Cultural Resources 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Context and Key Issues

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Cultural Resources 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Context and Key Issues MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation CHAPTER 11: CULTURAL RESOURCES 11.1 INTRODUCTION 11.1.1 CONTEXT AND KEY ISSUES Cultural resources are an important part of the character of a community. Cultural resources may include historic features, such as buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts, as well as archaeological resources, which are physical remains, usually buried, of past activities on a site. Archaeological resources can include remains from Native American people who used or occupied a site, including tools, refuse from tool-making activities, habitation sites, etc. These resources are also referred to as “precontact,” since they were deposited before Native Americans’ contact with European settlers. Archaeological resources can also include remains from activities that occurred during the “historic period” (the period beginning with European colonization of the New York area), and include remains such as battle sites, foundations, wells and privies. This chapter presents the potential impacts on cultural resources from the construction and operation of the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC). The analysis of potential impacts was carried out in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 U.S.C Section 470f and the implementing regulations under Section 106 that are codified at 36 C.F.R. 800. Section 106 and the Part 800 regulations require Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties, which are defined in the regulations as resources listed on or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Properties listed on or determined eligible for the National Register can include both archaeological and historic resources. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) (in accordance with which this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is being prepared), also requires the evaluation of impacts on cultural resources. The NHPA requires public outreach within the EIS process to ensure the environmental review of the FSTC is in compliance with the NHPA and NEPA. The New York State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) closely resembles the NHPA, and requires that State agencies consider the effect of their actions on properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. Compliance with Section 106 satisfies the requirements of SHPA, set forth in Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law; therefore, a separate analysis of effects under SHPA is not required. Historic properties are also protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and implementing regulations codified in 23 C.F.R. 771.135. Section 4(f) regulates actions by the Secretary of Transportation that require the use of a historic property that is listed on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register. Section 4(f) states: “The Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of...land of a historic site of national, state or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State or local officials having jurisdiction over the site), only if...a determination is made that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to such use, and all possible planning has been undertaken to minimize harm to the 4(f) property.” Section 4(f) also requires public outreach. The Section 4(f) Evaluation for the FSTC is contained in Chapter 22. The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) designates historically significant properties in New York City as landmarks or historic districts. Properties designated as landmarks or historic districts are protected under the New York City Landmarks Law, which requires LPC review and approval before any alterations or demolition can occur. Although the New York City Landmarks Law is not directly applicable to the Proposed Action, as MTA NYCT is a State agency and not therefore subject to this law, potential impacts to landmarks and historic districts have still been considered. The condition and occurrence of archaeological and historic sites that are located in the study area, or Areas of Potential Effect (APE), have not been substantially altered as a result of the events of September 11. Based on research conducted, potential for archaeological deposits or features is considered possible October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-1 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation within the study area, despite the extent of construction disturbance that has historically occurred in the area, both pre- and post-September 11 and the extent of disturbance resulting from the New York City Transit subway facilities. Archaeological resources could potentially exist in several areas: at the northeast corner of the intersection of Dey and Church Streets, along the eastern sidewalk of Church Street, north and south of Dey Street; Dey Street, under the sidewalks; Cortland Street, west of Broadway; Maiden Lane, east of Broadway; Fulton Street, between Broadway and William Street; William Street, between Ann Street and John Street; and John Street, east of William Street. MTA NYCT is currently consulting with SHPO and New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission regarding appropriate measures to address archaeological resources that may be present. Further details of these measures are provided in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) (see the end of this chapter). An initial APE for the FSTC was identified as part of the environmental analysis process and approved by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP), which serves as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in its letter of February 13, 2004 (see Appendix H). Subsequent to SHPO’s approval, the APE was expanded to the west to consider potential effects of the RW - E Connector. Historic resources within the APE include the Corbin Building (192 Broadway), the Fulton Street 45 Subway Station, the former AT&T Building (195 Broadway), the Bennett Building (139 Fulton Street), the East River Savings Bank (25 Dey Street) and St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard. Also included in the APE are a portion of the WTC site and a portion of the John Street- Maiden Lane Historic District. This National Register-eligible District includes the National Register- listed Corbin Building, which is located in the portion of the District within the APE, and the National Register-eligible Hays Building at 21-23 Maiden Lane, which is in the portion of the District outside the APE. The District also includes buildings that are not individually eligible for the National or State Registers but which are considered contributing elements in the District, such as the Dennison Building at 15 John Street. The FTA, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (acting on behalf of NYCT and MTA Capital Construction Company), SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) have executed a PA regarding the treatment of historic and archaeological resources within the APE that may be affected by the Proposed Action. A copy of the signed and executed PA is contained in Section 11.A, located at the end of this chapter. The LPC has recently determined the Keuffel & Esser Building (127 Fulton Street) and Royal Insurance Building (150 William Street) eligible for designation as New York City Landmarks. Although neither building is in the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District, nor has been determined eligible for the NRHP as an individual resource, NYCT considers them historic resources for purposes of identification and mitigation of any adverse effects associated with the FSTC. These historic resources in the APE are evaluated in the context of Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. The analysis therefore compares the construction and operation of the FSTC against the prevailing future conditions in the study area for each of the analysis years, both with and without the project. As noted previously, the Section 4(f) Evaluation is contained in Chapter 22. 11.1.2 CONCLUSIONS Under the No Action Alternative, the FSTC would not be constructed. Minor maintenance and rehabilitation activities could occur, including typical station and transit infrastructure maintenance and repair. The Existing Complex would remain in its current configuration and operational state. There would not be any impacts on cultural resources associated with the FSTC. A number of other major construction projects would be underway in the study area in 2005/2006, including the WTC Memorial, the Permanent WTC PATH Terminal, South Ferry Subway Terminal, and Route 9A (see Chapter 20: Cumulative Effects, for related impacts). Under the Build alternatives, the FSTC would be constructed and operated as described in Chapters 3: Alternatives, and 4: Construction Methods and Activities. The only substantial differences with respect to cultural resources differ primarily with respect to the use of the Corbin Building. October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-2 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Under Alternative 9, the Corbin Building would remain in private ownership. An underground slurry wall or similar structure would structurally isolate the FSTC Entry Facility and Dey Street Passageway from the Corbin Building. Depending on the findings of the geotechnical
Recommended publications
  • Appendix H – Cultural Resources H-1 New York City Transit, Fulton Street Transit Center, New York
    PROPOSED FULTON STREET TRANSIT CENTER FULTON, DEY, CHURCH, & WILLIAM STREETS AND BROADWAY BLOCK 79, LOTS 15, 16, 18, 19 AND 21 NEW YORK, NEW YORK PHASE IA ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for: New York City Transit New York, New York Prepared by: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. New York, New York October 2003 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center DEIS APPENDIX H: CULTURAL RESOURCES H.1 INTRODUCTION New York City Transit (NYCT) is planning to construct the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC) in the vicinity of Fulton Street and Broadway, covering portions of Fulton Street, Dey Street, Church Street, William Street and Broadway, with direct impacts to Block 79, Lots 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21, New York City, New York (see Figures 1 and 2). The Proposed Action includes: • Construction of a new Entry Facility building at Block 79, Lots 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21, designed to connect subway passengers with other elements of the FSTC; • Construction of a pedestrian tunnel underneath Dey Street, the Dey Street Passageway, from the Entry Facility at Broadway and to the redeveloped World Trade Center (WTC) site and RW service at the Cortlandt Street station at Church and Dey Streets; • Improvements to the Fulton Street AC underground mezzanines and JMZ entrances and mezzanines, by widening the existing facilities; • Installation of stairways at the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection of Maiden Lane and Broadway, and installation of stairway, escalator and an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) elevator at the southwest corner of Dey Street and Broadway to improve street access; • Rehabilitation of the existing 23 and 45 stations at Fulton Street; and, • Creation of a new, paid RW - E and an unpaid E to the FSTC connections along Church Street at the Chambers Street and WTC - Cortlandt Street stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Lower Manhattan
    Historic Lower Manhattan To many people Lower Manhattan means financial district, where the large buildings are designed to facilitate the exchange of money. The buildings, streets and open spaces, however, recall events that gave birth to a nation and have helped shape the destiny of western civilization. Places such as St. Paul's Chapel and Federal Hall National Memorial exemplify a number of sites which have been awarded special status by the Federal Government. The sites appearing in this guide are included in the following programs which have given them public recognition and helped to assure their survival. National Park Service Since its inauguration in 1916, the National Park Service has been dedicated to the preservation and management of our country's unique national, historical and recreational areas. The first national park in the world—Yellowstone—has been followed by the addition of over 300 sites in the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. National Park areas near and in Manhattan are: Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site, Fire Island National Seashore, Gateway National Recreation Area, Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, Hamilton Grange National Memorial, and General Grant National Memorial. National Historic Landmarks National Park Service historians study and evaluate historic properties throughout the country. Acting upon their findings the Secretary of the Interior may declare the properties eligible for designation as National National Parks are staffed by Park Rangers who can provide information As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Historic Landmarks. The owner of such a property is offered a certif­ to facilitate your visit to Lower Manhattan.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Manhattan/The Financial District
    05_773395 ch01.qxd 2/6/06 7:39 PM Page 7 • Walking Tour 1 • Lower Manhattan/The Financial District Start: Battery Park/U.S. Customs House. Subway: Take the 4 or 5 to Bowling Green, the 1 to South Ferry, or the R or W to Whitehall Street. Finish: African Burial Ground. Time: Approximately 3 hours. Best Time: Any weekday, when the wheels of finance are spin- ningCOPYRIGHTED and lower Manhattan is a maelstrom MATERIAL of activity. Worst Time: Weekends, when most buildings and all the finan- cial markets are closed. The narrow, winding streets of the Financial District occupy the earliest-settled area of 7 05_773395 ch01.qxd 2/6/06 7:39 PM Page 8 8 • Memorable Walks in New York Manhattan, where Dutch settlers established the colony of Nieuw Amsterdam in the early 17th century. Before their arrival, downtown was part of a vast forest, a lush hunting ground for Native Americans that was inhabited by mountain lions, bobcats, beavers, white-tailed deer, and wild turkeys. Hunters followed the Wiechquaekeck Trail, a path through the center that today is more often referred to as Broadway. This section of the city still centers on commerce, much as Nieuw Amsterdam did. Wall Street is America’s strongest symbol of money and power; bulls and bears have replaced the wild beasts of the forest, and conservatively attired lawyers, stockbrokers, bankers, and businesspeople have supplanted the Native Americans and Dutch who once traded otter skins and beaver pelts on these very streets. A highlight of this tour is the Financial District’s architec- ture, in which the neighborhood’s modern edifices and grand historical structures are dramatically juxtaposed: Colonial, 18th-century Georgian/Federal, and 19th-century neoclassical buildings stand in the shadow of colossal modern skyscrapers.
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Property Tax Commitment Book
    Farmington Personal Property Tax Commitment Book - 2019 19.980 8/30/2019 8:10 AM 2019 Taxes Receivable Page 1 Account Name & Address Category Breakdown Assessment Exempt Total Tax 164 101 PARK AVENUE 31,600 0 31,600 631.37 PARTNERS INC 200 SUMMIT LAKE DRIVE MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 31,600 FLOOR 2 VALHALLA NY 10595 1356 615 WILTON ROAD 342 3D GAMES 12,000 0 12,000 239.76 133 BROADWAY SUITE 1 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 10,500 OTHER 1,500 FARMINGTON ME 04938 133 BROADWAY 471 3M COMPANY 0 0 0 0.00 C/O RYAN LLC PO BOX 4900 DEPT 575 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261 4900 357 82 HIGH STREET INC 3,500 3,500 0 0.00 103 SAWTELLE LANE FURNITURE & FIXTURES 2,700 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 400 FARMINGTON COMPUTER, copiers etc 400 ME 04938 103 SAWTELLE LANE 1036 A POOCHS PARADISE 6,200 0 6,200 123.88 KEENE, SHELLY & WHITE, FURNITURE & FIXTURES 2,200 JEANNE 442 FARMINGTON FALLS MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 4,000 ROAD FARMINGTON ME 04938 442 FARMINGTON FALLS ROAD 368 ACME LAND SURVEYING LLC 49,900 45,200 4,700 93.91 108 FAIRBANKS ROAD FURNITURE & FIXTURES 13,800 SUITE 5 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 29,900 FARMINGTON ME 04938 COMPUTER, copiers etc 6,200 108 FAIRBANKS ROAD 665 ADAMS BROS MONUMENT CO 2,400 0 2,400 47.95 488 FARMINGTON FALLS MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 2,100 ROAD OTHER 300 FARMINGTON ME 04938 108 HIGH STREET Assessment Exempt Total Tax Page Totals: 105,600 48,700 56,900 1,136.87 Subtotals: 105,600 48,700 56,900 1,136.87 Farmington Personal Property Tax Commitment Book - 2019 19.980 8/30/2019 8:10 AM 2019 Taxes Receivable Page 2 Account Name & Address Category Breakdown Assessment Exempt
    [Show full text]
  • Robert and Anne Dickey House Designation Report
    Landmarks Preservation Commission June 28, 2005, Designation List 365 LP-2166 ROBERT and ANNE DICKEY HOUSE, 67 Greenwich Street (aka 28-30 Trinity Place), Manhattan. Built 1809-10. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 19, Lot 11. On October 19, 2004, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the Robert and Anne Dickey House and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 2). The hearing was continued to April 21, 2005 (Item No. 1). Both hearings had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Sixteen people spoke in favor of designation, including representatives of State Assemblyman Sheldon Silver, the Lower Manhattan Emergency Preservation Fund, Municipal Art Society of New York, New York Landmarks Conservancy, Historic Districts Council, and Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. Two of the building’s owners, and five of their representatives, testified against designation. In addition, the Commission received numerous communications in support of designation, including a resolution from Manhattan Community Board 1 and letters from City Councilman Alan J. Gerson, the Northeast Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation League of New York State, and architect Robert A.M. Stern. The building had been previously heard by the Commission on October 19, 1965, and November 17, 1965 (LP-0037). Summary The large (nearly 41 by 62 feet), significantly intact Federal style town house at No. 67 Greenwich Street in lower Manhattan was constructed in 1809-10 when this was the most fashionable neighborhood for New York’s social elite and wealthy merchant class.
    [Show full text]
  • RECEIVED 7012 SEP 14 Pm I
    RECEIVED 7012 SEP 14 pM i ATTORNEYS AT LAW Molly O'Leary lU i-: 1iSSOj Tel: 208-938-7900 Fax: 208-938-7904 molly@richardsonandoleary.com P.O. Box 7218 Boise, ID 83707 - 515 N. 27th St. Boise, ID 8370 14 September 2012 Ms. Jean Jewell Hand Delivered Commission Secretary Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W. Washington Al l - I Boise, ID 83702 RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION OF AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN STATES, INC. AND AT&T CORP. TO AMEND CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY NO. 295 TO REFLECT MERGER OF THE APPLICANTS Dear Ms. Jewell: Enclosed please find the above-referenced JOINT APPLICATION for filing on behalf of AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN STATES, INC. AND AT&T CORP. We have enclosed an original and seven (7) copies, as well as an additional copy to be file-stamp for our records. Very truly yours, Molly ' ry Ric dso O'Leary, PLLC End. Molly O'Leary (ISB No. 4996) RICHARDSON & O'LEARY, PLLC 1 1 2 515 N. 27th Street Boise, Idaho 83702 Telephone: (208) 938-7900 Fax: (208) 938-7904 E-mail: molly@richardsonandoleary.com Attorneys for AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. and AT&T Corp. BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT ) APPLICATION OF AT&T ) CASE NO. COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN) STATES, INC. AND AT&T CORP. TO ) JOINT APPLICATION TO AMEND AMEND CERTIFICATE ) CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND ) CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY NECESSITY NO. 295 TO REFLECT ) No. 295 MERGER OF THE APPLICANTS ) AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc., (hereinafter "AT&T Comm.") and AT&T Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Borough Hall Skyscraper Historic District Designation Report
    Cover Photograph: Court Street looking south along Skyscraper Row towards Brooklyn City Hall, now Brooklyn Borough Hall (1845-48, Gamaliel King) and the Brooklyn Municipal Building (1923-26, McKenzie, Voorhees & Gmelin). Christopher D. Brazee, 2011 Borough Hall Skyscraper Historic District Designation Report Prepared by Christopher D. Brazee Edited by Mary Beth Betts, Director of Research Photographs by Christopher D. Brazee Map by Jennifer L. Most Technical Assistance by Lauren Miller Commissioners Robert B. Tierney, Chair Pablo E. Vengoechea, Vice-Chair Frederick Bland Christopher Moore Diana Chapin Margery Perlmutter Michael Devonshire Elizabeth Ryan Joan Gerner Roberta Washington Michael Goldblum Kate Daly, Executive Director Mark Silberman, Counsel Sarah Carroll, Director of Preservation TABLE OF CONTENTS BOROUGH HALL SKYSCRAPER HISTORIC DISTRICT MAP ................... FACING PAGE 1 TESTIMONY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................................ 1 BOROUGH HALL SKYSCRAPER HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ............................. 1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 3 THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOROUGH HALL SKYSCRAPER HISTORIC DISTRICT ........................................................................................ 5 Early History and Development of Brooklyn‟s Civic Center ................................................... 5 Mid 19th Century Development
    [Show full text]
  • Sep 16 1996 an Analysis of the Plan for the Revitalization of Lower Manhattan
    --- 4, An Analysis of the Lower Manhattan Revitalization Plan By John E. Lodge M. Arch. University of Pennsylvania 1986 B.A. University of Pennsylvania 1982 Submitted to the Department of Architecture in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Real Estate Development at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY September 1996 @ John E. Lodge The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of Athr Department of Architecture August 1, 1996 Certified by Gary Hack Professor of Urban Design Department of Urban Studies and Planning Thesis Supervisor Accepted By William C. Wheaton Chairman Interdepartmental Degree Program in Real Estate Development SEP 16 1996 AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN FOR THE REVITALIZATION OF LOWER MANHATTAN By John E. Lodge Submitted to the Department of Architecture on August 1, 1996 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Real Estate Development at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ABSTRACT Most older cities in the United States are looking for ways to revitalize their aging central business districts (CBDs). As urban development patterns become increasingly metropolitan with the growth of 'edge cities' and suburban commercil complexes, cities at the center are faced with structural and locational impediments to growth. New York has implemented a program called the Plan for the Revitalization of Lower Manhattan in an attempt to address the area's lack of competitiveness. This Plan combines zoning changes, tax abatements, energy charge abatements, and historic preservation initiatives in an incentive program designed to spur the redevelopment of existing building stock into both residential units and more modernized office space.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Corporations: Beginning 1800
    Active Corporations: Beginning 1800 DOS ID Current Entity Name 5306 MAGNOLIA METAL COMPANY 5310 BRISTOL WAGON AND CARRIAGE WORKS 5313 DUNLOP COAL COMPANY LIMITED 5314 THE DE-LON CORP. 5316 THE MILLER COMPANY 5318 KOMPACT PRODUCTS CORPORATION 5339 METROPOLITAN CHAIN STORES, INC. 5341 N. J. HOME BUILDERS CORPORATION 5349 THE CAPITA ENDOWMENT COMPANY 5360 ECLIPSE LEATHER CORP. 6589 SHERWOOD BROS. CO. 6590 BURLINGTON VENETIAN BLIND COMPANY 6593 CAB SALES COMPANY 6600 WALDIA REALTY CORPORATION 6618 GATTI SERVICE INCORPORATED 6628 HANDI APPLIANCE CORPORATION 6642 THE M. B. PARKER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 6646 ALLIED BANKSHARES COMPANY 6651 SYRACUSE PURCHASING COMPANY, INC. Page 1 of 2794 09/28/2021 Active Corporations: Beginning 1800 Initial DOS Filing Date County Jurisdiction 06/08/1893 NEW YORK WEST VIRGINIA 05/16/1893 NEW YORK UNITED KINGDOM 09/17/1924 ERIE ONTARIO 09/18/1924 SARATOGA DELAWARE 09/19/1924 NEW YORK CONNECTICUT 09/12/1924 NEW YORK DELAWARE 10/27/1924 NEW YORK DELAWARE 10/27/1924 NEW YORK NEW JERSEY 10/24/1924 ALBANY OHIO 11/18/1924 NEW YORK NEW JERSEY 02/15/1895 ALBANY PENNSYLVANIA 02/16/1895 NEW YORK VERMONT 11/03/1927 NEW YORK DELAWARE 11/09/1927 NEW YORK DELAWARE 11/23/1927 NEW YORK NEW JERSEY 12/02/1927 NEW YORK DELAWARE 12/12/1927 NEW YORK OHIO 12/16/1927 NEW YORK NEW JERSEY 12/14/1927 NEW YORK GEORGIA Page 2 of 2794 09/28/2021 Active Corporations: Beginning 1800 Entity Type DOS Process Name FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION EDWARD C. MILLER FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION ALFRED HEYN FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION DUNLOP COAL COMPANY LIMITED FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION THE DE-LON CORP.
    [Show full text]
  • BROAD EXCHANGE BUILDING, 25 Broad Street (Aka 25-33 Broad Street and 44-60 Exchange Place), Manhattan
    Landmarks Preservation Commission June 27, 2000, Designation List 316 LP-2074 BROAD EXCHANGE BUILDING, 25 Broad Street (aka 25-33 Broad Street and 44-60 Exchange Place), Manhattan. Built 1900-02; Clinton & Russell, architects. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 25, Lot 19. On May 16, 2000, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the Broad Exchange Building and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 1). The hearing was duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Three people spoke in favor of designation, including representatives of Council member Kathryn Freed, and the Historic Districts Council. The Commission received a letter of support from the building's owner and a resolution of support from Community Board l. Summary Located in the heart of Manhattan's financial district, the Broad Exchange Building was, at the time of its construction in 1900-02, the largest office building with the highest estimated real estate value built in Manhattan. Designed by the renowned architectural firm of Clinton & Russell, the Broad Exchange Building contained 326,500 square feet of rentable floor area and was estimated to cost $3.25 million. The builders of the Broad Exchange used all the new technologies introduced during the 1890s in order to create taller structures. The twenty story high building has a steel frame, elevator, and caisson construction. The design of the building is a tripartite composition, common to many of New York's tum-of-the century skyscrapers with a base, shaft, and capital.
    [Show full text]
  • Fulton Street Transit Center Project: 3D/4D Model Application Report
    CIFECENTER FOR INTEGRATED FACILITY ENGINEERING Fulton Street Transit Center Project: 3D/4D Model Application Report By Timo Hartmann, William E. Goodrich, Martin Fischer, & Doug Eberhard CIFE Technical Report #TR170 MAY 2007 STANFORD UNIVERSITY COPYRIGHT © 2007 BY Center for Integrated Facility Engineering If you would like to contact the authors, please write to: c/o CIFE, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., Stanford University Terman Engineering Center Mail Code: 4020 Stanford, CA 94305-4020 Fulton Street Transit Center Project: 3D/4D Model Application Report Timo Hartmann Ph.D. Student, CIFE Stanford University William E. Goodrich, P.E. Senior Project Manager, Parsons Brinckerhoff Fulton Street Project Martin Fischer Associate Professor Stanford University Doug Eberhard Chief Technology Officer Parsons Brinckerhoff 1 Executive Summary Within this report we describe the 3D/4D model implementation and application on the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC) project during July 2004 to July 2005. The Fulton Street Transit Center is one of the major subway reconstruction projects in New York City. With a budgeted project value of $750 Million the New York City Transit Authority (TA) plans to refurbish the seven subway lines around Fulton Street [Figure 1]. Furthermore, the TA plans to build a new above ground Transit Terminal. On this project a joint venture between Parsons Brinckerhoff and Bovis Lendlease formed the consultant construction management team to support the TA with the tasks of constructability review, bid packaging and site supervision. Figure 1: Subway Lines around Fulton Street in Lower Manhattan Early on in the project the CCM team decided to build a 3D/4D model of the project to visually support the necessary engineering decision making.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Design Guidance Broadway & Jefferson
    EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE BROADWAY & JEFFERSON APARTMENTS 412 BROADWAY | Seattle, Washington BROADWAY-JEFFERSON ACQUISITION I, L.P. | LORIG ASSOCIATES | ANKROM MOISAN ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS DPD Project No.: 3010211 July 15, 2009 PROJECT GOALS 1 ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD POPULATION 2 CATALYST FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 3 REINFORCE A TRANSPORTATION HUB Create a successful mixed-use building that serves the housing and Anticipate future development patterns about the south end of Broadway and As the proposed development sits on the seam between two shopping/service needs of the large PcaptiveQ population associated with realize the potential of this location. Redevelopment of Yesler Terrace as a neighborhoods, First Hill and the Central District, the corner location major medical institutions surrounding the proposed development, which mixed-income community and in-\ lling of numerous surface parking lots in takes on some importance as a prominent intersection. It is also a double the daytime population of the area. Market rate apartments shall close proximity to the site will, over time, increase the number of people point of arrival and departure as bus riders of] oad and disperse in all be designed to appeal to medical workers, academic staff and students staying in the area after working hours with attendant needs for shopping directions to their places of employment. Pedestrian traf\ c is heavy, wanting to live nearby their work. Street front retail shall address the and recreation. Understand that the street is part of the social infrastructure if intermittent. The design should accommodate and celebrate the current lack of neighborhood services at this location. de\ ning a neighborhood. Design spaces that engage the street and contribute to pedestrian commuter.
    [Show full text]