Chapter 7: Historic Resources A. INTRODUCTION AND

Home , Grand Street (Manhattan), Home Insurance Plaza

Chapter 7: Historic Resources

A. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This chapter assesses the potential impacts that may occur to historic resources as a result of construction and/or operation of the project alternatives. Because any impacts that might occur during construction could result in permanent, rather than temporary, impacts to historic structures, those impacts are considered in detail in this chapter in addition to operational impacts. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as promulgated by the federal legislation 36 CFR 800, mandates that federal agencies must consider the effect of their actions on any properties listed on or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Federal agency preservation officers, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), must determine whether a proposed action would have any beneficial or adverse effects on the characteristics of a site that qualify it for the State and National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR). The New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 closely resem- bles the National Historic Preservation Act, and requires that state agencies consider the effect of their actions on properties listed on or determined eligible for the State Register of Historic Places. In general, potential impacts on historic or architectural resources can include both direct physical impacts—demolition, alteration, or damage from construction on nearby sites—and indirect, contextual impacts, such as the isolation of a property from its surrounding environment, or the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with a property or that alter its setting. The subway and Light Rail Transit (LRT) routes would pass beneath and/or beside a large number of structures, some of which are of historic or architectural importance. This raises the possibility that such structures or sites could be affected by Build Alternatives 1 and 2. During the consultation process with SHPO, described below under “Definition of the Area of Potential Effect,” it was determined that the No Action and TSM Al- ternatives would not result in any impacts to historic resources, and therefore no additional evaluation of potential impacts of these alternatives was prepared. To assess and compare the potential impacts of Build Alternatives 1 and 2, an inventory of historic and architectural resources in areas that could be impacted by the proposed alternatives was compiled. A description of the methodology used to prepare the inventory follows, as does a brief description of the identified and potential historic resources, and an assessment of the potential impacts of Build Alternatives 1 and 2. This work was prepared in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the State Historic Preservation Act, and the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The scope of work was developed in consultation with SHPO and the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commis- sion (LPC).

7-1 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

DEFINITION OF THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT In spring 1997, Areas of Potential Effect (APEs) for the MESA study were defined in consultation with staff of SHPO and LPC. At that time, the No Build Alternative and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative were determined to have no potential effects, so the alternatives to be studied were Build Alternatives 1 and 2. APEs were established for those project alternatives. APEs include locations that may potentially be impacted by construction or that may experience effects once construction is completed and the new transit system is operational. As shown in Figures 7-1 through 7-4, the APEs include the area 50 feet beyond the building line on either side of any areas of cut and cover construction, and 50 feet beyond the north and south limits of such construction; the area 50 feet beyond the building line and beyond the north and south limits of new subway stations and the limits of potential locations identified for a proposed construction staging site; buildings fronting the alignment of the at-grade and open-cut portions of the LRT component; and 50 feet beyond the limits of the proposed LRT maintenance and storage yard. The APEs do not include areas where an existing tunnel would be used or where deep-bore tunneling would take place. In these locations, vibrations due to construction and/or operation of the proposed subway would not be expected to result in any impacts to structures. (For more information on vibration, see Chapter 11, “Noise and Vibration,” and Chapter 15, “Construction and Construction Impacts.” As described there, mitigation measures would be incorporated into the project’s design to avoid significant adverse vibration impacts.)

INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES/STRUCTURES WITHIN THE APEs Real estate atlases were used to determine all locations included as APEs for Build Alternatives 1 and 2. A list of all officially recognized historic resources—properties or districts listed on the S/NR, or determined eligible for such listing; National Historic Landmarks (NHL); and New York City Landmarks and Historic Districts (NYCL) or properties pending such designation— was prepared for the APEs using the sources listed below in section F (see Table 7-1 and Figures 7-5 through 7-7). Next, properties/structures potentially eligible for city landmark designation were identified based on consultation with LPC staff and research undertaken using LPC’s research files and other sources (see Tables 7-2 and 7-3, and Figures 7-8 through 7-11). An annotated list of the sources consulted to create the list of potential historic sites is provided at the end of this chapter in section F. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS As described above, both known and potential historic resources were identified within the MESA corridor APE. There are 16 known historic properties/structures, including two historic districts, within the APE. A total of 84 potential historic properties/structures have been identified within the APE. Four structures near the intersection of 125th Street and Lexington Avenue (2075-2087 Lexington Avenue, 141-147 East 125th Street, 149 East 125th Street, and 151-153 East 125th Street), a commercial complex on the Upper East Side (at 1242-1258 Second Avenue, between 62nd and 63rd Streets), and one on the Lower East Side (80 Essex Street) were documented in Building-Structure Inventory Forms, which were submitted to SHPO for determinations of eligibility for listing on the S/NR and to LPC regarding their eligibility for NYCL designation. SHPO determined (in correspondence dated December 10, 1998) that

7-2 Chapter 7: Historic Resources

Table 7-1 Known Historic Resources Within Areas of Potential Effect (APE)* for LRT and Subway

Ref. Pending S/NR No. Name Address NYCL SR NR NHL NYCL Eligible 1. Fraunces Tavern Block Coenties Slip X X X Historic District 2. South Street Seaport X X X Historic District 3. Brooklyn Bridge X X X X 4. Manhattan Bridge Arch X X X and Colonnade 5. Forward Building 173-175 East Broadway X 6. Federal rowhouse at 281 281 East Broadway X East Broadway 7. Williamsburg Bridge Crosses East River; X ends on Delancey Street in Manhattan and on Broadway in Williamsburg, Brooklyn 8. Essex Street Retail 80 Essex Street X Market 9. Immaculate Conception 406-414 East 14th X X X Church and Clergy House Street 10. Engine Co. 5 340 East 14th Street X 11. Temple Tifereth Israel 336 East 14th Street X 12. Union Square Park X X X X 13. Union Square Subway X Station (BMT Station, N and R lines) 14. Lincoln Building 1 Union Square West X X X 15. Twelfth Ward Savings 141-147 East 125th X Bank Street (2081-2083 Lexington Avenue) 16. 7-story building 2075-2087 Lexington X Avenue (144-142 East 126th Street) Notes: * See accompanying Figures 7-5, 7-6, and 7-7. NYCL: New York City Landmark. SR: New York State Register of Historic Places. NR: National Register of Historic Places. NHL: National Historic Landmark. Pending NYCL: Site has been considered for a public hearing about its designation as a New York City Landmark or heard for designation as such. S/NR Eligible: Site has been found eligible for listing on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places.

7-3 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

Table 7-2 Potential Historic Resources Within Area of Potential Effect (APE) for Light Rail* Ref. No. Name Address Block/Lot Notes Lower Manhattan Zone 1. 4-story warehouse 42 Water Street 30/33 Ca. 1830 2. 4-story warehouse 44 Water Street 30/32 Ca. 1830 3. 5-story warehouse 90 Water Street 31/1 Ca. 1830 Lower East Side Zone 4. Manhattan Savings 150A Canal Street 202/18 1924; Clarence W. Brazer Bank 5. 6-story loft 85 Canal Street 300/1 Ca. 1900; Renaissance Revival 6. Jarmulowsky Bank 58-54 Canal Street 294/8 1913; Wm. L. Rouse & Lafayette Goldstone 7. 7-story loft 48 Canal Street 294/23 8. Former Synagogue 41 Canal Street (5 298/33 1910; T-shaped building constructed as Ludlow Street) Independent Kletzker Brotherly Aid Society Building 9. Former Loew’s Theater 31 Canal Street 297/1 1927; Thomas Lamb; altered 1967, 1973, 1982; Spanish Baroque 10. 5-story tenement 143 Division Street 283/77 1886; a pair with 34 Canal Street 11. 5-story tenement 34 Canal Street 283/76 1886; a pair with 143 Division Street 12. Former The Day Jewish 183 East Broadway 284/19 Ca. 1850's; Neo-Grec Newspaper 13. Federal rowhouse 185 East Broadway 284/18 Ca. 1850's; pair with 187 East Broadway 14. Old Prep School 187 East Broadway 284/17 Ca. 1850's; originally a Federal rowhouse remodeled in Neo-Grec style 15. Seward Park Library 192-194 East Broadway 311/31 1909; Babb, Cook & Welsh; Renaissance Revival 16. Educational Alliance 197 East Broadway 285/29 1889; Brunner & Tryon; Remodeled 1969 by David K. Spector 17. 5-story tenement 205 East Broadway 285/23 1840; Greek Revival; integrity fair 18. 5-story tenement 211 East Broadway 285/20 Ca. 1890; Renaissance Revival 19. 4-story tenement 217 East Broadway 285/17 Greek Revival 20. Bialystoker Center 228 East Broadway 315/45 1930; Art Deco 21. The Mayflower 221 East Broadway 286/40 Renaissance Revival 22. 4-story tenement 247 East Broadway 286/27 1889; Anglo-Italianate 23. Old Club Building 249 East Broadway 286/26 Greek Revival 24. 5-story tenement 251 East Broadway 286/25 Ca. 1890; Renaissance Revival 25. 4-story tenement 253 East Broadway 286/24 Ca. 1840; remodeled ca. 1875 26. Greek Revival Tenement255 East Broadway 286/23 Ca. 1840 27. Federal rowhouse 279 East Broadway 288/65 Ca. 1815-1823; appears to be identical to 281 East Broadway, but is altered. Occupied by Henry Street Settlement. 28. Ritualarium and School 311 East Broadway 288/48 1904; Flemish Revival 29. Federal rowhouse 503 Grand Street 288/47 Ca. 1815-1823 30. Federal rowhouse 505-507 Grand Street 288/45 Ca. 1815-1823; appears to be 2 buildings that have been joined 31. Federal rowhouse 509 Grand Street 288/44 Ca. 1815-1823; part of a row of 3 buildings between 509 and 513 Grand Street

7-4 Chapter 7: Historic Resources

Table 7-2 (Continued) Potential Historic Resources Within Area of Potential Effect (APE) for Light Rail* Ref. No. Name Address Block/Lot Notes 32. Federal rowhouse 511 Grand Street 288/43 Ca. 1815-1823; part of a row of 3 buildings between 509 and 513 Grand Street 33. Federal rowhouse 513 Grand Street 288/42 Ca. 1815-1823; part of a row of 3 buildings between 509 and 513 Grand Street 34. Federal rowhouse 515 Grand Street 288/41 Ca. 1815-1823; part of a row of 3 buildings between 515 and 519 Grand Street 35. Federal rowhouse 517 Grand Street 288/40 Ca. 1815-1823; part of a row of 3 buildings between 515 and 519 Grand Street 36. Federal rowhouse 519 Grand Street 288/40 Ca. 1815-1823; part of a row of 3 buildings between 515 and 519 Grand Street 37. Amalgamated Dwellings 504-520 East Broadway 331/1 1930; Springsteen & Goldhammer; Art Deco apartment building; altered 1980 38. 6-story tenement 23 Avenue D (327 East 373/40 1899; Romanesque Revival 3rd Street) 39. 6-story tenement 41-43 Avenue D 374/41 1901 (355-357 East 4th Street) 40. 5-story tenement 640 East 14th Street 396/27 One of a row of eight identical Anglo- Italianate tenements 41. 5-story tenement 638 East 14th Street 396/26 One of a row of eight identical Anglo- Italianate tenements 42. 5-story tenement 636 East 14th Street 396/20 One of a row of eight identical Anglo- Italianate tenements 43. 5-story tenement 634 East 14th Street 396/20 One of a row of eight identical Anglo- Italianate tenements 44. 5-story tenement 632 East 14th Street 396/20 One of a row of eight identical Anglo- Italianate tenements 45. 5-story tenement 630 East 14th Street 396/20 One of a row of eight identical Anglo- Italianate tenements 46. 5-story tenement 628 East 14th Street 396/20 One of a row of eight identical Anglo- Italianate tenements 47. 5-story tenement 626 East 14th Street 396/20 One of a row of eight identical Anglo- Italianate tenements 48. 6-story tenement 238-240 East 14th Street 469/27 One of a row of four identical Renaissance Revival tenements 49. 6-story tenement 236 East 14th Street 469/25 One of a row of four identical Renaissance Revival tenements 50. 6-story tenement 230 East 14th Street 469/23 One of a row of four identical Renaissance Revival tenements 51. 6-story tenement 226 East 14th Street 469/21 One of a row of four identical Renaissance Revival tenements 52. Jefferson Theater 212 East 14th Street 469/14 1912; Thomas Lamb

7-5 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

Table 7-2 (Continued) Potential Historic Resources Within Area of Potential Effect (APE) for Light Rail* Ref. No. Name Address Block/Lot Notes East Midtown Zone 53. Stuyvesant Town East 14th Street 972/1 1945-1949; team of architects headed by Gilmore Clarke; complex of 35 thirteen-story buildings between 14th and 20th Streets, First Avenue to Avenue C/FDR Drive 54. Con Edison Office 123-145 East 14th Street 870/24 1911-1914; H.J. Hardenbergh; 1926, 1928 Building (4 Irving Place) additions; Warren & Wetmore Note: * Corresponds to Figures 7-8 and 7-9.

7-6 Chapter 7: Historic Resources

Table 7-3 Potential Historic Resources Within Areas of Potential Effect (APE) for Subway* Ref. No. Name Address Block/Lot Notes Upper East Side Zone 1. Commercial complex 1242-1258 Second Avenue 1440/1, 3, 1952; architects: Alfred Fellheimer 49, 51 and Steward Wagner 2. Neo-Grec tenement 1388 Second Avenue 1446/4 1882 3. 5-story tenement 1390 Second Avenue 1446/52 4. 4-story tenement 1390½ Second Avenue 1446/151 5. Neo-Grec tenement 1596 Second Avenue** 1545/50 1885 6. Neo-Grec tenement 1598 Second Avenue 1545/49 1885 (300 East 83rd Street)** 7. 4-story tenement 1595 Second Avenue** 1528/27 1874 8. 4-story tenement 1597 Second Avenue 1528/28 1874 (250 East 83rd Street)** 9. Neo-Classical tenements 1614-1616 Second Avenue 1546/50, 49 1885; two buildings now merged (302 East 84th Street) 10. 4-story tenement 1601 Second Avenue** 1529/21 1879 11. 4-story tenement 1603 Second Avenue** 1529/22 1879 12. 4-story tenement 1605 Second Avenue** 1529/23 1879 13. 4-story tenement 1609 Second Avenue** 1529/24 1873 14. 4-story tenement 1611 Second Avenue** 1529/25 1871 15. 4-story tenement 1613 Second Avenue** 1529/26 1871-1873 16. The Foster 1617 Second Avenue 1529/27 1881 (244 East 84th Street) 17. The Manhattan 1649-1657 Second Avenue 1531/28 1879-1880; architect: Chas. Clinton (244 East 86th Street) 18. 5-story tenement 1760 Second Avenue** 1554/50 1887 19. 5-story tenement 1762 Second Avenue 1554/49 1887 (300 East 92nd Street)** 20. 5-story tenement 1814 Second Avenue 1556/49 300 East 94th Street)** 21. 5-story tenement 1812 Second Avenue** 1556/50 22. 5-story tenement 1810 Second Avenue** 1556/51 23. 5-story tenement 1808 Second Avenue** 1556/52

East Harlem Zone 24. 5-story tenement 223 East 96th Street** 1646/15 25. 5-story tenement 225 East 96th Street** 1646/16 26. 5-story tenement 227 East 96th Street** 1646/17 27. 5-story tenement 229 East 96th Street** 1646/18 28. 5-story tenement 231 East 96th Street** 1646/19 29. 5-story tenement 233 East 96th Street** 1646/20 Notes: * Corresponds to Figures 7-10 and 7-11. ** Part of a row of buildings.

7-7 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

2075-2087 Lexington Avenue, 141-147 East 125th Street, and 80 Essex Street are eligible for Register listing. These structures have been added to the list of known historic resources. SHPO requested additional information on the complex at 1242-1258 Second Avenue. LPC (in correspondence dated October 20, 1998 and May 17, 1999) determined that none of the structures are worthy of NYCL designation. A brief discussion of the historic resources in each of the five study area zones follows.

LOWER MANHATTAN

KNOWN HISTORIC RESOURCES There are three known historic resources within the APE in the Lower Manhattan zone: the Fraunces Tavern Block and South Street Seaport Historic Districts, and the Brooklyn Bridge. All three resources are listed on the Register and are designated Landmarks. The Fraunces Tavern Block Historic District contains low-rise buildings that date primarily to the early 19th century, as well as Fraunces Tavern, a reconstruction of the original 18th century building where George Washington gave his famous farewell address to his officers. The South Street Seaport Historic District includes the largest concentration of early 19th century commercial buildings in New York, including Georgian-Federal and Greek Revival countinghouses. Constructed between 1867 and 1883 and designed by John A. Roebling, the Brooklyn Bridge became the first physical link between the independent cities of Brooklyn and New York, and was one of the great engineering feats of the 19th century. The bridge is also an NHL. In the area north of City Hall, the African Burial Ground and the Commons Historic District (S/NR, NYCL, NHL) is located adjacent to, but not within, the APE.

POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES There are three potential historic resources within the APE in the Lower Manhattan zone. They are brick and stone Greek Revival warehouses along Water Street, which date from the early part of the 19th century, when this part of Manhattan was a thriving seaport with warehouses for storing goods from around the world.

LOWER EAST SIDE

KNOWN HISTORIC RESOURCES There are eight known historic resources within the APE in the Lower East Side zone. Moving from south to north, these include the Manhattan Bridge Arch and Colonnade at the east end of Canal Street, designed in Beaux Arts style by Carrère and Hastings in 1909 (see Figure 7-12); the Forward Building, designed by George A. Boehm in 1912 and home of the “Jewish Daily Forward,” the most influential Yiddish-language daily newspaper in America; the Federal-style rowhouse at 281 East Broadway, which was restored by its occupant, the Henry Street Settle- ment; the Williamsburg Bridge, a steel suspension bridge designed by the engineer Leffert L. Buck and completed in 1903; and the Essex Street Retail Market building, an Art Moderne building completed in 1941 to replace outdoor pushcart markets. Also included are three buildings on the south side of 14th Street (the north side of 14th Street is in the East Midtown zone). Along 14th Street, the APE includes the Immaculate Conception Church and Clergy House, designed by Barney & Chapman in 1894 in French Gothic style as the Grace Episcopal

7-8 Chapter 7: Historic Resources

Church and Hospital; Engine Company No. 5, a Victorian Gothic-style firehouse designed by Napoleon LeBrun & Sons in 1881; and Temple Tifereth Israel, a Romanesque style building designed by Julius Boekell in 1866 as the First German Baptist Congregation.

POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES There are 49 structures within the APE in the Lower East Side zone that have been identified as potential historic resources. These represent resources built over a range of more than a century, in a variety of styles, for various purposes, and evocative of different periods and trends in the city, state, and nation’s history. Starting from the south, there are a concentration of 11 Federal-style residences built in the period circa 1815 to 1823; these small intimately scaled row houses are located along Grand Street, near the eastern end of East Broadway and in the next five blocks along East Broadway, proceeding west. (A 12th house in this row, and the finest example of the type, is 281 East Broadway, a Landmark described above.) Most of the buildings have the distinctive Federal dormers on the roof and decorative details over the windows and doors. They are relatively intact examples of a rare type of structure in New York City. There is also a group of eight Greek Revival/Classical Revival residences and tenements along East Broadway (at numbers 183, 185, 187, 205, 217, 249, 253, and 255) which date from the 1840's and 1850's; and 21 tenement buildings along Canal Street (number 34 and its mate at 143 Division Street), East Broadway (numbers 211, 221, 247, 249, and 251), Avenue D (numbers 23 and 41-43), and 14th Street (numbers 226, 230, 236, 238-240, 626, 628, 630, 632, 634, 636, 638, and 640). The tenements are mostly five- and six-story old-law tenements, constructed during the third quarter of the 19th century. They were densely inhabited when constructed, mostly by European immigrants arriving in New York in great numbers. Among the finest example of this type of building is the row of nine identical Anglo-Italianate tenements at 626-640 East 14th Street, just west of Avenue C. The remaining nine potential historic resources in this zone are a mix of commercial and institu- tional buildings, plus the Amalgamated Dwellings, a complex of apartment buildings dating from 1930. At the southwestern corner of the APE are two neo-Classical banks—the stone-faced Manhattan Savings Bank, designed by architect Clarence W. Brazer in 1924, which features a large dome; and Jarmulowsky’s Bank, a 12-story, highly decorated masonry building constructed in 1913 to the designs of architects William L. Rouse and Lafayette Goldstone. There are also two turn-of-the-century loft buildings at 48 and 85 Canal Street that are of architectural distinc- tion. Proceeding east along Canal Street, there is a T-shaped building that has facades at 41 Canal Street and 5 Ludlow Street; the 5-story classical building was constructed in 1910 as the Independent Kletzker Brotherly Aid Society Building, a fraternal organization dedicated to aiding Jewish immigrants from the city of Kletsk in Poland. In an interesting adaptation, the building is now occupied by an Italian-American funeral home along Canal Street, and a Chinese-American funeral home along Ludlow Street. The former Loew’s Canal Street Theater was designed in the Spanish Baroque style by famed theater architect Thomas Lamb in 1927. A modern storefront has been added and other alterations made to the theater, but the upper floors retain their terra-cotta detailing. Along East Broadway is a cluster of four important institutions—a library, an educational institu- tion, a senior citizens home, and a ritualarium and school. The Seward Park branch of the New York Public Library is an elegant Renaissance Revival-style building designed by Babb, Cook

7-9 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

& Welsh in 1909. Constructed of red brick and heavily rusticated stone, the branch is a Carnegie Library. Across East Broadway from the library is the Educational Alliance, an early social service organization for poor Jewish immigrants. The buff brick Romanesque Revival building was designed by Brunner and Tryon and constructed in 1889 and remodeled in 1969. The Bialystoker Center Home for the Aged is an Art Deco building, constructed in 1930 of brick, stone, and terra-cotta. It was built as a senior citizens center for Jewish residents. Finally, near the corner of East Broadway and Grand Street is an unusual Flemish Revival-style building constructed in 1904 as the Young Men’s Benevolent Association; it now houses a mikvah, or ritual bath for Jewish females, and a school. The Amalgamated Dwellings, constructed by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union in 1930, were designed by Springsteen & Goldhammer in the Art Deco style. They are a complex of several six- and seven-story buildings built around an internal courtyard entered through large archways, and decorated with colored and textured bricks arranged in geometric patterns. Along 14th Street, the APE has an additional theater constructed by Thomas Lamb—the Jefferson Theater, erected in 1912. The Jefferson Theater’s 14th Street facade has been exten- sively altered on the ground floor, but is intact above; it is clad in terra-cotta and designed in Art Nouveau style, with some classical ornament. (Another Lamb theater on 14th Street, the 1926 Palladium, was recently demolished.)

EAST MIDTOWN

KNOWN HISTORIC RESOURCES There are three historic resources within the APE in the East Midtown zone: the Union Square (N and R lines) subway station, constructed in 1917 to the designs of architect Squire J. Vickers, which maintains its architectural integrity and features intact geometric decorative tiles along the platform area; the Lincoln Building, a Romanesque Revival office building designed by Robert H. Robertson in 1888 at the northwest corner of 14th Street and Broadway (see Figure 7-13); and Union Square Park, which is pending designation as a New York City Scenic Landmark (see Figure 7-14). Union Square (and the adjacent streets) was recently designated an NHL for its role in the nation’s labor history and as a place to commemorate national figures. The park was laid out as early as 1809, appeared on the Commissioner’s grid plan of 1811 as a public open space, and opened to the public in 1839. Originally, it featured curving pathways at the same level as the surrounding streets, but was rebuilt ca. 1917 as an elevated open space with a formal plan to accommodate the subway system below. The park was well known as a location for political events and contains numerous sculptures. It was entirely renovated in 1986 by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.

POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES There are two potential historic resources within the APE in the East Midtown zone: Stuyvesant Town and the Con Edison Building along 14th Street. Stuyvesant Town, built in 1947 and designed by a team of architects led by Gilmore Clarke, is a large-scale residential complex constructed by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to supply middle-income housing to ser- vicemen returning from World War II. The complex consists of 35 plain brick 13-story buildings arranged around a central oval, on the blocks between 14th and 20th Streets, First Avenue, and

7-10 Chapter 7: Historic Resources

Avenue C/FDR Drive. Along 14th Street, the complex also contains retail uses, open space, and vehicular and pedestrian access points. The Con Edison office building is a well-maintained limestone structure that was designed by well-known architects: Henry J. Hardenbergh, architect of the Plaza Hotel; and Warren & Wetmore, architects of Grand Central Station. Hardenbergh designed the earliest part of the building—a 12-story portion along Irving Place and 15th Street—in 1912. By 1914, Hardenbergh had expanded the building to 18 stories. The building was again expanded in 1926 by the addition of a 26-story pyramid-topped clock tower at the corner of 14th Street and Irving Place, designed by Warren & Wetmore. In 1928, additional space designed by Warren & Wetmore was constructed along 14th Street.

UPPER EAST SIDE

KNOWN HISTORIC RESOURCES There are no known historic resources within the APE in the Upper East Side zone.

POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES Twenty-four potential historic resources have been identified within the APE in the Upper East Side zone. These consist almost entirely of four- and five-story masonry tenements, many of which are arranged in rows of identical or nearly identical buildings, constructed in the period between approximately 1870 and 1885. The buildings have a variety of decorative features and details, ranging from Italianate to neo-Grec and Romanesque and Renaissance Revival in style. Among the three most impressive of the structures are the Manhattan, a large neo-Grec brick apartment building at the northwest corner of East 86th Street and Second Avenue, which dates from 1879 and is under consideration for nomination to the S/NR; the Foster, a large tenement with its name pressed into its metal cornice at the northwest corner of East 84th Street, constructed in 1881; and a double tenement that has been combined into one structure at the southeast corner of East 84th Street, which features a decorative iron fire escape. The commercial complex located on the east side of Second Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets, which includes two bank buildings and the Beekman Theater, was built in 1952 as part of a large-scale urban renewal project that included the Manhattan House on the west side of Second Avenue. It was designed by Alfred Fellheimer and Steward Wagner, with John McNamara as consulting architect for the theater. It contains architectural features of the Inter- national and Moderne styles, including the glazed corner at 66th Street, the horizontal orientation of the building, the ribbon windows at the 65th Street corner, and the predominantly glass facade of the theater. The Beekman was built during the art-film theater movement, which bloomed in New York between 1948 and 1962. Art film theaters like the Beekman included such features as a modernist design, lounge, movable and fixed art, and a functional auditorium.

EAST HARLEM

KNOWN HISTORIC RESOURCES There are two known historic resources that have been determined eligible for listing on the S/NR within the APE in the East Harlem zone. They are on the block bounded by 125th and

7-11 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

126th Streets and Lexington and Third Avenues. The most distinguished of these buildings is the former Twelfth Ward Savings Bank at the northeast corner of 125th Street and Lexington Ave- nue. The six-story Romanesque Revival bank was constructed in 1893. Originally designed by architect George Drew, Jr., who was active in Harlem at the turn of the century, the bank had been converted to other commercial uses by 1910, and now houses residential space on the upper floors and ground-floor commercial use. The brownstone and buff brick building features an intact pressed metal cornice, arched windows, brownstone medallions inscribed with the years “AD 1884" and “AD 1893,” and highly ornamental wrought-iron brackets attached to the building’s southwest corner on the sixth floor. The brackets still hold what is presumably an original flagpole, reflecting the building’s prominent location and importance in what had once been a very affluent neighborhood. Adjoining the former bank building at the southeast corner of Lexington Avenue and East 126th Street is a seven-story apartment building constructed in 1899. It is a brick building with limestone trim designed in the Flemish Revival style. This building has had few alterations and retains many of its original decorative elements. The architect of 2075-2087 Lexington Avenue was Edward L. Angell, who also designed tenements and row houses in Greenwich Village and the Upper West Side.

POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES There are six potential historic resources within the APE in the East Harlem zone. These consist of two rows of architecturally similar tenement buildings constructed in the late 19th century. The five-story red-brick buildings maintain their architectural integrity with intact original windows, some of which are rounded, decorative brickwork, and stepped parapets. C. FUTURE CONDITIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES In the future, the status of the known and potential historic resources may change. Eligible historic resources in the APEs may be listed on the State and National Registers, and potential historic resources may be found eligible or listed on the S/NR. Resources pending designation as New York City Landmarks may be designated as such and potential historic resources may be calendared for public hearings and/or designated as NYCLs. Historic resources that are listed on the S/NR or that have been found eligible for listing are given a measure of protection from the effects of federally sponsored or assisted projects under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Although preservation is not mandated, federal agencies must attempt to avoid adverse impacts on such resources through a notice, review, and consultation process. Properties listed on the State Register are similarly protected against impacts resulting from state-sponsored or -assisted projects under the State Historic Preservation Act. Private property owners using private funds can, however, alter or demolish their properties without such a review process. Privately owned sites that are New York City Landmarks or within New York City Historic Districts or that are pending designation as such are protected under the New York City Landmarks Law, which requires LPC review and approval before any alteration or demolition can occur. Publicly owned resources are also subject to a review process by LPC prior to the start of a project; however, LPC’s role with other city agencies is advisory only.

7-12 Chapter 7: Historic Resources

A number of changes in the identified historic resources or their settings are likely to occur ir- respective of the alternatives being considered for the MESA project. It is possible, for example, that without official recognition, potential historic resources may be demolished or heavily altered. For example, the Palladium theater on 14th Street was recently demolished to allow construction of a new dormitory for New York University on its site. Additional development is expected to occur on underutilized or vacant parcels that could alter the context and setting of various historic resources. Some historic resources may deteriorate, while others may be restored. It is also likely, given the project’s completion year of 2020, that additional sites will be identified as historic resources and/or potential historic resources in this time frame. D. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES As described earlier, this analysis considers the potential impacts that might occur to identified historic resources as a result of construction and/or operation of the project alternatives. Be- cause any impact that might occur during construction could result in permanent, rather than temporary, impacts to historic structures, those imports are considered in detail below in addition to operational impacts.

NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE As described above under “Introduction and Methodology,” the No Build Alternative would not be expected to result in any effects on historic resources.

TSM ALTERNATIVE The TSM Alternative consists of the implementation of measures that are routinely available to New York City Transit. The measures, such as creating a bus priority lane and new train control communications system on the Lexington Avenue line, do not require major new construction that would potentially result in impacts to historic resources. As determined in consultation with SHPO, no potential impacts would occur to historic resources and no further analysis of potential impacts to historic resources is necessary for this alternative.

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1

POTENTIAL PHYSICAL IMPACTS As described above under “Introduction and Methodology,” construction of sections of the new subway line, in particular of the five new stations, has the potential to result in impacts to known and potential historic resources. These locations correspond to the APEs surveyed for known and potential historic resources. With the exception of two buildings near the northeast corner of 125th Street and Lexington Avenue, and one building on Second Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets (being reviewed for determination of eligibility), the proposed construction would not require any direct physical impacts to identified (known or potential) historic resources. The two known historic resources near 125th Street and Lexington Avenue would require underpinning because the new subway would be relatively shallow in this location. The underpinning would be done below the surface and proper care would be given to ensuring that this underpinning would not result in any adverse impacts to the building fabric; a construction protection plan would be prepared by

7-13 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS qualified engineers and implemented by qualified personnel, including an independent engineer authorized to stop work if damage is found at the buildings. This plan would be submitted to SHPO for review and approval prior to the start of construction. At all other locations, appropriate care would also be taken to ensure that the construction not result in any structural impacts to buildings. This would include precautions necessary to prevent damage to both historic and all other types of structures in the vicinity of the proposed construction, including potential damage due to ground-borne vibrations. A plan for handling any special requirements for historic buildings will be submitted to SHPO prior to construction (see section E, “Mitigation,” below, for a description of construction protection plans). Additional potential impacts could result from construction of the vent shafts, fan chambers, and other equipment that would need to be installed along the route of the new subway. In addition, the site to be used for an access shaft and construction staging site must be selected. If this alternative is selected as the locally preferred alternative and MTA/FTA decide to proceed with the project, these locations will be selected during final design, after completion of the DEIS. Chapter 15, “Construction and Construction Impacts,” describes the possible access shaft and construction staging sites under consideration. Of the possible shaft and staging sites, only one contains a potential historic resource—the site on the east side of Second Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets. If this site is selected, the resource being considered would be demolished. If SHPO determines it is eligible for the Registers or LPC determines it merits Landmark status, another shaft and staging site could be selected or appropriate mitigation could be proposed through consultation with SHPO in order to avoid an adverse effect. The other shaft and staging sites have potential resources located nearby. If one of these sites is selected, appropriate care would be taken to ensure that the construction or use of the site not result in any structural impacts to nearby resources. Potential impacts to historic resources would be avoided through implementation of the mitigation measures described below. Design specifications for the subway would be sufficiently stringent to avoid vibrations that could affect structures, including historic resources, during operation. A more detailed analysis of vibration is included in Chapter 11, “Noise and Vibration.”

POTENTIAL CONTEXTUAL IMPACTS The other types of impacts that could result from introduction of the new subway are not direct physical impacts, but are contextual. These impacts include the addition of new elements, such as signs, stairways, vents, and other features related to the new subway. Of these, the stairways and entrances are likely to be the most visible elements and could change the context of nearby historic resources. Given the densely developed and highly urbanized context of the historic resources and the history of use of Second Avenue for transportation, it is highly unlikely that any adverse contextual impacts would occur to any historic resources. Nevertheless, care would be taken to avoid any such impacts. If necessary, project components would be relocated and/or redesigned to avoid contextual impacts to historic resources. For example, efforts would be made to design subway entrances that are compatible with adjacent historic resources. Proposed plans would be submitted to SHPO for review during the ongoing consultation process for this alternative.

7-14 Chapter 7: Historic Resources

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2 In addition to construction of the subway, the potential impacts of which are described for Build Alternative 1, above, Build Alternative 2 includes construction of a new LRT line from Broad Street to Union Square. This would involve the installation of new overhead electrical lines, addition of light rail vehicles, and possible construction of platform areas. As described above under “Introduction and Methodology,” construction of sections of the proposed new light rail line—in particular of the sections of the rail line along Water, Franklin, and Canal Streets, East Broadway, Columbia Street, Avenue D, and 14th Street—has the potential to result in impacts to known and potential historic resources. These locations correspond to the APEs surveyed for known and potential historic resources. This alternative would not result in the demolition of any known or potential historic resources.

POTENTIAL PHYSICAL IMPACTS As described in Chapter 2, this alternative would require overhead electrical wires to supply power to vehicles. This system would require either installation of new poles, use of existing poles, or the use of brackets to affix wiring to buildings along the route. Should it be necessary to affix wiring to buildings along the route of the LRT line, care would be taken to avoid affixing such lines to historic resources. Should the use of an historic resource be unavoidable, then the planned alterations would be designed in consultation with SHPO and/or LPC to prevent any damage—either physical or contextual—to the historic fabric. To avoid adverse impacts, a construction protection plan would be prepared regarding the proper procedures for installation of the wiring to protect historic resources from damage. The construction protection plan would be prepared by qualified engineers and implemented by qualified personnel, including an independent engineer authorized to stop work if damage is found in the historic resource. This plan would be submitted to the SHPO for review and approval prior to the start of construction. As with construction of the proposed subway, appropriate care would be taken to ensure that the construction not result in any structural impacts to buildings. This would include precautions necessary to prevent damage to both historic and all other types of structures in the vicinity of the proposed light rail line, including damage that could result from vibration. Construction of the LRT below-grade maintenance and storage yard would require underpinning of the Essex Street Market building, a resource determined eligible for listing on the Registers. A plan for handling any special requirements for historic buildings will be submitted to SHPO prior to construction (see section E, “Mitigation,” below, for a description of construction protection plans). Additional construction-related impacts could result from construction of electric substations. If this alternative is selected as the locally preferred alternative and MTA/FTA decide to proceed with the project, locations for these subsurface facilities will be selected during final design, after completion of the DEIS. Potential impacts to historic resources would be avoided through implementation of the mitigation measures described below. Design specifications for the LRT line would be sufficiently stringent to avoid vibration that could affect structures, including historic resources, during operation. A more detailed analysis of vibration is included in Chapter 11, “Noise and Vibration.”

7-15 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

POTENTIAL CONTEXTUAL IMPACTS The other types of impacts that could result from construction are not direct physical impacts, but are contextual. Changes include the addition of new elements, such as signs, platforms, shelters, trolley cars, overhead power lines, and other features related to the new light rail line (see Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” for a fuller description of the proposed system and see Figures 6-3 through 6-6 in Chapter 6, above, for a conceptual view of the light rail system). However, all the historic resources in the APE are within a densely developed, dynamic, and highly urbanized context. Moreover, many of the historic resources were served by trolley or street car lines, the historic prototype for light rail systems, at the time of their construction. For example, Union Square was the site of a major trolley line hub for at least half a century, begin- ning approximately in 1860. Figures 7-13 and 7-14, above, show trolleys that were located in streets adjacent to some of the historic resources in the APEs. Manhattan was crisscrossed by a complex network of street cars and elevated trains during the period when most of the historic structures were erected; indeed, trolleys were a premier method of mass transit prior to the advent of the subway and in some cases, the construction of the trolley line spurred the development of various neighborhoods. Within the APE, there were trolleys along Union Square West and 14th Street, and portions of Columbia, Pearl, and Water Streets. In other locations, such as along East Broadway, trolley lines were located along cross streets which intersected with the streets in the APE. For example, there were trolley lines along Pitt and Eldridge Streets, which crossed East Broadway in the APE; these trolley lines were in proximity to a concentration of historic resources along East Broadway. Other street car lines crossed Pearl Street at Peck Slip, and Water Street at Fulton, Hanover, and Broad Streets. For these reasons, the LRT portion of Build Alternative 2 is highly unlikely to result in any adverse contextual impacts to any historic resources. Nevertheless, care would be taken to avoid any such impacts. If necessary, project components would be relocated and/or redesigned to avoid contextual impacts to historic resources. For example, efforts would be made to design light rail components, such as platform areas, that are compatible with adjacent historic resources. Proposed plans would be submitted to SHPO for review during the ongoing consultation process for this alternative. A description follows of the consultation process and of other measures which would be implemented to avoid any potential adverse impacts to historic resources. E. MITIGATION The studies undertaken for this MIS/DEIS identified potential significant adverse impacts to historic resources related to both Build Alternative 1 and Build Alternative 2. As project plans proceed with selection of a preferred alternative and preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), ongoing consultation will be undertaken with the State Historic Preservation Office at the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and with the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This ongoing consultation is mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. As described above, with the new East Side subway extension proposed as part of Build Alter- natives 1 and 2, two buildings near the northeast corner of 125th Street and Lexington Avenue that were determined eligible for the State and National Registers of Historic Places would

7-16 Chapter 7: Historic Resources

require underpinning because the subway would pass beneath them and would be relatively shallow. Similarly, under Build Alternative 2, construction of the below-grade LRT maintenance and storage yard would require underpinning of the Essex Street Market Building, also determined eligible for the Registers. For these buildings, a construction protection plan would be prepared by qualified engineers and implemented by qualified personnel, including an independent engineer authorized to stop work if damage is found at the buildings. This plan would be submitted to SHPO for review and approval prior to the start of construction. At all other locations, appropriate care would also be taken to ensure that the construction not result in any structural impacts to buildings. In addition, as described earlier, the East Side subway extension’s construction activities could affect another historic resource. One of the possible shaft and staging sites being considered— the site located between 65th and 66th Streets—contains a potential historic resource. If this resource is determined eligible for Register listing or is found to merit NYCL status, another site could be selected or appropriate mitigation could be proposed through consultation with SHPO in order to avoid an adverse effect. For the shaft and staging site that is selected, a construction protection plan for any nearby resources would be prepared by qualified engineers and implemented by qualified personnel. This plan would be submitted to SHPO for review and approval prior to the start of construction. As project plans proceed after selection of a preferred alternative, to avoid potential contextual impacts on historic resources from operation of the proposed project stemming from the addition of new elements such as signs, stairways, vents, and other features related to the new subway or light rail system, project components would be carefully designed, and proposed plans would be submitted to SHPO for review during the ongoing consultation process. For example, efforts would be made to design light rail components, such as platform areas, that are compatible with adjacent historic resources. Proposed plans would be submitted to SHPO for review during the ongoing consultation process for this alternative. In addition, as project plans are finalized, additional locations of cut and cover construction or areas that could be affected by additional project elements not previously considered would be surveyed for potential historic impacts in consultation with SHPO and LPC. In summary, as project plans proceed with selection of a preferred alternative and preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement, the ongoing consultation process with SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will include the following steps, as appropriate: 1. Field survey of any new (as yet unidentified) areas of potential effect (APEs) where construction has the potential to impact historic resources due to cut and cover excavation and/or addition of a new element in proximity to an historic resource. The field survey would be prepared in consultation with SHPO and LPC prior to the start of construction. 2. Preparation of building-structure inventory forms (“Blue forms”) for submission to SHPO for determinations of eligibility about listing on the State and/or National Registers for any structures that are likely to experience direct physical impacts due to construction. Deter- minations of eligibility would be sought by New York City Transit prior to the start of construction and the construction plan would be altered, if possible, to avoid affecting any resources determined to be eligible for listing.

7-17 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

3. Ongoing consultation between New York City Transit, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and/or the Federal Transit Administration, to avoid direct and indirect impacts to historic resources, including evaluation of designs of new subway entrances and other features that would be visible at grade. 4. Preparation of construction protection plans for any historic resources that have been officially recognized as either designated or pending NYCLs, NHLs, or sites on or eligible for listing on the S/NR. The construction protection plans would be reviewed and approved by SHPO and/or LPC prior to construction and would include the provision of a qualified independent monitor authorized to stop construction should any damage to an historic resource be identified. 5. Execution of a Memorandum of Agreement and/or a Programmatic Agreement by New York City Transit, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Federal Transit Administration, the State Historic Preservation Office, and, if necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, outlining the process and measures to be undertaken (i.e., items 1-4, above) to avoid any adverse impacts to historic resources. F. SOURCES CONSULTED TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES

DOCUMENTS FOUND AT LPC LPC Photo-Card File—Collection of cards containing property information filed by address, including a photograph, the block/lot number, estimated date of construction, the architect’s name, the dimensions and style of the building, and its integrity rating. Integrity ratings are as follows: 1 = poor; 2 = evident integrity; 3 = significant; 4 = outstanding. LPC Architectural Survey Forms—Classification system by address similar to LPC Photo- Card File, but that includes the cost of construction, name of the owner, and building materials used. There is no rating system on the architectural survey forms. LPC Requests for Evaluation—Properties submitted by private citizens for LPC’s consideration. The request forms give a brief description of location and appearance of property, in addition to a brief statement of its architectural, historical, or cultural significance. LPC Field Reports—Reports prepared by the LPC Research Department on the physical status of a property at the time of the report. The background of the property—as well as a description of its architectural, historical, and cultural significance—is included. Staff recommendations for or against its consideration for landmark designation are also included. LPC Correspondence—This consists of inter-office memoranda and correspondence with other city agencies and private citizens describing field reports and property evaluation findings. Some of these documents contain field surveys and historical research on the properties conducted by community groups. Staff recommendations for or against considering a property for landmark designation are included. Surveys—Four surveys were used, as follows:

7-18 Chapter 7: Historic Resources

! Windshield survey of Harlem conducted by LPC from 96th Street to 228th Street, from the East and Harlem Rivers to the Hudson River; ! A sidewalk survey of Second Avenue from 59th Street to 96th Street conducted by staff of the City Council of New York for consideration of a Yorkville Historic District; ! Architectural and historical survey of properties in the vicinity of Union Square prepared by The Union Square Park Community Coalition, for consideration of a Union Square Historic District; and ! Architectural and historical survey on the Civic Center done by the Junior League of New York. Maps—Created by LPC Research Department staff, community and advocacy groups, or by the City Planning Commission on the properties or districts being considered for designation or that are designated. LPC Research Library—Architectural guidebooks and a National Park Service survey on New York City firehouses. Queries—Multi-agency composite property and owner queries performed using the City of New York Department of Buildings database. Architectural Fact Sheets—Voluntarily submitted by private citizens or companies who deem their properties architecturally, historically, or culturally significant. State and Federal Forms—The 1979 inventory conducted by the New York Landmarks Con- servancy on New York City firehouses utilized SHPO building structure inventory forms; National Park Service historic landmarks nomination forms of New York City properties.

OTHER SOURCES CONSULTED (SELECTED LIST) Other sources consulted are listed in Chapter 24 of this MIS/DEIS, “Sources Consulted.” Field survey of APEs by Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc., Spring-Summer, 1997. Field visit of APE with Peter Shaver, Historic Preservation Program Analyst, Field Services Bureau, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; and Gina Santucci, New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, August 7, 1997. v

7-19