Chapter 8: Historic Resources A. INTRODUCTION This chapter analyzes the potential of the Proposed Actions to impact historic resources, which include both archaeological and architectural resources. The Proposed Actions would result in the rezoning of the approximately 35-acre Project Area, which was predominantly developed in the early 20th century and contains a number of notable, undesignated historic structures. Several of these resources are located in the Academic Mixed-Use Area (Subdistrict A), the 17 acres to be redeveloped by Columbia. To understand fully historic issues and to prepare a comprehensive historic resources analysis, Columbia has consulted with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). The historic resources analysis has been prepared in accordance with City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (SHPA). These laws and regulations require that City and State agencies, respectively, consider the impacts of their actions on historic properties. This technical analysis follows the guidance of the 2001 CEQR Technical Manual. The CEQR Technical Manual recommends that an analysis of archaeological resources be undertaken for actions that would result in any in-ground disturbance. It also recommends that an architectural resources assessment be performed if a proposed action would result in any of the following (even if no known architectural resources are located nearby): new construction; physical alteration of any building; change in scale, visual context, or visual setting of any building, structure, object, or landscape feature; or screening or elimination of publicly accessible views. Since the Proposed Actions may result in some of these conditions, a full analysis for archaeological and architectural resources under CEQR and SEQRA was undertaken. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Archaeological resources are physical remains, usually buried, of past activities on a site. They 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 (beginning with European colonization of the New York area in the 17th century) and that include European contact with Native Americans, as well as battle sites, foundations, wells, and privies. Cemeteries are also considered archaeological resources. On sites where later development occurred, archaeological resources may have been disturbed or destroyed by grading, excavation, and infrastructure installation and improvements. However, some resources do survive in an urban environment. Deposits may have been protected either by being paved over or by having a building with a shallow foundation constructed above them. In both scenarios, archaeological deposits may have been sealed beneath the surface, protected from further disturbance. 8-1 Proposed Manhattanville in West Harlem Rezoning and Academic Mixed-Use Development FEIS ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES Architectural resources are defined as properties or districts listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR) or determined eligible for such listing; National Historic Landmarks (NHLs); New York City Landmarks (NYCLs) and Historic Districts; and properties that have been found by LPC to appear eligible for designation, considered for designation (“heard”) by LPC at a public hearing, or calendared for consideration at such a hearing (these are “pending” NYCLs). Study areas for architectural resources are determined based on the area of potential effect (APE) for construction-period impacts, such as ground-borne vibrations, and on the APE for visual or contextual effects, which is usually a larger area. In accordance with both CEQR and SEQRA guidelines, the architectural resources analysis identifies all architectural resources that have been designated or determined to meet the eligibility requirements for local, state, or national designation. This analysis assesses potential project impacts on architectural resources. B. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS Consultation with OPRHP and LPC was conducted to determine whether the Project Area may contain archaeological resources. As per OPRHP’s and LPC’s recommendations, an archaeological study was prepared for the Project Area. The Project Area was determined not to be sensitive for archaeological resources (see LPC comments dated September 23, 2004, and OPRHP letter dated June 6, 2005, in Appendix D.2). Therefore, the Proposed Actions would not have adverse impacts on archaeological resources, and no further consideration of such resources is required for the Proposed Actions. PROJECT AREA As part of its initial planning efforts for this project, Columbia has incorporated one of the area’s most significant architectural resources—the former Warren Nash Service Station building—into the Academic Mixed-Use Development. Alterations to the former Warren Nash Service Station building as part of the Proposed Actions would be undertaken in consultation with OPRHP. To guide the conversion of the former Warren Nash Service Station building, which would be retained in the Academic Mixed-Use Area and adaptively reused, a Preservation Approach has been prepared and was submitted to OPRHP for review on October 18, 2007. Columbia would implement the approved Preservation Approach to avoid any adverse impacts on the former Warren Nash Service Station. Also in the Academic Mixed-Use Area, Columbia is currently renovating the Studebaker Building for administrative office space, renovation which is proceeding and will proceed irrespective of whether the Proposed Actions are approved. This renovation has proceeded in consultation with OPRHP. Though consultation with OPRHP was initially informal, since the renovation of the Studebaker Building was proceeding as-of-right, Columbia subsequently applied for financing from the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY). In connection with that financing, OPRHP has reviewed the proposed modifications to the building and has determined that the Proposed Project would have no adverse impacts on the Studebaker Building. Columbia has also discussed the proposed modifications with LPC. A construction protection plan (CPP) has been prepared to avoid adverse construction-related impacts on architectural resources located within 90 feet of the proposed Academic Mixed-Use Development in the Academic Mixed-Use Area of the Project Area (see Appendix D.3). The 8-2 Chapter 8: Historic Resources CPP was submitted to LPC and OPRHP for review on November 6, 2007. The protection measures contained in the CPP were approved by LPC on November 8, 2007 and by OPRHP on November 14, 2007 (see Appendix D.2). The approved CPP would be implemented prior to any demolition or construction activities commencing in Subdistrict A as part of the Proposed Actions. Structures outside Subdistrict A would be protected by the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB)’s Technical Policy and Procedure Notice (TPPN) #10/88. In addition, to avoid any adverse impacts on the 125th Street IRT Station and the Manhattan Valley IRT viaduct from the proposed replacement of the two non-historic escalators with escalators of a larger capacity. Columbia University, in coordination with MTA/NYCT, would submit drawings to OPRHP for their review depicting how the new escalators connect to the historic material of the station and, if applicable, the viaduct structure. In addition, a CPP would be developed among MTA/NYCT, Columbia University, and OPRHP to avoid construction-related impacts. As part of the Proposed Actions, a study to evaluate the feasibility of reusing the former Sheffield Farms Stable at 3229 Broadway in the Academic Mixed-Use Area was prepared and submitted to OPRHP for review on October 15, 2007. The study, contained in Appendix D.4, concluded that the former Sheffield Farms Stable does not meet the requirements for an academic research facility due to its small size and floor plates, lack of infrastructure, incompatible floor-to-floor heights, and restrictive column spacing. Retaining all or portions of the building for academic research would require that significant alterations be made to the building, and would impact the proposed program of the Jerome L. Greene Science Center and the proposed below-grade support space planned beneath the buildings. In a letter dated November 14, 2007, OPRHP concurred that it is not appropriate to retain just a portion of the former Sheffield Farms Stable or just its façade, and requested that further study be undertaken to determine if it is feasible to retain the former Sheffield Farms Stable in the Academic Mixed-Use Development Area, and specifically if the Jerome L. Greene Science Center could be built on the north side of West 129th Street south of the former Sheffield Farms Stable (see Appendix D.2). In response to OPRHP’s request, a further analysis was conducted and it was determined that such alternative is not feasible. See Chapter 24, “Alternatives,” Measures that would partially mitigate the significant adverse impact resulting from the demolition of the building for the initial (2015)