th-17th Streets; Broadway-Fifth Avenue 43 Manhattan Comp. Night High School 240 Second Avenue 44 Strang Cancer Clinic 1230 York Avenue 45 Leadership/Public Service High School 15th-16th Streets; First-Second Avenues East Midtown 1 Union Square Park 14th-17th Streets; Broadway-Fifth Avenue 2 Manhattan Comp. Night High School 240 Second Avenue 3 Strang Cancer Clinic 1230 York Avenue 4 Leadership/Public Service High School 15th-16th Streets; First-Second Avenues 5 Jack and Jill School 209 East 16th Street 6 15th-17th Streets; Rutherford-Perelman Place 7 Beth Israel Medical Center 10 Perelman Place 8 Joint Diseases Hosp/NYU Nursing 301 East 17th Street 9 Cabrini Medical Center 227 East 19th Street 10 P.S. 40 Playground 19th-20th Streets; Second Avenue 11 P.S. 40 319 East 19th Street 12 Police Academy 235 East 20th Street 13 13th Precinct 237 East 20th Street 14 JHS 104 Playground 20th-21st Streets; Second Avenue 15 JHS 104 330 East 21st Street 16 Epiphany School 234 East 22nd Street 17 Epiphany Library East ; Second- 18 School of Visual Arts 209 East 23rd Street 19 P.S./JHS 47, School for the Deaf 225 East 23rd Street 20 P.S. 138 400 21 Veterans Administration Hospital 408 First Avenue

4-7 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

Table 4-4 (Continued) Community Facilities Near Project Alternatives No. Community Facility Location 22 NYU School of Dentistry 421 First Avenue 23 Phipps Plaza Park 330 East 26th Street 24 Acorn School 330 East 26th Street 25 NYU School of Medicine 341 East 25th Street 26 Fire Engine 16 234 East 29th Street 27 Albano Playground 29th Street; Second Avenue 28 NYU Medical Clinic 445 First Avenue 29 Bellevue Hospital 446 First Avenue 30 NYU Hospital 560 First Avenue 31 P.S. 116 210 East 33rd Street 32 Child School 317 East 33rd Street 33 Sacred Heart School 307 East 33rd Street 34 St. Vartan's Park 35th-36th Streets, First-Second Avenues 35 Fire Engine 21 238 East 40th Street 36 Tudor Park 41-43rd Streets, First-Second Avenues 37 Ralph J. Bunche Park 42nd-43rd Streets, First Avenue 38 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza , First-Second Avenues 39 Douglas MacArthur Plaza 48th-49th Streets, Drive 40 Peter Detmold Park 49th-53rd Streets; East River Drive 41 Beekman School 220 East 42 Turtle Bay Music School 244 East 43 P.S. 59 Beekman Hill School 228 East 44 Art & Design High School 1075 Second Avenue 45 Montessori 347 East 46 Cathedral High School 350 East 56th Street 47 Playground 41st-42nd Streets, First Avenue Upper East Side 1 Tramway Plaza 59th-60th Streets; Second Avenue 2 Fourteen Honey Locusts 59th-60th Streets; First-Second Avenues 3 Queensboro Oval Park & York Avenue 4 Blood Center 316 East 5 Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat 210 East 64th Street 6/7 Talent Unlimited High School/Julia 317 East 67th Street Richman Education Complex 8 67th Street Library 328 East 67th Street 9 St. Catherine's Park 67th-68th Streets; Second Avenue 10 Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 1275 York Avenue 11 P.S. 183 419 East 66th Street 12 Neighborhood Association 321 East 70th Street 13 Marymount Manhattan College 221 East 71st Street 14 Buckley School (partial) 209 East 73rd Street 15 The Cathedral School 319 East 16 NYH Payne Whitney Clinic 76th Street; York and First Avenues

4-8 Chapter 4: Social Conditions

Table 4-4 (Continued) Community Facilities Near Project Alternatives No. Community Facility Location 17 JHS 167 (Robert F. Wagner JHS/JHS 220 East 76th Street 167 Playground) 18 Engine 44 221 East 76th Street 19 Birch Wathen Lenox School 210 East 77th Street 20 Yorkville Library 222 East 21 Webster Library 1465 York Avenue 22 Caedmon School 416 East 80th Street 23 St. Stephen of Hungary School 408 East 82nd Street 24 P.S. 190 311 East 82nd Street 25 St. Joseph School 420 East 87th Street 26 High School of Teaching 421 East 88th Street 27 Our Lady of Good Counsel School 323 East 91st Street 28 Ruppert Park 90th-91st Streets; Second Avenue 29 James Cagney Place 91st Street; Second-Third Avenues 30 Ruppert Playground 92nd-93rd Streets; Second-Third Avenues 31 Young Adult Learning Academy ; First-Second Avenues 32 Stanley M. Isaacs Park 95th-96th Streets; First Avenue 33 P.S. 151 1763 First Avenue East Harlem 1 High School for Coop. Ed. Tech. 96th-97th Streets; First Avenue 2 School for Coop. Ed. Playground 96th-97th Streets; Second Avenue 3 Metropolitan Hospital Center 97th-99th Streets; First-Second Avenues 4 Mosque School , Second-Third Avenues 5 NYPD Housing Bureau 98th-99th Streets; Third Avenue 6 GW Houses Park/Yorkville Playground 99th-102nd Streets; Second-Third Avenues 7 Cherry Tree Park 99th Street and Third Avenue 8 P.S. 109/P.S. 811 215 East 99th Street 9 Metro North Memorial Field 100th-101st Streets; First-Second Avenues 10 East Harlem School at Exodus House 309 East 103rd Street 11 St. Lucy's School 340 East 104th Street 12 P.S. 38 at P.S. 121 232 East 103rd Street 13 Blake Hobbs Park 102nd-104th Streets; Second Avenue 14 Park East High School 105th Street; Second-Third Avenues 15 Poor Richard's Park 108th-109th Streets; Second-Third Avenues 16 JHS 117 Jefferson Park 240 109th Street; Second-Third Avenues 17 P.S. 83 Park 109th-110th Streets; Second-Third Avenues 18 P.S. 83 109th Street; Second-Third Avenues 19 Fire Engine 91 242 East 111th Street 20 St. Ann School 314 East 21 Our Lady Queen of Angels School 232 East 113th Street 22 Jefferson Houses Park East 115th Street; Third and Lexington Avenues 23 P.S. 102 315 East 113th Street 24 P.S. 155 Park 319 East 117th Street

4-9 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

Table 4-4 (Continued) Community Facilities Near Project Alternatives No. Community Facility Location 25 P.S. 155 319 East 117th Street 26 Roberts Education Complex 120th-121st Streets; First-Second Avenues 27 Wagner Park 120th-121st Streets; First-Second Avenues 28 P.S. 96 Playground 119th-120th Streets; Second-Third Avenues 29 P.S. 96 216 East 120th Street 30 St. Paul School 114 East 118th Street 31 25th Precinct 120 East 119th Street 32 P.S. 7 160 East 120th Street 33 Harlem Art Park 120th-121st Streets; Third and Lexington Avenues 34 ACRMD School 121st Street and Third Avenue 35 McNair Park 122-123rd Streets; 36 Engine 36 120 East 37 Fire Engine 35 2282 Third Avenue 38 125th St. Library 224 East 125th Street 39 Kings Academy 2341 Third Avenue 40 Park Third Avenue at Drive

(Upper East Side/Medical Center, discussed below). Consistent with this high income level, Lower Manhattan had a lower percentage of population living below the poverty level. In terms of ethnicity, Lower Manhattan is relatively diverse, with 7.9 percent of its residents African- American and 30.6 percent Asian (most located in the small portion of Chinatown located in this zone). Lower Manhattan’s population includes 3.7 percent of the study area’s employed labor force. In 1990, 40.5 percent of all journey-to-work trips originating in the zone were walk trips, and 34.4 percent were subway trips, reflecting the increasing appeal of this zone for a more diverse mix of residents, not only those working in the immediate area.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND OPEN SPACES With a limited (although growing) residential population, Lower Manhattan has relatively few community facilities compared with the other study area zones (see Table 4-4 and Figure 4-1). As the area’s population continues to grow, community facilities will be added as well. Most of the community facilities in Lower Manhattan are located in and near Battery Park City and in the Tribeca/Civic Center neighborhood (including in the southernmost portion of Chinatown). These include the College of Insurance near Battery Park City as well as the extensive open spaces and within Battery Park City. In Tribeca/Civic Center near City Hall, the New York Downtown Hospital and Pace University both serve more regional com- munity needs. Along the project corridor (which, in Lower Manhattan, is the route of the Light Rail Transit component of Build Alternative 2), community facilities and open spaces include Peter Minuit

4-10 Chapter 4: Social Conditions

Plaza at State and Whitehall Streets, the Vietnam Veterans’ Plaza on the east side of Water Street at , and Pace University, at Frankfort Street and Park Row.

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER Most of Lower Manhattan is characterized by the density of its development. Tall buildings front onto narrow streets, turning the streets into canyons. The streets in this zone follow an irregular pattern dating to the city’s original settlement. Although it is gradually becoming more residential, most of Lower Manhattan appears as a commercial district. Streets in the Financial District and Civic Center are crowded during the day, particularly at lunchtime, but very quiet at night and on weekends. Battery Park City, as a recently created mixed-use neighborhood, is entirely different from the rest of the zone. It is characterized by new buildings set within and beside landscaped open spaces and parks, and a continuous waterfront park. With a mix of residential and office users, this neighborhood is busy both during the day and at night and on weekends. At the northern end of the Lower Manhattan zone, Tribeca is different from the other neighborhoods in the zone as well. Buildings there are predominantly mid-rise warehouse buildings dating to the 19th century, many of which are architecturally distinguished. Although this neighborhood contains many residences in the former industrial buildings, it is relatively quiet both during the day and at night.

LOWER EAST SIDE

POPULATION AND HOUSING The Lower East Side zone houses almost 30 percent of the study area’s population, with a 1990 population of more than 186,000 people. More of these residents (57 percent) live in the Lower East Side/Chinatown neighborhood south of Houston Street than in the East Village to the north. Most live in the easternmost portion of the zone, where a number of large public housing complexes are located—more than ¼ of the zone’s apartments and more than a of its residents live east of Avenue D or south of East Broadway. Farther west, particularly in the East Village, many residents are students or young professionals and, consequently, households tend to be smaller in size than in the eastern part of the zone. The East Village neighborhood in particular saw a marked change in population trends over the last two decades. After losing 20 percent of its population in the 1970’s, it regained 3 percent in the 1980’s as rehabilitation of abandoned buildings and redevelopment of vacant lots began. Areas in the southern and eastern part of this neighborhood continued to lose population in the 1980’s, however, while newly popular areas along 14th Street and Broadway gained substantial populations. Gradual redevelopment of the East Village is expected to continue over the next decades. Reflecting the large number of families in the Lower East Side, this zone has a large proportion of residents younger than 25 years old (31 percent, compared with 25 percent for the study area as a whole). Consistent with the presence of large areas of public housing on Lower East Side, the median annual household income in this zone ($23,616) was substantially lower than for the study area as a whole ($42,473) and lower than all other zones except East Harlem. The Lower East Side/Chinatown neighborhood’s median income, at $17,780, is the third lowest of all

4-11 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

neighborhoods in the study area. Approximately 27.3 percent of the zone’s residents live below the poverty level, again second only to East Harlem in the study area. In terms of race and ethnicity, the Lower East Side zone has a large proportion of minority resi- dents. These residents are concentrated in particular in the Lower East Side/Chinatown neigh- borhood, where 69 percent of the population is not Caucasian. Some 44 percent of the residents here are Asian, 10 percent are African-American, and 30 percent are Hispanic (an ethnic group that can include all racial categories, including both African-American and Caucasian residents). Population on the Lower East Side included almost 24 percent of the study area’s employed labor force in 1990. These workers commuted to their jobs largely by subway (36.2 percent) and walking (32.3 percent), with smaller proportions using buses (12.4 percent) and autos and taxis (12.9 percent).

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND OPEN SPACES Of the five study area zones, the Lower East Side has the highest concentration of community facilities (see Table 4-4 and Figure 4-2). These include a large number of public and private schools, as well as several post-secondary institutions (including and part of New York University). The area is also well served by public health and safety services including several police and fire department stations and the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary on 14th Street. The diverse ethnic makeup of this area is reflected in a variety of houses of worship. The area also includes several public open spaces in addition to the landscaped yards of its public housing projects. These include the more than 40-acre , forming the eastern boundary of much of the study area; the 10.5-acre , between East 7th and 10th Streets and Avenues A and B; and the 7.8-acre Sara Delano Roosevelt Park, between Chrystie and Forsyth Streets from Canal Street to Houston Street. The route of the Light Rail Transit portion of Build Alternative 2 (described in Chapter 2 of this document) passes numerous community facilities along Canal Street and East Broadway, and others along Avenue D and 14th Street. Along Canal Street, the route passes the southern end of Sara Delano Roosevelt Park and I.S. 131 on the north side of the street between Chrystie and Eldridge Streets, the Fire Department of New York’s Engine 9, Ladder 6 between Eldridge and Allen Streets, and the treed center plots on Allen Street. On East Broadway, community facilities include Seward Park (at the intersection of East Broadway and Canal Street), and several smaller parks, including Straus Square, in the triangle formed by the intersection of East Broadway and Canal Street, and Ahearn Park, a triangle formed by the intersection of East Broadway and Grand Street. A public library branch at Seward Park, P.S. 134 (the Henrietta Szold School) and its playground, and several other community facilities are also located on or near East Broadway. Along Avenue D, the route passes several other schools (including a high school at Masaryk Towers, I.S. 22 located adjacent to the Hamilton Fish branch of the at Avenue D and Houston Street, and P.S. 34 at East 12th Street), and the parks and playgrounds associated with the public housing along the route. Along 14th Street, the project corridor passes an elementary school, the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, and the Fire Department’s Engine 5, all on the south side of 14th Street (community facilities on the north side of 14th Street are in the East Midtown zone).

4-12 Chapter 4: Social Conditions

The route to the proposed light rail yard also passes several community facilities. These include the Beth Jacob Elementary School at Delancey Street and Broome Street, a nearby police and fire station on Delancey Street just west of Pitt Street, and the Seward Park High School, across Essex Street from the site.

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER The character of the Lower East Side was defined historically by its immigrant population, the they lived in, and the enormous energy and activity that they created. Today, some of the population has changed, public housing has replaced many of the older buildings, but that sense of the Lower East Side has prevailed. There are enough of the older structures to retain this character, the shopping streets (Canal Street, Delancey Street, the Bowery, Orchard, Essex, etc.) are still lively and crowded, and strong ethnic communities are immediately apparent (Chinatown, Little Italy, the Hispanic communities of “Alphabet City”). The redevelopment over the years is also a part of the character of the Lower East Side. These include the nation’s first public housing project (), the public and subsidized housing all along the East River and Avenue D, and middle-income projects near Grand Street. North of Houston Street between Broadway and the Bowery, the mixed-use Noho district has emerged in the loft buildings that have stood there since the 19th century. These have been reused for theaters, offices, stores, artist’s lofts, and residences, and for the dormitories, classrooms, and administration of New York University. Along the Bowery/Third Avenue, this transformation has also included new construction and the change has affected the area to the east as well, bringing shops, restaurants, clubs, and a mix of residents. Most of the avenues and major crosstown streets in this zone are busy, lined with stores and other uses that bring pedestrians to the sidewalks and with heavy traffic along most of the ave- nue. Many other areas of this zone are relatively quiet, however, with less traffic or pedestrian activity. Avenue D, for example, has low traffic volumes and little pedestrian activity at many times of the day.

EAST MIDTOWN

POPULATION AND HOUSING East Midtown is a large area and, although it is most known as a business center, it contains a sizable proportion of study area population (22.4 percent). More than half of its 150,140 residents live south of in the Lower Fifth and Midtown South/Medical Center neighborhoods (see Figure 3-1 for neighborhood boundaries). The Midtown South/Medical Center neighborhood has shown the greater proportional growth (14.2 percent) between 1980 and 1990; Lower Fifth remained stable during that period. The three remaining neighborhoods show relatively low population (ranging from 13,845 to 26,148), but with differing growth trends. Grand Central/UN, which saw considerable residential development in the 1980's, posted a population increase of 23.2 percent from 1980 to 1990; Murray Hill grew at a more stately pace (4.2 percent), while the East Midtown neighborhood actually lost population (-5.7 percent). Household size for the zone, at 1.56 persons per household, reflects the area’s proximity to the central business district and the predominance of single-person households.

4-13 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

The population of the East Midtown zone is generally older than the other zones in the study area, with 15.7 percent age 65 and older. Of the five neighborhoods in the zone, only Midtown South/Medical Center contains less than the study area and Manhattan averages for persons age 65 and older. Residents of this zone are predominantly White (85.8 percent), with small propor- tions of African-American, Asian, and Hispanic populations. Midtown South/Medical Center contains the largest proportion of minorities, with 8.6 percent African-American, 7.3 percent Asian, and 10.5 percent Hispanic. Grand Central/UN neighborhood is notable within this zone for its proportion of Asian residents (10.7 percent). Median income for the zone ($47,926) is about average for the study area. Among neighbor- hoods, median income generally increases as one goes north. The exception is Midtown South/ Medical Center, which contains public and subsidized housing developments. Here, income is below the average for the study area (but above the norm for Manhattan) and 14.2 percent of the population is classified as below the poverty level. The East Midtown zone has about 100,000 workers in the resident labor force and a relatively low unemployment rate (95.4 percent are employed). Their journey-to-work is characterized by a high walk-to-work component (not surprising, since they live so close to the central business district), which is almost equal to use of mass transit (38 and 39.4 percent, respectively). Auto and taxi use is 15.6 percent, with the breakdown among neighborhoods generally tracking in- come (see Tables 4-2 and 4-3, above).

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND OPEN SPACES The East Midtown zone has a dense concentration of community facilities near Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, with other resources throughout the zone as well (see Figure 4-3 and Table 4-4). South of 25th Street is the Beth Israel Medical Center as well as numerous schools and religious institutions. Also in the southern part of the zone are Union Square Park and Stuyvesant Square. Other major community facilities in the southern portion of East Mid- town include a complex of hospitals and medical schools along First Avenue and associated medical-related facilities. These include the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Bellevue Medical Center, and New York University Medical Center, on the east side of First Avenue, with associated teaching facilities on the of the avenue. Cabrini Medical Center is located to the east, between Second and Third Avenues. The zone also includes numerous ele- mentary, intermediate, and high schools, police and fire stations, smaller open spaces and play- grounds, as well as schools granting post-secondary degrees (such as the City University of New York’s Baruch College, and the School of Visual Arts. The project corridor for the TSM Alternative—along Second and First Avenues—passes many of the zone’s community facilities. This includes the medical complexes in the southern part of the zone along First Avenue, several schools, religious institutions, and parks—Stuyvesant Square, P.S. 40 Playground, JHS 104 playground and recreational area, Vincent Albano Jr. Park, St. Vartan Park, , and Sharansky Freedom Plaza/Hammarskjold Plaza. The project corridor for the Light Rail Transit component of Build Alternative 2 along 14th Street passes three community facilities located on the north side of 14th Street. These are a medical center, Manhattan Comprehensive Night High School, and Union Square Park.

4-14 Chapter 4: Social Conditions

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER Below 34th Street in East Midtown, the character of First and Second Avenues is largely domi- nated by the hospitals that line the east side of First Avenue and several extensive residential projects: Stuyvesant Town, Peter Cooper Village, Kips Bay Houses, and Phipps Houses. All have created superblocks, which disrupt the normal street grid. The residential projects are built with towers arrayed among open spaces. These areas present a character different from the neighborhoods to the west, which contain tall buildings on the avenues and brownstones in the midblocks, leading to the South/Lower Fifth Avenue business district. Here, loft buildings and both older and more newly constructed office buildings determine the area’s char- acter. The shopping district around Union Square has been rejuvenated and it now extends north up Broadway, across 14th Street, and up Park Avenue South. There are not many parks in this portion of the East Midtown zone, and those that are here are important spaces, helping to define neighborhoods such as Union Square Park and Stuyvesant Square. North of 34th Street in East Midtown, development and traffic begins to intensify as it ap- proaches “midtown” proper. On First, Second, and Third Avenues, tenements and factories of the old Gasworks neighborhood have been mostly replaced by new market-rate high rises. These have helped to extend the Murray Hill residential neighborhood, centered on lower Park Avenue, eastward. By , however, the character of Third Avenue and the avenues to the west are entirely commercial in character. To the east, the neighborhoods retain a more residential character. The complex of Grand Central Station, the Met Life tower, and the Helmsley building define the southern boundary of the core of East Midtown’s commercial district. The buildings straddle Park Avenue, forcing traffic onto an overpass around and through until it emerges again at a broad boulevard, with a carefully tended landscaped median, lined with office towers for about a mile and a half. The strong central business district extends eastward to Third Avenue and west to Fifth Avenue in the study area. East of Third Avenue, Second Avenue creates a transi- tion from commercial to residential uses, and the neighborhoods farther east are solidly resi- dential. The complex of the United Nations, east of First Avenue between 42nd and 48th Streets, is a strong feature of the Grand Central/UN neighborhood and, like Grand Central, marks its southern boundary. To the north, the East Midtown zone’s northern boundary is defined east of Second Avenue by the Queensboro Bridge and, to the west, by a distinct change in land use and building type marking the beginning of the Upper East Side.

UPPER EAST SIDE

POPULATION AND HOUSING The Upper East Side zone, with more than 200,000 residents, contains about 30 percent of the study area’s population. Even though it is a well-established neighborhood, it saw a small popula- tion growth (2.7 percent) from 1980 to 1990. The two neighborhoods within the zone are similar in racial and ethnic characteristics (more than 90 percent White) and high median annual house- hold income (approximately $60,000). However, the Upper East Side/Medical Center neigh- borhood is older: 18.1 percent of its population is 65 years and older. Also, its “maturity” as a developed neighborhood is reflected in its virtually stable population (a 1.7 percent loss from 1980 to 1990). In contrast, Carnegie Hill/Yorkville is younger, with only 13.2 percent of its

4-15 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

population at age 65 or older, and it experienced a 6.4 percent increase in population from 1980 to 1990. Also, its median household size of 1.75 is higher than that of Upper East Side/Medical Center (1.61 persons per household), indicating a greater proportion of families and/or singles sharing apartments. The zone’s 137,483-person residential labor force showed a very low unemployment rate in 1990. Most travel to work using public transportation (48.8 percent), and nearly 22 percent walk to work. The proportion of residents using auto or taxi to get to work is high, 21.7 percent, and particularly high in the Upper East Side/Medical Center neighborhood.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND OPEN SPACES Like the other residential areas in Manhattan, the Upper East Side has numerous community fa- cilities to serve its residents (see Figure 4-5 and Table 4-4 at the end of this chapter). These consist largely of public and private schools, houses of worship, and small parks and plazas. The Upper East Side has one of the densest concentrations of private schools in the city. In addition, a group of medical facilities and related institutions is located in the southeast portion of the zone, mostly east of First Avenue. This area includes The Rockefeller University (a post-secondary institution), New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and the Hospital for Special Surgery. Lenox Hill Hospital is at 77th Street and Lexington Avenue, and Beth Israel Medical Center is farther north (at 87th Street and First Avenue). Other major post-secondary institutions include Hunter College and the Hunter College School of Social Work, at 68th and 79th Streets, respectively. Larger parks in this zone include the 14.94-acre along East End Avenue between 84th and 90th Streets, and the smaller Park (along the FDR Drive between 76th and 78th Streets) and St. Catherine’s Park (along First Avenue between 67th and 68th Streets). Other recreational facilities are lo- cated at Murphy Center and Asphalt Green (at York Avenue and 90th Street). In this zone, the project corridor for the northern subway included as part of Build Alternatives 1 and 2 passes several parks and playgrounds, including Ruppert Park and the JHS 167 Playground. One school is also located along Second Avenue—the Julia Richman High School complex between 67th and 68th Streets. Also along Second Avenue is Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center, between 65th and 66th Streets. At the northern end of this zone, the Young Adult Learning Academy is across 96th Street from the proposed subway construction staging site. In addition to the community resources listed above, the project corridor for the TSM Alternative passes several community facilities along First Avenue in this zone. These include P.S. 151 at 91st Street and P.S. 190 at East 82nd Street. The project corridor also passes Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center. As mentioned above, St. Catherine’s Park, a 1.4-acre park located between 67th and 68th Streets, is located along the corridor route.

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER Virtually the entire Upper East Side zone is a prosperous residential neighborhood, reflected in its well-kept apartment buildings and brownstones and its strong shopping areas. In character, there is a difference between the older areas west of Third Avenue and those to the east. Es- tablished in the first decades of this century, the neighborhoods along Fifth, Madison, Park, and Lexington Avenues contain luxury pre-War apartment buildings on the avenues and brownstones

4-16 Chapter 4: Social Conditions and rowhouses along the side streets. , particularly south of 79th Street, is a high-end shopping street with boutiques, antiques stores, and art galleries. Lexington Avenue provides more of the neighborhood’s shopping needs. The physical distinction between this area and the neighborhood to the east is due to the Second and Third Avenue els. Before these were demolished, they formed a boundary, separating the middle and upper-middle class East Side from the working class neighborhood to the east. Starting in the 1950's, after the Third Avenue el was removed, many of the tenements and small apartment houses that had lined the avenues were demolished or refurbished and large new apartment towers were constructed. These took a different form from those that had been built before the war, in that they generally had lower street walls with tall towers set back and rising above. This development trend has continued to this day. Once the residential districts were redeveloped, developers moved into the industrial districts along the East River and began a transformation of York Avenue as well. Today, the area to the east of Third Avenue is, like its neighbor to the west, a prosperous residential community, with strong retail at street level. Within this overall context, there are certain distinct locations: the area around the medical com- plex (62nd Street to 70th Street east of Second Avenue) is influenced physically and socioecono- mically by the hospitals and The Rockefeller University. To a lesser degree, this is also true in the vicinity of Lenox Hill Hospital (77th Street and Lexington Avenue). Near the neighborhood’s parks—, Carl Schurz Park, and Asphalt Green—neighborhood character is influenced by the presence of the open space and vegetation in those parks. And, toward 96th Street in the Carnegie Hill neighborhood, more of the East Side’s original tenements remain, along with several housing projects containing subsidized and public housing.

EAST HARLEM

POPULATION AND HOUSING East Harlem is one of Manhattan’s lower-income, minority communities, and the characteristics of its population (which represents about 16 percent of the MESA study area) stand in strong contrast to the rest of the study area. The 108,468 residents of this zone are nearly 80 percent minority. In Southern East Harlem, 57 percent of the residents are Hispanic (an ethnic, rather than racial composition, that can include both White and African-American) and 49 percent are African-American. In Northern East Harlem, these proportions are nearly reversed, with 46 percent Hispanic and 59 percent African-American. Household size (2.64 persons per house- hold) is substantially higher than all but the Lower East Side/Chinatown neighborhood, indicating a greater orientation toward families. This is consistent with the relatively low proportion of elderly residents (11.6 percent), indicating a younger population. Incomes are low: median annual household income is less than half of that for Manhattan and only 36 percent of the study area average. Total labor force in 1990 was 39,600, or about 36 percent of the zone’s residential population. This proportion is low: in the other study area zones, the number of residents in the labor force ranges from 60 to 70 percent of the population. In addition, unemployment is higher. Only 84.3 percent of the labor force had a job in 1990, an unemployment rate of more than 15 percent. Of the employed workers, 66 percent use public transportation, the highest proportion of study area zones, about 15 percent go to work in cars or taxis, and approximately 16 percent walk to work.

4-17 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND OPEN SPACES Community facilities in East Harlem, as with the other primarily residential neighborhoods in Manhattan, are dominated by schools and houses of worship, with several medical institutions lo- cated at the southern end of the study area (see Table 4-4 and Figure 4-5). Hospitals in the East Harlem zone include Metropolitan Hospital Center between Second and First Avenues between 97th and 99th Streets, Mount Sinai Hospital (on Fifth Avenue), and (on Madison Avenue). There are five fire houses, three police precincts, and two public library branches in the zone. There are currently more than 45 schools in the East Harlem zone. The two largest parks in the area are Park, a 20.17-acre park located on Madison Avenue between East 120th and 124th Streets, and , located on First Avenue and FDR Drive, between East 111th and 114th Streets. Along the route of the proposed subway is the Manhattan Vocational/Technical High School playground and park, Metropolitan Hospital Center, and several parks and schools affiliated with the numerous public housing developments in the area, including, from north to south, Metro- North Community Gardens, JHS playground at Wagner Houses, Blake Hobbs (Washington Houses), and Robert F. Wagner Park. Schools along the project corridor include the High School for Cooperative Technical Education at 96th Street, P.S. 99 at 99th Street, P.S. 121 at 103rd Street, and J.H.S. 117 at 109th Street.

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER East Harlem, like the Upper East Side to its south, is a residential neighborhood. However, it is less dense than the other study area zones, and its character, particularly along First and Second Avenues, is dominated by a large number of housing projects. These are generally slab construc- tion set on superblocks and oriented diagonally to the basic neighborhood street grid. The super- blocks interrupt the street grid, blocking off east-west streets. Along Second Avenue, for exam- ple, between 96th and 125th Streets, the projects cut off 10 east-west streets, more than a third of the total number of side streets. Along those streets that have not been redeveloped, tene- ments, row houses, and small apartment buildings can be found. Over the years, the whole zone was subject to housing abandonment and demolition, so that today many blocks in the area are vacant. This condition is more prevalent in northern East Harlem, but it can be found in southern East Harlem as well. Major cross streets and avenues have ground-floor retail uses, although this is discontinuous where some of the housing projects are designed without storefronts or where lots are vacant. The Metro-North railroad tracks, which emerge from the ground onto an elevated structure north of 96th Street, create a barrier between the neighborhoods to the east of Park Avenue and those to the west. South of 106th Street, the area west of Park Avenue is dominated by Mount Sinai Hospital and its facilities and several museums along Central Park. The park itself ends at 110th Street, and the neighborhood contains only two other major parks: Marcus Garvey and Jefferson Parks. C. FUTURE CONDITIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES As part of the development of its Regional Transportation Plan, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) has developed a forecast for the 31 counties in the New

4-18 Chapter 4: Social Conditions

York metropolitan region of the expected growth in population, employment, and labor force between 1995 and 2020 (the Regional Transportation Plan is discussed in more detail in Chapter 1, “Project Purpose and Need”). The forecast indicates that population in will grow by nearly 3 percent, adding some 65,000 new residents. For the MESA study, NYMTC’s countywide projections were used as the basis for more detailed projections for the different neighborhoods in the MESA study area. As described in Chapter 3, “Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy,” as part of the MESA study, a detailed projection of future land use conditions in Manhattan was undertaken as a means of projecting the future population, employment, and labor force in 2020. As described in Chapter 3, residential development is expected in all of the study area zones, with the greatest number of units in Lower Manhattan. Each of the zones in the MESA study area will see a corresponding increase in population. A total of more than 17,000 new dwelling units are predicted, with a population increase of more than 33,000. With these changes in population together with demo- graphic shifts (such as an increase in the proportion of working-age residents, increases in the number of workers in households, and the results of welfare reform), the study area’s labor force is expected to see a greater increase, of almost 39,000 people. No major changes in com- munity facilities are expected, although additional community facilities may be developed to ac- company residential growth. In most parts of the study area, neighborhood character will remain similar to the existing conditions. In the less densely settled portions of the Lower East Side and East Harlem, the increase in residential development is likely to bring activity. These changes are summarized below.

LOWER MANHATTAN As a result of recent public policy initiatives, Lower Manhattan is expected to continue its recent trend of strong growth, adding some 8,200 residential units, and 15,700 residents. Approximately 48 percent of the residential growth predicted for the MESA study area is expected in Lower Manhattan. Much of the new residential space (approximately 6,700 apartments) will be added in Battery Park City, where development of that growing community is expected to continue. Other residential space (some 2,700 units) will be added in the Financial District, both in the form of new apartment buildings and conversion of former office buildings as part of the recent initiatives. Accompanying the growth in residents will be a corresponding, but smaller, increase in the zone’s labor force, adding 10,500 workers.

LOWER EAST SIDE Residential growth is also expected on the Lower East Side, although at a slower pace. The 7,500 new apartments predicted represent a growth rate of approximately 3 percent for this zone, and constitute 15 percent of the residential growth expected in the MESA study area. Most of this development (some 2,240 units) is expected in the East Village portion of the zone, with more than half (1,230 units) focused along the south side of 14th Street between Union Square and Third Avenue. Together, these changes will bring an estimated 5,300 new residents to this zone of the study area. The zone’s labor force is predicted to increase by nearly 7,500 people.

4-19 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

EAST MIDTOWN East Midtown will see the smallest amount of residential growth of any of the study area zones, with the almost 2,000 apartments predicted representing 11 percent of the study area’s growth (and equivalent to a 1.9 percent growth rate for the zone). Most of the new residential develop- ment will be in the Midtown South/Medical Center neighborhood. Altogether, approximately 3,000 new residents are predicted in East Midtown. The zone’s labor force is expected to grow at a faster pace, with an increase of 7,100 predicted.

UPPER EAST SIDE The strong trend of continued residential development on the Upper East Side is expected to continue over the next 20 years, but at a slower pace than the 1980’s. A total of nearly 2,400 new apartments are expected to be constructed (14 percent of the study area total), providing housing for nearly 4,000 new residents. Increases in labor force will be larger, with some 9,200 people added to the area’s labor force pool.

EAST HARLEM In East Harlem, the recently initiated trend toward residential development is expected to con- tinue at the same pace as predicted for the Upper East Side, producing a total of 2,049 new units added throughout the zone. This will bring an estimated 5,400 new residents to East Harlem. Labor force is predicted to increase by some 3,800 people. These units will be in the form of low-rise, infill development, rather than the large-scale projects that once typified publicly subsi- dized housing here. A large proportion of the new housing will stress owner occupancy of the buildings. D. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The following discussion considers the potential impacts on social conditions that may result from operation of the project alternatives. Impacts during construction are documented separately in Chapter 15, “Construction and Construction Impacts.” The project alternatives have the potential to affect social conditions in a neighborhood if they change population trends, affect the community facilities supporting that population, and/or change the overall character of the neighborhood. The resident population can be affected by changes in land use composition or patterns, displacement of residents or of important businesses and services, change in neighborhood character, or deterioration of transportation service. Social conditions can also be affected through changes in access to or availability of community facilities. As described in Chapters 3 and 5, no major changes in land use composition or patterns are predicted for any of the project alternatives, nor would there be any displacement of key businesses serving the residential population. No displacement of residential population would be required for any of the alternatives. Other possible effects on social conditions are de- scribed below. This project would be consistent with Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Envi- ronmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” This Executive Order is designed to ensure that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse

4-20 Chapter 4: Social Conditions

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” A detailed analysis of the project’s effects in terms of environmental justice is provided in Chapter 16, “Equity and Environmental Justice.”

NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative would not introduce new transportation service to the MESA study area. Transportation service would instead worsen by 2020.

TSM ALTERNATIVE The New York bus lanes would improve public transportation service to and from the area between Houston and 96th Streets. Although the benefit would affect most strongly those who live and work within that area, the overall increase in travel speeds and decrease in travel times would also benefit residents of Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side/Chinatown, and East Harlem who are traveling to, from, or through the First and Second Avenue corridors between Houston and 96th Streets. The lanes would change the look of First and Second Avenues, but not enough to alter neighborhood character. The introduction of bus traffic on Avenue C would increase nighttime noise levels, but would not materially change neighborhood character on the street.

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1 The new East Side subway extension’s impacts on social conditions would be almost entirely beneficial. Build Alternative 1 would provide greatly improved transit service to residents and workers on the Upper East Side and East Harlem. Residents and workers in the area served by the new service (secondary area, East Midtown, Lower East Side, and Lower Manhattan) would also see transit service improvements. In addition, if the addition of new subway stations in East Harlem (particularly at 96th Street and 106th Street) would make the nearby underutilized sites more attractive for residential develop- ment and ground-floor retail (see Chapter 5, “Economic Conditions,” for further discussions), it is possible that such new development, if it occurred, would benefit neighborhood character in the area by providing more retail services and new housing and by removing unsafe and unsightly vacant and underutilized lots.

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2 Because it would include the same subway as Build Alternative 1, this alternative would have the same effects as Built Alternative 1 related to operation of the subway, described above. Additional effects related to the light rail transit component of this alternative are discussed below. The LRT would provide improved transit access to residents and workers on the Lower East Side and in Lower Manhattan. The impacts of the LRT on social conditions would be almost entirely beneficial. Build Alternative 2 would provide the same great improvements to transit service for residents and workers on the Upper East Side and East Harlem as Build Alternative 1, and would add the benefit of providing service to the many residents (and workers) who live in the easternmost portion of the Lower East Side, where no rapid transit is currently available.

4-21 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” the LRT stops to be located near Straus Square, Seward Park, and Union Square Park would not include shelters or structures and therefore would not interfere with those parks. Overall, the addition of the new LRT service to the Lower East Side would not have significant adverse effects on the neighborhood character of that zone. The new tracks in existing streets and the presence of overhead wires along the route would change the appearance of the area, but this change would not be considered significant given the developed and urban context of the project corridor. Along Avenue D, the addition of new rapid transit service and the local retail uses that might be attracted would enliven an area that is currently often quiet. E. MITIGATION As described above, no significant adverse impacts on social conditions were identified for any of the project alternatives, and therefore no mitigation is required. As mentioned above, the LRT component of Build Alternative 2 would not include shelters or structures near Straus Square, Seward Park, or Union Square Park, to avoid any impacts to those parks. Potential effects during construction and measures to mitigate any construction-related impacts are discussed in Chapter 15, “Construction and Construction Impacts.” v

4-22