DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 11: Cultural Resources 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Context and Key Issues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 11: Cultural Resources 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Context and Key Issues MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center DEIS 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 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is being prepared), also requires the evaluation of impacts on cultural resources. The NHPA requires public outreach within the DEIS 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 applicable to the Proposed Action, potential impacts to landmarks and historic districts have 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 May 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-1 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center DEIS 11. Archaeological deposits or features are not considered likely to be found in the APE given the extent of construction disturbance that has historically occurred in the area, both pre- and post-September 11. 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, NYCT and SHPO will enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the treatment of historic resources within the APE that may be affected by the Proposed Action. The draft MOA is included in Appendix H. 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. 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 and structural investigations that would be carried out during Final Design, Alternative 9 may require underpinning of the Corbin Building. This would be determined based on whether or not there is a risk of excessive movement of the Corbin Building during the construction of the Entry Facility. Such a risk could have implications for the project cost and schedule and would necessitate the use of underpinning or a similar protective technique, such as compensation grouting. Based on information available to date, NYCT would proceed with underpinning of the Corbin Building in Alternative 9 to avoid risks related to public safety and damage to the historic resources associated with unknown construction conditions. Underpinning, if used, would remain permanently in place. This could require temporary displacement of tenants in the basement of the Corbin Building. No other impacts to the Corbin Building are anticipated under this alternative, although impacts related to vibration during construction could occur. May 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-2 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center DEIS Under Alternative 10, the Corbin Building would be acquired by New York City Transit (NYCT) and underpinned and used as part of the FSTC Entry Facility and Dey Street Passageway. Tenants in the building would be permanently displaced. While this alternative would directly impact the Corbin Building, the intent of this alternative is to rehabilitate and adaptively re-use the building in a manner consistent with its historic character. The MOA (see Appendix H) would ensure that adverse effects arising under this alternative would be minimized and satisfactorily mitigated. Other historic resources that would incur impacts as a result of the FSTC under both Build alternatives include the Fulton Street 45 Subway Station and the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Building. As with the Corbin Building, the MOA would ensure that adverse effects arising under these alternatives would be minimized and satisfactorily mitigated. Other historic sites that could incur vibration or soil settlement impacts from construction under both Build alternatives are the East River Savings Bank, St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard, the Bennett Building and some buildings located within the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District (including the non-designated Dennison Building at 15 John Street which is a contributing element in the historic district, but not individually eligible for the National Register).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • CITIES SERVICE BUILDING, 70 Pine Street (Aka 66-76 Pine Street, 2-18 Cedar Street, 171-185 Pearl Street), Manhattan
    Landmarks Preservation Commission June 21, 2011; Designation List 443 LP-2441 CITIES SERVICE BUILDING, 70 Pine Street (aka 66-76 Pine Street, 2-18 Cedar Street, 171-185 Pearl Street), Manhattan. Built 1930-32; Clinton & Russell, Holton & George, architects. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 41, Lot 1. On May 10, 2011, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the Cities Service Building and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 1). The hearing was duly advertised according to provisions of law. Six people spoke in favor of designation, including representatives of the owners, Manhattan Community Board 1, the Historic Districts Council, and the New York Landmarks Conservancy. Summary The former Cities Service Building at 70 Pine Street is a 66-story skyscraper, rising from a trapezoidal site bounded by Pine Street, Cedar Street, and Pearl Street. An icon of the lower Manhattan skyline, the building’s shaft terminates in a slender pinnacle crowned by an illuminated lantern and stainless steel spire. At the time of completion in 1932, this Art Deco style tower was the tallest structure in lower Manhattan, and at 952 feet, the third tallest structure in the world. Commissioned by a major American corporation, it was an expression of the owner’s success, escalating real estate costs, and the current zoning code that required buildings to diminish in mass as they rise. The Cities Service Company was chartered by Henry L. Doherty in 1910, and quickly grew to become one of the largest corporations in the United States, controlling approximately 150 energy firms in 38 states, including numerous oil and power suppliers.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW YORK 2 - Mon Petit Circuit Dans Financial District
    NEW YORK 2 - Mon petit circuit dans financial district Trinity church C'est le premier site de la ville a avoir accueilli une église. Malheureusement le bâtiment actuel n'est pas l'original. Cette église de style neo gothique date de 1846. L'église originale construite en 1699 brulat en 1776 puis fut reconstruite par 14 une seconde qui périt sous la neige en 1839. Alexander Hamilton et Robert Fulton (inventeur du bateau à vapeur) sont enterrés dans le cimetière de cette église qui était le plus haut bâtiment de la ville lors de sa construction. Bank of New York 1 Wall street Arc h Voorhees, Gmelin & Walker – 1931 Art Deco Construit en 1929-31 en tant que le siège social de la Société Irving Trust, ce gratte ciel de 50 ans à la façade en calcaire se trouve sur ce qui était considéré comme le «plus cher site immobilier à New York," l'intersection de Wall Street et Broadway. L'emplacement prestigieux est devenu le site de la tour Art déco conçue par le célèbre architecte Ralph Walker T. La société Irving Trust a été 15 fondé comme la Banque Irving en 1851 dans la région de New York à Washington du marché pour répondre aux besoins des commerçants locaux et les distributeurs de produits alimentaires. Elle a ensuite évolué à travers une série de fusions et d'acquisitions qui a commencé en 1907, lorsque la Banque Irving a fusionné avec la Banque de la Bourse de New York. En 1928, la banque était à l'étroit dans le Woolworth Building et prévoyait d'avoir son propre bâtiment à Wall Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5. Historic Resources 5.1 Introduction
    CHAPTER 5. HISTORIC RESOURCES 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.1.1 CONTEXT Lower Manhattan is home to many of New York City’s most important historic resources and some of its finest architecture. It is the oldest and one of the most culturally rich sections of the city. Thus numerous buildings, street fixtures and other structures have been identified as historically significant. Officially recognized resources include National Historic Landmarks, other individual properties and historic districts listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, properties eligible for such listing, New York City Landmarks and Historic Districts, and properties pending such designation. National Historic Landmarks (NHL) are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. All NHLs are included on the National Register, which is the nation’s official list of historic properties worthy of preservation. Historic resources include both standing structures and archaeological resources. Historically, Lower Manhattan’s skyline was developed with the most technologically advanced buildings of the time. As skyscraper technology allowed taller buildings to be built, many pioneering buildings were erected in Lower Manhattan, several of which were intended to be— and were—the tallest building in the world, such as the Woolworth Building. These modern skyscrapers were often constructed alongside older low buildings. By the mid 20th-century, the Lower Manhattan skyline was a mix of historic and modern, low and hi-rise structures, demonstrating the evolution of building technology, as well as New York City’s changing and growing streetscapes.
    [Show full text]
  • 94 GREENWICH STREET HOUSE, 94 Greenwich Street (Aka 14-18 Rector Street), Manhattan
    Landmarks Preservation Commission June 23, 2009, Designation List 414 LP-2218 94 GREENWICH STREET HOUSE, 94 Greenwich Street (aka 14-18 Rector Street), Manhattan. Built c. 1799-1800; fourth story added by 1858; rear addition c. 1853/1873. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 53, Lot 41. On January 30, 2007, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the 94 Greenwich Street House and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 1). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Twelve people spoke in favor of designation, including representatives of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, Municipal Art Society of New York, New York Landmarks Conservancy, and Historic Districts Council. In addition, the Commission received a number of communications in support of designation, including a letter from Augustine Hicks Lawrence III, a sixth-generation descendant of the original owner. One of the property’s owners, who oppose designation, appeared at the June 23, 2009, public meeting and requested a postponement of the vote. The building had been previously heard by the Commission on October 19, 1965, and June 23, 1970 (LP-0049). Summary The Federal style rowhouse at No. 94 Greenwich Street in Lower Manhattan was constructed c.1799-1800 as an investment property, right after this block was created through landfill and Greenwich and Rector Streets had been laid out. At the time, this was the most fashionable neighborhood for New York’s social elite and wealthy merchant class.
    [Show full text]
  • S. JARMULOWSKY BANK BUILDING, 54 Canal Street (Aka 54-58 Canal Street, 5-9 Orchard Street), Borough of Manhattan
    Landmarks Preservation Commission October 13, 2009, Designation List 419 LP-2363 S. JARMULOWSKY BANK BUILDING, 54 Canal Street (aka 54-58 Canal Street, 5-9 Orchard Street), Borough of Manhattan. Built 1911-12; Rouse & Goldstone, architects. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 294, Lot 8. On June 23, 2009, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation of the S. Jarmulowsky Bank Building (Item No. 17). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Five witnesses spoke in favor of the building’s designation, including a representative of Council Member Alan J. Gerson; Joyce Mendelsohn, author of The Lower East Side Remembered and Revisited; and representatives of the Bowery Alliance of Neighbors, the Historic Districts Council, and the Museum at Eldridge Street. Two representatives of the building’s owner also testified, stating that the owner had no objection to its designation. Summary Called “the first strictly high-class tall bank and office building” on the Lower East Side, with a design “equal in every respect [to] the highest grade banking buildings throughout the city,” the S. Jarmulowsky Bank Building was completed in 1912 as the architectural showpiece of one of the neighborhood’s most prominent bankers. Born in 1841 in what was then the Russian province of Lomza, its owner, Sender Jarmulowsky, established his business on the Lower East Side in 1873 and was operating at this location by 1878. Known for his honesty and conservative financial approach, Jarmulowsky grew wealthy over the following three decades providing steamship tickets and banking services to the immigrants of the surrounding neighborhood, which was unrivaled as the world’s largest Jewish community.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Record Book, 1901-1940 Photograph by Frank Poole
    Mission Record Book, 1901-1940 Photograph by Frank Poole Mission Record Books, 1901-1940 Photograph by Frank Poole THISTHI EXHIBITION endeavors to remember the efefforts of those who created the Irish Mission for ImmigrantImmig Girls in New York City. The story begins in IrelandIrelan with Charlotte Grace O’Brien’s inspiration and couragecoura to actually do something about the appalling emigrationemigr conditions she observed first-hand on the docksdocks in Queenstown. And, it continues with the commitmentcomm of the Catholic clergy and countless others to helphel over 100,000 women immigrants. The Mission RecordRecor Books on the emigration arrivals of the Irish womenwom are part of the collection of the Our Lady of thet Rosary, Saint Elizabeth Seton Shrine, at Watson House, and will be part of a planned future Irish heritage and genealogical center. PleaseP take a moment to sign our Guest Register and check our website: www.watsonhouse.org WeW invite your comments and when you are in NewN York encourage visits to the Irish Hunger Memorial,M a few blocks northwest at 290 Vesey StreetStr and North End Avenue, the Ellis Island ImmigrationImmi Museum, as well as other points of interestintere in Lower Manhattan. Mission Record Book, 1897 Photograph by Frank Poole CéadCéa míle fáilte isteach! “The sword of famine is less sparing than the bayonet of the soldier.” Thomas F. Meagher Irish patriot, part of the ‘Young Ireland’ 1848 rebellion and with William Smith O’Brien shipped to Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania), and distinguished American Civil War General The Great Irish Famine (1845-1852) did not initiate Irish immigration When an Irish girl left her family and home in Ireland, the Catholic to the United States – it institutionalized it.
    [Show full text]
  • Ons of the Realty
    Is Too Hoover News, Comment and Re corded REAL ESTATE «REAL ESTATE ^ Transact!ons of the ISLAS» Autocratic, Realty Market LONG LOSO ISLAND American to High Rentals Recorded Transfers Recorded Mortgages Surety Spend Keep Downtown Downtown Pinchot WEST Says ST, 143, 25.5x83.9x84x73.», correc¬ CEDAR ST, n a c Greenwich Great Demand tion deed. Elborac Realty et at, 84.2x123* Up trus. to Alex Corpn at, Irre«; p m; April 15; Mary N MaeDonald in Joske. 241 av. to ' FOR Pershing Jones St SALE Annex Lafayette-Great Corpn, 170 $2,500,000 San, Antonio, and Texas, ano, Building 12: O tru»; April Bww; 3 yrs. 6 d c; pr njtga $129.490; Called Not atty, K Relief Activity For Whitman, 130 Bway.. 1109 attys, Lachrr.an & G, 25 Xassao at Dwellings WILLIAM ST. 11s. sea, 89.6 n John at, Kind of Work to 101.1x25.3x irreg; Chas F $32.500 the Fit Addition Noyes to Den- GREENWICH ST. v t, !' i Jay at. 25x58; Modern Twenty-one Story Sale iHon Realty Corpn, 93 William at mtg-e April 14: Fireproof Ut- & Hess« to Factory Feb Armstrong Fidelity Him for the Task To of$4,850,000 Houses on East West »90,000; 3?; attya, Stoddard & M, Trust Co, 1 Hudson st; due Gigantic Be Erected Around and 13* Bway .aiOO 1933; April 14, ¡PEARL n w »pe, attya, Raba & K. 258 on Confronting President Present Site in of Sides Share in the ST, 250, s, 52 a w Fulton st, Bway .:.$20,000 With R. R. Siding Jackson Avenue, Long IsUnd Place RealtyAuthorized Buy¬ ti.5iiluG.li; Restan Realty C«» to Car- MUTT ST.
    [Show full text]
  • West End-Collegiate Historic District Extension Designation Report
    Addendum to the West End-Collegiate Historic District Extension Designation Report On October 30, 2013, the City Council of the City of New York modified the designation of the West End-Collegiate Historic District Extension, Designation List No. 465, LP-2462 (L.U. No. 918), City Council Resolution No. 1998, by deleting the following properties: 214 West 72nd Street Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 1163, Lot 42 232 West 73rd Street [Display Address: 236 West 73rd Street] Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 1164, Lot 42 In addition, the areas of the street beds of West 72nd Street and West 73rd Street that are directly in front of these buildings are also deleted from the district. West End-Collegiate Historic District Extension Landmarks Preservation Commission W 79 St 6 West End-Collegiate 320 3 7 250 9 3 9 0 9 1 3 2 Historic District Extension 2 1 9 3 Borough of Manhattan, NY [LP-2462] Calendared: November 16, 2010 339 317 257 251 340 324 262 W 78 St 250 Public Hearing: June 28, 2011 Designated: June 25, 2013 Boundary of District Extension 2 1 3 5 6 8 0 Tax Map Lots, District Extension 1 0 343 323 233 273 W 77 St Boundaries of Existing Districts Tax Map Lots, Existing Districts West End-Collegiate 2 1 6 Deleted by City Council Historic District 9 October 30, 2013 241 235 3 260 W 76 St 230 3 Existing Historic Districts 6 Historic District Extension Bronx 2 1 3 9 259 235 H W 75 St e 304 228 A 5 W n 1 R m 3 r e y i B s v s r t H e e t o est Side/ r Upper W r E u a s d d d i n d a w s d Central Park West e m o a A n D y Manhattan A ric District v Histo r P v y 301 W 74 St 231 Queens 1 320 232 5 Brooklyn 319 251 234 232 (Display 320 W 73 St Address 236) 1 311 233 W 72 St 216 214 344 West 71st Street Historic District 357 353 303 213 352 342 308 W 71 St 212 2 1 2 2 250 0 2 Feet 303 211 ¯ W 70 St Graphic Source: MapPLUTO, Edition 09v1, 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • 32 DOMINICK STREET HOUSE, 32 Dominick Street, Manhattan Built C
    Landmarks Preservation Commission March 27, 2012, Designation List 453 LP-2480 32 DOMINICK STREET HOUSE, 32 Dominick Street, Manhattan Built c. 1826; builder, Smith Bloomfield Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 5778, Lot 64 On June 28, 2011, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the 32 Dominick Street House and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 6). The hearing was duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. There were four speakers in favor of designation, including representatives of the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Society for the Architecture of New York, the Historic Districts Council and the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. There were no speakers in opposition to designation. A letter in opposition to designation was received from the owner. Summary The 32 Dominck Street House was one of twelve Federal style brick row houses (nos. 28 to 50) built in c. 1826 on the south side of Dominick Street between Hudson and Varick Streets; and was one of the five houses (nos. 28 to 36) constructed by builder Smith Bloomfield. A secession of tenants lived in the house while owned by Bloomfield and it was sold by the executors of his estate to Mary McKindley in 1866. Her heirs conveyed it to John F. Wilson, a carpenter, in 1878. Wilson’s devisee sold it to the Church of Our Lady of Vilnius, which used it as a rectory. The church, located on Broome Street, was founded to serve the Lithuanian Catholic community and closed in 2007.
    [Show full text]