DOCSLIB.ORG

Hudson Yards FGEIS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

No. 7 Subway Extension—Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION............................................................... ES-2 B. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................ ES-8 C. PROPOSED REZONING ................................................................................................... ES-9 D. PROPOSED NO. 7 SUBWAY EXTENSION .................................................................. ES-14 E. PROPOSED CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION ................................................... ES-15 F. PROPOSED MULTI-USE FACILITY............................................................................. ES-17 G. OPEN SPACE ................................................................................................................... ES-19 H. OTHER FACILITIES ....................................................................................................... ES-19 I. FGEIS STUDY METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS ........................................... ES-20 J. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.................................. ES-22 1. LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY..................................................................... ES-22 2. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... ES-24 3. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES....................................................................... ES-29 4. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.............................................................. ES-30 5. SHADOWS ...................................................................................................................... ES-30 6. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIC RESOURCES....................................................................... ES-31 7. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... ES-32 8. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................................... ES-33 9. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER ....................................................................................... ES-34 10. NATURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................... ES-35 11. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................................................................................. ES-36 12. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM .................................................................. ES-37 13. INFRASTRUCTURE.......................................................................................................... ES-37 14. SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION SERVICES................................................................... ES-38 15. ENERGY ......................................................................................................................... ES-39 16. TRAFFIC AND PARKING ................................................................................................. ES-40 17. TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIANS.......................................................................................... ES-42 18. AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................. ES-47 19. NOISE AND VIBRATION.................................................................................................. ES-48 20. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .............................................................................................. ES-49 21. PUBLIC HEALTH............................................................................................................. ES-53 22. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ............................................................................... ES-53 23. GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................... ES-54 24. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES .......................... ES-55 25. ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................. ES-56 K. ACTIONS AND APPROVALS........................................................................................ ES-74 ES-i No. 7 Subway Extension—Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE ES-1 LOCATION OF PROPOSED ACTION FIGURE ES-2 HUDSON YARDS PROJECT AREA FIGURE ES-3 REZONING AREA FIGURE ES-4 MULTI-USE FACILITY NORTHEASTERLY VIEW FIGURE ES-5 CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION: PHASE 2 FIGURE ES-6 TERMINAL STATION SECTION FIGURE ES-7 CORONA YARD PLAN ES-ii No. 7 Subway Extension—Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Foreword This Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) has been prepared by the City of New York City Planning Commission (CPC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), as co- lead agencies, in compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) for a comprehensive transit-oriented development program, described in the FGEIS as the “Proposed Action,” for the far west side of midtown Manhattan (the “Hudson Yards”). On June 21, 2004, the co-lead agencies released for public review and comment a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) for the Proposed Action. A public hearing on the DGEIS was held on September 23, 2004, after which written comments on the DGEIS were received by the co-lead agencies through October 4, 2004. Copies of such comments, together with the transcript of the September 23 public hearing, are included as appendices to the FGEIS. The FGEIS summarizes and responds to all such written and oral comments in a new Chapter 29, “Responses to Comments.” Where appropriate, the FGEIS also includes refined and expanded analyses in response to such comments, incorporates updated information concerning the Hudson Yards and adjacent areas and, as promised in the DGEIS, identifies additional measures to further mitigate significant environmental impacts from the Proposed Action. The FGEIS also includes three new alternatives to the Proposed Action (in addition to the alternatives discussed in the DGEIS), including a new “Alternative S” developed by the Department of City Planning in response to public comments on the Proposed Action during the environmental and land use reviews. Descriptions of the three new alternatives are included in Chapter 26, “Alternatives.” All substantive changes from the DGEIS text (other than Chapter 29 and the three additional alternatives, for which the text is entirely new) are indicated by underlined text or marginal notations (|) for deletions. To facilitate legibility, changed Figures and Tables have not been so marked but may be regarded as new text to reflect the updated analyses referenced in the text. The co-lead agencies wish to express their appreciation to the many individuals, organizations, and officials who took the time to comment on the DGEIS and who, by so doing, assisted the co-lead agencies in fulfilling their obligations under SEQRA and CEQR in connection with the environmental review of this important planning initiative for Manhattan’s Hudson Yards. Introduction As part of the Proposed Action, the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) and the MTA propose to promote the transit-oriented redevelopment of the Hudson Yards area (see Figures ES-1, Location of the Proposed Action, and ES-2, Hudson Yards Project Area.), generally encompassing the area bounded by West 43rd Street on the north, Hudson River Park on the west, West 28th and West 30th Streets on the south, and Seventh and Eighth Avenues on the east, through: (1) zoning and related land use actions by the CPC that would allow approximately 28 million square feet of commercial development, 12,600 residential units, a new Midblock Boulevard between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues and significant new open spaces (Figure ES-3, Rezoning Area); and (2) the extension by the MTA of the No. 7 Subway Line from Times Square to a new terminus at Eleventh Avenue and West 34th Street. The Proposed Action also includes: (3) the expansion by the Convention Center Development Corporation (CCDC) of the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center north to 42nd Street, including construction of a new Convention Center hotel; and (4) development by the New York State Urban Development Corporation d/b/a Empire State Development ES-1 No. 7 Subway Extension—Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program Corporation (ESDC) of a new Multi-Use Facility for sports, entertainment, and exposition uses on a platform to be constructed over the MTA Long Island Rail Road’s (LIRR) John D. Caemmerer West Side Yard (Caemmerer Yard) between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues from West 30th to West 33rd Streets (Figures ES-4 and ES-5, Multi-Use Facility and Convention Center Elevation). CCDC and ESDC are “involved agencies” under SEQRA. As discussed below, the Proposed Action has been designed to realize—and would realize—very significant benefits to the City and State, both in the near term and the long term. It is anticipated that by 2010, the Proposed Action would bring the first phase of an expanded Convention Center and Convention Center hotel, the new Multi-Use Facility, the first new commercial and residential buildings contemplated by the Zoning
Recommended publications
  • 410 WEST 36TH STREET 6 STORY, 23 UNIT MIXED-USE BUILDING 20 Residential Units & 3 Commercial Units

    410 WEST 36TH STREET 6 STORY, 23 UNIT MIXED-USE BUILDING 20 Residential Units & 3 Commercial Units

    410 WEST 36TH STREET 6 STORY, 23 UNIT MIXED-USE BUILDING 20 Residential Units & 3 Commercial Units. 410 WEST 36TH STREET 1 410 WEST 36TH STREET - PROPERTY FEATURES Penn Station Madison Square Park The Highline ASKING PRICE: $10,250,000 Property Features: Location: The south side of West 36th Street between 9th & 10th Avenues. Block & Lot: 733-44 Lot Dimensions: 25' x 98.75' Lot Square Footage: 2,469 sq ft (approx.) Building Dimensions: 25' x 87' Building Square Footage: 11,455 sq ft (approx.) Stories: 6 Residential Units: 20 Commercial Units: 3 Total Units: 23 Gross Residential Square Footage: 9,546 sq ft (approx.) Net Square Footage: 8,114 sq ft (approx.) less 15% loss factor Avg. Net Unit Size: 406 sq ft (approx.) Gross Commercial Square Footage: 1,909 sq ft (approx.) Zoning: C1-7A / HY Residential FAR: 6.02 (Wide Street) Total Buildable Sq. Ft.: 14,863 sq ft (approx.) Minus Existing Structure: 11,455 sq ft (approx.) Available Air Rights: 3,408 sq ft (approx.) Assessment (17/18): $1,185,615 Taxes (17/18): $152,849 Financial Summary: GROSS ANNUAL REVENUE: $732,043 PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT: $895 VACANCY LOSS & EXPENSES: $240,171 PRICE PER UNIT: $445,652 NET OPERATING INCOME: $491,872 CAPITALIZATION RATE: 4.80% 2 PROPERTY OVERVIEW Property Description Cushman and Wakefield, Inc. has been retained on an exclusive basis to arrange for the sale of 410 West 36th Street, a 6-story mixed-use walkup located in Hudson Yards, one of the most dynamic neighborhoods in Manhattan. With record levels of equity pouring into real estate in the immediate neighborhood, this is a rare investment opportunity to purchase a well maintained, core Manhattan multifamily property that has potential to capitalize on upside in both residential and commercial rents.
  • NCAA Division II-III Football Records (Special Games)

    NCAA Division II-III Football Records (Special Games)

    Special Regular- and Postseason- Games Special Regular- and Postseason-Games .................................. 178 178 SPECIAL REGULAR- AND POSTSEASON GAMES Special Regular- and Postseason Games 11-19-77—Mo. Western St. 35, Benedictine 30 (1,000) 12-9-72—Harding 30, Langston 27 Postseason Games 11-18-78—Chadron St. 30, Baker (Kan.) 19 (3,000) DOLL AND TOY CHARITY GAME 11-17-79—Pittsburg St. 43, Peru St. 14 (2,800) 11-21-80—Cameron 34, Adams St. 16 (Gulfport, Miss.) 12-3-37—Southern Miss. 7, Appalachian St. 0 (2,000) UNSANCTIONED OR OTHER BOWLS BOTANY BOWL The following bowl and/or postseason games were 11-24-55—Neb.-Kearney 34, Northern St. 13 EASTERN BOWL (Allentown, Pa.) unsanctioned by the NCAA or otherwise had no BOY’S RANCH BOWL team classified as major college at the time of the 12-14-63—East Carolina 27, Northeastern 6 (2,700) bowl. Most are postseason games; in many cases, (Abilene, Texas) 12-13-47—Missouri Valley 20, McMurry 13 (2,500) ELKS BOWL complete dates and/or statistics are not avail- 1-2-54—Charleston (W.V.) 12, East Carolina 0 (4,500) (at able and the scores are listed only to provide a BURLEY BOWL Greenville, N.C.) historical reference. Attendance of the game, (Johnson City, Tenn.) 12-11-54—Newberry 20, Appalachian St. 13 (at Raleigh, if known, is listed in parentheses after the score. 1-1-46—High Point 7, Milligan 7 (3,500) N.C.) ALL-SPORTS BOWL 11-28-46—Southeastern La. 21, Milligan 13 (7,500) FISH Bowl (Oklahoma City, Okla.) 11-27-47—West Chester 20, Carson-Newman 6 (10,000) 11-25-48—West Chester 7, Appalachian St.
  • Design Considerations for Retractable-Roof Stadia

    Design Considerations for Retractable-Roof Stadia

    Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer S.B. Civil Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of AASSACHUSETTS INSTiTUTE MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN OF TECHNOLOGY CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING MAY 3 12005 AT THE LIBRARIES MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2005 © 2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved Signature of Author:.................. ............... .......... Department of Civil Environmental Engineering May 20, 2005 C ertified by:................... ................................................ Jerome J. Connor Professor, Dep tnt of CZvil and Environment Engineering Thesis Supervisor Accepted by:................................................... Andrew J. Whittle Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies BARKER Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 20, 2005 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering ABSTRACT As existing open-air or fully enclosed stadia are reaching their life expectancies, cities are choosing to replace them with structures with moving roofs. This kind of facility provides protection from weather for spectators, a natural grass playing surface for players, and new sources of revenue for owners. The first retractable-roof stadium in North America, the Rogers Centre, has hosted numerous successful events but cost the city of Toronto over CA$500 million. Today, there are five retractable-roof stadia in use in America. Each has very different structural features designed to accommodate the conditions under which they are placed, and their individual costs reflect the sophistication of these features.
  • FY 2022 EXECUTIVE BUDGET CITYWIDE SAVINGS PROGRAM—5 YEAR VALUE (City $ in 000’S)

    FY 2022 EXECUTIVE BUDGET CITYWIDE SAVINGS PROGRAM—5 YEAR VALUE (City $ in 000’S)

    The City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2022 Bill de Blasio, Mayor Mayor's Office of Management and Budget Jacques Jiha, Ph.D., Director Message of the Mayor The City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2022 Bill de Blasio, Mayor Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget Jacques Jiha, Ph.D., Director April 26, 2021 Message of the Mayor Contents BUDGET AND FINANCIAL PLAN SUMMARY Budget and Financial Plan Overview .......................................................................... 3 State and Federal Agenda ........................................................................................................... 4 Sandy Recovery .......................................................................................................................... 6 Contract Budget .......................................................................................................................... 9 Community Board Participation in the Budget Process ............................................................ 10 Economic Outlook .................................................................................................. 11 Tax Revenue .......................................................................................................... 27 Miscellaneous Receipts ............................................................................................ 52 Capital Budget ........................................................................................................ 58 Financing Program .................................................................................................
  • An Analysis of the American Outdoor Sport Facility: Developing an Ideal Type on the Evolution of Professional Baseball and Football Structures

    An Analysis of the American Outdoor Sport Facility: Developing an Ideal Type on the Evolution of Professional Baseball and Football Structures

    AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMERICAN OUTDOOR SPORT FACILITY: DEVELOPING AN IDEAL TYPE ON THE EVOLUTION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL STRUCTURES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Chad S. Seifried, B.S., M.Ed. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Donna Pastore, Advisor Professor Melvin Adelman _________________________________ Professor Janet Fink Advisor College of Education Copyright by Chad Seifried 2005 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to analyze the physical layout of the American baseball and football professional sport facility from 1850 to present and design an ideal-type appropriate for its evolution. Specifically, this study attempts to establish a logical expansion and adaptation of Bale’s Four-Stage Ideal-type on the Evolution of the Modern English Soccer Stadium appropriate for the history of professional baseball and football and that predicts future changes in American sport facilities. In essence, it is the author’s intention to provide a more coherent and comprehensive account of the evolving professional baseball and football sport facility and where it appears to be headed. This investigation concludes eight stages exist concerning the evolution of the professional baseball and football sport facility. Stages one through four primarily appeared before the beginning of the 20th century and existed as temporary structures which were small and cheaply built. Stages five and six materialize as the first permanent professional baseball and football facilities. Stage seven surfaces as a multi-purpose facility which attempted to accommodate both professional football and baseball equally.
  • Understanding the “Platform” River 15 Hudson Yards 12Th Ave

    Understanding the “Platform” River 15 Hudson Yards 12Th Ave

    35 HUDSON BUILDING HUDSON YARDS HUDSON YARDS UNDERSTANDING THE “PLATFORM” RIVER 15 HUDSON YARDS 12TH AVE. To build the first half of Hudson Yards, a “PODIUM” WESTERN 10-acre “platform” was constructed over the 30 HUDSON STRUCTURE: PLATFORM YARDS Eastern Rail Yard of the Long Island Rail Road. 30 HUDSON YARDS A similar structure will be built over the UPPER TRUSSES Columns and other support 10 HUDSON YARDS Western Rail Yard. When completed, the two Tall trusses support hung structures land between the rail HUDSON platforms will support approximately three sections of this building, which lines—and were placed to avoid YARDS PODIUM quarters of the 28-acre primary development. connects 10 Hudson Yards and underground utilities—while 34TH ST. 11TH AVE. The foundations of the buildings that sit on 30 Hudson Yards. trusses supporting the tower’s 33RD ST. the Eastern Rail Yard platform extend through south face span the tracks. HIGH LINE EASTERN 30TH ST. and rise above it, while the platform itself is PLATFORM supported by 300 caissons of varying sizes 10TH AVE. drilled into bedrock between the tracks. GLOSSARY Caisson. A large-diameter pipe drilled into rock and filled with concrete. “PODIUM” BASE STRUCTURE OVER STRUCTURE Eastern Rail Yard Platform. A 10-acre deck THE YARDS The location and construction built above 30 LIRR tracks that supports of the columns supporting this Trusses bridge over this narrow more than five acres of open space, four building—which is home to a section of the rail yard, where towers, a cultural center and one million collection of shops and there was no room for caissons.
  • 2019 COMBINED CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FILINGS PURSUANT to SEC RULE 15C2-12 Relating to METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Dedic

    2019 COMBINED CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FILINGS PURSUANT to SEC RULE 15C2-12 Relating to METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Dedic

    2019 COMBINED CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FILINGS PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 15c2-12 relating to METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Dedicated Tax Fund Bonds Transportation Revenue Bonds State Service Contract Bonds Special Obligation Taxable Refunding Bonds Hudson Rail Yards Trust Obligations and TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY (MTA BRIDGES AND TUNNELS) General Revenue Bonds Subordinate Revenue Bonds Dated: April 30, 2019 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] INTRODUCTION This book contains the 2019 Combined Continuing Disclosure Filings prepared by Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (“TBTA”) pursuant to various written undertakings made to assist the underwriters in complying with their obligations in accordance with SEC Rule 15c2-12 in connection with the following credits: • MTA Transportation Revenue Bonds, • TBTA General Revenue Bonds, • TBTA Subordinate Revenue Bonds, • MTA Dedicated Tax Fund Bonds, • MTA State Service Contract Bonds, • MTA Special Obligation Taxable Refunding Bonds, and • MTA Hudson Rail Yards Trust Obligations. A roadmap to the continuing disclosure information that MTA or TBTA has contractually agreed to update, in accordance with the respective continuing disclosure agreements in official statements, describing where the materials required may be found in MTA’s Annual Disclosure Statement is set forth at the end of this Introduction. This Annual Information booklet contains the following information: PART I contains the MTA Annual Disclosure Statement (“ADS”). The ADS describes the Related Entities, and includes the information necessary to meet the requirements of the continuing disclosure agreements under MTA and TBTA official statements, offering circulars and remarketing circulars, as applicable, for all credits. PART II includes the following, which are also part of the Annual Continuing Disclosure Filings: • Tab 1 lists, by designation, the various issues of securities outstanding for all credits.
  • Hudson Yards FGEIS

    Hudson Yards FGEIS

    96TH ST. 96TH ST. BROADWAY 86TH ST. 86TH ST. RIVERSIDE PARK 72ND ST. 72ND ST. WEST NEW YORK QUEENS CENTRAL PARK ROOSEVELT ISLAND AMSTERDAM AVE. CENTRAL PARK WEST QUEENSBORO BRIDGE 57TH ST. DEWITT CLINTON PARK FIFTH AVE. FIRST AVE. SIXTH AVE. THIRD AVE. TENTH AVE. EIGHTH AVE. SEVENTH AVE. WEEHAWKEN 49TH ST. 42ND ST. Area of Proposed ROUTE 9A PARK AVE. Action 34TH ST. HUDSON RIVER B R EAST RIVER O A D W A Y PARK AVE. SOUTH 23RD ST. UNION SQUARE 14TH ST. F O U R T H A V E . F D R D R I TOMPKINS V HOBOKEN SQUARE AVE. C E PARK WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK N ST. HOUSTO EAST RIDGE SBURG B B RIVER WILLIAM O PARK W V E A R R Y Y ST. I ANC C DEL K S T . ST. GRAND Y H C A U AN W AL D D ST. A S RO O B N ST A W S E T E . S T S T Y . A W W O Y R D CITY HALL K . A A R R A D W PARK O P R D R VE A B I R O T T R S S A E B E BATTERY PARK CITY W M A N H A FULTON ST. TT BRO AN OKL B WTC YN R BRI ID DGE G NEW JERSEY E WALL ST. BROOKLYN BATTERY 0 2000 4000 Feet PARK Legend Project Area Boundary Location of Proposed Action Figure 1-1 NO. 7 SUBWAY EXTENSION-HUDSON YARDS REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 92 W.
  • OCR Document

    OCR Document

    THE COFFIN CORNER: Vol. 25, No. 6 (2003) ON TO THE PROS By Rob Jackson The career aspirations of an undrafted collegiate can be quite the Super Bowl blowout in New Orleans that would become the daunting. Nonetheless, Dave Treadwell approached his own worst of Denver's four championship losses. He would tack on ascent with none of the expectant trepidations. one extra point in the third stanza as San Francisco defeated the Bronco’s 55-10. "I just felt that playing at Clemson, at that leyel, I was prepared to move on to the next level. A lot of guys say that the biggest All told the AFC's leading scorer contributed 143 points to his difference (from college football) is playing in front of bigger team's cause and earned himself a trip to the pro bowl in his crowds. And I was used to playing in front of bigger crowds in rookie season where he connected on all three of his extra point Death Valley. attempts. “Even going on to play at the professional level, I don't think "A playoff game, in the NFL in my first year was just those moments can be matched just because of the pure unbelievable. When I look back on it, it seems like that first year excitement and enthusiasm at the college football level. Just was almost a blur, the way it went by so quick and we had so talking about it again, I still get chills up and down my spine. How much success. It's like I almost expected that kind of success unbelievable those moments were.
  • High Line Effect

    High Line Effect

    ctbuh.org/papers Title: The High Line Effect Authors: Kate Ascher, Partner, BuroHappold Engineering Sabina Uffer, Head of Research, BuroHappold Engineering Subjects: Civil Engineering Economics/Financial History, Theory & Criticism Landscape Architecture Sustainability/Green/Energy Urban Design Urban Infrastructure/Transport Keywords: Economics Landscape Sustainability Urban Design Zoning Publication Date: 2015 Original Publication: Global Interchanges: Resurgence of the Skyscraper City Paper Type: 1. Book chapter/Part chapter 2. Journal paper 3. Conference proceeding 4. Unpublished conference paper 5. Magazine article 6. Unpublished © Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Kate Ascher; Sabina Uffer The High Line Effect Abstract Dr. Kate Ascher Partner Density and development come in many forms – not all of them tall. One of the most successful BuroHappold Engineering, New York City, USA development initiatives undertaken in New York City in the last decade has been a horizontal, rather than a vertical, project: the High Line. The development of this linear park was not the idea of a savvy developer, nor of a far-sighted urban planner or city agency, but of residents who wanted to save a viaduct from demolition. The tools used to carry out the transformation Kate Ascher leads BuroHappold’s Cities Group in New York. She is also the Milstein Professor of Urban Development from an abandoned rail line into a park included a combination of public and private money, at Columbia University where she teaches real estate, fortuitous zoning changes, respect for the historic fabric, and a simple landscaping aesthetic that infrastructure and urban planning courses. Her public sector work has involved overseeing major infrastructure and master would make the park a world-class attraction.
  • Hell's Kitchen South Community Planning Session

    Hell's Kitchen South Community Planning Session

    Hell’s Kitchen South Community Planning Session Update on Replacement Port Authority Bus Terminal Plan Sponsored by Manhattan Community Board 4 Congressman, Jerold Nadler State Senator Brad Hoylman State Assemblymembers Richard Gottfried, Linda Rosenthal Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer New York City Councilmember Corey Johnson December 6, 2016 Port Authority Bus Terminal Serves the most riders in the US Will not be able to serve anticipated future demands PA and others call for new terminal Proposed Replacement Terminal Timeline NY Elected PA releases jury MCB4 and NY local Officials hold comments on the 5 Electeds convene a a Press design finalists & NY Elected Town Hall attended by Conference the Trans Hudson 200+ citizens Officials call to call for Capacity study for the PA Master MCB4’s Land Use the PA meets with NY & termination Planning Committee forms a termination NJ Electeds and of the resulting working group to of the MCB4 & MCB5 advise on the PABT Design in 5 Design agreeing to form a designs project Competition Competition Working Group 2013-2015 Nov 2015 End 2015/Early 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 July 2016 Aug 2016 Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 MCB4 MCB4 PA Board decides writes a MCB4 writes PA agrees writes a not to build a letter asking a letter to restart letter of bus terminal in PA to “Do Protesting the process objection NJ, launches No Harm” poor air design quality, the competition and NY Elected Officials use of Trans Hudson eminent Capacity study work with MCB4 on domain & response to lack of public PA consultation
  • Hudson Yards FGEIS

    Hudson Yards FGEIS

    Appendix Y References Appleseed, Remodeling the Fashion District. February 2003, p. 14 Beranek, L.L. et al. 1988. Noise and Vibration Control. Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Bolt Beranek and Newman. 1973. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. NTIS PB- 222-703. Boreman, J. and H.M. Austin. 1985. Production and harvest of anadromous striped bass stocks along the Atlantic coast. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.114:3-7. Boss, Shira. “Westward Hoe!” Crain’s New York Business. December 9, 2002. Bram, Jason. “New York City’s Economy before and after September 11.” Current Issues in Economics and Finance: Second District Highlights. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. February 2003. Bram, Jason and Michael Anderson. “Declining Manufacturing Employment in the New York-New Jersey Region: 1969-99.” Current Issues in Economics and Finance: Second District Highlights. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. January 2001. Bram, Jason et al. “Has September 11 Affected New York City’s Growth Potential?” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review. November 2002. Cartwright, R.A. 2002. History and Hydrologic Effects of Ground-Water Use in Kings, Queens, and Western Nassau Counties, Long Island, New York, 1800’s through 1997. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4096. USGS, Coram, NY, in cooperation with New York City Department of Environmental Protection). City of New York, Rules of the City of New York, Traffic Rules and Regulations, Volume II, Chapter 4-13. Clinkenbeard et al., 2002. Lessons Learned from the California Geological Survey’s Recent Activity to Develop Guideline for Naturally Occurring Asbestos Investigations.