East Midtown Rezoning and Related Actions FEIS 6. Historic and Cultural Resources 6.1 INTRODUCTION The CEQR Technical Manual identifies historic resources as districts, buildings, structures, sites, and objects of historical, aesthetic, cultural, and archaeological importance. This includes designated New York City Landmarks (NYCL); properties calendared for consideration as landmarks by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC); properties listed in the State/National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR) or contained within a district listed in or formally determined eligible for S/NR listing; and, properties designated by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) within the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) as eligible for listing on the S/NR; National Historic Landmarks (NHL), and properties not identified by one of the programs or agencies listed above, but that meet their eligibility requirements. An assessment of historic/archaeological resources is usually needed for projects that are located adjacent to listed or eligible historic or landmark structures or within historic districts, or projects that require in- ground disturbance, unless such disturbance occurs in an area that has already been excavated. As discussed in this chapter, the proposed rezoning area (project area) does not encompass any blocks located within either LPC-designated historic districts or S/NR-listed historic districts. However, there are numerous individual landmarks, designated resources, and eligible resources located within and adjacent to the proposed rezoning area. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the potential impacts of the Proposed Action on historic architectural resources. According to CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, impacts on historic resources are considered on those sites affected by the Proposed Action within the project area and in the area surrounding the project area. The area surrounding the project area, or the Historic Resources study area, is defined as an approximate 400-foot radius around the proposed rezoning area (Figure 6-1), which is typically adequate for the assessment of historic resources, in terms of physical, visual, and historical relationships. The evaluation of the Proposed Action on historic resources focuses on the identified Projected Development Sites 1–19 and Potential Development Sites 1–20, as mapped on Figure 6-1. Archaeological resources are considered only in those areas where new excavation or ground disturbance is likely and would result in new in-ground disturbance compared to No-Action scenarios; these are limited to sites that may be developed in the proposed rezoning area, and include projected as well as potential development sites. As discussed below, the proposed rezoning and the resulting developments are not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources. Therefore, an archaeological analysis is not warranted and this chapter focuses exclusively on historic architectural resources. 6-1 East Midtown Rezoning and Related Actions FEIS 6 – Historic and Cultural Resources 6.2 PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS The Proposed Action would not result in any significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources, or direct adverse impacts to LPC-designated and S/NR-listed historic districts or individual landmark buildings and structures. Nor would the Proposed Action result in significant adverse indirect or contextual impacts to either designated or eligible historic resources within the project area or study area. The Proposed Action could potentially result in construction-related impacts to 24 eligible resources located within 90 feet of the projected and potential development sites. The Proposed Action would result in significant adverse shadows impacts on sunlight-sensitive features of three historic architectural resources, namely St. Bartholomew’s Church and Community House, the Lady Chapel of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and Christ Church United Methodist. LPC reviewed the identified projected and potential development sites that could experience new/additional in-ground disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action, and concluded that none of the lots comprising those sites have any archaeological significance. As such, the Proposed Action is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources. The Historic Resources study area covers a substantial portion of the City’s Midtown core, with a number of historic resources, including designated individual landmark buildings and structures, designated districts, as well as buildings and districts determined eligible for designation. The reasonable worst-case development scenario (RWCDS) projected and potential development sites are not located within any NYCL- designated and/or S/NR-listed historic districts, nor do they contain any NYCL-designated and/or S/NR- listed landmark buildings and structures. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in any direct adverse impacts to LPC-designated and S/NR-listed historic districts or individual landmark buildings and structures. Several of the projected and potential development sites do contain historic resources that have been determined to be eligible for either NYCL designation and/or S/NR listing (Table 6-2), and the redevelopment of these sites under the Proposed Action would result in either the partial or complete demolition of these resources. Therefore, the Proposed Action could result in a direct adverse impact to 14 historic resources that have been determined eligible for either NYCL designation and/or S/NR listing. Eleven of these resources have been determined to be either NYCL-eligible or both NYCL- and S/NR- eligible, and 3 of these sites have been determined to be only S/NR-eligible. The Proposed Action is not expected to result in significant adverse indirect or contextual impacts to either designated or eligible historic resources within the project area or study area. It is anticipated that the introduction of new bulk envelopes for buildings that would be built within the existing City grid would not adversely affect these resources, which are today located in a mixed context of older and shorter structures and newer and taller building. The Proposed Action would also not eliminate or substantially obstruct publicly accessible views of architectural resources. 6-2 East Midtown Rezoning and Related Actions FEIS 6 – Historic and Cultural Resources The Proposed Action would result in development on both projected and potential development sites that are located within 90 feet of a designated or listed historic resource; however, these resources would not be adversely impacted by construction because they would be subject to protection from construction- related damage under the NYC Department of Buildings’ (DOB) Technical Policy and Procedure Notice (TPPN) #10/88. There are also 24 NYCL-eligible and/or S/NR-eligible resources located within 90 feet of the projected and potential development sites for which TPPN #10/88 would not apply, and therefore the Proposed Action could potentially result in construction-related impacts to these eligible resources. The Proposed Action would result in significant adverse shadows impacts on sunlight-sensitive stained glass windows of three historic architectural resources, namely St. Bartholomew’s Church and Community House, the Lady Chapel at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and Christ Church United Methodist. 6.3 DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND1 The geological history of the project area ultimately affected neighborhood development, and begins with the bedrock of Manhattan. The project area is within the embayed section of the Coastal Plain, of which the Manhattan prong, which includes New York City, is a small eastern projection of the New England uplands, characterized by 360-million-year-old highly metamorphosed bedrock. The prevalent gneissoid formation is known as Hudson River metamorphosed rock. Beneath most of the project area is the Manhattan schist formation, a highly foliated mica schist known to have once outcropped throughout the island. Manhattan is characterized by a group of gneissoid islands, separated from each other by depressions that are filled with drift and alluvium, the result of the advancing and receding ice sheets. At times during the last 50,000 years, that is, the Wisconsin period, ice was 1,000 feet thick over Manhattan. Briefly, in geological terms, Glacial Lake Flushing occupied broad, low-lying areas when deglaciation of the region produced vast volumes of meltwater and largely covered Manhattan. Higher elevations of Manhattan may have been marginal to this lake. By 12,000 years ago, the lake drained, and sea levels have gradually risen as glaciers retreated. Thus, the soil above bedrock on Manhattan Island is mostly glacial till, clay, sand, gravel, mud, and assorted other mineral debris. During the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, what is now the project area was wooded land with sparsely situated farms. The first significant development within this area was the establishment of the Boston Post Road, which ran through the East Side near the present route of Third Avenue, one block west of the project corridor. This section of the route was known as the Eastern Post Road, built between 1669 and 1671. This important road was the vital link to the colonial village on the island’s southern tip. Early settlements in this area tended to cluster along this road, and the East River shorefront.