DOCSLIB.ORG

Dutch Kills Rezoning Project Dutch Kills, Long Island City Queens, New York

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dutch Kills Rezoning Project Dutch Kills, Long Island City Queens, New York APPENDIX M Phase IA Cultural Resource Assessment DUTCH KILLS REZONING PROJECT DUTCH KILLS, LONG ISLAND CITY QUEENS, NEW YORK PHASE IA CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Prepared For: New York City Department of City Planning New York, New York Prepared By: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. New York, New York May 2008 DUTCH KILLS REZONING PROJECT DUTCH KILLS, LONG ISLAND CITY QUEENS, NEW YORK PHASE IA CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Prepared For: New York City Department of City Planning New York, New York Prepared By: Tina Fortugno, RPA Deborah Van Steen Zachary J. Davis, RPA The Louis Berger Group, Inc. May 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) is proposing zoning map amendments for an area encompassing 36 whole blocks and four partial blocks within the Dutch Kills neighborhood of Long Island City in the Borough of Queens. The proposed rezoning area is generally bounded by 36th Avenue on the north, Northern Boulevard on the east, 41st Avenue on the south, and 23rd Street on the west. The proposed action would rezone approximately 70 acres of land currently zoned as M1-3D and M1-1 to M1-2/R5B, M1-2/R5D, and M1-3/R7X zones. Such rezoning amendments would result in a net decrease in the density of permitted light manufacturing within the area and, in turn, cause a net increase in residential density. This rezoning would work in conjunction with the establishment of a Dutch Kills Subdistrict as an extension of the Special Long Island City Mixed-Use District and enable a range of residential, community facility, commercial, and light industrial land uses as-of-right. As part of this action, the DCP is undertaking a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Dutch Kills rezoning project. Consideration for cultural resources, including both archaeological and historic architectural resources, must be undertaken as part of the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) process. The following Phase IA Cultural Resource Assessment establishes Areas of Potential Effect (APEs) for the project, those areas within which the proposed actions may affect potential archaeological and/or historic architectural resources, identifies designated and potential cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed project, and assesses the proposed action’s potential effects on those resources. This Phase IA Cultural Resource Assessment is subject to the review of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) under the CEQR process. Within the proposed rezoning area, DCP has delineated projected and potential development sites. These development sites are located throughout the 70-acre rezoning area and often encompass multiple tax lots within a single projected or potential site. A total of 67 individual lots comprise the 40 projected development sites; 314 city lots encompass the 192 potential development sites. LPC determined that of the 381 lots slated for rezoning, only five lots had the potential to contain significant and intact nineteenth century archaeological resources which may be impacted by the proposed rezoning project. These five lots established the archaeological APE for this Phase IA Cultural Resource Study. Research was conducted on the ownership and occupation history of the five lots while only general background information was obtained for the project area. As for the historic architectural survey, the historic architectural APE was determined using the CEQR guidelines that recommend a 400-foot (121.92 meters) radius from the borders of the project site as the limits of the study area for architectural resources (CEQR Technical Manual 312). Thus, the historic architectural APE was calculated by buffering 400 feet (121.92 meters) from the exterior limits of the proposed rezoning area. The documentary study concluded that each of the five lots or portions of each of the lots had the potential for intact archaeological deposits. Four of the LPC-selected lots, Block 367, Lot 23, Block 368, Lot 11, and Block 398, Lots 1 and 39, were found to have the potential for intact prehistoric archaeological resources. Portions of four of the lots, Block 367, Lot 23, Block 368, Lot 11, Block 371, Lot 38, and Block 398, Lot 1, were also found to have the potential for intact mid-nineteenth and/or late nineteenth historic period deposits including potential shaft features. Soil boring data was not available for any of the five selected-LPC lots during this initial documentary study. Given the potential for past episodes of filling and/or grading within each of these areas, conclusions regarding the sensitivity of each lot should be reevaluated if borings or other soil profile information becomes available. The comprehensive support for the conclusions regarding the sensitivity of the lots within the archaeological APE is included in the following report. A survey of historic architectural resources within the architectural APE identified 22 properties that appeared to be 50 years in age or greater (30 years in age or greater for New York City Landmarks) and that had potential to meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Of the properties identified and evaluated as part of this study, ten individual properties and one historic district were recommended eligible for listing in the State and National Registers. Three of these properties were also recommended New York City Landmark-eligible. Page i The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Phase IA Cultural Resource Assessment Dutch Kills Rezoning Project TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................i TABLE of CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ii LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................................................iii LIST OF PHOTOS (continued).....................................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................................vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description .....................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Areas of Potential Effect.............................................................................................................................1 1.3 Scope of Work and Project Personnel ........................................................................................................5 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.....................................................................................................................9 2.1 Project Area and Current Land Use............................................................................................................9 2.2 Geology and Geography.............................................................................................................................9 3.0 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................13 3.1 Prehistoric Overview ................................................................................................................................13 3.1.1 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Potential ............................................................................................14 3.1.2 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys....................................................................................................15 3.2 Historic Background.................................................................................................................................18 4.0 INDIVIDUAL LOT DOCUMENTARY STUDIES .....................................................................................31 4.1 Block 367, Lot 23.....................................................................................................................................31 4.2 Block 368, Lot 11.....................................................................................................................................43 4.3 Block 371, Lot 38.....................................................................................................................................48 4.4 Block 398, Lot 1.......................................................................................................................................64 4.5 Block 398, Lot 39.....................................................................................................................................80 5.0 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY .................................................................................................84 5.1 Methodology.............................................................................................................................................84 5.2 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties within the Architectural APE .................................85 5.2.1 Previously Listed or Eligible Historic Properties
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RMM02688.Pdf
    This document is from the Cornell University Library's Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections located in the Carl A. Kroch Library. If you have questions regarding this document or the information it contains, contact us at the phone number or e-mail listed below. Our website also contains research information and answers to frequently asked questions. http://rmc.library.cornell.edu Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections 2B Carl A. Kroch Library Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 Phone: (607) 255-3530 Fax: (607) 255-9524 E-mail: [email protected] Regional Plan Association. 70 Records, 1919-19H Guide V0l. 1 Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections Cornell University Ithaca, New York February 1995 Close study of guide far 1st 54 (1/3rd of total) revealed no mention of F. Horner, but, the fdlwin,: contain files for the exrly 1940's: Box 2, has pei-.corr. of the engineering staff. F. 24 , late 90's and '40's m Box 3 - numerous 1940's entries in re defense z2 u Box 14- FHA, 1941 r?t: ? Pox 38, clipping files, 1940-41 2Z %x 47, Bd. of Directors corresp., 1930-45 4 - U 2 Reminder of guide (Box2s 55-162) also checked: €2 Box 60. Annual Reports, numbered, but no yrs. given, Folders 1-4 d 3 66, Folder 15, "Major Accomplishments of R.P.A. l9u2-1946" 67, Nev Jersey files by county, 1930's-'50's 8 69, N.J. Planning, late '30's-early '50's $ 70, St. hrence Seaway, 1941 5 -1 -1 Port of New York Authority, 1933-56 zW 71.
    [Show full text]
  • Jackson Heights Historic District
    New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Jackson Heights Historic District tlm (Cuurt lirksmi ^eu;l|ts, Jfrh ^*rk October 19, 1993 New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission JACKSON HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT Prepared by the Research Department, Marjorie Pearson, Director Editors: Elisa Urbanelli, Research Department Editor Anthony W. Robins, Director of Special Projects Research/Writing: Luella Adams James T. Dillon Joseph Brooks, Ph.D. Patricia Garbe Donald Presa Anthony W. Robins Graphics: Richard Brotherton Report Layout: Marion Cleaver The Landmarks Preservation Commission Laurie Beckelman, Chair Sarah Bradford Landau, Vice-Chair William E. Davis Rev. Thomas F. Pike Ulrich Franzen Stephen Raphael Jack S. Freeman Vicki Match Suna Hui Mei Grove Charles Sachs Commissioners I In memory of Luella Adams whose survey and research work proved invaluable to the creation of the Jackson Heights Historic District ( IE as 3n' I! ers. B O o 55 § §• o vo 3 - 'I O \g J U 3 u> 3 gM3T o L 57-57. J 7-59 79™ ST 97-55 M-27 I I Jjjgfr 34-Ig 80™ ST J>-(5 z 9 o 3D 1 »»-ifr ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The study of a potential historic district in the Jackson Heights area required the participation of many people over the course of several years. In 1987 Gene A. Norman, then Chairman, directed the Commission's Survey Department to undertake a survey of Queens Community Board 3 which includes Jackson Heights, Elmhurst, and Corona. This work was undertaken largely by Survey staff member Luella Adams and resulted in a report presented to the Commission, containing recommendations for potential historic districts and individual landmarks within the area of the Community Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Concourse Historic District Designation Report October 25, 2011
    Grand Concourse Historic District Designation Report October 25, 2011 Cover Photograph: 1020 Grand Concourse (Executive Towers) (far left) through 900 Grand Concourse (Concourse Plaza Hotel) (far right) Christopher D. Brazee, October 2011 Grand Concourse Historic District Designation Report Essay researched and written by Jennifer L. Most Architects’ Appendix researched and written by Marianne S. Percival Building Profiles by Jennifer L. Most, Marianne S. Percival and Donald Presa Edited by Mary Beth Betts, Director of Research Photographs by Christopher D. Brazee Additional Photographs by Marianne S. Percival and Jennifer L. Most 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 GRAND CONCOURSE HISTORIC DISTRICT MAP…………………………………BEFORE PAGE 1 TESTIMONY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING .............................................................................................. 1 GRAND CONCOURSE HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES .............................................................. 1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 4 THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GRAND CONCOURSE HISTORIC
    [Show full text]
  • American Geographical Society
    American Geographical Society From Exclusionary Covenant to Ethnic Hyperdiversity in Jackson Heights, Queens Author(s): Ines M. Miyares Source: Geographical Review, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Oct., 2004), pp. 462-483 Published by: American Geographical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034291 Accessed: 15-06-2015 21:01 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Geographical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Geographical Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 146.96.145.15 on Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:01:32 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FROMEXCLUSIONARY COVENANT TO ETHNIC HYPERDIVERSITYIN JACKSONHEIGHTS, QUEENS* INES M. MIYARES ABSTRACT. When EdwardMacDougall of the QueensboroRealty Company originally envi- sioned and developed JacksonHeights in Queens, New Yorkin the earlytwentieth century, he intended it to be an exclusivesuburban community for white, nonimmigrantProtestants within a close commute of Midtown Manhattan.He could not have anticipated the 1929 stock marketcrash, the subsequentreal estate marketcollapse, or the changein immigration policies and patternsafter the 1950s. This case study examineshow housing and public trans- portation infrastructureintended to prevent ethnic diversitylaid the foundation for one of the most diversemiddle-class immigrant neighborhoods in the United States.Keywords: im- migrantneighborhoods, New YorkCity, public transportation,Queens.
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving the Historic Garden Suburb: Case Studies from London and New York
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research John Jay College of Criminal Justice 2014 Preserving the Historic Garden Suburb: Case Studies from London and New York Jeffrey A. Kroessler John Jay College of Criminal Justice How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_pubs/37 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Kroessler: Preserving the Historic Garden Suburb Introduction In all the discussions of sustainability, historic preservation rarely makes an appearance. Energy efficiency, recycled materials, green roofs, LEED certification, solar power and windmills, even bike racks – all are popularized as acceptable elements of sustainable architecture. Economic justice, environmentalism, and social justice are the primary concerns of sustainability advocates. Environmental planning addresses the preservation of open space and greenbelts, but rarely the preservation of the built environment (Young 2002). Restoring or maintaining historic buildings is generally not counted as green by environmental advocates. But really, the greenest building is the one that is already built. Whether in terms of the natural materials utilized – stone, terra cotta, brick, wood, plaster – or embodied energy – the labor and resources that went into producing the structure – or simply not contributing to the waste stream – construction debris is perhaps the largest single contributor to landfills – historic buildings are inherently sustainable. Considering the entire life cycle of a structure, “older buildings compare quite favorably to new construction” (Allison and Peters 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Long Island &Ijtoad (?Ompany
    Copyright 1928 by the Long Island &iJTOad (?ompany LONG ISLAND ''The Sunrise Hom,eland'' --------........ I =-~.,. ~;~~ ' I ~~a'I '\ Il ~~ ~ E-t-e 4. a.,nhand ~% ~--- ~~ -~ 6 nd Happine~s It' HIS book has been published in answer to an T ever,increasing demand for information con, cerning Long Island. Throughout its pages it has been the endeavor to make it authentic.. in· every respect, in order that the investor, the builder and the home,seeker may have at his fingers" tips a true and u.11\ran1ished description of the entire Island layout. Issued Under Auspices of Long Island Chamber of Commerce 20 WEST 34TH STREET •• NEW YORK CITY [ 1928] Published by The Schwarzbach Publishing Corp. 116 W. 39th Street MANHATI'AN LONG ISLAND-"The Sunrise llomeland" B01ne Labor Savers Rome Naaa8ement Today Is aa SelentlBo as Baslnea Management. WithElectric household appliances, more and better work can be done in a given time than ever before. The Vacuum Cleaner, the Wash, ing Machine, the Electric Iron, and the Electric Toaster, are but a few of the devices Electricity is contrib, uting to home management. Yoar New Rome .... wm It he properly equipped IGr ecmplete electric service! Look over your building plans care, fully to see if ample provision is made for complete Electric Service. NEW YORK 8 QUEENS ELECTRIC LIGHT 8 POWER CO. Bridge Plaza, Long Island City Stillwell 8000 111-16 Liberty Ave.1 Richmond Hill 69-19 Fresh Pond Road, Ridgewood · Ck-vdand z700 E'J'ergTem zo,ooo 14S-22 Jamaica Ave... Jamaica 3925 Bell Boulev&Mt Bayside Jam.uca z900 Bayside 4000 Gas and Electric Bldg., Amity St., Flushing Flushing 4200 35-20 Broadway, Long Island City Ra"Venswood zooo LONG ISLAND-"The Sunrise Homeland" 3 INDEX.
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving the Historic Garden Suburb: Case Studies from London and New York
    Suburban Sustainability Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 1 2014 Preserving the Historic Garden Suburb: Case Studies from London and New York Jeffrey A. Kroessler John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/subsust Part of the Architectural History and Criticism Commons, Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons, and the Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons Recommended Citation Kroessler, Jeffrey A. (2014) "Preserving the Historic Garden Suburb: Case Studies from London and New York," Suburban Sustainability: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. https://www.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/2164-0866.2.1.1 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/subsust/vol2/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Environmental Sustainability at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Suburban Sustainability by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kroessler: Preserving the Historic Garden Suburb Introduction In all the discussions of sustainability, historic preservation rarely makes an appearance. Energy efficiency, recycled materials, green roofs, LEED certification, solar power and windmills, even bike racks – all are popularized as acceptable elements of sustainable architecture. Economic justice, environmentalism, and social justice are the primary concerns of sustainability advocates. Environmental planning addresses the preservation of open space and greenbelts, but rarely the preservation of the built environment (Young 2002). Restoring or maintaining historic buildings is generally not counted as green by environmental advocates. But really, the greenest building is the one that is already built.
    [Show full text]
  • Newtown Creek Navigation Analysis
    Kosciuszko Bridge Project Newtown Creek Navigation Analysis September 22, 2005 New York State Department of Transportation Chapter I Introduction A. OVERVIEW Newtown Creek is a tributary of the East River in the New York Harbor and the Port of New York/New Jersey. It is considered a narrow tidal arm of the East River and forms a portion of the boundary between the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. The mouth of the creek is located on the east bank of the East River about 3.6 miles above The Battery. The creek extends 3.3 miles eastward and southward and has several short tributaries and basins. Newtown Creek lies in a highly industrialized area of New York City. Almost the entire water frontage is developed for terminal and industrial purposes. Traffic is moderate and consists of petroleum products, sand, gravel and stone, scrap metal, and waste management material. Vessel drafts today seldom exceed 15 feet. The mean range of tide in the creek is 4.1 feet with generally weak and variable tidal currents. B. TRIBUTARIES The tributary basins formally identified by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Ocean Service (NOS) are as follows: x Dutch Kills – on the north side of Newtown Creek, 0.8 miles from the East River; x Whale Creek – on the south side, at Mile 0.85, approximately opposite Dutch Kills; x Unnamed Canal – on the south side, at Mile 0.95, adjacent to a New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) facility; x Maspeth Creek – on the east side, at Mile 2.2; x East Branch – on the east side, at Mile 2.5; and x English Kills – extends eastward and southward from the East Branch entrance and forms the last 0.8 miles of Newtown Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Queens the Historic Districts Council Is New York’S Citywide Advocate for Historic Buildings and Neighborhoods
    A Guide to Historic New York City Neighborhoods Jack s o n H e i g H t s Queens The Historic Districts Council is New York’s citywide advocate for historic buildings and neighborhoods. The Six to Celebrate program annually identifies six historic New York City neighborhoods that merit preservation as priorities for HDC’s advocacy and consultation over a yearlong period. The six, chosen from applications submitted by community organizations, are selected on the basis of the architectural and historic merit of the area, the level of threat to the neighborhood, the strength and willingness of the local advocates, and the potential for HDC’s preservation support to be meaningful. HDC works with these neighborhood partners to set and reach pres- ervation goals through strategic planning, advocacy, outreach, programs and publicity. The core belief of the Historic Districts Council is that preservation and enhancement of New York City’s historic resources—its neighborhoods, buildings, parks and public spaces—are central to the continued success of the city. The Historic Districts Council works to ensure the preservation of these resources and uphold the New York City Landmarks Law and to further the preservation ethic. This mission is accomplished through ongoing programs of assistance to more than 500 community and neighborhood groups and through public-policy initiatives, publications, educational outreach and sponsorship of community events. Six to Celebrate is generously supported by The New York Community Trust and HDC’s Six to Celebrate Committee. Additional support for the Six to Celebrate Tours is provided by public funds from the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs in partnership with the City Council and New York City Councilmembers Inez Dickens, Daniel Garodnick, Vincent Gentile, Stephen Levin and Rosie Mendez.
    [Show full text]
  • Rives V. 164 23Rd Street Jackson Heights, Inc
    CITY OF NEW YORK COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS -------------------------------------- X In the Matter of the Complaint of X X LUIS RIVES, X X Complainant, X X -against- X Complaint No. X H-92-0115 164 23RD STREET JACKSON HEIGHTS, INC. X and MARGUERITE PARK, X RECOMMENDED X DECISION & ORDER Respondents. X -------------------------------------- X BEFORE: Rosemarie Maldonado Chief Administrative Law Judge Hearings Division APPEARANCES: For the Complainant Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022 By: Anne Turilli, Esq. Lourdes M. Slater, Esq. For the Commission Robert Hammel, Esq. Deputy Commissioner for Law Enforcement NYC Commission on Human Rights 40 Rector Street New York, New York 10006 By: Nancy Alisberg, Esq. For the Respondent Goldstein & Greenlaw 80-02 Kew Gardens Road Kew Gardens, New York 11415 By: Abbey F. Goldstein, Esq. CITY OF NEW YORK COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS -------------------------------------- X In the Matter of the Complaint of X X LUIS RIVES, X Complainant, X X -against- X Complaint No. X H-92-0115 164 23RD STREET JACKSON HEIGHTS, INC. X X and MARGUERITE PARK, X X Respondents. X -------------------------------------- X RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER I. Complaint and Hearing Summary............................? II. Summary of Parties' Contentions..........................? III. Findings of Fact.........................................? IV. Conclusions of Law.......................................? V. Damages and Affirmative Relief...........................? VI. Recommended Order........................................? I. COMPLAINT AND HEARING SUMMARY Luis Rives filed a verified complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights on September 3, 1991, alleging that Respondents 164 23rd Street, Jackson Heights, Inc. and Marguerite Park violated Sections 8-107(5)(a)(1) and 8-107(5)(a)(3) of the New York City Administrative Code ("Code") by refusing to approve his application to purchase a cooperative apartment because of his national origin and marital status.
    [Show full text]
  • Bank of the Manhattan Company Building, Long Island City
    Landmarks Preservation Commission May 12, 2015, Designation List 481 LP-2570 BANK OF THE MANHATTAN COMPANY BUILDING, LONG ISLAND CITY 29-27 Queens Plaza North (aka 29-27 41st Avenue, 29-39 Northern Blvd), Borough of Queens Built 1925-27; Morrell Smith, architect. Landmark Site: Borough of Queens Tax Map Block 403, Lot 9.1 On April 21, 2015, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the Bank of the Manhattan Company Building, Long Island City, and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 1). The hearing was duly advertised in accordance with provisions of law. Six people spoke in favor of designation, including representatives of the owner, the Historic Districts Council, and the Society for the Architecture of the City. There were no speakers opposed to designation. The Commission has also received approximately 100 letters supporting designation, including letters from Borough President Melinda Katz, Councilmember Jimmy Van Bramer, and Queens Community Board #1, as well as a petition signed by nearly 1,600 people. Summary For nearly a century, the Bank of the Manhattan Company Building has been one of Long Island City’s most recognizable structures. Eleven stories tall, the most visually-prominent feature is the slender clock tower, incorporating four large glass faces with Roman numerals and a crenellated crown. Following the opening of the Queensboro Bridge in 1909, this section of Long Island City developed into an important commercial center, attracting a large concentration of factories and banks. When the Bank of the Manhattan Company was dedicated in May 1927 it was an instant landmark, easily seen by thousands of people in passing cars and on the various elevated transit routes that converge at Queens Plaza.
    [Show full text]
  • Queens the Historic Districts Council Is New York’S Citywide Advocate for Historic Buildings and Neighborhoods
    A Guide to Historic New York City Neighborhoods Jack s o n H e i g H t s Queens The Historic Districts Council is New York’s citywide advocate for historic buildings and neighborhoods. The Six to Celebrate program annually identifies six historic New York City neighborhoods that merit preservation as priorities for HDC’s advocacy and consultation over a yearlong period. The six, chosen from applications submitted by community organizations, are selected on the basis of the architectural and historic merit of the area, the level of threat to the neighborhood, the strength and willingness of the local advocates, and the potential for HDC’s preservation support to be meaningful. HDC works with these neighborhood partners to set and reach pres- ervation goals through strategic planning, advocacy, outreach, programs and publicity. The core belief of the Historic Districts Council is that preservation and enhancement of New York City’s historic resources—its neighborhoods, buildings, parks and public spaces—are central to the continued success of the city. The Historic Districts Council works to ensure the preservation of these resources and uphold the New York City Landmarks Law and to further the preservation ethic. This mission is accomplished through ongoing programs of assistance to more than 500 community and neighborhood groups and through public-policy initiatives, publications, educational outreach and sponsorship of community events. Six to Celebrate is generously supported by The New York Community Trust and HDC’s Six to Celebrate Committee. Additional support for the Six to Celebrate Tours is provided by public funds from the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs in partnership with the City Council and New York City Councilmembers Inez Dickens, Daniel Garodnick, Vincent Gentile, Stephen Levin and Rosie Mendez.
    [Show full text]