Riverside South FEIS 1

RIVERSIDE
SOU T H
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
STATEMENT
CEQR No. as-253M
Executive Summary
Through
Section 11.1
CEQR CONTACTS
Mr. Joseph W. Ketas
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Environmental Assessment
Department of Environmental Protection
59-17 Junction Boulevard, 11 th Floor
Elmhurst, New York 11373
(718) 595-4409 .
Ms. Annette M. Barbaccla
Director
Environmental Assessment and Review Division
Department of City Planning
22 Reade Street, Room 4E
New York, New York 10007
(212) 720-3420
PREPARED BY
Allee King Rosen " Fleming, Inc.
Philip Habib" Associates,
Slve, Paget" Rlesel- Counsel
October 1992
•
IlIVERSIDE SOUTH
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CEQR No. 85-253M
• October 11. 1992
CEQR CONTACTS
Mr. Joseph W. Ketas Ms. Annette M. Barbaccia

Assistant Commissioner Director
Office of Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment and
Department of Environmental Protection Review Division
59-17 Junction Boulevard, 11th Floor Department of City Planning
Elmhurst,New York 11373 22 Reade Street, Room 4E
(718) 595-4409 New York, New York 10007
(212) 720-3420
• Prepared for:. Penn Yards Associates

Prepared by: Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc.
Philip Habib & Associates
•
PREPAREllS 01' THE lIS
SPOBSOB. PENN YARDS ASSOCIATES

725 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10022
212-832-2000
DVIB.OJ1llER'lAL COBSULTANTS ALLEE KING ROSEN & FLEMING, INC.
117 EAST 29th STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10016
212-696-0670
TIlAn'IC COBSULTANT PHILIP HABIB & ASSOCIATES
39 WEST 29th STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10001
212-686-0091
DVIB.OBllER'lAL COUBSEL SIVE, PAGET & RIESEL, P.C.
460 PARK AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY
212-421-2150
HAZARDOUS KATEBIATS AKRF, INC.
COBSULTAlft 117 EAST 29th STREET
•
NEW YORK, NY 10016
212-696-0670
SUPPI.EIIERTAIl.Y AIll. QUALITY WALTER G. HOYDYSH
STUDIES ESSCO
45-43 37th STREET
LONG ISLAND CITY, NY 11101
718-786-3948
SBAD01J DIAGKAJIS AND VIEV' ENVIRONMENTAL SIMUIATION CENTER
COBllIDORS GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND URBAN POLICY
NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
65 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10021
I1D'RASTB.UCTORE STUDIES IAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY
ONE BLUE HILL PIAZA
PEARL RIVER, NY 10965
914-735-8300
VERTIlA.TIOB STUDIES PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DQUGLAS, INC.
ONE PENN PLAZA
NEW YORK, NY 10119
212-465-5251
•
• CEQ" UVIBV AGERCIES DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW DIVISION
22 READE STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007
ANNETTE M. BARBACCIA, DIRECTOR
JEREMIAH H. CANDREVA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
59-17 JUNCTION BOULEVARD
ELMHURST, NY 11373-5107
JOSEPH W. KETAS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ANGELA LICATA, PROJECT MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF PROJECT ANALYSIS
40 WORTH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10013
HENRY COLON, DIRECTOR
MICHAEL GRAHAM, PROJECT MANAGER
•
•
FIRAt ENVIR.ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
R.IVER.SIDE SOUTH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Rumber
VOLUME I
FOREWORD F-l
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S-l
CIIAPTEB. I. PB.O.JBCT DESClUPTIOll I-I
A. PROJECT OVERVIEW I-I

B. BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1-3
C. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1-9
D. RELOCATION OF THE MILLER HIGHWAY 1-32
E. REQUIRED ACTIONS 1-33
• CIIAP'.rEIl. II.
A.
UISTIlIG.AIm J'tJTORE CONDITIONS .AIm PBDBABLE DlPACTS
OF TIlE PROPOSED PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
II.A-l
II.A-l
B. LAND USE AND ZONING II.B-l

Introduction II.B-l
Issues and Approach II.B-l
Study Area Definition II.B-l
Recent Development History II.B-2
Project Site II.B-2
Study Area II.B-2
Land Use II.B-7
Existing Conditions II .B-7
The Future Without the Project II.B-14
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.B-22
Zoning II.B-27
Existing Conditions II .B-27
The Future Without the Project II.B-35
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II. B-36
C. DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR II .C-l

SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT
Introduction II. C-l
• Study Area Definition II.C-l

Methodology II.C-2
•
I'IHAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
TABLE 01' CONTENTS (Continued)
Pa,e Bomber
Existing Conditions II.C-3

Population and Housing Characteristics and Trends II.C-3
Data From the Census of Population and Housing II.C-3
Housing Market Activity II. C-24
Cooperative and Condominium Conversion II. C-24
Other Factors Affecting the Vulnerability of Area II.C-30
Residents
Conclusions II .C-58
The Future Without the Project II.C-60
Residential Market Conditions II .C-60
Protection of Residents II.C-62
Demographic Characteristics of the Study Area II .C-63
Potentially Vulnerable Population II .C-63
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project ILC-64
Introduction ILC-64
The Proposed Project II.C-65
Neighborhood Context II.C-66
Project Impacts II .C-67
D. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES II.D-l
•
Introduction II.D-l
Existing Conditions II.D-I
Police II.D-I
Fire Protection II.D-2
Schools II.D-2
Day Care Facilities II .D-6
Public Libraries II.D-8
Health Care Facilities II.D-9
The Future Without the Project II.D-9
Police II.D-ll
Fire II.D-l2
Public Schools II .D-12
Day Care Facilities II.D-17
Libraries II.D-17
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II .D-18
Project Characteristics II.D-18
Police II.D-l9
Fire II.D-20
Schools II.D-20
Public and Private Day Care Facilities II.D-25
Public Libraries II.D-26
E. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL CHARACTER II .E-I

Introduction II.E-I
• Existing Conditions
Project Site
Study Area
II.E-l
II .E-I
ILE-3
•
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACT STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
TABLE 01' CONTENTS (Continued)
Page Rmaber
The Future Without the Project II.E-12

1997 II.E-12
2002 II.E-14
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II. E-l4
Project Design II.E-l5
Urban Design Relationship of the Proposed Project II.E-17
to the Surrounding Area 1997
Urban Design Relationship of the Proposed Project II. E-24
to the Surrounding Area 2002
F. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLAN II.F-l

Introduction II.F-l
Summary of Consistency with the New York State II.F-l
Coastal Zone Management Program
Development II.F-l
Public Access II. F-2
Recreation Resources II. F-2
Scenic Quality II.F-3
Flooding and Erosion II .F-3
•
Air Quality II.F-3
Noise II. F-4
New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program Policies II. F-4
G. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION II.G-l

Introduction II.G-l
Methodology II.G-l
Study Area for Residential Analysis II .G-3
Study Area for Commercial Analysis II .G-3
Existing Conditions II .G-3
InventorY of Open Space and Recreation Facilities II.G-3
Open Space User Populations II.G-l6
Assessment of Adequacy of Existing II.G-20
Open Space Resources
The Future Without the Project II.G-27
Proposed Development in the Study Areas II.G-28
Inventory of Open Space and Recreational Facilities II.G-28
Open Space User Populations II.G-30
Assessment of Adequacy of Open Space Resource II.G-3l
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.G-:35
Project Open Space Plan II.G-35
Project-Generated Demand II.G-39
Assessment·of Project Impacts II.G-39
Impacts Without Corps Permits II.G-43
H. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES tI.H-l
• Background History
Historic Period up to the Mid-19th Century
After 1850
II.H-l
II.H-l
II .H-2
•
FINAL ENVIR.ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
.RIVERSIDE SOUTH
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Pase BmDber
Existing Conditions II .H-5

Historic Resources II .H-5
Archaeological Resources II .H-16
The Future Without the Project II .H-27
1997 II .H-27
2002 II .H-28
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II .H-28
1997 II .H-28
2002 II .H-32
I. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS II. I-I

Introduction II. I-I
Issues II.I-l
Study Area II.I-l
Existing Conditions II.I-l
Project Site II.I-l
Study Area II.I-2
The Future Without the Project II. 1-15
Project Site 11.1-15
•
Study Area II.I-15
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.I-17
Construction Period Impacts on the Project Site II.I-l7
Operational Impacts of the Proposed Project II. 1-21
Retail Study Area II.I-24
Industrial Study Area II. 1-28
VOLtJHE II
J. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION II.J-l

Introduction II.J-l
Existing Conditions II.J-2
Vehicular Traffic II.J-2
Parking II.J-7
Transit Services II.J-7
Pedestrian Activity II.J -22
The Future Without the Project II .J-28
Introduction II.J-28
1997 No Build Conditions II.J-29
2002 No Build Conditions II.J-40
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.J-56
Introduction II.J-56
1997 Project Impacts II.J-63
2002 Project Impacts II.J-83
K. AIR QUALITY II.K-l
• Introduction
Pollutants for Analysis
Air Quality Standards
II .K-l
II.K-l
II .K-3
•
FINAL ENVIllONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IlIVEllSIDE SOUTH
Page llultber
Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations from II .K-S

Mobile Sources
Introduction II .K-S
Dispersion Models for Microscale Analyses II.K-6
Worst-Case Meteorological Conditions II .K-7
Analysis Years II .K-8
Vehicle Emissions Data ·II.K-8
Traffic Data II .K-12
Background Concentrations II .K-12
Mobile Source Receptor Locations in Primary and II .K-13
Extended Study Areas
Applicability of Models II .K-IS
Parking Garages II.K-1S.
Amtrak Analysis II.K-16
Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations from II.K-17
Stationary Sources
Fluid Modeling of Impacts from Con Edison Facility II.K-17
Dispersion Modeling of Impacts from Project's Boilers II .K-2S
Cavity Regions II .K-26
•
Background Concentrations II .K-27
Existing Conditions II .K-27
Primary Study Area: Existing Monitored Air Quality II .K-27
Conditions (1990)
Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in the II .K-29
Project Area
The Future Without the Project II .K-30
Introduction II .K-30
1997 II .K-30
2002 II .K-32
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II .K-33
Introduction II .K-33
1997 II .K-33
2002 II .K-37
L. NOISE II. L-l

Introduction and Methodology II. L-I
Effects of Noise on People II .L-I
"A"-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) II. L-2
Human Perception and Community Response to Changes II. L-2
in Noise Levels
Statistical Noise Levels II.L-2
Noise Descriptors Used in Impact Assessment II.L-S
Noise Standards and Criteria II.L-S
Future Noise Prediction Methodology II .L-9
•
I'IRAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEHERT
• lUVEltSIDE SOUTH
TABLE OP CONTENTS (Continued)
Page lIuIIlber
Existing Conditions II .L-9

Site Description II. L-9
Noise Monitoring II.L-ll
Instrumentation II .L-U
Results of Baseline Measurements II. L-13
The Future Without the Project II.L-13
1997 II.L-13
2002 II .L-13
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.L-13
1997 II.L-13
2002 II .L-18
Relocated Miller Highway Scenario II. L-20
M. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS II.M-I

Existing Conditions II.M-l
Subsurface Conditions II.M-l
Land Use History II.M-2
Overview of Soil and Groundwater Testing II .M-3
and Remediation II .M-3
•
Sampling Program Results II .M-7
Potential Human Health Risks of Identified Chemicals II.M-12
The Future Without the Project II.M-13
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.M-14
Impacts During Construction II.M-14
Impacts During Operation II.M-IS
N. NATURAL RESOURCES II.N-l

Hydrology, Tides, and Floodplain Conditions II.N-I
. Introduction II.N-l
Existing Conditions II.N-I
The Future Without the Project II .N-3
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II .N-3
Ecology and Wetlands II .N-7
Introduction II .N-7
Existing Conditions II .N-7
The Future Without the Project II.N-lO
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.N-lO
O. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER II .0-1

Introduction II.O-I
Existing Conditions II. 0-1
Clinton II. 0-1
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square II.0-2
Upper West Side II.0-2
The Future Without the Project 11.0-3
• 1997
2002
11.0-3
11.0-4
•
FIHAL ENVIRONMENTAL "IMPACT STATEMENT
IlIVEItSIDE SOUTH
Page &umber
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.O-4

1997 II.O-4
2002 II.O-S
P. INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOLID WASTE II.P-l

Introduction II.P-l
Existing Conditions II.P-l
Water Supply II.P-l
Sanitary Sewage and Storm Water Disposal II.P-2
Solid Waste II.P-9
Telephone and Other Communications II.P-9
The Future Without the Project II,P-10
Water Supply II.P-10
Sanitary Sewage and Storm Water Disposal II.P-ll
Solid Waste II.P-17
Telephone and Other Communications II.P-21
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II. P-21
Water Supply II .P-21
Sanitary Sewage and Storm Water Disposal II.P-23
• Q. ENERGY
Existing Conditions
Electricity"
Natural Gas
Steam
Oil
II.Q-l
II.Q-l
II.Q-l
II.Q-l
II .Q-l
II.Q-l
The Future Without the Project II .Q-2
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II~Q-2
Electricity II .Q-2
Heating and Cooling Systems II .Q-3
R. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS II .R-l

Construction Sequencing II .R-l
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II .R-2
Land Use and Neighborhood Character II .R-2
Historic Resources II .R-2
Economic Conditions II .R-4
Traffic II.R-4
Air Quality II .R-6
Noise II.R-B
Hazardous Materials II.R-1S
Energy Consumption II .R-1S
" Relocation of the Miller Highway II.R-16
•
•
llIVEllSIDE SOUTH
Pale lmaber
CIIAPTEB. III. AL'lBBRA.'lIVES· III-I
A. INTRODUCTION III-I
B. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE III-I

C. LESSER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE 1II-6
D. STUDIO/OFFICE/SPORTS COMPLEX ALTERNATIVE 1II-26
E. SEWAGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES III-37
CIIAP'l'EB. IV. KI'lIGATIOB lIEASUIlES IV-I

A. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES IV-I
B. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV-3
•
C. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION IV-6
D. AIR QUALITY IV-45
E. NOISE IV-52
F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IV-56
CIIAP'l'EJl. V. mDlITIGATED ADVERSE DlPACTS V-I

A. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES V-I
B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION V-I
C. AIR QUALITY V-2

D. NOISE V-3
E. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS V-3
VOL1JllE III
CIIAP'l'EB. VI. RESPOBSE TO COIlllD'lS VI-I
• A.
B.
INTRODUCTION
LIST OF GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMENTED ON THE DEIS

VI-I
VI-2
•
RIVEllSIDE SOUTH
PaBe Rum.ber
C. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS VI-9
PROJECT DESCRIPTION VI-9

Certification VI-9
Long-Term Development/Restrictive Declaration VI-9
Project Elements VI-14
Park VI-21
Relocated Highway VI-40
Density VI-43
Studio VI-S3
Other Project Description Items VI-S7
PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT VI-6l

Cumulative Impacts VI-6l
Land Use and Zoning VI-63
Demographics and the Potential for Secondary Displacement . VI-64
Community Facilities and Services VI-69
Open Space and Recreation VI-79
Waterfront Revitalization Plan VI-S2
•
Historic and Archaeological Resources VI-S4
Urban Design and Visual Quality VI-87
Neighorhood Character VI-9S
Economic Conditions VI-97
Traffic and Transportation VI-lOS
Air Quality . VI-137
Noise VI-147
Hazardous Materials VI-ISO
Infrastructure and Solid Waste VI-lSI
Energy VI-174
Natural Resources VI-176
Construction Impacts VI-178
ALTERNATIVES VI-lS2
TOFC/Rail Freight VI-ISS
•
FIRAL ENVIR.ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
• R.IVER.SIDE SOUTH
Page Ruaber
APPENDIX VOLUME I
APPENDIX A Pedestrian Winds Analysis
APPENDIX B Traffic·
APPENDIX C Air Quality
APPENDIX D Noise
APPENDIX VOLUME II
APPENDIX E Hazardous Materials
APPENDIX F Letter from Fire Department
• APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
View Corridors
Shadow Studies
•
•
FIRAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF TABLES
Page RuDlber
S-l Parcel-by-Parcel Land Use Program (Above Grade) S-3
I-I Parcel-by-Parcel Land Use Program 1-15
1-2 Zoning Calculations 1-16
II.B-l Study Area Development, 1969-1991 II.B-4
II.B-2 1990 Study Area Population and Housing Density II.B-15
II.B-3 Proposed and Potential Development II.B-16

in the Land Use Study Area
II.B-4 Study Area Population and Housing Density -- II.B-22

1997 and 2002
II.B-5 Study Area Population and Housing Density -- II.B-28

1997 and 2002
•
II.B-6 Summary of Zoning Districts in the Study Area II.B-30
II. C-l Population II. C-4
II.C-2 Total Housing Units II.C-6
II.C-3 Households II. C-8
II.C-4 One- and Two-Person Households II. C-9
II.C-5 Age Cohorts, 1970, 1980, 1990 II.C-lO
II.C-6 Median Family Income, 1969, 1979, 1989 II.C-13
II.C-7 Median Household Income II. C-15
II.C-8 Persons with Income Below the Poverty Level II.C-16
II.C-9 Level of Educational Attainment Among Persons 25 Years II.C-17

and Older, 1970 and 1980
II.C-IO Occupational Characteristics II.C-19
II.C-li Occupied Units and Owner-Occupied Housing Units II.C-20
•
II.C-12 Number of Units in Structure II.C-22
II.C-13 Person by Units in Structure, Renter Occupied 1990 II.C-23

• RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page Humber
II. C-14 Year of Construction of Residential Units" 1980 II.C-25
II.C-15 Buildings with Co-op and Condominium Offering Plans II.C-26
II.C-16 Existing Cooperative and Condominium Buildings II.C-3l

in the Study Area
II.C-17 Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Units in the II .C-37

Riverside South Study Area
II.C-18 Units in the Study Area Not Available for SRO Occupancy II.C-43
II.C-19 Public and Publicly Assisted Housing II.C-48
II.D-l Public School Utilization, Capacity, and Enrollment II .D-3

1991-1992 School Year -- District 3, Region I
II.D-2 Enrollment History, 1981-1992, District 3, Region I, II.D-4

Elementary and Intermediate Schools
• II. D-3
II.D-4
Other Educational Facilities, Day Care Centers, and
Libraries in the Study Area
Health Care Facilities and InstitutIonal Residences in

the Study Area
II .D-7
'II.D-10
II .D-5 Students Generated by 1997 and 2002 No Build Projects in ,II.D-13

District 3, Region I
II.D-6 Public -School Students Generated by the Proposed Project II.D-2l

(90-10 Unit Mix)
II.D-7 Public School Students Generated by the Proposed Project II.D-22

(80-20 Unit Mix)
II.G-l Open Space and Public Recreation Resources in Study Area II.G-4
II.G-2 Residential Population of the Residential Open Space II.G-17

Study Area: 1980, 1990
II.G-3 Age Characteristics of the Residential Open Space II.G-18

Study Area Population: 1980
II.G-4 1979 Income Characteristics in the II.G-19

Residential Open ,Space Study Area
• II.G-5 Households with Access to at Least One Vehicle: 1980 II.G-2l

FINAL ENVIR.ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
• R.IVERSIDE SOUTH
PaBe Rum.ber
II.G-6 New Commercial Development in the Open Space Study Area, II.G-22
1980-1990
II .G-7 Daytime Population in the Open Space Residential Study Area II.G-23
II.G-8 Daytime and Residential Population in the II .G-24

Commercial Open Space Study Area
II.G-9 Guidelines for Open Space Needs: Existing. Conditions II.G-26

. in the Residential Open Space Study Area
II.G-10 Guidelines for Open Space Needs: Existing Conditions II.G-27

in the Commercial Open Space Study Area
II .G-ll Analysis of the Adequacy of Open Space Resources II.G-32

in the Residential Study Area -- No Build Conditions
II.G-12 Analysis of the Adequacy of Open Space Resources II .G-34

in the Commercial Study Area -- No Build Conditions
• II.G-13
II.G-14
Analysis of On-Site Open Space Conditions with
the Proposed Project, 1997, 2002
Analysis of the Adequacy of Active Open Space Resources

in the Residential Study Area with the
Proposed Project, 1997
II.G-4l
II.G-42
Il.G-15 Analysis of the Adequacy of Open Space Resources in the II.G-43

Residential Study Area with the Proposed Project, 2002
II.G-16 Analysis of the Adequacy of Passive Open SpaGe Resources II .G-45

Without Corps Authorization, 1997
II.H-l Historic Resources in the Study Area II .H-7
11.1-1 Inventory of Retail and Service Establishments II.I-3

in the Retail Study Area
II. 1-2 Summary of Uses in Industrial Study Area: 1991 II.I-5
II.I-3 Industrial Study Area Businesses II.I-6
II.I-4 Summary of Uses in the Industrial Study Area: 1986 II.I-14
11.1-5 Construction Value of the Proposed Project II.I-18
• II.I-6 Summary of the Economic Effects from Construction

of the Proposed Project by Phase
II.I-19
I'INAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
• IlIVEIlS IDE SOUTH

LIST 01' TABLES (Continued)
Page BuIlber
II.I-7 Projected Permanent Employment on Redeveloped Sites 11.1-22

Within the Proposed Project
II.I-S Expenditure Potential by Phase I Project Residents 11.1-25
II. 1-9 Demand for Convenience Retail by Phase I Residents 11.1-27
11.1-10 Expenditure Potential by Project Residents 11.1-29
II.I-ll Demand for Convenience Retail by Phase I Project Residents 11.1-31
II.J-1 1991 Existing Congested Locations II.J-S
II.J -2 On-Street Parking Supply II.J-S
II.J-3 Riverside South Off-Street Parking Inventory II.J:9
II.J-4 Weekday Entering Turnstile Counts II.J-10
•
II.J -5 Stairway Level of Service Descriptions II.J-11
II.J-6 59th Street Columbus Circle Station, II.J-13

Existing Conditions
II.J -7 66th Street IRT Station, 1991 Existing Conditions II.J-15
II.J-S 72nd Street IRT Station, 1991 Existing Conditions II.J-17
II.J -9 Relationship of LOS to Available Space II.J-1S
II.J -10 72nd Street IRT Station Mezzanine Time/Space Level of II.J-19
Service Analysis, 1991 Existing Conditions
II.J-ll Assessment of Platform Conditions, II.J -21

72nd Street IRT Station -- Southbound Platform.
1991 Existing Conditions
II.J-12 Line Haul Analysis, 1991 Existing Conditions II.J-23
II.J -13 Bus Routes Serving the Project Area II.J-24
II.J-14 1991 Existing Local Bus Conditions II.J-25
II.J-1S Pedestrian Levels of Service, Existing Peak Hour Conditions II.J-27
• II.J-16
II.J-17
1997 No Build VIC Ratios at Congested Locations
1997 No Build Off-Street Parking

II.J-30
II.J -32
•
FINAL ENVIR.OHHEHTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
Page bber
II.J-18 66th Street IRT Station, 1997 No Build Conditions II.J-33
II.J-19 72nd Street-Broadway IRT Station, 1997 No Build Conditions II.J-35
II.J-20 72nd Street IRT Station Mezzanine Level of Service II.J-36

Analysis, 1997 No Build Conditions
II.J-21 Assessment of Platform Conditions, II.J-37

72nd Street IRT Station -- Southbound Platform,
1997 No Build Conditions
II.J-22 Line Haul Analysis, 1997 No Build Conditions II.J-38
II.J-23 1997 No Build Local Bus Conditions II.J-39
II.J-24 Pedestrian Levels of Service, 1997 No Build II.J-41

Peak Hour Conditions
II.J-25 2002 No Build VIC Ratios at Congested Locations II.J-43
• II.J-26
II.J-27
II.J-28
2002 No Build Off-Street Parking
59th Street-Columbus Circle Station,

2002 No Build Conditions
66th Street IRT Station, 2002 No Build Conditions

II.J-45
II.J-46
II.J-48
II.J-29 72nd Street IRT Station, 2002 No Build Conditions II.J-49

Analysis, 2002 No Build Conditions
II.J-31 Assessment of Platform Conditions, II.J-51

72nd Street IRT Station -- Southbound Platform,
2002 No Build Conditions, AM Peak Hour
II.J-32 Line Haul Analysis, 2002 No Build Conditions II.J-52
II.J-33 2002 No Build Local Bus Conditions II.J -54
II.J-34 Pedestrian Levels of Service, II.J -55

2002 No Build Peak Hour Conditions
II.J-35 Elements of the Proposed Project II.J -58
• II.J-36 Trip Generation and Modal Split Assumptions for

Riverside South II.J-59
•
J'IHAL EHVIllORHENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
llIVEllSIDE SOUTH
LIST OJ' TABLES (Continued)
Page Bumber
II.J-37 Project-Generated Peak Hour Travel Demand II.J-61
II.J-38 Subway Station Trip Assignment for Proposed Project II.J-62
II.J-39 1997 Intersection Approaches with Significant Impacts II.J-65

in the Project Study Area
II.J-40 Locations with Significant Impacts in the II.J-69

Extended Study Area in 1997
II.J-41 1997 On-Site Garages II.J-70
II.J-42 1997 Parking Utilization II.J-71
II.J-43 Subway Station Trips, 1997 Build Conditions II.J-73
II.J-44 66th Street IRT Station, 1997 Build Conditions II.J-74
II.J-45 72nd Street IRT Station, 1997 Build Conditions II.J-76
• II.J-46
II.J-47
72nd Street IRT Station Mezzanine Level of Service
Analysis, 1997 Build Conditions
72nd Street IRT Station

1997 Build Conditions
Southbound Platform,
II.J-77
II.J-79
II.J-48 Line Haul Analysis, 1997 Build Conditions II.J-SO
II~J-49 Local Bus Network, 1997 Build Conditions II.J-S2
II.J-50 Pedestrian Levels of Service, 1997 Build Conditions II.J-S4
II.J-51 2002 Intersection Approaches with Significant Impacts II.J-S6

in the Project Study Area
II.J-52 Intersections Exceeding 30 VPH Threshold II.J-S9

in the Extended Study Area in 2002
II.J-53 Locations with Significant Impacts II.J-90

in the Extended Study Area in 2002
II.J-54 PM Peak Hour Ramp Merge Analysis at 72nd Street II.J -94
II.J-55 On-Site Garages II.J-95
• II.J-56
II.J-57
2002 Parking Utilization
Subway Station Trips·

II.J-95
II.J-97
J'IRAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
• IlIVEllSIDE SOUTH
Page Humber
II.J-58 59th Street-Columbus Circle Station, 2002 Build Conditions II.J-99
II.J-59 66th Street IRT Station, 2002 Build Conditions II.J-100
II.J-60 72nd Street IRT Station, 2002 Build Conditions II.J-l02

Analysis, 2002 Build Conditions
II.J-62 72nd Street IRT Station -- Southbound Platform, II.J~105

II.J-63 Line Haul Analysis, 2002 Build Conditions II.J-106
II.J -64 Local Bus Network, 2002 Build Conditions I I. J -108
II.J-65 Pedestrian Levels of Service, 2002 Build Condi ti.ons II. J -109
II .J-66 Relocated Highway Build Impacts II.J-112
• II.K-1
II.K-2
II.K-3
National and New York State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Existing Traffic Vehicle Operating Conditions

Regional Values
Mobile Source Receptor Locations in Primary Study Area

II.K-4
II.K-10
II.K-14
II.K-4 Maximum Monitored Background Data for Pollutants Studied II.K-19

in the Stationary Source Fluid Modeling Analysis
II.K-5 Con Edison Stack and Emissions Data II .K-20
II .K-6 Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data, 1990 II .K-28

(Except Where Noted)
II.K-7 Maximum Predicted 1- and 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide II .K-29

Concentrations for 1991 (parts per million)
II .K-8 Future (1997) Maximum Predicted 1- and 8-Hour Carbon II .K-31

Monoxide Concentrations Without the Project in the
Project Study Area (parts per million)
II.K-9 Maximum Projected Concentrations for No Build Conditions II .K-31

Due to Emissions From Con Edison'S West 59th Street·
Generating Facility (ug/m3)
•
FINAL ENVIllONMENTAL IHPACT STATEMENT
• IlIVEllSIDE SOUTH
Page IfuIlber
II.K-10 Future (2002) Maximum Predicted 1- and 8-Hour Carbon II .K-32

Monoxide Concentrations Without the Project in the
Project Study Area (parts per million)
II.K-ll Future (1997) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide II .K-34

Concentrations· Both With and Without the Project in
the Primary Study Area (parts per million)
II.K-12 Future (2002) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide II.K-38

Concentrations Both With and Without the Project in
the Primary Study Area (parts per million)
II.K-13 Future (2002) Predicted Maximum 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide II.K-40

Concentrations Both With and Without the Project and
the Relocated Highway at Off-Site Locations
in the Primary Study Area
II.K-14 Future 2002 Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide II .K-4l

Concentrations in the Extended Study Area
• II.K-15
II.K-16
MaximUm Projected Concentrations for Build Conditions
Due to Emissions From Con Edison's West 59th Street
Generating Facility (ug/m3) Summary Table
All Reanalysis Probes

II.K-43
II.K-44
II.K-17 Maximum Predicted Concentrations from ISC Modeling for II.K-45

Build Conditions in the Year 2002 Due to Emissions From
HVAC Equipment at the Project Site (ug/m3)
II.K-18 Maximum Predicted Concentrations Within Cavity Regions II.K-46

From Screen Modeling for Build Conditions in the
Year 2002 Due to Emissions from HVAC Equipment
at the Project Site (ug/m3)
II.L-l Common Noise Levels II.L-3
II.L-2 Average Ability to Perceive Changes in Noise Levels II.L-4
II.L-3 Community Response to Increases in Noise Levels II.L-4
II.L-4 City of New York Ambient Noise Quality Criteria (dBA) II.L-6
II.L-5 CEPO-CEQR Noise Exposure Standards for Noise Receptors II.L-7

for Use in City Environmental Impact Review
• II. L-6 Attenuation Values Called for by CEPO-CEQR Exterior Noise

Categories
II. L-8
•
J'INAL ENVIR.ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
Page Ruaber
II .L-7 Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect Health II. L-10

and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety
II.L-8 - Noise Receptor Locations II. L-12
II .L-9 Existing Noise Levels (dBA) II .L-14
II.L-10 Maximum L1O(1) Noise Levels Without the Project in 1997 II. L-16
II.L-ll Maximum L1O(1) Noise Levels Without the Project in 2002 II. L-16
II. L-12 Maximum L1O(1) Noise Levels With the Project in 1997 II. L-17
II. L-13 Maximum L1O(1) Noise Levels With the Project in 2002 II.L-19
II.L-14 Maximum L10(1) Noise Levels in the New Park with the II.L-21
Relocated Highway
II.P-1 North River WPCP Secondary Treatment Operating II.P-3
•
Characteristics, 1991-1992
II.P-2 1991 New York City Department of Environmental Protection II.P-S

Harbor Survey -- Preliminary Raw Data
II.P-3 Existing Sewer Capacities and Flows II.P-8
II. P-4 North River Drainage Basin Substantial II.P-12

No Build Developments
II.P-S Water Consumption at Future-Without-the-Project II.P-14

Development Sites in the North River Drainage Basin
II.P-6 Sewage Flows to the North River WPCP in

the Future Without the Project II.P-18
II.P-7 Additional Sanitary Sewage Flows from Future-Without- II.P-19

the-Project Development Sites in the Project's
Sewerage Area
II .P-8 Future-Without-the-Project Dry-Weather Sewer II.P-20

Capacities and Flows
II.P-9 Estimated Water Usage by Proposed Project II.P-22
II.P-lO Solid Waste Generation at the Proposed Project II.P-2S
• II.R-1 Vibration-Induced Risk Criteria for Historic Buildings II .R-3

•
I'IRAL ERVIltOHHENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IlIVEltSIDE SOUTH
LIST 01' TABLES (Continued)
Page Ruaber
II .R-2 Traffic Conditions During Construction of the II .R-7

Proposed Project, 1997
II.R-3 Leq Sound Levels Emitted from Each Phase of II .R-10

Construction Activity at 500 Feet
II.R-4 Summary of Construction Contribution to Ambient Sound II.R-ll

Levels, dBA Leq(l)
II .R-5 Highest Off-Site Daytime Sound Levels During Construction II.R-13
II .R-6 Vibration-Induced Risk Criteria for Buildings II .R-14
III-1 Parcel-by-Parcel Breakdown, Lesser Density Alternative III-7
1II-2 Comparison of Open Space Demand and Active Open Space III-ll
Ratios Between the Lesser Density Alternative
and the Proposed Project
•
III-3 Transportation Forecast, Lesser Density Alternative III-13
III-4 Comparison of Future Traffic Conditions, III-14

Lesser Density Alternative and Proposed Project
III-5 Significantly Impacted Locations in the Extended Study Area, 111-16

Lesser Density Alternative and Proposed Project
III-6 72nd Street Subway Station Stairway Conditions, III-19

1997 and 2002, Lesser Density Alternative
III-7 Local Bus Conditions for 1997 and 2002, III-20

Lesser Density Alternative
III-8 Pedestrian Levels of Service, Lesser Density Alternative III-21

1997 and 2002
III-9 66th Street Subway Station Conditions, 2002 Build, III-23

III-10 Trip Generation and Modal Split Assumptions for III-28

Studio/Office/Sports Complex Alternative
III-ll Transportation Forecast for Studio/Office/Sports III-29

Complex Alternative
• III-12 Comparison of Future Traffic Conditions,

Studio/Office/Sports Complex Alternative
and Proposed Project
III-31
•
FINAL ERVIR.O~HTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
R.IVEUIDE SOUTH
Page RuIIlber
III-13 59th Street -- Columbus Circle Station 2002 Build Conditions 111-33
With Studio/Office/Sports Complex
III-14 Local Bus Network, Studio/Office/Sports Complex Alternative 111-34
III-IS Pedestrian Levels of Service Studio/Office/ 111-36

Sports Complex Alternative
IV-l 1997 No Build, Build, and Build with Mitigation VIC Ratios IV-lO
IV-2 Summary of 1997 Mitigation Measures IV-II
IV-3 1997 Extended Area Mitigation VIC Ratios IV-16
IV-4 1997 Extended Area Mitigation Measures IV-17
IV-5 72nd Street IRT Station, 1997 Build IV-20

with Mitigation Conditions
•
IV-6 72nd Street IRT Station, Southbound Platform 1997 Build IV-23
with Mitigation Conditions, AM Peak Hour
IV-7 2002 No Build, Build, and Build with Mitigation VIC Ratios IV-27
IV-8 Summary of 2002 Mitigation Measures IV-28
IV-9 2002 Extended Area No.Build, Build, and Build with IV-33
Mitigation VIC Ratios
IV-lO 2002 Extended Area Mitigation Measures IV-35
IV-ll Mitigation With Relocated Highway IV-38
IV-12 72nd Street IRT Station, 2002 Build IV-40

with Mitigation Conditions
IV-13 72nd Street IRT Station, Southbound Platform 2002 Build IV-4l
with Mitigation Conditions, AM Peak Hour
IV-14 66th Street IRT Station, 2002 Build with IV-43

Mitigation Conditions
IV-IS Future (1997) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide IV-46

Concentrations with Traffic Mitigation
in the Project Study Area (parts per million)
•
FINAL ENVIIlONHENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
• IlIVERSIDE SOUTH
Page Rumber
IV-16 Future (2002) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide IV-47

Concentrations with Traffic Mitigation
in the Project Study Area (parts per million)
IV-17 Future (2002) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide IV-48

Concentrati"ons with Traffic Mitigation
in the Extended Study Area
IV-18 Maximum Projected Concentrations for Build Conditions with IV-50

Proposed Mitigation
IV-19 Maximum L10 (1) Noise Levels at Locations Where Traffic Would IV-52
Change with Traffic Mitigation for the Project in 1997
IV-20 Maximum L10 (1) Noise Levels at Locations Where Traffic Would IV-54
Change with Traffic Mitigation for the Project in 2002
IV-21 Maximum L10(1) Noise Levels in the New Park with Traffic IV-55
Mitigation and the Relocated Highway
•
•
UVEItSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF FIGURES
PolloriDg
Page RuIlber
I-I Regional Location 1-2
1-2 Site Location 1-2
1-3 Immediate Site Context 1-2
1-4 Topography and Depth to Bedrock 1-2
1-5 Site Plan Showing Existing Highway 1-10
1-6 North Neighborhood 1-10
1-7 South Neighborhood 1-11
I-S . Access and Circulation I-IS
1-9 Conceptual Park Plan 1-21
•
1-10 Interim Open Space Plan 1-26
1-11 Site Plan Showing Relocated Highway 1-33
1-12 Proposed Zoning 1-35
II.B-l Study Area Boundary II.B-l
II.B-2 Study Area Development, 1969-1991 II.B-6
II.B-3 Project Site Land Use II .B-7
II.B-4 Study Area Land Use II.B-S
II.B-5 Notable Buildings -- Primary Study Area II.B-9
II.B-6 Retail Establishments in the Study Area II .B-9
II.B-7 Notable Buildings -- Secondary Study Area II.B-11
II.B-S Proposed Development in the Land Use Study Area II.B-16
II.B-9 Project Site Zoning II.B-2S
II.B-lO Study Area Zoning II.B-29
• II.B-ll
II.C-l
Proposed Zoning
Demographic Study Area

II.B-36
II.C-l
•
IlIVEltSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
P'ollow:lng
Page Humber
II.D-1 Municipal Services -- Police, Fire, and Sanitation II.D-1

Facilities
II.D-2 Public Schools in District 3 -- Region I II .D-2
II.D-3 Private Schools, Day Care Facilities, and II.D-7

Libraries in the Study Area
II.D-4 Health Care Facilities II .D-9
II.E-1 Project Site Photographs II.E-1
II.E-2 Project Site Photographs II. E-1
II.E-3 Project Site Photographs II .E-1
II.E-4 Views of Piers G, H, and I II.E-1
•
II .E-5 Project Site Photographs II .E-1
II.E-6 Views from Site Toward Manhattan II.E-2
II.E-7 Views from Site Toward Manhattan II.E-2
II.E-8 Southern End of Project Site II. E-2
11.E-9 View of Project Site from West End Avenue II.E-2
II.E-10 View of Project Site from Freedom Place II.E-3
II.E-11 Visual Context in the Study Area II. E- 3
II.E-12 Predominant Building Types II.E-3
11.E-13 Building Heights in the Study Area II.E-3
II.E-14 Residential and Commercial Towers II.E-3
II.E-15 Key to Photographs of Study Area II.E-5
II.E-16 Predominant Building Types in Clinton II.E-5
II. E-17 5·9th .Street Western View Corridor .II.E-5
• II.E-18
II.E-19
60th Street Western View Corridor
61st Street Western View Corridor

II.E-5
II.E-5
•
I'IHAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
P'olloriDg
Pace Rumber
II.E-20 Vehicular and Pedestrian Routes Interrupted by Superblocks II .E-6
II. E-2l . Walls, Platform Edges, and Buildings Without Windows II. E-8
II.E-22 Lincoln Center II. E-8
II.E-23 Amsterdam Houses II. E-8
II.E-24 Lincoln Towers II.E-9
II.E-25 Freedom Place II.E-9
II.E-26 6lst Street Western View Corridor II. E-9
II.E-27 62nd Street Western View II. E-9
II.E-28 63rd Street Western View Corridor II.E-9
•
II.E-29 64th Street Western View Corridor II. E.-9
II.E-30 65th Street Western View Corridor II .E-9
II.E-3l 66th Street Western View Corridor II.E-9
II.E-32 67th and 68th Streets II.E-9
II.E-33 69th Street II.E-9
II.E-34 Amsterdam Avenue North from 70th Street II.E-ll
II.E-35 7lst Street II.E-ll
II.E-36 72nd Street II. E-ll
II.E-37 Views Toward Site at 72nd Street and Riverside Park II.E-ll
II.E-38 70th Street Western View Corridor II.E-ll
II.E-39 Project Elevation II.E-l6
II.E-40 View of the Project from the North, 2002 II.E-l6
II.E-4l View of the Project from the West, 2002 II. E-l8
• II.G-l Open Space Study Area -- Residential and Commercial

Study Areas
II .G-3
•
I'INAL ERVIltONHEHTAL IMPACT STATEHEHT
lUVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST 01' I'IGURES (Continued)
:rolloriDg
PaBe Ruaber
11.G-2 Open Space and Recreational Facilities II.G-3
11.H-l Historic Resources II .H-6
11.H-2 Riverside Park and Drive II .H-9
11.H-3 Row Houses at West 72nd Street and Riverside Drive II .H-9
11.H-4 Chatsworth Apartments and Annex II .H-10
11.H-5 West 7lst Street Historic District II .H-10
II.H-6 Former IRT Power House II.H-ll
II.H-7 Bridges or Commissioners Map 1807-1811 II .H-18
II.H-8 Original Shoreline of Project Site II .H-19
•
II.H-9 Project Site Block Between 59th and 60th Streets II .H-24
II.I-l Study Area Boundaries II.I-1
11.1-2 Retail Establishments in the Study Area II.I-2
11.1-3 Industrial Study Area Land Use -- 54th to 61st Street II.I-4
11.1-4 Industrial Study Area Businesses -- 54th to 61st Street II.1-4
II.J-1 Transportation Study Area II.J-1
I1.J-2 Locations of Counting Program II.J-2
1I.J-3 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes II.J-2
I1.J-4 Existing VIC Ratios II.J-4
11.J-5 Existing Off-Street Parking II.J -7
I1.J-6 Study Area Subway Stations II.J-10
11.J-7 59th Street Subway Complex -- 1991 Existing Conditions II.J-ll
II.J -8 66th Street 1RT Station 1991 Existing Conditions II.J -14
• 11.J-9
II.J-10
72nd Street IRT Station
Study Area Bus Routes

1991 Existing Conditions II.J -16
II.J-23
•
FINAL EHVIllOHHENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
llIVEllSIDE SOUTH
P'olloriDg
Pale BuDlber
II.J-ll Pedestrian Level-of-Service Definitions II.J-26
II.J-12 1997 No Build Traffic Volumes II.J-29
II.J-13 1997 No Build VIC Ratios II.J-29
II.J-14 2002 No Build Traffic Volumes II.J-42
II. J -15 2002 No Build VIC Ratios II.J-42
II.J-16 59th Street Subway Complex -- 2002 No Build Conditions II.J-45
II.J-17 Proposed Street and Garage Plan II.J-56
II.J-18 1997 Traffic Increment II.J-63
II.J-19 1997 Build Traffic Volumes II.J -63
•
II.J-20 1997 Build Volume-to-Capacity Ratios II.J-63
II.J-2l Redistribution of Project Traffic Outside of Study Area II.J-67
II.J-22 Traffic Diversions -- 2002 Build Conditions II.J -85
II.J-23 Project-Generated Traffic -- 2002 Build Conditions II.J-85
II.J-24 2002 Traffic Increment II.J-85
II.J-25 2002 Build Traffic Volumes II.J-85
II.J-26 2002 Build Volume-to-Capacity Ratios II.J-85
II.J-27 2002 Build Networks II.J -l10
II.K-l Mobile Sources Receptor Locations in the Primary II.K-13

Study Area
II.L-l Noise Receptor Locations II.L-12
II.L-2 Noise Receptor Locations II.L-16
II.M-l 1988 Sampling Plan - Study Subareas II .M-5
II.N-l Hudson River Depths at the Project Site tI.N-l
• II.N-2 Area Flooded During 100-Year Storm II .N-2

•
I'IRAL ENVIR.ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IlIVER.SIDE SOUTH
FolloriDg
. PaBe Humber
II.N-3 Waterfront Elements of the Conceptual Park Plan II .N-3
II.N-4 Modification to Relieving Platform West 63rd to II .N-3

West 66th Streets
II. P-l Existing Water Mains II.P-2
II.P-2 Existing Sewers II.P-6
II .P-3 Significant Proposed Development in the II.P-17

Trunk Sewer Drainage Area
II .P-4 Proposed Water Mains II .P-23
II.P-5 Proposed Storm and Sanitary Sewers II.P-23
II.R-l Noise Receptor Locations II .R-lO
•
III-l Layout of 1.4 mgd Sewage Treatment Plant III-38
1II-2 Layout of 2.0 mgd Sewage Treatment Plant III-38
IV-l Typical Block -- West End Avenue Improvement Plan IV-7
IV-2 72nd Street/Broadway IRT Station Mitigation -- IV-18

Street Level Plan
IV.:. 3 72nd Street/Broadway IRT Station Mitigation IV-18

Platform Plan, New Stairways
IV-4 72nd Street/Broadway IRT Station Mitigation IV-18

Section Through New Stairways to Southbound Platform
IV-5 Distribution of Waiting Passengers -- Existing Versus IV-2l

73rd Street Mitigati~n Plan
IV-6 66th Street/Broadway .~RT Station Mitigation IV-42
VI-l New Headhouse at 72nd Street Subway Station VI-123

FOREWORD
• This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) reflects changes which

have occurred since the publication of the DEIS in response to public review
and ongoing planning efforts. The public review included public hearings held
by Community Board 7 on July 21 and July 22, 1992, a public hearing held by the
Manhattan Borough President on August 3, 1992, and a hearing before the New
York City Planning Commission (CPC) on September 9, 1992. The hearing before
the CPC and the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) lead agencies served
as the official CEQR hearing on the DEIS. The public comment period was held
open for an additional 10 days beyond the hearing to receive written comments.
The FEIS responds to all substantive comments on the DEIS received at the
CPC public hearing and written comments received by CPC through September 21,
1992. All comments are summarized and responded to in Chapter VI, "Response to
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement," a new chapter in ,the
FEIS.
Since the DEIS was published, other reV1S1ons to the document have been
made, based on changes to project components and further environmental analysis
undertaken during the period between Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Statements. These changes are summarized below.
•
Changes in Project Components
The following changes are described in the FEIS' Project Description and
in other applicable sections as noted:
o The project now includes an affordable housing component ranging

between 10 and 20 percent of the project's total units. The inclu-
sion of affordable housing raises the population estimates included
in the DEIS and required changes in section II.B, "Land Use and Zon-
ing," section II.C, "Demographics and the Potential for Secondary
Residential Displacement, section II.D, "Community Facilities and
Services," section II.G, "Open Space and Recreational Resources,"
section II.J, "Traffic and Transportation," and section II.P, "Infra-
structure and Solid Waste," and Chapter III, "Alternatives."
o The plan and proposed phasing for the proposed waterfront park, both
with and without the relocation of the Miller Highway, has changed.
These changes are also reflected in section II.F, "Waterfront Revi-
talization" and 11.G, "Open Space and Recreational Resources." Ad-
ministrative matters regarding responsibility for the park's final
design and construction, construction funding, and operation and
maintenance of the completed park are also clarified.
o A portion of the profess,ional office space to be included in the'
•
proposed project would be marketed to public or not-for-profit ser-
vice providers in accordance with city fair share criteria. The
types of entities which co~ld fill this space are also noted in sec-
tion 11.D, "Community Facilities and Services".
F-l
The project would incorporate a program of sustainable development
•
o
for feasible energy conservation enhancement .
o The height of the Riverside Drive streetwall has been lowered. This
change is also noted in section II.E, "Urban Design and Visual
Character."
Additional Changes to EIS Sections
Other than the changes prompted by the revisions to the project descrip-
tion, as discussed above, other changes have been made in specific technical
areas.
Demoiraphics and the Potential for Secondary Residential Displacement
o The inclusion of additional data from the 1990 Census of Population.

No substantive change in the conclusions in the DEIS resulted from
the inclusion of this data.
Urban Design and Visual Character
o Incremental shadows have been added (to the Appendix) and described.
Traffic and Transportation
• o
o
As a result of ongoing state planning studies, the traffic analysis
has been revised to reflect changes in the design of the relocated
highway at West 57th Street.
The modal split for the proposed studi%ffice building was changed
to reflect a greater share for transit.
o The FEIS includes a quantified 42nd Street Transitway analysis.
o Both the traffic and transit No Build analyses have been revised to
reflect a revised development program for the Ansonia Post Office
site.
Air Quality (Mobile Source)
o Reanalysis of the 42nd Street/Twelfth Avenue intersection receptor

location.
o Reanalysis of intersections along the 57th Street corridor with a

revised relocated highway design.
o Examination of effects of the proposed 42nd Street Light Rail

Transitway .
• F-2
•
Natural Resources
o The FEIS reflects additional analysis undertaken between draft and

final EIS based on studies of sedimentation, circulation, and related
Hudson River habitats.
Infrastructure and Solid Waste
o The FEIS includes updated flow information for the North River Water
Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) and provides greater detail on the
city's water conservation programs.
Construction Impacts
o This section includes a description of the proposed Construction

Liaison Committee which would act as a liaison between the project
and the adjacent community during construction of the proposed
project.
o The applicant would make affirmative efforts in employing the broad-

est range of persons and businesses for construction of this project.
This section describes this strategy in greater detail.
Alternatives
•• o
o
Since a commitment to affordable housing is now included in the pro-
posed project, the Affordable Housing Alternative included in the
DEIS has been deleted from the FEIS.
A new alternative, the Studio/Office/Sports Complex Alternative, has

been added and analyzed.
Mitigation
o The project now incorporates as mitigation for year 2002 impacts on

public schools a commitment to provide space for sale or lease to the
Board of Education at fair market value which could accommodate 600
elementary school seats. The FEIS also includes an environmental
analysis of the proposed on-site school facility.
o The unmitigated traffic impact identified in the DEIS, at the inter-

section of 23rd Street and Eleventh and Twelfth 'Avenues , has been
mitigated.
o Funding for a share of the cost of improvements to the 72nd Street

IRT subway station would be provided by the developer. The project
would fully fund the cost of building a new stairway, which would
mitigate project impacts.
o Mitigation for stationary source impacts identified in the DEIS has

been analyzed. The proposed mitigation method is described in the
•
FEIS .
F-3
•
Where appropriate, the text of the DEIS has been modified to reflect the
changes described above. New or changed text is indicated with a line in the
right margin. The symbol ~ndicates that material has been deleted . I
• F-4
EXECUTIVE SUIIWlY
e·
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTIO.
Project Location and Site Peatures
The Trump Organization is seeking a variety of discretionary approvals to

develop Riverside South, a major mixed-use and open space project to be located
on the 56.l-acre upland portion of an approximately 74.6-acre former rail yard
located along the Hudson River on the West Side of Manhattan. The discretion-
ary approvals that would be necessary to facilitate the Riverside South project
are described later in this section.
I
The project site is bounded on the north by West 72nd Street and Riverside
Park, on the south by West 59th Street, on the west by the Hudson River, and on
the east by buildings at the west end of West 72nd, 7lst, and 70th Streets; and
by Freedom Place, the Capital Cities/ABC studio complex building (between 66th
and 65th Streets), parking lots and vacant land between 6lst and 65th Streets
(proposed for development by Capital Cities/ABC and the approved Manhattan West
project), and West End Avenue. The most notable site features are the right-
of-way for Amtrak, which operates passenger service from Upstate New York to
Pennsylvania Station, and the elevated Miller Highway, currently being reno-
vated by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), which runs
e along an easement, generally about 140 feet wide, on the western portion of the
property. The southern end of the site also contains several parking lots and
unoccupied or partially occupied industrial buildings. The city's street sys-
tem does not traverse the site.
Developaent Prograa
Land Use
The program and design for Riverside South were developed by the Riverside
South Planning Corporation, consisting of representatives of the Regional Plan
Association, the Municipal Art Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council,
The Parks Council, Westpride, the Riverside Park Fund, and the Trump Organiza-
tion. The overall program calls for developing 5,700 dwelling units including
affordable housing units, 137,800 zoning square feet (zsf) of retail space,
163,400 zsf of professional office space (primarily medical offices, although a
portion of this space would be marketed to public or not-for-profit entities
providing neighborhood/local services as defined in New York City's fair share
rules), 300,000 zsf of general purpose office space, and a 1.8 million-zsf
studio complex for either a single tenant or multiple tenants involved in film
or television production. The project would also include approximately 25
acres of publicly accessible open space, including a waterfront park of 21.5
acres. The total waterfront park would consist of 71.1 acres of mapped park-
e land, of which 49.6 acres would be underwater land (18.5 acres owned by the
S-l
developer and 31.1 acres owned by the city) and 21.5 acres would be upland. In
addition, there would be 3.5 acres of unmapped, publicly accessible open space.
e" Below grade, the project would include a 37,000-square-foot, six-screen, 1,800-
seat cineplex; an additional 45,000 square feet of retail space; and 3,500
parking spaces distributed among the parcels in the project. The project would
be built on a platform above the former Penn Central rail yards and above the
existing Amtrak right-of-way.
The project's residential units would have an approximate unit distribu-

tion as follows: 4.4 percent studios (250 dwelling units), 45.6 percent one-
bedroom units (2,600 dwelling units), 44.4 percent two-bedroom units (2,530
units), and 5.6 percent three-bedroom units (320 dwelling units). The units
would be a mix of market-rate and low-, moderate-, and middle-income affordable
housing. At a minimum, assuming no appropriate government subsidy program is
available, 10 percent of the project's total dwelling. units would be subsidized
internally as affordable housing. The availability and utilization of city,
state, and federal programs would raise the proportion of affordable units to
at least 20 percent of the total housing units. The breakdown between low-,
moderate-, and middle-income affordable units has not been established. The
project would include strict transition provisions for the affordable housing
units to protect tenants in place from displacement. These may include resale
restrictions and protections for the lifetime occupancy of in-place rental
tenants and their families after expiration of the program restrictions.
The project would extend Riverside Drive south from 72nd Street through
the project site to 59th Street and Twelfth Avenue and, in most cases, ,would
•
extend the existing Manhattan street grid from the east to connect with the new
Riverside Drive. The project would provide space under and beside the exten-
~ion of Riverside Drive that would enable the New York State Department of
Transportation to move the Miller Highway inboard of its current location. Any
decision to move the highway would be made independently of the approvals
needed to construct Riverside South and is not part of, the proposed project.
Project Design
The creation of the large waterfront park, the extension of Riverside

Drive south through the site, and the extension of the existing city street
grid onto the site from the east have resulted in the creation of 15 separate
development parcels. The 15 development parcels make up 8 separate zoning
lots.
The projected development on each parcel was strongly influenced by a

sensitivity to surrounding uses and patterns of development and would be con-
trolled by Large Scale Special Permit Controls and Design Guidelines that would
create an envelope for each block and establish criteria for use, access, bulk,
height, setbacks, access, and landscaping.
The Large Scale Permit Controls are part of the ULURP 'application that is
subject to review by the City Planning Commission and the City Council. The
Design Guidelines are not part of the city's discretionary review. The appli-
cant would use these guidelines in the future development of the site. They
•
would affect the likely development scenar1o; however, there is nothing in the
ULURP application or review process that would bind future development with
respect to these guidelines.
S-2
Large Scale Special Permit Controls and Design Guidelines
The proposed controls in the Large Scale Permit would ensure the prOV1Slon
of bulk, massing, and scale that would be consistent with the built form along
the West Side. The Design Guidelines that would be self-imposed by the appli-
cant would affect elements of development not controlled by the proposed regu-
latory controls.
The Large Scale Special Permit Controls are directed at issues of land
use, ground plane, and building mass and form, and would be included as part of
the site's special permit under the New York City Zoning Resolution (discussed
below). More specific than the city's zoning, the Large Scale Special Permit
Controls would establish individual criteria for each development parcel. They
establish criteria for allowable uses; bulk, including streetwall, building
envelope,and tower controls; design elements; and landscaping; and specify
mandatory streetwall, height, and setback locations for the buildings' bases,
middle areas, and towers; the maximum building envelope on each parcel; and
total square footage for each parcel and for each tower. The building envelope
would define the outer perimeter within which all potential'building mass must
be placed; the streetwall and tower controls define the characteristics, compo-
sition, and bulk of the building mass within the envelope.
The Design Guidelines specify certain design details patterned after those
elements that give the Upper West Side its unique character -- including build-
ing materials (primarily masonry), window proportions and subdivision, color,
exterior lighting, and private open spaces. The Design Guidelines are not part
• of the project's ULURP application; each building's consistency with these

requirements would be considered by a privately designated review body before
construction.
For parcels close to historic resources, more specific Large Scale Special
Permit Controls would be mandated to ensure compatibility between project
buildings and those resources.
Development Plan
A parcel-by-parcel summary of projected development is presented in Table

S-l. Except for Parcel N, all parcels would be developed with some combination
of residential and ground-floor professional office, community facility, and/or
retail space. Parcel N would contain a mix of studio space, general office
space, retail use, and the cineplex. Development above-grade is expected to
total about 8.3 million zsf, more than 70 percent of which would be in resi-
dential use.
Reflecting the proximity to Riverside Park, landmark buildings, and the

neighborhood to the immediate north and east, the development plan calls for a
mid-rise (IS-story) residential building at West 72nd Street gently curving
onto Riverside Drive at the height of the adjacent Chatsworth Apartments. The
permitted height of the residential buildings varies to the south, with the
tallest building at 70th Street (49 stories), a wide street already influenced
by the heights of the buildings at Lincoln Towers. From 70th to 6Sth Street,
•
building heights would step down to the south in response to the widening of
the waterfront park.
S-3
• •
Table 5-1
•
PAIlCBL-BY-PAl.CEL LOD USB PIOGUII
(AINrre Grade)
Pt:ofe••icmal.
Reddea.tial Offic_l RetaUl Office Studio Total Scraare Feet
IhIelllDc Padda&
Parcel 1JD:1t. zrA Gl'A4 zrA Gl'A4 zrA Gl'A4 zrA Gl'A5 zrA Gl'A SDAcea zrA Gl'A
A 288 304,100 319,305 12,800 13,440 316,900 332,745
B 586 604,600 634,830 22,200 23,310 626,800 658,140
C 491 509,300 534,765 10,400 10,920 14,400 15,120 534,100 560,805
D 421 437,500 459,375 13,000 13,650 19,400 20,370 469,900 493,395
E 410 416,100 436,905 10,200 10,710 14,800 15,540 441,100 463,155
F 311 338,000 354,900 7,700 8,085 9,000 9,450 354,700 372·,435
G 286 279,400 293,370 6,100 6,405 285,500 299,775
H 346 370,800 389,340 8,200 8,610 379,000 397,950
I 498 518,200 544,110 25,200 26,460 543,400 570,570
en 15,435 . 13,600 721,200 757,260
I J 675 692,900 727,545 14,700 14,280
~
K 603 650,400 682,920 13,500 14,175 13,400 14,070 677,300 711,165

L 281 278,700 292,635 8,900 9,345 287,600 301,980
K 296 291,100 305,655 10,500 11,025 301,600 316,680
N 35,300 2 37,065 300,000 330,000 1,764,700 1,962,554 2,100,0002,329,619
0 ~ 243.000 255.150 17.900 18.795 260.900 273.945
7
5,700 1
5,934,100 7 6,230,805 .163,400 7 171,570 137,800 144,6903 300,000 330,000 1,764,700 1,962,554 3,5006 8,300,000 8,839,619
IIote.:
Community facility space could be provided on each zoning lot in lieu of some professional office and some retail space; however, a
certain minimum of retail space would be provided. The maximum community facility space on a zoning lot would be equal to .the total of
the maxtmum professional space plus the maximum retail space minus the minimum retail space required. Therefore, the square footages
listed here represent the maximum total square footages allowed.
2
Does not include a below-grade, six-screen, 37,000-square-foot, 1,800-seat cineplex.
3 Does not include cineplex and about 45,000 square feet of below-grade retail space.
4 The gros8square foot figures were derived by adding 5 percent to the zoning floor area figures. All figures are approximate.
5 The gros8 square foot figures for office use were derived by adding 10 percent to the zoning floor area.
6
Total number of public parkins spaces to be distributed among parcels in the project.
7 The sum total of floor area of the residential, professional office, and retail uses on the residential parcels is 6.2 million square
feet. The floor area for the professional office and retail uses represents a maximum for those uses. The residential floor area
could increase, but the number of residential units would not change.
A main organizing element in the northern portion of the project site
• would be Freedom Place, now a sparsely used, four-lane, two-way street separat-
ing the project site from Lincoln Towers between 66th and 70th Streets. A
major goal of the design plan is to enliven Freedom Place, and to that end,
Freedom Place would be narrowed and .converted to a one-way street, with retail
uses incorporated along its western frontage.
The design for the southern portion of the project site acknowledges the
proximity of the approved Manhattan West project, the existing and proposed
Capital.Cities/ABC Studios, and the increased depth of the building sites.
South of 65th Street, the buildings would again rise to a height of 41 stories
(between 63rd and 64th Streets), then step down south of 63rd Street to avoid
potential air quality conflicts related to the emissions of the Con Edison
plant at 59th Street. The base of the studio complex, bounded by 59th Street,
West End Avenue, 6lst Street,. and parcels Land M to the west, would contain
floors of approximately 250,000 square feet and would rise to a height of eight
stories (approximately 150 feet). Rising atop the 8-story base would be two
22-story office buildings. The buildings in the south would be organized
around two interrelated parks and a system of open spaces between 6lst and 64th
Streets and along a new street, Freedom Place South. Retail uses would further
enliven the southern neighborhood. .
Access and Circulation
The vehicular circulation plan for the project calls for the extension of
the existing Riverside Drive south connecting to Twelfth Avenue at 59th Street,
•
and, in most cases, the extension of the eXisting Manhattan street grid to the
new Riverside Drive. To connect the new road to the existing Riverside Drive
at 72nd Street, the northbound exit of the Miller Highway at 72nd Street would
be closed. The connection of Riverside Drive to Twelfth Avenue and 59th Street
would be at grade.
The east-west streets would vary in function and width. Seventieth, 66th,
64th, and 6lst Streets would be two-way through streets. Sixty-eighth Street
would be two-way during Phase I and one-way eastbound at the end of Phase II.
The existing 66th Street, connecting Freedom Place with West End Avenue, would
be redesigned and raised by 6 or 7 feet starting just to the west of the exist-
ing ABC truck dock to clear the Amtrak right-of-way. Access to the existing
ABC entrance on 66th Street would be maintained. Sixty-third Street would be
one-way (westbound). Several streets -- 7lst, 69th, 67th, 65th, and 62nd
Streets -- would be mapped as public access easements but would be primarily
pedestrian in nature. On these streets, pedestrian use would be encouraged and
vehicular use discouraged through the use of wider sidewalks, landscaping,
dropped curbs, and other architectural treatments. Neither 7lst Street nor
65th Street would be through streets. The garages would be accessed from east-
west public and private streets. No access to the garages would be provided
from Riverside Drive, Freedom Place (north and south), or 72nd Street.
The roadbed of Freedom Place, currently a lightly used two-way street

running between 66th and 70th Streets, would be narrowed and converted into a
one-way street northbound. In the south, a new two-way street, Freedom Place
•
South, would be created to connect 6lst and 63rd Streets on the project site
and 64th Street to the west of West End Avenue on the adjacent Manhattan West
S-5
property. The construction of the streets, including the extension of River-
• side Drive, would be phased with and linked to the development of individual
blocks.
The project has been designed to foster the maximum pedestrian use, in-
cluding pedestrian access to the waterfront park. This would be accomplished
through landscaping treatment; the creation of pedestrian-oriented streets, as
described above; the widening of certain sidewalks; and the creation of a
varied open space plan.
Open Space and Landscaping Plan
The project's open space and landscaping plan, consisting of approximately

25 acres of publicly accessible open space and recreational facilities, con-
tains two major elements: a large-scale waterfront park and a system of land-
scaped pedestrian streets and open spaces, focused on Freedom Place and Freedom
Place South, linking the parks to the city. Of this 25 acres, approximately
21.5 acres would be mapped parkland.
Major features of these spaces would be designed by the Riverside South

Arts Program, an ongoing program to be run by an independent arts committee
linked to the park design and construction entity the applicant has proposed to
be responsible for design, construction, and operation of the park (discussed
below). The Arts Program would commission artists, working independently or in
collaboration with other professionals, to create permanent works and struc-
tures for Riverside South, ranging from functional elements paving, seating,
•
lighting, etc. -- to site-specific artwork and exhibitions .
Waterfront Park
The project would develop a 2l.5-acre waterfront park. With a variety of

active and passive recreational facilities, the park would open up access to
more than a half-mile of waterfront.
The City of New York would own the new waterfront park. The park would be
constructed and given to the city at no cost to the city. The applicant has
proposed that a not-for-profit park design and construction entity would be
created to supervise the design and construction of the park. Although not
part of the discretionary action, the developer has proposed an open collabo-
rative process with RSPC, the Manhattan Borough President, Community Boards 4
and 7, and appropriate civic and neighborhood groups to allow for full public
comment and participation in the final park design. Construction of the park
would be financed by the project's buildings, pursuant to the terms of a Re-
strictive Declaration, and would be subject to a system of construction perfor-
mance guarantees. A public-private partnership composed of appropriate commu-
nity, civic, business, and public members as well as the developer may be re-
sponsible for the operation and maintenance of the waterfront park. The devel-
oper would contribute annually a minimum of 50 percent toward the reasonable
cost of maintaining the park. At this time, there is no formal commitment by
the Parks Department or any other entity to contribute funding toward the 50
percent maintenance cost not committed to by the developer .
• S-6
•
The proposed project was designed with two alternative park designs for
two different conditions -- one in which the elevated Miller Highway, which
currently crosses the site on a viaduct, is relocated to a site beneath and
next to the new Riverside Drive extension; and one in which the elevated high-
way remains in place. Both scenarios are analyzed throughout this EIS.
Proposed Park with Relocation of the Miller HighwAY. Relocation of the

Miller Highway inboard would open up broader views of the Hudson River and pro-
vide for a more cohesive park design. The waterfront park would be accessible
from Riverside Park at the north, a walkway proposed as part of the Route 9A
project at the south, and most of the east-west cross streets between 72nd and
59th Streets. Pedestrian bridges and walkways would create inviting entrances
to the park from the new Riverside Drive extension, linking the park to the
city streets. An elevator would provide access from 70th Street. All of the
park's entrances and paths would be accessible to the disabled. Major features
of this park include:
o In the northern part of the park, between 70th and 72nd Streets,
active open space of court space for handball, basketball, and vol-
leyball and a level field of approximately 63,000 square feet for
informal active recreational activities, such as soccer and football,
would be provided. Additional court space for basketball would be
provided in the southern part of the park ..
o Two children's play areas, one in the north and one in the south,
with facilities for toddlers, preschool children, and pre-teens.
• o
o
A large lawn of about 11 acres, sloping down from the Riverside Drive
extension to the Hudson River. Closest to the river, it would be a
natural area of native grasses, shrubs, and perennials.
An amphitheater and civic lawn, to be used for special events such as

concerts, as well as for everyday recreational uses. The civic lawn
could accommodate informal active uses, such as softball and
volleyball.
o A waterfront esplanade running the entire length of the park.
o A rehabilitated pier at West 70th Street (Pier I) and three new pe-
destrian piers at 67th, 60th, and 59th Streets, all of which could be
used for strolling and fishing. In addition, the West 69th Street
transfer bridge would be retained and stabilized.
o A hard-edged boat pond that would accommodate model boating activi-

ties and ice skating in the winter.
o A community garden and nursery.
o A facility for DPR that would provide space for storage of materials
and equipment, vehicles, and office space.
•
Certain of the park's waterfront elements -- most notably, the pedestrian
piers -- require authorizations from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If
these authorizations are not granted, the park would be constructed without
these waterfront elements, reducing the park size by about 1.7 acres.
S-7
•
The development of the park would occur in four phases: the creation of a
temporary park, the construction of the waterfront park elements west of the
current highway, the development of the balance of the waterfront park, and
enhancements in open space areas upland of the public park.
Prior to Phase I of the proposed project, a temporary open space would be

created for public use. It would likely consist of some temporary paved area
containing courts and some lawn area. It is anticipated that the area would
initially be at the north end of the site to provide access from Riverside
Park. The development of the temporary open space would be subject to safety
considerations pertaining to the ongoing reconstruction of the Miller Highway
and would be developed in consultation with representatives of the Department
of Parks and Recreation, the Manhattan Borough President, city agencies, and
community representatives, including representatives from Community Boards 4
and 7.
During Phase I, all of the elements of the waterfront park that would not
be disturbed by subsequent relocation of the Miller Highway would be completed
in their permanent form. This includes all of the park's waterfront elements,
including the ball fields , the waterfront esplanade, all work relating to exist-
ing and proposed piers, the boat pond, and the natural areas and pathways. In
total, about 8.5 acres of park space would be developed during Phase I. This
space would be the same if the highway is relocated or if it remains in place.
During Phase II, it is anticipated that the remainder of the waterfront

park would be completed .
• Phase III represents enhancements to other open space areas throughout the
project, including Freedom Place, Freedom Place South, Riverside Drive, private
streets, public access easements, and other work related to the Arts Program.
Proposed Park Without Relocation of Miller Highway (Interim Park). As

noted above, the waterfront elements west of the existing Miller Highway would
be completed by 1997 and would be the same if the highway is relocated or if it
remains in place. For Phase II, the park plan described above envisions relo-
cation of the Miller Highway inboard. However, relocation of the Miller High-
way requires discretionary approvals separate from the actions required to
develop Riverside South. If the required approvals for the relocation of the
highway are not granted and/or if funding is not allocated, the entity respon-
sible for design and construction of the park would construct the Interim Park
for Phase II. Although it is expected that the Interim Park would be provided
by the year 2000, construction of the Interim Park may occur as late as 2002.
A decision to construct the Interim Park would be made only if, after the best
efforts of the city and state, it becomes clear that the highway would not be
relocated. This park would become permanent if the Miller Highway is not re-
located.
The balance of the Interim Park would contain most of the same elements as
the park with a relocated highway, including paved courts, bal1fie1ds for soc-
cer and football, playgrounds, the sloping lawn between 70th and 62nd Streets,
etc. It would not contain an amphitheater or the community gardens, and be-
•
cause it would not utilize the public space reserved for the relocated highway,
it would be approximately 4.0 acres smaller than the park proposed with the
relocated highway.
S-8
The park would be accessed via pedestrian entrances from Riverside Drive
• at 68th, 66th, and 63rd Streets. The park would also be accessed from River-
side Park, to the north, and from the proposed Route 9A walkway, to the south.
No access would be available between 68th and 72nd Streets and between 59th and
63rd Streets.
Because of the continuing presence of the elevated Miller Highway struc-

ture, which would obstruct visual access to the waterfront, the Interim Park
would differ markedly from the park with the relocated highway in several
respects.
First, many of the park's features would be crossed by the elevated high-
way structure, including about a third of the lawn area. This area beneath the
highway would be divided by columns, unlike the open grassy area in the park ~
with the relocated highway. Second, this park would also have less sunlight I
than the park with the relocated highway, because of the shadow cast by the
elevated highway throughout the day. Third, except when standing on the water-
front and facing west, the highway structure would always dominate views. Park
users would be aware of being close to a highway and would be able to see and
hear the traffic. In contrast, if the highway is relocated, the park would
provide an escape from the city that would be dominated by sweeping views of
the riverfront. Finally, if the highway is not relocated, certain locations in
the park would be noisier as well. Most locations would b~ close to the high-
way, and there would be no barriers to block noise from reaching the park.
Other Open Space Elements
• The waterfront park would be linked to the city through the project's
other open space elements -- special treatments along project streets, particu-
larly Freedom Place and Freedom Place South but also including Riverside Drive
and the side streets. These treatments would be implemented by the project's
Arts Program.
The applicant is proposing to provide trees, benches, and seating areas

along both sides of Riverside Drive. Freedom Place, a sparsely used two-way
Irj
street running from 66th to 70th Street, would be specially treated as part of
a site-specific and permanent artwork, possibly designed to honor the Civil
Rights movement in the United States. The roadbed would be narrowed to a one-
way street and the sidewalks expanded within the right-of-way. Trees would be
planted on both sides of the street and the sidewalks would be given special
treatment created as part of the Arts Program. On the east side of Freedom
Place, the plan calls for a freestanding decorative wall in front of the exist-
ing Lincoln Towers wall with openings for Lincoln Towers, as required. Between
63rd and 6lst Streets, Freedom Place South would continue the site-specific
artwork from Freedom Place. Between 64th and 63rd Streets, a landscaped area
on the west side of the street would continue the park proposed as part of the
Manhattan West project. The project's cross ,streets would also be given spe-
cial treatment to visually tie the waterfront park to the city and the city's
street grid. The public streets would have trees and special paving, and the
private streets would be pedestrian-oriented, with decorative paving, trees,
benches, and artwork .
• In addition, the project would also include private courtyards within many
of its buildings that would be available for residents or workers in those
buildings.
S-9
Infrastructure Improvements
• To develop the project site, connections would be made to existing water

and sewer lines and possibly to existing electric, gas, or steam lines. Storm
water would be separated from sanitary sewage. The new lines would be placed
in the streets in a conventional urban pattern and would be phased in with the
progression of the building parcels. A utility area would run under the via-
duct of the new Riverside Drive. Pursuant to the terms of a Restrictive Decla-
ration, the project would also provide an easement beneath project buildings
for a single-track light rail line and one or more stations along this line.
Treatment of Waterfront Structures
Seven dilapidated waterfront structures run along the project's Hudson

River waterfront. As part of the proposed project, Pier I at the end of 70th
Street would be rehabilitated as an element of the waterfront park, provided
that the rehabilitation would be covered under a nationwide permit issued by
the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). South of Pier I, the West 69th
Street transfer bridge would be retained and stabilized. The deteriorated
piers south of the transfer bridge would be retained. To ensure pedestrian
safety, the two piers at 64th and 63rd Streets would be severed from the shore-
line to prevent public access. As part of the project's Arts Program,existing
pilings and remnants of the three piers at 67th, 66th, and 65th Streets would
be selectively cut to form a pattern in the water, depending on the tides ..
Sustainable Development
• The project would incorporate a reasonable program of sustainable develop-

ment for the project for feasible energy conservation enhancement. The program
would be administered by a review board appointed by RSPC. (This program is
not part of the discretionary actions that are under review by the City Plan-
ning Commission.) .
Project Phasing and Construction
The project would be constructed over a 10-year period. For CEQR analy-
sis, it is examined in two phases in this EIS. Phase I, projected to be com-
pleted in 1997, would include the development of all parcels north of 64th
Street (Parcels A through H) and adjacent portions of the project's street
network. Phase I would include approximately 55 percent of the project's resi-
dential units (3,129 units), 90,000 zsf of professional office space, 57,600
zsf of retail space, parking for approximately 2,000 vehicles, and the water-
front portion of the project's large park, as described above.
Phase II, projected to be completed by 2002, would develop the parcels

between 64th and 59th Streets -- Parcels I through o. Phase II would include
the balance of the residential, retail, and professional office space, the
cinep1ex, and the project's studio complex and office space, as well as the
balance of the parking spaces, the project's street network, and infrastruc-
ture. The waterfront park would be completed during Phase II, as would other
elements of the project's open space plan.
• The affordable housing units would be constructed on a "middle-loading"

basis, ensuring that a set percentage of such units are completed when a fixed
percentage of market-rate units are completed.
S-10.
As now contemplated, the construction of the project, which is expected to
• begin in early 1993 and be completed in 2002, would proceed from the north to
the south. Access to the site for construction workers and vehicles would be
provided from 59th Street, using the existing paved area under the Miller High-
way and/or a pathway located to the immediate west of the Amtrak easement. Ad-
ditional access to the building sites would be provided as new streets are con-
structed. Parking for construction workers would be available in designated
areas throughout the site. To construct the project, the existing Amtrak
tracks would have to be covered in segments as the construction proceeds from
north to south.
Total construction time for the typical building, including excavation and
preparation of foundations, would be approximately two years on average. Con-
struction of the studio complex would take an estimated 3~ years. It is ex-
pected that a new parcel would begin construction about every seven months. At
the peak construction period, a maximum of four buildings could be under con-
struction simultaneously, with about 1,000 workers employed on-site.
Public Funding and Incentives
The project would actively be seeking government subsidies for the con-
struction of affordable housing on-site. No public funding is currently con-
templated for the construction of other elements of the proposed project.
Although no decision has been made regarding any other public funding for the
balance of the project, including tax abatements, it is possible that the proj-
ect would seek such assistance that may be available .
• Relocation of the Hiller Highway
The project site currently contains a l40-foot aerial easement for the
elevated Miller Highway, generally 140 feet wide, running through the project
site. The Miller Highway is currently being renovated by NYSDOT, and that
renovation is scheduled for completion in late 1994 or early 1995.
two different conditions -- one in which the elevated Miller Highway is relo-
cated inboard to a site beneath and beside the new Riverside Drive extension
and one in which the elevated highway remains in place. Should the NYSDOT, in
conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), approve relocation
of the highway to an in-board location beneath the extension of Riverside
Drive, the existing highway would be demolished. The relocation, which is sup-
ported by the project sponsors, would open up broader views of the Hudson River
and the Palisades and provide for a more cohesive park design. To accommodate
the relocation of the highway, Riverside South has provided space beneath and
adjacent to the extension of Riverside Drive that could accommodate a relocated
highway. The relocation of the highway is a separate and independent action
from the approvals and plans of the Riverside South project. Partial funding
for this relocation has been authorized by the u.S. Congress and New York
State .
• S-ll
•
Because it is expected that the relocation of the Miller Highway, if it
occurs, could not be completed by 1997, Phase I of the proposed project under
this scenario would be similar to that described for conditions with the high-
way remaining in place. Although it cannot be specifically determined what
year the highway may be relocated, a reasonable assumption of a 2002 Build year
has been made. The relocation of the highway would primarily affect the design
of the waterfront park, as described above, and would require coordination of
construction activities with the proposed project.
Required Actions
The proposed project would be subject to the city's Uniform Land Use Re-
view Procedure mandated by the City Charter, as well as State and City Environ-
mental Quality Review. In addition, the proposed project would require approv-
als and other discretionary actions by city and state agencies. The discre-
tionary actions that have been identified are outlined below.
City Actions and Approvals
City Map Changes
Under Sections 198 and 199 of the City Charter, the proposed Riverside
South project would require City Map changes for new streets and the Miller
Highway. Specifically, the "following streets, parkland, and public access
• easements would be mapped:
o
The extension of Riverside Drive from 72nd Street to 59th Street
would be mapped as a public street;
Seventieth, 68th, 66th, 64th, 63rd, and 6lst Streets would be mapped
as public streets between Riverside Drive and the project's property
line;
o An II-foot portion of 64th Street between the project's property line

and West End Avenue (on the Manhattan West site) would be demapped;
o That portion of Freedom Place South between 63rd and 64th Streets (on
the Manhattan West site) would be demapped as a public access ease-
ment and then mapped along with the portion of Freedom Place South
between 6lst and 63rd Streets as a public street;
o The space set aside for a possible relocation of the Miller Highway
would be mapped as a public place and parkway corridor;
o To conform with NYSDOT plans to widen the Miller Highway to the west,
a new easement of approximately 22 feet would be mapped on the west
side of the highway, on land to be provided by the developer;
o The waterfront park would be mapped as public parkland -- this in-
•
cludes a 2l.S-acre upland area east of the Riverside Drive extension
as well as 49.6 acres of underwater land (18.5 acres owned by the
developer and 31.1 acres owned by the city);
S-12
•
o Seventy-first, 69th, 67th, 65th, and 62nd Streets would be mapped as
public access easements;. and
o An area east of Freedom Place between 63rd and 6lst Streets would be
mapped as a public access easement.
In addition, the map approved for the Lincoln West project, but never
filed, would have to be rescinded.
Zoning Map Changes
Under Sections 200 and 201 of the City Charter, most of the site is pro-
posed to be rezoned as RIO (infill). The studio block would be zoned C4-7. A
portion of Parcel I would be zoned C4-2F. Except for the Riverside Drive fron-
tages extending 75 feet to the east on Parcels C-D, E-F, I, and J-K, a C2-5
overlay would cover most of Parcels A through K.
The waterfront park (including approximately 21.5 upland acres as well as

an additional 49.6 acres of land underwater) would be mapped as parkland and an
area east of Freedom Place South at about 62nd Street would be mapped as a
public access easement. In addition, the northern half of the marine transfer
station at 59th Street, currently a nonconforming use in a C-3 zone, would be
zoned M2-3, to give the entire marine transfer station a single conforming
designation.
Special Permits
• The proposed project would require special permits from the City Planning
Commission for developments in railroad or transit air space under Section
74-681 of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR), for general large-scale
developments (Sectiori 74-74 ZR), for the provision of public parking, and to
allow extension of time for completion of substantial construction.
Restrictive Declaration
A new restrictive declaration would be recorded against the site to re-

place the one recorded for the former Lincoln West project.
Permit for Use of City-Owned Land
Under Section 704(h) of the City Charter, the developer would obtain a
permit for property on the project site owned by the Department of Business
Services (DBS) from the city to develop it as a public park.
Certification
Certification would be sought to permit curb cuts on wide streets, specif-

ically for Zoning Lot CID along West 70th Street and for Zoning Lots ElF, G/H,
and J/K along Riverside Drive.
State Approvals
• The project's proposed shoreline stabilization and waterfront improvement

plans would require a Tidal Wetlands permit for activities in the "adjacent
S-13
•
area" as defined in the state's Part 661 regulations. Such permits would be of
the "generally compatible'- permit required" (GCp ) category, and under the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Uniform Procedures (Part
621) are denominated as "minor" permits.
Under 6 NYCRR 60S, the project may require a permit for the rehabilitation
of Pier I (at 70th Street) in connection with the waterfront open space areas.
The project would also require a Consistency Determination from the New York
State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources.
Approval would be required from NYSDOT for the closing of the northbound
exit ramp from the Miller Highway at 72nd Street. It should also be noted that
the analyses presented'in this section are all based on the assumption that the
city and/or state approvals necessary to close the Miller Highway Northbound
exit ramp at 72nd Street will be closed. The closure of this ramp is not cer-
tain because it must undergo a discretionary approval action of its own.
Should this action not be approved by relevant agencies and the closure of this
ramp not be possible, the project would have to be redesigned, and undergo a
new review process.
Any work requiring a U.S. Army Corps permit would require water quality
~ertification. A State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit would be
required for anyon-site sewage plant discharge, if proposed.
I
Federal Approvals
•
Authorization would be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) for the construction of the project's pedestrian piers. Pier I would
~e rehabilitated under a nationwide permit from the Corps. In addition, the
approval of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation may be required in
connection with the stabilization of the West 69th Street transfer bridge.
B. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Land Use and Zoning
Land Use
Project Site
Phase I of the proposed project would completely alter land use on the
portion of the project site north of 64th Street, replacing currently vacant
land with a projected 3,100 of the project's 5,700 units, 90,600 zsf of profes-
sional office space, 57,600 zsf of retail space, and parking for approximately
2,000 vehicles. All the buildings would be constructed over the existing Am-
trak rail right-of-way. Every residential building would contain professional
office space, with retail space included on the ground floor of those buildings
along Freedom Place. An S.5-acre portion of the waterfront park west of the
Miller Highway would be developed during Phase I, including the rehabilitation
• of the existing 0.S6-acre Pier I, subject to approval by the U.S. Army Corps of
S-14
I
•
Engineers. In addition to the permanent waterfront elements of the park, sub-
ject to public safety considerations, a temporary open space would be created
on-site for public use; The location of that temporary space has not yet been
determined. The transfer bridge at West 69th Street would be retained and sta-
bilized, and the other dilapidated piers along the site's shore would be re-
tained but severed from the shoreline. A network of roads extending Riverside
Drive south and cross streets west onto the project site would be completed as
well.
Development during Phase II would complete the project south of 64th

Street and, with the exception of a studi%ffice complex proposed for the
southern end of the project site, would be similar to Phase I -- primarily
residential buildings with ground-floor and second-floor professional office
and retail space. The extension of Riverside Drive would continue south from
64th Street and, at completion, connect with Twelfth Avenue south of 59th
Street; cross streets would be extended west across the site south of 64th
Street as well. Phase II development would displace the existing uses on the
southern portion of the site -- Jay Gee Motorhomes, the now vacant Lifschultz
Fast Freight facility, and the Con Edison, U.S. Postal Service, and public
parking lots. In keeping with the overall plan for the project site, all but
one of the project parcels would be developed with a combination of residen-
tial, professional office,and/or retail use in buildings ranging from 4to-41
stories. The largest building site, Parcel N at the southern end of the proj-
ect site, would contain a commercial office building containing approximately
300,000 zsf of general office space, a nearly 1.B million-zsf studio complex,
and a below-grade, six-screen, 1,BOO-seat cineplex. Buildings facing Freedom
• Place South (on Parcels J, K, N, and 0) would contain ground-floor retail use,
extending south the retail strip developed on that plockfront during Phase I.
During Phase II, the balance of the proposed waterfront park and other elements
of the project's open space plan would be completed, as described above.
Study Area
I
Development of Phase I of the proposed project would be consistent with
land use patterns in the primary study area north of 72nd Street, and with
existing and evolving land use in the area east of the project site. Although
Phase I of the project would be markedly different in character from the pre-
dominantly industrial/commercial area south of 59th Street, because of the dis-
tance between the northern half of the project site and this area, there would
no land use impact. Phase I of the proposed project would likew~se be consis-
tent with land use in the ,northern and central portions of the secondary study
area, and distant enough from Clinton in the southern part of the secondary
study area to substantially reduce any potential land use impacts.
Like Phase I, the residential and open space components of Phase II of the
proposed project would be consistent with the residential neighborhood north of
72nd Street and with the existing and proposed development east of the project
site in the primary study area. The studio complex would be in keeping with
the established film/video/television uses that are located throughout the sub-
area south of 59th Street. The proposed project is not expected to affect land
use trends in the secondary study area, which is generally fully built-up and
•
relatively distant from the project site.
S-15
•
The extension of the city street grid to the project site and the creation
of the waterfront park would provide linkages to the surrounding neighborhoods
that do not now exist and would end the isolation of the project site from
those neighborhoods.
There would be no significant adverse land use impacts.
Population and Housing Density
With the completion of Phase I of the proposed project, the project site
would have 110 persons per acre compared with 167 persons per acre in the study
area. Housing density would be 55 units per acre on the project site and 113
units per acre in the study area.
In 2002, with completion of Phase II of the proposed project, there would

be 182 persons and 122 units per acre in the study area and 202 persons and 102 \
dwelling units per acre on the project site.
Zoning
The project site would be rezoned as RIO Infill as part of the proposed
project, except for the studio complex site where an existing C4-7 district
would be expanded to cover the entire parcel. A portion of Parcel I would be
zoned C4-2F. Except for the Riverside Drive frontage extending 75 feet to the
east on Parcels C-D, E-F, I, and J-K, a C2-5 overlay would cover most of Par~
cels A-K .
• The waterfront park would be mapped as public parkland (including the

upland area and a total of 49.6 acres of underwater land along the project
site's shoreline -- 18.5 acres belonging to the developer and 31.1 acres owned
by the city). The area east of Freedom Place South at about 62nd Street would
be mapped as a public access easement. In addition, the northern half of the
marine transfer station at 59th Street, currently a nonconforming use in a C-3
zone, would be zoned M2-3, to give the entire marine transfer station a single
conforming designation.
The proposed residential zoning would be consistent with the medium- to

high-density residential zoning in the northern portion of the study area,
parts of Lincoln Square, and Clinton. The commercial zoning on the studio par-
cel at the southern end of the project site would echo zoning found in parts of
Clinton, along Broadway in Lincoln Square, in the Columbus Circle area, and on
the Eighth Avenue blockfront in Clinton. The current and-proposed zoning would
be inconsistent with the low-density manufacturing zones mapped south of 59th
~treet, west of Tenth Avenue.
Deaographics and the Potential for Secondary Residential Displace.ent
The project would contain a mix of market-rate and affordable units. At

least 10 percent and as much as 20 percent of the total number of housing units
•
would be developed as affordable housing .
S-16
•
The precise breakdown of affordable housing units between low-, moderate-, and
middle-income units has not yet been established. Since household size tends
to be inversely proportional with income, to maximize project population and
therefore potential impacts, the EIS analysis assumes an SO-20 mix, with all of
the affordable units being low-income. For school analysis purposes (see sec-
tion on "Community Facilities and Services"), alternative mixes are analyzed.
Based on a household size of 1.S5 persons per market-rate unit (consistent

with figures from Battery Park City) and 2.56 persons per affordable unit (con-
sistent with Census Tract lSI, which contains the Amsterdam Houses), the esti-
mated 3,100 units to be developed in Phase I of the proposed project would
generate approximately 6,200 new residents, a 6.6 percent increase over 1997
conditions without the project. Phase II development of an additional 2,600
units would yield an estimated 5,150 new residents, for a project-generated
total of approximately 11,350 residents. Overall, conservatively assuming that
all of these new project residents would be new residents for the study area,
this would represent an increase of 11.6 percent over the population that would
exist in 2002 without the project. Residents of these market-rate units would
be expected to be relatively affluent, predominantly between 24 and 64 years
old, employed in managerial and professional positions, and consistent with the
area's existing character and demographic trends evolving in the area over the
past 20 ye~rs. Residents of the affordable units would be of a lower income
and likely to contain a higher proportion of children than the residents of the
market-rate units. The provision of affordable units would diversity the proj-
ect's population, making it more consistent with the overall population compo-
sition of the study area .
• The project would accelerate displacement pressures for residents of non-

rent-regulated apartments and residents of single-room-occupancy (SRO) dwell-
ings in the portion of the study area between 59th and 72nd Streets, west of
Amsterdam Avenue. This population, estimated at 960 residents, is concentrated
in the blocks between 70th and 72nd Streets west of Amsterdam Avenue. Dis-
placement impacts beyond this immediate area that could be attributed to the
proposed project would be limited by pre-existing neighborhood trends, which
have, over time, reduced the study area population most vulnerable to displace-
ment, and by ongoing market pressures that will continue to affect tenants in
the area in the future without the project.
The inclusion of affordable housing on-site would provide a measure of \

relief to the increased displacement pressure and may provide housing oppor-
tunities for those persons who would experience accelerated displacement pres-
sures as a result of the proposed project.
Community Facilities and Services
The proposed proj ect would add approximately 11,350 new residents and more I
than 6,SOO new workers to the project site and, consequently, would generate
additional demand on local community facilities and services.
•
The project would also provide about 163,400 square feet of professional
office space, much of which would likely be used for medical offices. Based on
agreements reached with the Manhattan Borough President's office, the project \
S-17
•
is committed to a community services marketing goal, under which the project
would seek to lease space to public or not-for-profit entities providing local/
neighborhood facilities as defined in New York City's fair share criteria for
the location of community facilities. Among the types of facilities eligible
for this space would be day care centers, senior centers, fire stations, police
precincts, local health centers, etc.
Police and Fire
According to the police department, new development does not always trans-
late into automatic increases in demand-for police services, since increased
development and the level of attendant activity in an area often leads to de-
creasing levels of criminal activity. The development of the proposed project
would bring pedestrian activity at all times of the day, which would enhance
the sense of security on and near the currently isolated project site. Any
decision to allocate additional personnel to the 20th Precinct as a result of
the proposed project would only be determined after the actual effect of the
project on service demands is determined and would require a shift of personnel
within the police department rather than the hiring of new officers.
The Fire Department has indicated that it has ·sufficient resources to

serve the proposed development and surrounding areas.
Public Schools
For purposes of estimating demand for public school space, two scenarios
•
have been analyzed. The first scenario assumes a unit mix of 90 percent mar-
ket-rate units and 10 percent low-income units. Under this scenario, at full
development, the proposed project would generate a total of 726 public school
students by 2002. Of these, 400 students would be generated in Phase I (210
elementary, 124 intermediate, and 66 high school students) and 326 in Phase II
(171 elementary, 100 intermediate, and 55 high school students). The second
scenario assumes a unit mix with 80 percent market-rate, 10 percent low-income,
5 percent moderate-income, and 5 percent middle-income units. Under this sce-
nario, at full build the project would generate a total of 844 public school
students by 2002. Of these, 463 students would be generated in Phase I (236
elementary, 140 intermediate, and 87 high school) and 381 students in Phase II
(194 elementary, 116 intermediate, and 71 high school).
Phase I -- 1997
While there would be overall capacity at elementary schools within School

District 3 in 1997, under either school scenario, elementary school students
generated by Phase I development would exacerbate overcrowded conditions at
catchment area schools (P.S. 191 and P.S. 199) where utilization would already
be pushed to more than 100 percent of capacity by students generated by 1997 No
Build projects and general background growth. This would be a significant imp-
act on public elementary school resources. The projected overcrowding at the
two elementary schools serving the project area could be potentially mitigated
by implementing a combination of administrative measures, including moving the
magnet intermediate school programs from one of the elementary schools to an-
other underutilized elementary or middle school in the district; consolidating
• S-18
•
or relocating administrative uses from schools, freeing space for either magnet
programs or some of the new students; shifting grades from P.S. 191 and P.S.
199 to underutilized schools within the district; and renting school space to
be constructed within the development, either within a proposed structure or in
a small, free-standing mini-school. As yet, none of these measures has been
approved by the Board of Education. If none of these initiatives is taken, the
proposed project would result in a significant unmitigated elementary school
seat impact.
The prospective reopening of J.H.S. 88 on West 114th Street and adminis-

trative actions on the part of school board 3, including converting all middle
schools in the district to free choice schools, would create sufficient capaci-
ty at district intermediate schools to accommodate students generated by 1997
No Build projects and students generated by Phase I of the proposed project
under either school scenario. The district would be required to rearrange
intermediate school attendance patterns so as to avoid overcrowding at the
schools nearest the project.
New York City public high school students may attend any citywide high
school. Therefore, project-generated public high school students would not be
expected to affect conditions at public high schools in 1997. In addition, the
Board of Education is currently exploring the addition of 3-,000 public high
school seats in Manhattan -- 2,000 at the former John Jay annex at 444 West
56th Street and 1,000 seats at 10 Union Square East. These are in addition to
the 700 high school seats projected at J.H.S. 88. Combined, these would add
capacity to existing overcrowded high schools in Manhattan .
• Phase II - - 2002
Given an overall projected shortfall in both elementary and intermediate

school seats in School District 3 in the future without the project, project-
generated elementary and intermediate school students under either school sce-
nario would have a significant impact on elementary school resources by exacer-
bating conditions of overcrowding that are projected to exist in the future
without the project. These impacts could not be mitigated by administrative
means, and would require the provision of additional school seats on-site. To
mitigate these impacts, the developer has agreed to provide space on-site for
lease or sale at fair market rate to the Board of Education that would be able
to accommodate up to 600 elementary school seats. Under both scenarios, this
added space would be sufficient to accommodate all project-generated elementary
school students as well as the equivalent of most. project-generated intermedi-
ate school students.. Under this arrangement, the district could shift other
off-site elementary school students to the project site and accommodate pro-
ject-generated intermediate school students in other schools off-site. Without
a commitment from the Board of Education to such a shift, the proposed project
would have an unmitigated adverse impact on intermediate school capacity in
2002. Without a commitment from the Board of Education to lease or purchase
school space on-site, the proposed project would have an unmitigated adverse
impact on both elementary and intermediate school capacity.
As with Phase I, project-generated public high school students would not
•
be expected to affect public high schools .
S-19
•
Public and Private Day Care Facilities
Project households and workers would create additional demand for both
private and public day care. Increased demand for private day care facilities 1
would likely be met by new or expanded private day care facilities responding
I
to the market for additional services. The provision of additional public day
care is dependent on the provision of public funding from the Agency for Child
Development. Both public and private day care are eligible facilities pursuant
to the project's community services marketing goal.
Public Libraries
The increase in demand for library services expected with the proposed
project would be somewhat ameliorated by the recent expansion of the Riverside \
branch of the New York Public Library and the expected expansion of the Per-
forming Arts Library before the completion of Phase I. Barring any further
curtailment in service hours as a result of New York City budget cuts, area
libraries would be able to adequately serve the project population.
,
Health Care Facilities
The new residents and workers generated by the proposed project would gen-
erate a need for approximately 53 hospital beds -- 23 for Phase I and 30 addi-
tional for Phase II. This demand would be spread over a number of hospitals in
Manhattan, including the two closest, St. Clare's and Roosevelt Hospitals,
which have adequate capacity to serve the project demand. The medical office
•
space planned as part of the proposed project would also serve project resi-
dents and workers.
Urban Design and Visual Character
Urban Design Relationship of the Proposed Project

to the Surrounding Area -- 1997
Urban Form
The proposed project would be constructed at grade with the existing

neighborhood to the east and would reestablish the street grid and standard
size blocks, consistent with development patterns on the Upper West Side, but
inconsistent with the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area,. which is character-
ized by superblock developments and awkwardly shaped blocks created by Broad-
way. The extension of Riverside Drive, like Riverside Drive to the north of
72nd Street, would create a curved border to the project site much like the
built environment of the Upper West Side. By placing residential towers across
from park space, the project would be similar in form to the pattern of devel-
opment along both Riverside Drive and Central Park West. Because of the dis-
tance between the Phase I development and the Clinton subarea, the project
would have no substantive relationship with or effect on the urban form of the
Clinton subarea of the study area.
• S-20
Buildings
The project's Phase I buildings would have a consistent streetwall of 14

stories along Riverside Drive, with slender towers ranging up to 49 stories.
On the side streets east of Riverside Drive and along Freedom Place, the proj-
ect's buildings would be four and five stories. While maintaining a consistent
streetwallheight, many of the proposed structures would be substantially tall-
er than the majority of structures in the immediate area. Some of the Phase I
buildings would be 7 to 29 stories taller than the pre-war buildings on the
Upper West Side, but comparable in height with the 28- and·29-story buildings
of Lincoln Towers, between 70th and 66th Streets, and with the buildings con-
structed to the east over the past 20 years, generally between 25 and 50 sto-
ries high. They would also be fairly similar in scale to the towers proposed
in the future for the Manhattan West and Capital Cities/ABC projects, between
6lst and 65th Streets adjacent to the project site, and the tower proposed for
the site along the east side of West End Avenue between 60th and 6lst Streets.
Although taller than many buildings of the Upper West Side, the project
would be similar in character to the Upper West Side. Buildings would present
a consistent streetwall, without breaks, built to the property line, consistent
with the pattern of the Upper West Side, but very different from that of Colum-
bus Circle/Lincoln Square area. Larger buildings would line the major avenues
and ,cross streets, with smaller, town house-like structures on the side
streets.
The project's Large Scale Special Permit Controls would ensure that the
•
project reflects and reinforces the character'of the Upper West Side. At the
north end, the design of the proposed project would defer to the existing
neighborhood to the north, particularly 72nd Street and Riverside Drive. The
project's northernmost building would curve around the corner from West 72nd
Street to the new extension of Riverside Drive at the same height as the
Chatsworth Apartments, appearing as a continuation of the mid-rise streetwall
along both Riverside Drive and 72nd Street. This curved streetwall would con-
tinue along the new Riverside Drive, with slender towers set back from the
streetwall. On the side streets and along Freedom Place, four- to six-story
buildings would be consistent with the Upper West Side's pattern of low-rise
town houses in the midblocks. Project buildings would present a l4-story 1
streetwall on wider crosstown streets (72nd and 70th Streets) and on 64th
Street, also consistent with existing patterns on the Upper West Side.
The project's buildings would contrast with many of the buildings in the
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area, generally bulky structures without set-
backs located in the midst of large-scale developments or set in urban plazas.
These buildings do not form a consistent streetwall or create a coherent
streetscape. In contrast, the project buildings would form a consistent
streetwall without urban plazas, and would set back to rise in slender towers.
Because it would not include such urban plazas, the project would create a
denser urban environment than is common in the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square
area.
Natural Features
• During Phase I, the park's waterfront elements would be completed, includ-

ing a 0.6-mile-long waterfront esplanade, a rehabilitated Pier I, and two new
S-2l
pedestrian piers 10 feet wide and approximately 500 feet long. Public access
• to the waterfront between 64th and 72nd Streets would be available for the
first time. The project's waterfront walkway would extend the publicly acces-
sible waterfront and natural area in the neighborhood by more than half a mile.
From the new park, the river and the Palisades would be visible.
Visual Character
The development completed in Phase I would appear as an extension to the

existing urban streetscape, replacing a depressed, largely vacant site with a
new street grid and buildings at grade with the surrounding neighborhood. The
project would continue Manhattan's street grid onto the site north of 64th
Street and create a coherent streetwall extending along a new extension to
Riverside Drive from the existing buildings on 72nd Street south to 64th
Street. With new retail uses, landscaping, small parks, and a section of the
large waterfront park, it would create an active edge to the city from an area
that is now desolate and inaccessible.
Changes proposed for Freedom Place would enliven that little-used street.
The project would tie Freedom Place into the new street grid, and would change
its character by adding new low-rise buildings along its western side, where a
wall currently separates the stree~ from the vacant project site below.
Views and View Corridors
In Phase I, the project would extend 7lst, 70th, 69th, 68th, 67th, 66th,
•
and 65th Streets as either public streets or private drives. All existing view
corridors down those streets would be maintained. The new project buildings to
the west of the existing street grid termination would be visible, generally
extending and framing the existing view corridors. The buildings of Phase I
would generally appear as continuations of existing view corridors on 72nd,
7lst, 70th, and 66th Streets; views from east of Freedom Place along 69th,
68th, and 67th Streets are currently blocked by Lincoln Towers, and 65th Street
is blocked by the existing ABC facility. In locations adjacent to the project
site -- most notably, along Freedom Place -- wide open views of the sky and
water that are currently available would be partly blocked, and view corridors
would be created down the new side streets. Views from some apartments in
Lincoln Towers and other nearby apartment buildings would be similarly
affected.
Shadows
Phase I's buildings -- all project buildings north of 64th Street -- would
cast new shadows. When considering shadows on the new waterfront park, only
the area west of the elevated Miller Highway -- which is the area to be com-
pleted in Phase I -- should be considered. Project shadows would not reach
Central Park or New Jersey at any time of the year.
The year's shortest shadows are cast on the summer solstice, June 21, when
the sun is highest in the sky. At 9 AM Daylight Savings Time (DST) , project
shadows and those cast by the Miller Highway would fall westward onto much of
the new waterfront section of the park. By 10:30 AM, almost the entire water-
• front section of the park would be in sunlight. Shadows would virtually disap-
pear by 12 noon and would remain very small through the afternoon. The project
S-22
•
would not add incremental shadows to Riverside Park, the park to be built be-
tween 63rd and 64th Streets as part of the Manhattan West project, or any other
publicly accessible open spaces during the summer solstice.
For the spring and fall equinoxes (March 21 and September 21), shadows are
basically the same, except that in September, Daylight Savings Time is ob-
served, so that these shadows would occur one hour later than in March. For
this analysis, March shadows were assessed, since warm sunny areas are more ap-
preciated during the colder spring days than during warm fall days. At 9 AM
Eastern Standard Time (EST) on March 21, shadows cast by the proposed buildings
and the Miller Highway would cover extensive areas of the waterfront park.
These shadows would be gone by 10:30 AM, and the waterfront walkway would re-
main sunlit the rest of the day. In the afternoons, incremental shadows would
move across the southern end of Riverside Park beginning shortly before 1:30 PM
and leaving the park after 3 PM. This part of the park is used by area resi-
dents, particularly the elderly, for sitting in the sun. Some additional shad-
1
ows would be cast by the project at 3 PM on the Lincoln Towers open space above
Freedom Place. No other open spaces would be affected.
The project would cast new shadows on the western face and roof of the
Chatsworth Apartments at 1:30 and 3 PM on March 21, and on the roofs and possi-
bly the faces of part of the West nst-Street Historic District at 3 PM. The
street would already be shaded by existing buildings at that time.
On December 21, the year's shortest day, the sun would be low in the sky,
creating the year's longest shadows, which also last for the shortest duration.
•
Particularly toward the tip of the shadOW, the effect would be fleeting, last-
ing only minutes. Morning shadows would cover virtually the entire waterfront
walkway at 9 AM on December 21 and much of the walkway would rema~n in shadow
at 10:30 AM. By noon, about half of the walkway would be in sunlight, and all
of it would be sunny from before 1:30 PM through the afternoon. The project
would also create certain incremental shadows off-site. At 10:30 AM and noon,
certain additional shadows would be cast on the lower waterfront sections of
Riverside Park, west of the Henry Hudson Parkway, extending to 74th Street in
one area at 10:30 AM. These shadows would be moving quickly, and by 1:30 PM,
the incremental shadows would be to the east of the highway. At 3 PM on Decem-
I
ber 21, the project would add only a narrow strip of shade to the existing
shadows in the southeastern portion of Riverside Park,- extending to 75th
Street. No other open spaces would be affected. Shadows would be cast on the
western face and roof of the Chatsworth Apartments and on the roofs and some of
I
the faces of part of the West 7lst Street Historic District at that time; the
street and courtyards would already be shaded by existing buildings.

Between 1997 and 2002, the remaining sections of the project are expected
to be completed. This includes all of the development parcels located south of
64th Street and the balance of the waterfront park. Like Phase I, the proposed
project's Phase II would change the visual character and context of the project
site and adjacent areas by replacing a large area used primarily for parking
•
with a new development .
S-23
•
Urban Form
With the exception of 60th Street, the Phase II development would extend
the existing city street grid onto the project site. The buildings in Phase II
would be built along Riverside Drive and a new street, Freedom Place South,
which would run parallel to West End Avenue between the project and the pro-
posed Manhattan West project (from 64th to 6lst Street). Between 59th and 6lst
Streets, a superblock would be created along West End Avenue to allow for the
proposed commercial/studio building. On the Riverside Drive extension, 60th
Street would be visually represented by a walkway to the new studio building.
Sixty-second Street would be an unmapped pedestrian street.
The extension of Riverside Drive, the placement of residential buildings

fronting along the new park between 59th and 64th Streets, and the location of
low-rise residential buildings on side streets would continue to reflect the
urban form of the Upper West Side. As in Phase I, the project's standard-size
blocks broken by a regular street grid would establish a pattern very different
from the current urban form of the surrounding Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square
neighborhood, which is characterized by superblocks. On the other hand, the
creation of the project's superblock between 59th and 60th Streets would be
similar to the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area nearby, but would contrast
with the predominant urban form of the Upper West Side, to the'north, and Clin-
ton, to the south. The extension of Riverside Drive, like Riverside Drive to
the north of 72nd Street, would create a curved border to the project site much
like the built environment of the Upper West Side. By placing residential
towers across from park space, the project would be similar in form to the pat-
•
tern of development along both Riverside Drive and Central Park West .
Buildings
Along the extension to Riverside Drive, the curving row of residential

buildings would continue south. As in Phase I, these buildings would present a
14-story streetwall, above which towers would rise. These towers would step
down from north to south in response to the narrowing of the park, with 41-
story double towers at 64th Street, decreasing to 18 stories at 59th Street.
\
Bu!ldings on the side streets between 64th and 6lst Streets would generally be
4, 5, or 14 stories, with two notable exceptions: on the corners of 63rd and I
6lst Streets with Freedom Place South would be a total of three 28-story tow-
ers. Between 6lst and 59th Streets east of the new Riverside Drive, the proj-
ect would create a superblock occupied by a large 8-story studio building with
two office towers rising 22 stories above the studio base along West End
Avenue.
The buildings developed in Phase II would be similar in scale to the proj-

ect buildings just to their north, and, like the Phase I buildings, would also
be similar in scale to the buildings proposed as part of the Manhattan West and
Capital Cities/ABC projects to their east, and the tall towers of the Columbus
Circle/Lincoln Square area that have been built over the past 20 years, includ-
ing the nearby Lincoln Towers buildings. The project's towers would be consid-
erably taller than the low-rise industrial buildings to the south and would in-
clude some buildings that are considerably taller than many existing pre-war
•
buildings on the Upper West Side. The four- and five-story buildings proposed
for most of the side streets would be consistent with the scale in Clinton and
on the side streets of the Upper West Side.
S-24
• project would have a similar character to that of the Upper West Side. Build-
ings would present a consistent streetwall, without breaks, built to the prop-
erty line, similar to the pattern throughout the Upper West Side and, general-
ly, in Clinton, but very different from that of Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square.
Larger buildings would line the major avenues and cross streets, with smaller,
town house-like structures on the side streets, like development on the Upper
West Side but completely unlike the pattern in Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square
or in Clinton.
As in Phase I, the project's buildings would contrast with many of the

buildings in the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area, which do not form a cohe-
sive pattern but tend to be bulky structures without setbacks located in the
midst of large-scale developments or set in urban plazas. The project build-
ings would form a consistent streetwall without urban plazas, and would set
back to rise in slender towers. Because it would not include such urban pla-
zas, the project would create a denser urban environment than is common in the
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area.
Natural Features
After completion of Phase II, more thana half a mile of waterfront and a
25-acre park would be accessible to the public on the project site. The proj-
ect's new waterfront park would extend the existing Riverside Park southward
from 72nd Street fo 59th Street, establishing public access to a previously
inaccessible waterfro~t location and providing linkages between the Clinton
•
community to the south and the Upper West Side to the north. From the park,
eye-level views of the river and Palisades would be available. The park would
be accessible by bridges and paths leading from the new east-west cross
streets, as well as from the north and south. Extension of the street grid
would invite the pedestrian into the park by making the waterfront and natural
area visible from some distance away.
Visual Character
Phase II of the proposed project would tie together the diverse neighbor-
hoods surrounding the project site -- the Upper West Side, which would be con-
tinued into the project site along the extension to Riverside Drive; Columbus
Circle/Lincoln Square, which would relate to the new Freedom Place South; and
Clinton, which would be linked to the project site through the studio building
and low-rise residential buildings at the southern end of the site. With com-
pletion of the project, Manhattan's urban streetscape would be extended.
The proposed project would transform the currently isolated, inaccessible,

and desolate project site into an active mixed-use community at the western
edge of Lincoln Square. In contrast with existing conditions, the proposed
project would be linked to the surrounding communities in several ways: it
would be constructed at grade with the existing neighborhood to the east; the
existing Manhattan street grid would be extended onto the project site; River-
side Drive and Riverside Park would be extended south from 72nd Street through
the site to 59th Street; and the streetscape, particularly around Freeqom
Place, would be enlivened, creating an appealing entrance into the project site
• and its waterfront park .
S-25
The pedestrian environment throughout the project site would be enlivened
• through the inclusion of ground-floor retail and cultural uses as well as spe-
cial landscaping treatments designed by the Riverside South Arts Program.
Phase II of the proposed project would develop all project parcels south
of 64th Street. All existing view corridors down east-west streets except 60th
Street would be maintained. Views down these streets would be narrowed and
framed by the project buildings, and view corridors would be extended with the
addition of project streets. The existing view corridor down 60th Street would
be blocked. Where wide vistas of sky are currently visible past existing unde-
veloped land, the project would add buildings ranging in heights between 14 and 1
41 stories. Along West End Avenue, wide open views of the sky and water that
are currently available would be partly blocked by the proposed Manhattan West
and Capital Cities/ABC projects and by the project's studio building between
59th and 61st Streets, but views would still be available down the new side
streets. Views from apartments along West End Avenue would be similarly
affected.
Panoramic views of the Hudson River and the New Jersey Palisades would be
available from the waterfront park and from most of the extension ,of Riverside
Drive. The available views would be greatest from points near the shoreline
and would extend north and south along the river as well as westward to New
Jersey. From some areas, including the southern end of the site, views to the
southwest would be partially obstructed by the Department of Sanitation pier at
•
59th Street, as they are now .
Shadows
As in Phase I, at project completion, no project shadows would reach Cen-

tral Park or New Jersey at any time of the year.
At 9 AM Daylight Savings Time (DST) on June 21, project shadows and those
cast by the existing Miller Highway would fall westward onto much of the new
waterfront park. By 10:30 AM, the shadows would be greatly reduced, covering a
much smaller portion of the waterfront park. The entire waterfront section of
the park would be in sunlight as would much of the central lawn. Shadows would
virtually disappear by noon, except under the Miller Highway, and would remain,
essentially non-existent at 1:30 PM and 3 PM. The entire park would be in
sunshine during afternoon hours, except under the Miller Highway. Thus, at the
time of the year and times of the day when shadows could be most potentially
intrusive, the shadows cast by the proposed project would be virtually unno-
ticeable. The project would not add incremental shadows to Riverside Park, the
park to be built between 63rd and 64th Streets as part of the Manhattan West
project, or any other publicly accessible open spaces during the summer sol-
stice. At 9 AM, small incremental shadows would be cast on the historic Con Ed
power house, but these would be gone well before 10:30 AM.
At 9 AM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on March 21, shadows cast by the pro-
posed buildings and the existing Miller Highway would cover extensive areas of
the waterfront park. The shadows would shorten as the day progressed and vir-
• tually all of the waterfront park would be bathed in sunshine by noon, except
S-26
•
the area under the highway. In the afternoon~, incremental shadows would move
across the southern end of Riverside Park beginning shortly before 1:30 PM and
leaving the park after"3 PM. This portion of Riverside Park, which is used by
area residents -- particularly the elderly -- for sitting, would already be
partially shaded by existing buildings. Some additional shadows would be cast
1
by the project at 3 PM on the Manhattan West open space, which would already be I
extensively" in shade without the proposed project, and on the Lincoln Towers
open space above Freedom Place. No other open spaces would be affected. The
project would cast new shadows on the western face and roof of the Chatsworth
Apartments at 1:30 and 3 PM on March 21, and on the roofs and possibly the
faces of part of the West 7lst Street Historic District at 3 PM. The street
would already be shaded by existing buildings at that time.
On December 21, the year's shortest day, the sun would be low in the sky,
creating very long but quickly moving shadows. Morning shadows would cover
virtually the entire waterfront park at 9 AM on December 21 and much of the
park would remain in shadow at 10:30 AM. A small portion of the park would be
in sunlight at noon. Much of the park would be in sunshine at 1:30 PM, and by
3 PM, the new park would be covered in sunshine. The project would create cer-
tain incremental shadows off-site when compared with conditions in the future
without the project. At 10:30 AM and noon, certain additional shadows wou~d be
cast on the lower waterfront sections of Riverside Park, west of the Henry Hud-
son Parkway (stretching to 74th Street by noon). These shadows would be moving "I
quickly, and by 1:30 PM, the incremental shadows would be to the east of the
highway, stretching to 75th Street. At 3 PM on December 21, the project would J
add only a narrow strip of additional shadow to the existing shadow in the
• southeastern portion of Riverside Park, also stretching to 75th Street. This

part of the park is used for sitting by area residents, particularly the elder-
ly. The project would also cast incremental shadow on the small unshaded por-
tion of the Manhattan West Park at 3 PM on December 21. No other open spaces
would be affected. Shadows would be cast on the western face and roof of the
Chatsworth Apartments and on the roofs and some of the faces of part of the
I
West 7lst Street Historic District at that time; the street and coti~tyards
would already be shaded by existing buildings.
Relocation of the Miller Highway
The analysis provided above, including the description of view corridors

and shadows, assumes the continuing presence of the elevated Miller Highway
across the site. However, as a result of an action separate and independent
from the proposed project, the Miller Highway may be relocated to the area
beneath and adjacent to the proposed extension of Riverside Drive.
Effects on the Project Site
From a design point of view, the major changes created by the relocation
of the highway would be the eventual demolition of the existing Miller Highway,
which provides both a visual and physical barrier to the waterfront, and in the
design of the waterfront park. The two different park alternatives -- with and
without relocation of the highway -- are described above under "Project
Description."
• S-27
•
Relocation of the Miller Highway would change the visual character of the
project site. The proposed project's buildings would be more visually con-
nected to the waterfront and the new park without the elevated highway, and the
park would be in sunlight for a greater part of the day. The relocation of the
highway would not affect the location, bulk, or massing of the project's build-
ings; the project's internal street grid, including the extension of Riverside
Drive south from 72nd Street to 59th Street and other east-west streets; or the
phasing of construction.
Urban Design Relationship to the Surrounding Area
The relocation of the highway would not affect the conclusions regarding
the project's relationship to the urban form of the surrounding neighborhoods.
The buildings on the project site would not be changed as a result of the relo-
cation of the highway and therefore the project's effects with or without the
relocation of the highway would be the same. A waterfront park would be devel-
oped on the project site whether or not the Miller Highway is eventually relo-
cated. The relocation of the highway provides an opportunity for creating a
cohesive park with greater visual and physical access to the waterfront and
would add a greater natural amenity to the area. With the highway relocated,
the park would provide a higher quality experience for park users. The park
would have a markedly different character because the elevated highway would
not run across the site; instead the highway would be hidden in a depression.
None of the park features would be beneath the elevated structure, and the
highway would no longer dominate views from the park. There would be unob-
structed views of the riverfront instead. Park users would no longer sense the
•
presence of traffic, and would feel removed from the city.
The relocation of the Miller Highway, the demolition of the existing high-
way, and the creation of a waterfront park with unimpeded access to the water-
front would enhance the visual quality of the study area when compared with
future conditions with the highway remaining in place.
The effect on view corridors would be basically unchanged whether or not

the Miller Highway is relocated, except that with the relocation of the highway
and the demolition of the existing highway, the elevated highway would no lon-
ger be visible at the end of each street. This change would be most noticeable
from locations closest to the project site and would be nearly imperceptible
from locations farther east. In addition, down several streets in the middle
of the site, notably 66th Street, views of the river would be partially blocked
by the berm in the proposed park, which would rise as high as 15 feet above the
grade of the new Riverside Drive extension.
With the exception of shadows cast by the Miller Highway on the project's
waterfront park, there would be no substantial difference in the shadows cast
by the project with the highway in place or with the highway relocated. At all
times of the year and at all times of the day, the relocation of the highway
would eliminate shadows cast by the existing Miller Highway on the new water-
front park.
• S-28
Neighborhood Character
• The proposed project would substantially change the character of the proj-
ect site and its relationship to the surrounding neighborhood by transforming
an isolated, predominantly vacant site into a large-scale, predominantly resi-
dential community that would be physically linked with the surrounding neigh-
borhoods. The linkages would be created through the extension of the city's
existing street grid (including Riverside Drive) to the project site and the
creation of a large park along the waterfront. The project would add a signif-
icant amount of building bulk, population, and economic activity to this area.
It would also add a substantial amount of affordable housing that would be con-
sistent with other affordable housing projects in the general study area.
The Phase I development would be consistent with and enhance the character
of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area. The uses and building heights of
the project are expected to be similar to the uses and building heights added
to the area over the past two decades. While the population attracted to the
proposed project is expect~d to be consistent with the character of residents
attracted to the area over the last two decades, the provision of affordable
units would diversify the project's population. Nonetheless, the Phase I de-
velopment would also accelerate displacement pressures for certain low- and
moderate-income residents of the area, principally residents of hotels immedi-
ately east of the project site. The project would provide area residents with
•
access to the waterfront as well. In terms of built form, the project would be
more consistent with that of Central Park West than with the rest of the Colum-
bus Circle/Lincoln Square area, which is dominated by large superblocks and an
irregular grid. In its design, the project would reflect the character of the
Upper West Side by extending the city grid and Riverside Drive onto the project
site, and placing taller buildings along that north-south street and along wide
cross streets, with shorter buildings on the side streets. Building heights
would be taller than those found on the Upper West Side. The extension of the
waterfront park to 59th Street would enhance the character of the Clinton com-
munity by providing an amenity that is currently lacking.
In Phase II, side street development would be similar to low-rise build-

ings found in Clinton, while taller buildings would be inconsistent with most
of Clinton,but more consistent with the buildings of the'Columbus Circle/Lin-
coln Square area. The provision of affordable units would add a population on-
site that would better reflect the population composition of Clinton than
strictly market-rate development. The superblock development proposed for the
southern end of the site would be taller than most development in Clinton, and
would echo a common element of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area, where
superblocks are frequent. The extension of Riverside Drive, the placement of
residential buildings facing a new park, and the location of low-rise residen-
tial buildings along the side streets would continue to reflect the character
of the Upper West Side .
• S-29
Waterfront Revitalization Plan
• In general, the project would be consistent with the policies of New York
City's Waterfront Revitalization Plan. The proposed project would restore and
revitalize an underused waterfront area and repair and replace protective wa-
terfront structures. The project would also increase public access to the
waterfront where none currently exists by creating a large waterfront park I
along the entire length of the project site's shoreline.
The project would include a water-enhanced shoreline park, and as part of

the park, Pier I at 70th Street would be renovated (subject to nationwide ap-
proval from the Corps).' Other water-dependent uses, such as fishing, would not
be precluded. Overall, the project would neither promote nor adversely affect
the development of New York Harbor as a center of commerce.
Open Space and Recreation
The proposed project would develop 25 acres of publicly accessible open

space, a nearly 32 percent increase in open space :f..nventory of the residential
study area in the future without the project and an approximately 135 percent
increase in the future open space inventory in the commercial open space study
area. Most of the park space would be included in a 2l.5-acre waterfront park. I
•
The project has been designed with two alternative park plans -- one in
which the Miller Highway would be relocated in-board to a location below and
b~side the new extension of Riverside Drive, and one in which the existing
elevated highway remains in place. These plans are described above under
"Project Description."
By 1997, the project would add approximately 6,200 new residents and 765
I
new workers to the project site. They would require a total of 15.6 acres of
publicly accessible open space to meet the city's guidelines -- 12.4 acres of
active open space and 3.1 acres of passive open space for residents, and 0.1
acres of passive open space for workers. The project would provide 6.8 acres
of passive open space during Phase I, thereby meeting the passive open space
demand of both residents and workers. By providing 1.7 acres of active open
space, there would be a shortfall of 10.7 acres of active open space on-site.
Nevertheless, Phase I of the proposed project would result in an increase in
the active open space ratio in the residential study area 'from 0.19 in the
future without the project to 0.20 with the project.
1
)A
By 2002, the project would add approximately 11,350 new residents and
6,800 new workers to the project site. This would, require a total of 29.40
acres of open space, including 22.7 acres of active open space and 5.7 acres of
passive open space to meet the needs of project residents and 1.00 acre of
\
passive open space to meet the needs of project workers. By providing between
18.0 and 22.0 acres of passive space (depending on whether or not the highway
is relocated), the project would more than adequately meet the added demands
for passive recreational space for both its residents and workers. Phase II of
\
• the proposed project would provide approximately 3.0 acres of active open
S-30
space, resulting in a shortfall of 19.7 acres of active open space for on-site
• residents. However, the active open space ratio in the study area would im-
prove from 0.18 acres to 0.19 acres per thousand residents.
In the event that certain required U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authoriza-
tions are not granted for certain waterfront elements of the park, approximate-
ly 1.7 acres of passive recreational space would not be developed. Despite
this decrease in acreage, the passive open space ratios would remain adequate
to meet the need generated by the project's Phase I residents and workers and
would still improve future open space ratios.
The developer is proposing to contribute 50 percent of the maintenance

costs associated with the proposed waterfront park. At this time, there is no
formal agreement with the Parks Department or any other entity to provide the
funding for the remaining 50 percent of the maintenance costs. If no commit-
ment is made, there would be an adverse open space effect.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
Historic Resources
Historic resources near the project site include Riverside Park and Drive,
which are designated New York City Landmarks and listed on the State and
National Registers of Historic Places; four town houses at the corner of River-
•
side Drive and West 72nd Street -- Nos. 309 and 311 West 72nd Street and One
and Three Riverside Drive -- which are New York City Landmarks; the Chatsworth
Apartments and Annex, also a New York City Landmark, listed on the State Regis-
ter of Historic Places, and eligible for listing on the National Register; the
West 7lst Street Historic District (a New York City Landmark Historic Dis-
trict); and the Consolidated Edison Power House, which- has been found eligible
for the State and National Registers and is being considered for designation as
a New York City Landmark. In addition, the West 69th Street transfer bridge on
th~ project site's shoreline has been found eligible for listing on the State
and National Registers of Historic Places. Development of the proposed project
would not involve any physical impacts to these resources -- i.e., alteration
or demolition -- but would alter their contexts by converting a large predomi-
nantly vacant site to part of the urban streetscape. However, the project has
been designed with these historic resources in mind.
The northern part of the project's waterfront park w~uld act as an exten-
sion of Riverside Park, and the connection between the two facilities would be
designed to respect the historic integrity of Riverside Park. Within the park,
the West 69th Street transfer bridge would be retained and stabilized.
The project's Large Scale Special Permit Controls would be more specific
for parcels close to historic buildings than for other" development parcels." In
addition to controlling maximum bulk, height, and building envelope, they would
specify streetwall conditions -- including characteristics of the base, expres-
sion lines, and setbacks. On the project's northernmost block, a l4-story
building would curve from West 72nd Street (next to the Chatsworth) onto the
new extension of Riverside Drive. This would be consistent with the l3-story
Chatsworth Apartments and the "mid-rise curving streetwall along Riverside
S-3l
Drive. The Large Scale Special Permit Controls would mandate streetwall condi-
• tions that would reinforce the character of the 72nd Street streetwall by
matching the base, expression lines, setback, and bay window characteristics of
the Chatsworth Apartments. Next to the West 7lst Street Historic District,
project buildings would be four stories, reflecting the four-story midblock
town houses in the district. At the corner of the new Riverside Drive exten-
sion would be taller buildings, similar to the development pattern throughout
the Upper West Side. A barrier on 7lst Street between the existing and new
street would prevent through traffic along 7lst Street and ensure that the his-
toric district maintain the special character enhanced by its quiet dead-end
street.
The southern end of the proposed project would be compatible with the Con
Edison Power House. Buildings at this end of the project would not be taller
than the power house's imposing stacks, and the project's Large Scale Special
Permit Controls would ensure their compatibility with the power house.
The proposed project would add certain incremental shadows on the nearby
historic resources. These are discussed above under "Urban Design and Visual
Quality." They would not have a significant adverse impact on those historic
resources.
Construction activity for relocation of the highway would have temporary

effects on Riverside Park adjacent to the highway right-of-way between 72nd and
75th Streets. Riverside Park is a New York City Landmark and is listed on the
State 'and National Registers of Historic Places. When the highway relocation
•
is completed, the Henry Hudson Parkway from 72nd to 75th Street would be lower
than it is now. This lowering in elevation would involve removing the massive
arches that support the roadway. Therefore, the relocation of the highway
could have impacts on Riverside Park with respect to views from the park of and
over the highway.
Archaeological Resources
Archaeological studies have indicated that there may be prehistoric ar-

chaeological resources in two locations on the site. Development of the pro-
posed project would disturb or destroy those resources, resulting in a poten-
tially significant archaeological impact. To mitigate this significant impact,
the developer has agreed to have archaeological testing performed iri those lo-
cations before construction to determine the presence or absence of subsurface
resources.
Economic Conditions
Construction Period Impacts
The total economic activity generated by the construction of the proposed

project is estimated at $4 billion in New York State, $3.2 billion of which
would be spent within New York City. This would result in approximately 27,000
•
person years of employment within New York City (18,600 person years from di-
rect construction activity and 8,400 person years from generated activity,
i.e., jobs in businesses providing goods and services to contractors) and $222
million in tax revenues, of which New York State would receive approximately 68
S-32
percent ($51 million) and New York City 32 percent ($71 million) of the tax
• revenues.
Operational Impacts
The proposed project would require the displacement of existing businesses

on the project site, which together currently employ an estimated 20 workers.
It is estimated that 765 permanent jobs would be added to the project site
during Phase I, including approximately 170 jobs related to the project's re-
tail space, an estimated 380 jobs in the professional office space, and 215
building maintenance and other jobs related to the residential and professional
office components of the project. During Phase II, an additional 6,050 jobs
would be added on-site, including 1,320 resulting from the commercial office
development, 240 workers in the retail space, 4,000 employees in the studio
building, 300 employees in the professional office space, and 185 building
maintenance and other workers. Thus, the total employment on the project site
as a result of the proposed project would be about 6,700 jobs. It is assumed
that most of the retail, professional office, and building maintenance jobs
would represent new jobs for the city, while most of the new on-site office and
studio jobs would represent a shift of existing jobs within the city. The con-
struction of new, modern studio facilities could retain jobs in New York City
that might otherwise relocate out of the city.
Given the vast increase in economic activity on-site, substantial addi-

tional tax revenues would be generated for the city. It can reasonably be as-
•
sumed that the assessed value of the project site, currently about $43.9 mil-
lion, would increase substantially on project completion. In the event that
tax abatements are sought, initial increases in real estate taxes would be re-
duced. Non-real estate taxes, such as resident income taxes, taxes on wages
and salaries, and sales, corporate income, and occupancy taxes from the activi-
ties that occur on the site, would also be expected to' increase substantially.
These would represent net increases for the city and state to the extent that
the project attracts new residents and jobs to the city and state.
The development of the proposed project would generate additional local-

ized demand for city services. The extent to which this added localized demand
translates irito additional outlays for the city would depend on whether the
city has the capacity to shift existing resources to the area from other loca-
tions, or whether there would be added needs for personnel, equipment, or new
facilities. Areas where the city can expect to incur additional costs include
park and street maintenance and sanitation.
Retail Study Area
The main issue related to potential impacts of the proposed project on the
area's retail base is the extent to which retail space provided on-site would
serve the needs of project residents and workers. An analysis of the potential
expenditures of Phase I residents indicates a total expenditure potential of
$37.0 million for select categories of convenience retail goods and services,
of which an estimated $18.0 million is projected to be spent on-site. This
•
would translate into a demand for approximately 57,000 square feet of retail
space, approximately equal to the amount of retail space provided in Phase I.
It can therefore be reasonably concluded that the Phase I retail development
would not require the capture of substantial dollars from off-site residents
S-33
and existing retailers and that the day-to-day retail needs of project resi-
• dents could be met on-site without adding demand to already heavily used off-
site retail stores.
Retail uses to be added during Phase II would be oriented to the needs of

residents and to workers and visitors in the studi%ffice complex. Project
residents would create a total demand for approximately 104,000 square feet of
neighborhood retail/service uses, representing approximately 75 percent of the
above-grade retail space provided by the project. The balance of the demand
would be generated by workers and visitors to the site.
Industrial Study Area
The proposed project would have no substantial effect on most of the in-
dustrial study area's employment base because: 1) the study area is relatively
isolated from the development pressures emanating from Midtown Manhattan and
Lincoln Square and 2) the study area has a mix of low-density M zones. How-
ever, the proposed project could affect the viability of the manufacturing and
commercial uses between West 58th and 6lst Streets east of West End Avenue by
supporting market pressures for residential and other support uses, pressures
that will already exist in the future without the project.
The studio complex would not be expected to have a negative effect on the
established television/video/film industry to the sout~, and would in fact be
expected to reinforce the already strong presence of related facilities in the
industrial study area by adding jobs and providing increased opportunit~es for
•
the many ancillary businesses in the study area, such as lighting, scenic de-
sign, and equipment rental firms.
Vehicular Traffic
Phase I -- 1997
Study Area Intersections. Overall, in Phase I, the project would generate

460 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 414 vehicle trips during the midday
peak hour, and 553 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour on a typical weekday.
During Phase I, project-generated traffic would have significant impacts at 25
intersection approaches in the traffic study area (i.e., between West 55th
Street to the south, West 79th Street to the north, Central Park West/Eighth
Avenue to the east, and the Hudson River to the West, and along Twelfth Avenue
to 51st Street) during one or more peak hours. Five of these approaches would
have vic ratios greater than 1.000 for 1997 Build conditions (versus three in
the No Build condition). Fourteen of these approaches would be along West End
Avenue, where impacts would occur because the project's new extension to River-
side Drive would not yet be complete, so that most southbound project traffic
would use West End Avenue. Northbound traffic diverted from the closed north-
bounq 72nd Street exit ramp from the Henry Hudson Parkway would also use West
•
End Avenue.
S-34
Extended Study Area. Vehicles generated by the project would also affect
•
specific corridors, such as Twelfth Avenue, outside the study area. At the
completion of Phase I, the project would have significant impacts in one or
more peak hours at five principal intersection approaches in the extended study
area along Twelfth Avenue. Of these impacted locations, two would have vic
ratios greater than 1.000 (versus one location in the No Build). In addition,
the proposed project would have significant impacts at some intermediate inter-
sections along this corridor. The extended area analysis also examined the
implications of the 42nd Street Transitway and found no additional impacts.
Phase II -- 2002
Study Area Intersections. In 2002, when the project's street system would
be complete, some traffic along West End Avenue would be diverted onto the new
extension to Riverside Drive. This would result in substantial reductions in
traffic on portions of West End Avenue from 1997.
Overall, in the year 2002 the fully developed project would generate 1,085
vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 903 vehicle trips during the midday peak
hour, and 1,198 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour on a typical weekday.
The new street system's intersections would not experience congestion. Off the
project site, the project would have significant traf!ic impacts at 25 inter-
sections approaches in the traffic study area during one or more peak hours.
Eleven of these would have vic ratios greater than 1.000 (versus seven for No
Build conditions). Seven of the 25 significantly impacted intersection ap-
proaches would be along West End Avenue (compared with 14 in Phase I) .
• Extended Study Area. The completed project in 2002 would have significant
traffic impacts at 20 principal intersection approaches in the extended study
area in one or more peak hours -- 12 approaches on Twelfth Avenue/West Street;
3 along the East 65th Street/66th Street corridor, 1 along the West 86th Street
corridor, and 4 approaches along the 57th Street corridor. In addition, the
proposed project would have significant impacts at some intermediate locations,
including 57th Street at Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Avenues. The extended area
analysis also reviewed the implications of the 42nd Street Transitway and found
no' additional impacts.
Henry Hudson Parkway. When fully developed in 2002, the proposed project
would generate 85 vehicles per hour (vph) southbound on the Henry Hudson Park-
way in the morning peak hour and 107 vph northbound in the evening peak hour.
Southbound project-generated traffic would exit the parkway at 79th Street,
where the intersection of 79th Street and Riverside Drive'would already experi-
ence significant impacts from the proposed project. Northbound traffic would
enter the parkway at 72nd Street, reSUlting in heavier traffic flow at the 72nd
Street merge onto the parkway. This would not result in a significant impact
at the merge.
Effects of Relocated Highway
Relocation of the Miller Highway, which is unlikely to take place during

Phase I of the project, but could occur prior to the completion of Phase II of
the project, would result in almost identical traffic operating conditions to
• those with the elevated highway remaining in place. The only difference would
be south of 6lst Street, depending on which of the various alternatives for the
Route 9A Reconstruction Project is approved. Assuming the Basic Reconstruction
S-35
Alternative is chosen, if the Miller Highway is relocated, it is likely that an
• at-grade highway between 6lst and 57th Streets would connect to Route 9A to the
south. The street underpass at 59th Street would be replaced by an overpass at
61st Street. The resulting relocation of westbound traffic from 59th to 6lst
Street would not result in any additional significant impacts.
Parking
In 1997, the proposed project would provide 1,500 parking spaces in six
garages located beneath the buildings of Phase I. In addition, the public and
private parking lots at, the southern end of the project site would still be
operating. The parking provided would be sufficient 'to meet Phase I's parking
demand, with maximum utilization rates of 79 percent in the midday and 94 per-
cent during the evening.
When completed in 2002, the project would include 3,500 off-street parking
spaces in 12 separate garages located throughout the site. The S50-space pub-
lic parking lot and ISO-space private lot at the southern end of the site would
be removed. The project's off-street parking spaces would be adequate for the
demand generated, with maximum utilization rates of 100 percent at midday and
101 percent in the late evening. No significant parking impacts would occur.
In addition, the new public street system would also provide some on-street
parking spaces. Although the exact number of spaces must be determined by the
New York City Department of Transportation, it is expected that between 150 and
200 spaces would be added to the area's supply. This would offset all of the
curbside spaces eliminated in the project's mitigation plan (see "Mitigation,"
•
below), and retain on-site any potential project-related off-street parking
shortfalls.
Public Transportation
Subways
Phase I. Phase I would increase ridership demand at the 66th Street-

Broadway and 72nd Street-Broadway IRT stations. At 66th Street, an estimated
350 project-generated trips would occur during the AM peak hour and 423 would
occur during the PM peak hour. Most stairways and fare arrays would operate at
level of service (LOS) C or better, except stair S2, which would operate at
LOS D during the AM peak hour for No Build conditions because of the heavy de-
mand placed by students en route to the area's high schools, and would operate ~
at LOS D during this time period with the proposed project. The project would I
not have any significant impacts at this subway station.
At 72nd Street, the project would generate 521 trips during the AM peak
hour and 610 during the PM peak hour. During the AM peak hour, project-
generated trips added to southbound platform stairways Pl/P3 and P5/P7 would
result in a significant adverse impact at those stairs, which are currently
over capacity and would already be operating at LOS F in the No Build condi-
tion. During the PM peak hour, northbound platform stairways P4 and P6, also
currently over capacity, would operate at LOS F for No Build conditions, and
the addition of project-generated trips would also result in a significant
•
adverse impact. The addition of 17 project-generated trips to each of these
stairways during the peak five minutes in the peak hour results in a signifi-
cant impact at each stair.
S-36
With the proposed project, most subway lines would continue to operate
• with some excess capacity at their peak load points in 1997, although the Nos .
2 and 3 lines would continue to experience significant crowding during the AM
peak hour, and would operate with a southbound capacity deficit. Northbound,
these lines would operate at capacity in the morning peak hour. Crowding would
also continue on the Nos. 1 and 9 IRT lines in the southbound direction during
the morning. peak hour. The changes in line haul conditions due to the proposed
project would be minimal and would not result in any significant impact in
1997.
Phase II. Phase II would generate new riders at the 59th Street-Columbus
Circle IRT and IND station and additional ridership demand at the 66th Street-
Broadway IRT subway station over those generated in Phase I; no additional
riders would use the 72nd Street IRT station.
At the 59th Street-Columbus Circle subway station, the project would gen-
erate 2,359 trips during the AM peak hour and 2,564 during the PM peak hour.
It is anticipated that street stairway S3 would experience significant impacts
because of the project during both the AM and PM peak hours. All other stair-
ways and the IRT fare array would operate at LOS C or better.
At the 66th Street station, the project would generate a total of 513
trips in the AM peak hour and 608 trips during the PM peak hour. Street stair-
way 02 would have significant impacts during both peak hours. The project
would not have any other impacts on the 66th Street subway station.
•
At 72nd Street, the project would generate 521 trips during the AM peak
hour and 610 during the PM peak hour. During the AM peak hour, the project-
generated trips added to southbound platform stairways Pl/P3 and P5/P7 would
result in a significant adverse impact at those stairs, which are currently
over capacity and would already be operating at LOS F in the No Build condi-
tion. During the PM peak hour, northbound platform stairways P4 and P6, also
currently over capacity, would operate at LOS F for No Build conditions, and
the addition of project-generated trips would also result in a significant ad-
ve~se impact. The addition of 17 project-generated trips to each of these
stairways during the peak five minutes in the peak hour would result in a sig-
nificant impact at each stair.
When the project is completed in 2002, most subway lines would continue to
operate with some excess capacity at their peak load points. The Nos. 2 and 3
IRT lines would continue to experience significant crowding during the AM peak
hour, with a 1 percent decrease in capacity, from a capacity.deficit of 20 per-
cent in the southbound direction for No Build conditions to a deficit of 21
percent for 2002 Build conditions. Similarly, in the northbound direction,
these lines would have a 1 percent decrease in capacity, with a capacity defi-
cit of 4 percent during the AM peak hour (up from 3 percent for 2002 No Build
conditions). However, the project would not have a significant impact on line
haul conditions on these lines. The southbound Nos. 1 and 9 IRT lines would
experience a capacity deficit of 3 percent during the AM peak hour in the
southbound direction for Build conditions, compared with a surplus of 1 percent
under No Build conditions (a change of 4 percent). This would appear to con-
•
stitute a significant adverse impact on line haul conditions .
S-37
Buses
• In 1997, the project would generate 348 local bus trips in the AM peak
hour and 475 local trips in the PM peak hour. Six routes experiencing capacity
deficits for No Build conditions -- M5 and M104 in the AM peak hour; M7 and M11
in both the AM and PM peak hours; and the M57 and M66 in the PM peak hour
would continue to experience capacity deficits with the proposed project. The
M5 and M104 would experience a capacity deficit in the AM peak hour only, while
the M66 would have a deficit in the PM peak hour only. The M104 would be oper-
ating at capacity in the PM peak hour, and the M7, M11, and M57 would experi-
ence deficits during both peak hours. The proposed project would result in
significant adverse impacts during the AM peak hour on the MS, MS7, and M104,
and during the PM peak hour on the M11 and M66. Additionally, the project
would generate 12 trips during the AM peak hour and 13 trips during the PM peak
hour for express buses. No significant impacts on express buses would result.
In 2002, the project would generate a total of 951 local bus trips in the
AM peak hour ·and 1,117 in the PM peak hour. The six routes with capacity defi-
cits in the peak direction would continue to experience deficits. One route,
the M5, would experience deficits in the AM peak hour only; the five others
would experience deficits during both peak hours. The proposed project would
have significant capacity impacts on the M5 route in the AM hour and on the
M11,M57, M66, and M104 routes in both the AM and PM peak hours. The project
would also generate a total of 188 AM peak hour express bus trips and 187 PM
peak hour bus trips. These would not have any significant impacts on express
bus service .
• Pedestrians
An analysis of 1997 conditions at street corners and crosswalks adjacent

to the 66th Street and 72nd Street IRT subway stations indicates that the proj-
ect would result in a significant pedestrian impact at- the southwest corner of
72nd Street and Broadway during the AM peak hour in 1997.
In 2002, an analysis of conditions at street corners and crosswalks adja-

cent to the 59th Street-Columbus Circle, 66th Street IRT, and 72nd Street IRT
subway stations indicates that the project would have a significant impact on
the south crosswalk at 60th Street and Broadway during the PM peak hour.
Air Quality
Mobile Sources
It should be noted that the analyses presented in this section are all
based on the assumption that the city and/or state approvals necessary to close
the Miller Highway northbound exit ramp at 72nd Street will be granted. The
closure of this ramp is not certain because it must undergo a discretionary
approval action of its own. Should this action not be approved by relevant
agencies and the closure of the ramp not be possible, the project would have to
•
be redesigned and undergo a new CEQR review process .
S-38
The proposed project would result in increased traffic on area roadways,
•
and therefore in increases in carbon monoxide emissions. In 1997, all of the
maximum predicted carbon monoxide concentrations in the primary study area
(i.e., the area between 55th and 79th Streets, and between Central Park West
and the Hudson River) would be below National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), and the increases in concentration due to the proposed project in the
primary and extended study areas would not exceed de minimis criteria or result
in significant impacts.
Between the DEIS and FEIS, the Twelfth Avenue and 42nd Street intersection
with the proposed 42nd Street Transitway in 1997 was subjected to a screening
analysis. The results of this analysis indicated that the project would not
result in a significant air quality impact at Twelfth Avenue and 42nd Street
with the proposed Transitway.
In 2002, all the maximum predicted carbon monoxide concentrations in both

the primary study area and the extended study area (with and without the pro-
posed 42nd Street Transitway) would be below National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards (NAAQS), and the increases in concentration due to the proposed project
in the primary and extended study areas would not exceed de minimis criteria or
result in significant impacts.
-
An analysis of potential cumulative impacts from the Amtrak tunnel and on-
street sources determined that no significant impacts or violations of the
NAAQS would occur. In addition, an analysis was performed to determine the
maximum potential impacts from the exhausts of the proposed garages' v~ntila
•
tion systems. No significant impacts or violations of the NAAQS are predicted
to occur.
If the Miller Highway is relocated, traffic volumes and speeds near the
intersection of 57th Street and cross avenues (approximately from Twelfth to
Columbus Avenues) in the year 2002 could be significantly affected by a poten-
tial redesign of the Twelfth Avenue and 57th Street intersection. Projected
increases in carbon monoxide concentrations due to the proposed project at
locations that could be affected by this alternative roadway design would be
within the de minimis criteria, and therefore the proposed project would not
result in any significant air quality impacts under this alternative.
In addition, as part of this project's studies, feasibility studies were

performed to show that a ventilation system can be provided that would result
in carbon monoxide concentrations adjacent to the relocated highway that would
be below the standards. With the proposed system, the maximum I-hour carbon
monoxide concentrations within the partially covered roadway would be less than
10 ppm, and maximum a-hour carbon monoxide concentrations adjacent to the high-
way would be between 6 and 9 ppm. Since No Build values would be approximately
at background levels (i.e., 2.8 ppm), the increases in concentrations with the
relocated Miller Highway would exceed de minimis criteria. This represents a
significant impact adjacent to the roadway, which is not feasible to mitigate.
Similar impacts would be expected to occur at the northern playground, which is
now proposed to be on top of the highway. These impacts could result from
portal emissions .
• In terms of compliance with the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP),
in 1997, all of the maximum predicted carbon monoxide concentrations with the
proposed project in the primary and extended study area would be below the
S-39
NAAQS, and the proposed project would not result in any significant incremental
• impacts in both the primary and extended study areas. Therefore, in 1997 the
proposed project would be consistent with the SIP. In 2002, carbon monoxide
concentrations, both in the primary and extended study areas, would be below
the NAAQS. Therefore, since there would be no violations of standards, in
2002, the proposed project would be consistent with the SIP.
Stationary Sources
Phase I of the proposed project, which would develop buildings north of

64th Street, would neither be affected by nor cause an effect on emissions from
Con Edison's West 59th Street generating facility.
At the completion of Phase II, at the upper air intake location of ~

sealed commercial building (555 West 57th Street), the project exacerbates ex-
ceedances at 4 locations where there are predicted No Build exceedances of the
24-hour S02 standard and creates an exceedance at another location on the
building. In addition, 3 locations at 555 West 57th Street also have potential
PM 10 exceedances created by the project. Therefore, at this location, the
project would have a significant impact.
Three other proposed project residential buildings, K1, K2, and J1, have
potential 24-hour S02 exceedances at elevated receptors. These exceedances
represent potential significant impacts of the project. However, it may be
possible to seal the surfaces with these potential problems as a mitigation
technique. However, this measure has not been analyzed or approved by DEP .
• The initial analyses utilizing the earlier stack parameters indicated that
the proposed project would create two exceedances of the 24-hour S02 standard
at two locations on the Mack10we building (receptors 30 and 34). It is possi-
ble that with the new stack parameters, the project would create two exceed-
ances of the 24-hour S02 standard at elevated locations on several other build-
ings, specifically on the west faces of the building at 515 West 59th Street,
on the west and south faces of the proposed Mack10we, on the north and west
faces of the building at 790 Eleventh Avenue, and on the south and west faces
of Building K3 on the project site. These potential exceedances would repre-
sent significant adverse impacts. Use of an "indoor/outdoor factor" (i.e., a
factor that takes into account that on cold days windows are closed and indoor
concentrations are lower than outdoor values) would reduce these levels (ex-
cluding buildings K1, K2, and J1, which have not been analyzed using an in-
door/outdoor factor) to within standards at all locations except Macklowe and
Building 0 (K3). At Mack10we and Building 0 (K3) the application of the in-
door/outdoor sector is questionable because the exceedances are predicted to I.
occur on days when the average temperature would be in the mid- to upper-40s,
and therefore it is possible that windows could be open.
Additional mitigation measures, such as connecting one of the Stack No.5

boilers to Stack No. 1 at the Con Edison 59th Street facility, would have to be
implemented to avoid significant impacts (see discussion under "Mitigation
Measures," below) .
• S-40
There would be no significant impacts from the proposed project's boilers'
• emissions and no significant cumulative impacts from the project's boilers'

emissions and the Con Edison facility.
Boise
L10(1) noise levels would increase by less than 3.0 dBA at all noise-sensi-
tive receptor locations in both 1997 and 2002. Therefore, no significant noise
impacts would result from the proposed project. All locations would remain in
the same CEPO-CEQR categories as they are in the No Build conditions, with the
exception of monitored location 8, on 59th Street near West End Avenue, which
would change in the year 2002 from "marginally unacceptable" to "clearly unac-
ceptable . " However, the maximum L10(1) increase caused by the proj ect would be
1.8 dBA, an imperceptible change. Double-glazed windows and central air-con-
ditioning would be provided such that window/wall attenuation in project build-
ings would be at least 30 dBA. The building on Parcel M would contain addi-
tional noise window/wall attenuation to achieve at least a 35 dBA noise
reduction. This would ensure that interior noise levels in the project's
buildings would not exceed the 45 dBA L10(1) CEPO-CEQR requirement.
L10(1) noise levels in the proposed waterfront park with the elevated high-
way would be in the mid-60's to low 70' s dBA range. L10(1) noise levels in the
park resulting from noise generated in playgrounds and active recreation areas
would be in the low to mid-70s dBA range. Therefore, at locations within the
•
proposed park, noise levels, both with the relocated highway and with the ele-
vated highway, would be higher than those generally recommended for outdoor ac-
tivities. Noise levels both with and without the relocated highway would ex-
ceed the CEPO-CEQR 55 dBA L10 guideline level and would, therefore, result in a
potential significant impact on park users, which is not feasible to mitigate.
With the relocated highway, L10(1) noise levels in the park would be 7)
slightly lower within 100 feet of the relocated highway than with the existing
el~vated highway because the relocated highway would be partially covered
(i.e., the northbound lanes are covered and the southbound lanes are partially
covered) and shielded from receptors. Noise levels in the park near the Hudson
River would be as much as 10 dBA lower with the relocated highway because traf-
fic on the Miller Highway is the dominant noise source in its current configu-
ration. Noise generated by the activities in the park amphitheater (which
would be built with the relocated highway) would not significantly affect noise
levels away from the amphitheater.
Hazardous Haterials
Soil samples from the site show that at most locations, no hazardous chem-
icals were present at concentrations significantly greater than background
levels. At certain locations, the samples indicated the presence of elevated
levels of metals and organic chemicals. In these areas, certain impac~s to
•
construction workers could occur .
S-4l
In areas of the project site with high concentrations of chemicals, metals
• of concern, or methane in the soil, significant impacts could occur to con-

struction workers. In the northwestern portion of the site, where concentra-
tions of volatile organic compounds (VOGs) are highest, a significant adverse
impact to construction workers could result from inhalation of VOCs during
trenching. Trenching is digging or excavating soil so that a worker is sur-
rounded by soil on two or more sides. A significant adverse impact could also
occur from exposure of construction workers to elevated levels of metals, VOCs,
or PABs in soils on the site through contact with skin, breathing suspended
soil particles, or swallowing of soil. In areas where high methane levels were
detect~d, trapping of methane beneath newly paved or covered areas could result
in explosive conditions. This represents a potential significant adverse im-
pact both during and after construction of the project.
In addition, groundwater at some locations on the site contains metals and

organic compounds at levels exceeding New York State drinking water standards
and Ambient Water Quality Guidance Criteria. This would not represent a sig-
nificant adverse impact to human health, nor would it cause significant impacts
because of construction activities causing groundwater discharge to the Hudson
River. Where foundation depths would extend below the water table level, de-
watering would be necessary during construction. During dewatering, ground-
water would be tested and, then, subject to approval from the appropriate regu-
lating agencies and depending on its quality, would be pumped to the Hudson
River or to the North River Water Pollution Control Plant, or would be treated
and then pumped to the Hudson River.
•
High methane levels in some portions of the project site also pose the
potential for adverse impacts both during and after construction.
Although metals and organic compounds were found at elevated levels in

groundwater samples from the site, these findings do not represent significant
impacts. Site groundwater would not be used for drinking water or for any
other proposed use reSUlting in human contact.
Natural Resources
As described earlier, the proposed project's park would include modifica-

tions to the site's edge to the Hudson River, including repair in kind and in
place of the bulkhead, renovation of the superstructure of Pier I, repair in
kind and in place of the existing crib wall and stabilizatlon of the West 69th
Street transfer bridge, cutting away of certain portions of the relieving plat-
form between 69th and 62nd Streets, shaping of the riprap at 62nd Street, and
repair of the riprap south of· 62nd Street. The existing piers at 64th and 63rd
Streets would be removed for a distance of 50 feet from the shore to prevent
public access to those piers, and the three piers at 67th, 66th, and 65th
Streets would have some of the interior piles cut to between mean low and high
water to form a pattern as the tides change. In addition, a series of three
1
pedestrian piers would be constructed along the site's shoreline. One, about
10 feet wide, would be parallel to the shoreline between 68th and 66th Streets.
The other two, also about 10 feet wide, would run at an acute angle to the
• shore from 59th Street and at 60th Street, extending 200 and 100 feet into the
river, respectively.
S-42
Hydrology. Tides. and Floodplain Conditions
• None of these changes is believed to have significant impacts on the hy-

drology of the river. The repair of Pier I would add some piles, but these
would be widely spaced and no significant impact to river velocity would occur.
Repair of the bulkhead and treatment of the riprap would also not affect the
flow of the. river. Stabilization of the transfer pier would be limited to the
superstructure above the water, not affecting the river. Finally, the pedes-
trian piers at the south of the project would not significantly impede tidal
circulation because of their narrowness (IO feet), light loads (pedestrians
only), and orientation (mostly parallel to the shore).
To assess the impact of the proposed shoreline modifications, a study was

performed of the proposed waterfront structures' potential for modifying exist-
ing sedimentation patterns and thereby affecting water quality or aquatic habi-
tat. The study concluded that, overall, the proposed changes along the site's
shoreline would not affect river conditions. Overall, because there would be
no significant changes in sedimentation, there would be no significant impacts
to the aquatic resources of this part of the river. There would also be little
change in the available substrate for encrusting benthic life: most of the
existing structures would remain and removal of piles from the relieving plat-
form and five ~iers would still leave most of these structures intact.
Terrestrial Ecology and Wetlands
The shoreline activities proposed as part of the project's park are also
•
not anticipated to cause any significant impacts to the aquatic ecology re-
sources along the site's shoreline. Repair of Pier I would be limited to the
above-water portions of the pier.
Repair of the bulkheads would not significantly change the hard surface
area exposed to water. New timber would be quickly colonized, resulting in the
same condition as today. The modification of the relieving platform would
remove piles and facing in the intertidal zone but would open the underside of
the platform to sunlight by allowing for revegetation through exposure to sun- I~
light. The removal of portions of three piers at 67th, 66th, and 65th Streets
would also eliminate some intertidal substrate for food resources, but most
piles would remain in place.
Reshaping the riprap in the inlet at 62nd Street would not add or subtract
from the aquatic resources on. the site, but would simply rearrange the avail-
able substrate. There would be no change in the shape of 'the inlet or addi-
tional riprap placed within the waters of the Hudson River.
Finally, the three pedestrian piers would add pilings tp the site, but in
a widely spaced array that would not affect tidal form. These new piles would
offset in part the removal of piles elsewhere on the site.
• S-43
Infrastructure and Solid Waste
• The development proposed for the project site would place new demands on
the city's infrastructure, including water supply, sanitary sewage and storm
water disposal, and solid waste. This analysis conservatively assumes that all
the project's residents would be new to the city.
Water Supply
The project would result in a total increase in water use of 0.73 million
gallons per day (mgd) in 1997 of which 0.02 mgd would be consumptive air-condi-
, tioning use. By full build-out in 2002, the project would demand a total of
1.69 mgd of which 0.08 mgd would be air-conditioning use. These uses represent ~
an increase in New York City water use of approximately 0.05 percent in 1997
and 0.10 percent by 2002. This would not significantly affect the city's abil-
ity to supply water reliably. To serve the water demand of the project, water
mains would be constructed on the site of a size sufficient to meet the capaci-
ty needs of the project. With the proposed improvements, the projected demand
would not produce any significant change in water pressure in the neighborhood.
Sanitary Sewage and Storm Water Disposal
Riverside South is projected to generate a total of 0.71 mgd of sewage by

1997, with' a total of 1.42 mgd by full build-out in 2002. These flows, added
to the No Build flows to the North River Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP),
•
would result in annual average flows to the WPCP of 161.9 mgd in 1997 and 167.2
mgd in 2002. The plant, both with and without the proposed project, is pro-
jected to meet the 170 mgd SPDES permit flow limit. Projected future flows
with the proposed project are projected to be less than the current flows to
the plant through the implementation of an aggressive flow reduction program
now being undertaken by the Department of Environmental Protection. Annual
average dry weather flows at the plant have seen dramatic reductions since the
publication of the DEIS (182.4 mgd to 169.1 mgd). The plant should continue to
meet its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit mass dis-
charge limits for both biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended
solids (TSS), but probably continue to occasionally exceed the percent removal
limit for TSS.
Several alternatives are being examined that would avoid increasing

wastewater flows to the North River WPCP. These are discussed below under
"Alternatives."
Solid Waste
The project would generate a total of 7.25 tons of solid waste per day by
1997 and 24.7 tons per day by 2002. If the city achieves its recycling goals,
the quantity of solid waste to be disposed of at the Fresh Kills landfill would
be reduced by up to 25 percent. Assuming a worst case of no recycling, and
assuming all of the project's residents are new to the city, the addition of
the project's solid waste to the Fresh Kills landfill would represent an in-
•
crease of 0.03 percent by 1997 and 0.11 percent by 2002. This is not a signif-
icant change over current disposal levels. Within Sanitation District 7, the
project's residential refuse would increase the collection by 0.42 percent by
1997 and 0.76 percent by 2002. These increases are not significant and could
S-44
be accommodated by reallocation of truck routes using the existing Sanitation
• Department fleet.
Energy
Sustainable development guidelines have been developed by the project,

calling for the use of a variety of energy efficiency measures that are cost-
justifiable. These measures will include those relating to the structures'
thermal envelope, glass and glazing, lighting systems, heating/cooling and fuel
selections, major equipment, and energy management and control systems. The
program will be administered by a design and review board, and is anticipated
to result in a significant savings in energy use.
Buildings at the proposed project would meet the New York State Energy
Conservation Construction Code, which establishes performance standards for
heating, ventilating, air conditioning, lighting, and mechanical systems.
Electricity
Proposed electric lines would run along West 6lst Street, Riverside Drive
extension, West 66th Street, West 70th Street, and West 7lst Street. Connec-
tions would be made to existing electric lines at 59th Street, the intersection
of West 6lst Street and West End Avenue, West 66th Street at Freedom Place,
West 70th Street at Freedom Place, and at West 7lst Street. The project's
•
electricity demand -- for lighting, electrical equipment, and auxiliaries ·(such
as elevators) -- would total about 227 billion British Thermal Units (BTU) or
66.5 million kwh per year. This constitutes less than 1 percent of the quanti-
ty of electricity supplied to Manhattan annually by Consolidated Edison and
would not result in any significant service problems for the utility.
Heating and Cooling Systems
Heating and cooling systems would be fueled by a combination of natural

gas, steam, and/or oil, and electricity. Currently, the extent to which each
fuel would be used has not been determined except that either natural gas or
steam would be used at Parcels F and N.
Natural Gas
Underground connections would be made from the project site to the exist-
ing gas lines at 59th, 66th, 70th, and 7lst Streets. The trunk section of the
proposed gas main would run along West 6lst Street to Riverside Drive exten-
sion, and along Riverside Drive between West 6lst Street and West 7lst Street.
If the project's heating and cooling systems are entirely fueled with natural
gas, these systems would demand about 0.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas per
year. This amounts to less than 1 percent of Consolidated Edison's total an-
nual natural gas sales.
• If used, steam would be provided to the project site via connection to

Consolidated Edison steam lines. A new line would be installed to connect at
West 6lst Street with the existing 24-inch line under West End Avenue and at
S-45
West 70th Street with an existing 4-inch steam line. The line would run be-
• neath West 61st Street, Riverside Drive extension, and West 70th Street. If
the project's heating and cooling systems are entirely fueled by steam, these
systems would demand about 0.6 billion pounds of steam per year. This amounts
to about 2.3 percent of Consolidated Edison's total annual sales.
If the project's heating and cooling systems are entirely fueled by oil,
about 5.4 million gallons of oil would be used each year. This would not have
a significant impact on the ample supply of oil provided by private companies
to the area.
As part of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the developer

and the Manhattan Borough President on August 26, 1992, the developer agreed to
the establishment of a Construction Liaison Committee (CLC) that would act as a
liaison between the project and the adjacent community. The CLC, made up of
elected officials, represen~atives of the developer, representatives of area
developments, and city agencies, would meet regularly in public to discuss and
seek to resolve any problems that arise relating to construction of the
project.
•
The applicant has informed the city of its intent to make every effort to
open construction-related employment opportunities to the broadest range of the
construction and vendor workforce, including women, people of color, local
residents, small businesses, community-based and local enterprises, not-for-
profit entities, etc.
Construction Sequencing
Construction of the proposed Riverside South project, if approved, is

expected to begin early in 1993 and would be completed by the end of 2002.
Construction would begin at the northern end of the site and continue south.
Construction would begin on a new parcel approximately every seven months, so
that at peak construction periods, as many as four parcels would be under con-
struction simultaneously. Phase I, to be completed by 1997, would include Par-
cels A through H (between 72nd and 64th Streets), adjacent portions of the
Riverside Drive extension and east-west cross streets, a portion of the water- .
front park, and infrastructure improvements. Phase II, to be begun in 1997 and
completed by the end of 2002, would include the balance of the parcels, the
waterfront park, the street system, and infrastructure improvements.
The peak construction year for the project would be 1999. During the
typical day, an average of 800 workers would be employed on-site, with a maxi-
mum of 1,000 workers during peak days.
Land Use and Neighborhood Character
• Possible impacts on land use and neighborhood character from construction

would be limited. Little on-site activity would be disrupted on the currently
S-46
underutilized site, and all construction activity could be staged on-site,
• limiting disruptions to the surrounding community.
Historic Resources
During construction, blasting may be necessary at the north end of the

site and pile driving and other typical construction activities are likely to
occur throughout the site. Potential architectural or structural damage could
occur to the Chatsworth Apartments, a New York City Landmark located adjacent
to the project site, from any of these activities. Potential impacts could
also occur to Nos. 1 and 3 Riverside Drive and 309 and 311 West 72nd Street; to
the West 7lst Street Historic District, which is about 75 feet from the project
site, from blasting or pile driving; and to the Con Edison Power House (which,
located just south of the project site, is under consideration for designation
as a New York City Landmark and is eligible for the State and National Regis-
ters of Historic Places) from pile driving and pavement breaking. Mitigation
for these construction impacts is discussed below under "Mitigation Measures."
Economic Conditions
Construction of the project· would generate an estimated 27,000 total per-

son-years of direct and indirect· employment ,;l.nd approximately $222 million in
total tax revenues for the city and state.
Traffic
•
With the combination of project-generated traffic and construction traf-
fic, there would be three new traffic impact locations, and a fourth location
already impacted in a different peak hour. However, the mitigation for the
proposed project is sufficient to accommodate the additional effects to con-
struction traffic.
Air Quality
Possible impacts on local air quality during construction could include

fugitive dust from land clearing operations and demolition. All appropriate
fugitive dust control would be employed and all necessary measures would be
implemented to ensure compliance with the New York City Air Pollution Control
Code. Therefore, no significant air quality impacts from fugitive dust emis-
sions would be anticipated. Mobile source emissions from construction workers'
private vehicles, from disruptions in traffic near the construction site, and
from construction equipment on the site could also cause air quality impacts
during construction. However, localized increases in mobile source emissions
would be minimized by incorporating traffic maintenance requirements into the
construction contract documents to ensure that traffic lanes near the site are
maintained to the maximum extent practicable. Construction vehicles and equip-
ment are typically diesel-powered and therefore emit relatively low amounts of
carbon monoxide and relatively high amounts of PM 10 ; however, they would not
significantly affect air quality conditions.
• Impacts on community noise levels during construction of the proposed

project would include noise and vibration from construction equipment opera-
tion. The sound quality at locations close to the project site, such as along
S-47
the west side of Lincoln Towers or along West End Avenue between 60th and 6lst
• Streets, would be diminished by·construction noise at some time during the

construction process. This process would be limited to daytime hours. High
average sound levels would affect, for limited periods of time, outdoor commu-
nications between people and, possibly, indoor intelligibility during speech,
telephone usage, ·and TV listening. The degree to which sound levels are af-
fected indoors would depend on whether the apartment windows are open or
closed, the distance of the apartment from the noise source, and the duration
of the construction activity. These often-substantial changes in ambient noise
levels would represent significant changes in sound quality.
After residential buildings are completed and occupied on the project

site, construction of other on-site buildings would also expose the new resi-
dents of the proposed project to construction sound levels. The highest expo-
sure would be on the side of the building facing the construction activity. In
addition, vibrations from blasting could damage buildings close to the project
site. Possible mitigation is discussed below under "Mitigation Measures."
Natural Resources
The modifications to the shoreline proposed as a part of the Conceptual

Park,Plan would entail construction activities in the waters'of the Hudson
River. Theseact:fvities include pile driving for new piers, welding of steel
structures above the site's waters, rearranging of riprap along the shore and
removal of piles from existing structures by cutting the piles at various ele-
vations from as low as the mud line to above mean high water .
• The in-water construction has the potential to produce turbidity through

disturbance of the bottom muds, and the accidental discharge of construction
materials. The use of netting under piers being renovated would minimize the
potential for construction materials entering the Hudson River. If silt dis-
turbance from pile installation or removal occurs, silt barriers would be used
to contain the increased turbidity to the local area of the construction activ-
ity causing the turbidity.
Hazardous Materials
In areas of the project site with high concentrations of chemicals, metals

of concern, or methane in the soil, significant impacts could occur to con-
struction workers. In the northwestern portion of the site, where concentra-
tions of volatile organic compounds are highest, a significant adverse impact
to construction workers could result from inhalation of volatiles during
trenching. Trenching is digging or excavating soil so that a worker is sur-
rounded by soil on two or more sides. A significant adverse impact could also
occur from exposure of construction workers to elevated levels of metals, vola-
tile organic compounds, or PAHs in soils on the site through contac.t with skin,
breathing suspended soil particles, or swallowing of soil. In areas where high
methane levels were detected, trapping of methane beneath newly paved or cov-
ered areas could result in explosive conditions. This represents a potential
significant adverse impact both during and after construction of the project.
.1 In addition, groundwater at some locations on the site contains metals and

organic compounds at levels exceeding New York State drinking water standards
and Ambient Water Quality Guidance Criteria. This would not represent a sig-
nificant adverse impact to human health, nor would it cause significant impacts
S-48
•
because of construction activities causing groundwater discharge to the Hudso.n
River. Where foundation depths would extend below the water table level, de-
watering would be necessary during construction. During dewatering, ground-
water would be tested and, then, subject to approval from the appropriate regu-
lating agencies and depending on its quality, would be pumped to the Hudson
River or to the North River Water Pollution Control Plant, or would be treated
and then pumped to the Hudson River.
Energy Consumption
Construction of the project would consume an estimated total of 8,869 bil-

lion BTUs in embodied energy (energy used to make the construction materials)
and in the delivery and assembly of materials.
Relocation of the Miller Hi&hway
If the Miller Highway is relocated inboard on the project site, the new
highway would run between 72nd Street and 59th Street, partly beneath the ex-
tension of Riverside Drive proposed as part of the project. The existing ,ele-
vated highway would be demolished. Details concerning alternatives, schedules,
and construction staging for relocation of the Miller Highway are not yet
available. A general description of the. relocation of the highway and its ef-'
fects follows.
Schedule and Phasing
•
Assuming that planning, environmental analyses, design, funding, and the
necessary approvals for the relocated highway.can be accomplished over the next
four years, it is anticipated that relocation of the highway would begin in
1996, and could be completed by 1999. Therefore, the construction would occur
at the same time as construction of the Riverside South project in some areas.
Coordination between the contractors would be needed to ensure that no con-
flicts occur.
It is expected that the first phase of the highway relocation would be to

construct the at-grade section of the roadway between 6lst and 70th Streets.
Its construction would take about 18 months.
After completion of this at-grade segment, the next phase of the highway
relocation would be north of 70th Street, including the connection to the Henry
Hudson Parkway in Riverside Park. This phase of construction would involve de-
touring traffic from one side of the road to the other while demolition of the
existing roadway and construction of the new road beneath it take place. The
northbound exit ramp at 72nd Street would be permanently closed. This section
of construction would also require some construction in Riverside Park, to con-
nect the new, lower highway to the Henry Hudson Parkway. This would involve
lowering the parkway by about 8· feet at 72nd Street, sloped up to meet existing
grade at 75th Street. A small work area -- about 10 feet wide -- would be re-
quired alongside of the highway (first on one side and then on the other). The
pedestrian walkway at 73rd Street might also be temporarily closed. When con-
struction is completed, the park and walkway would be reopened. The highway
would be permanently lowered in elevation, and the arched substructure of the
• highway at 72nd Street would be removed.
S-49
The next phase of highway relocation would be the southern portion, from
• 6lst Street to 59th Street, where the new highway would connect to Route 9A/
Twelfth Avenue. The configuration of this section would depend on the final
alternative selected for Route 9A. The connection could be elevated or at-
grade, depending on the alternative selected. In either case, the new roadway
would be constructed beneath the existing viaduct.
The final phase in relocation of the highway would be demolition of the

existing viaduct. This would occur once the new, relocated highway had been
completed. Access to the waterfront would be interrupted during this approxi-
mately nine-month period; but with a limited number of protected crossings
maintained.
Land Use
Similar to construction of the proposed project, construction of the relo-

cated Miller Highway would have minimal disruptions for the surrounding commu-
nity because the construction site is separated from the community.
Open Space and Recreational Facilities
Construction of the relocated highway ---specifically, demolition of the

elevated viaduct -- could have temporary effects on the new waterfront park.
First, completion of a portion of the project's park would not occur until
after the relocation is complete. Second, during demolition of the viaduct,
access to the waterfront part of the park would be temporarily limited. How-
•
ever, a few protected crossings would be maintained, so that at any given time
access to some of the waterfront would be available. In addition, construction
of the northern portion of the relocated highway would have temporary effects
on Riverside Park, as described above.
Historic and -Archaeological Resources
As described above, construction activity would have temporary effects on

Riverside Park adjacent to the highway right-of-way between 72nd and 75th
Streets. Riverside Park is a New York City Landmark and is listed on the State
and National Registers of Historic Places. When the highway relocation is
completed, the Henry Hudson Parkway from 72nd to 75th Street would be lower
over the highway.
Traffic
Throughout construction activities related to the relocation of the high-

way, a minimum of two traffic lanes in each direction would be maintained on
the Miller Highway. When the new roadway is complete from 59th Street through
72nd Street, traffic would be relocated from the viaduct to the new roadway,
and then the old elevated highway would be demolished.
It is estimated that construction of the relocated highway would generate
• a maximum of 100 to 200 automobile trips by construction workers per day and
fewer than 50 trucks trips per day.
S-50
Air Quality
• All appropriate fugitive dust control and other measures would be employed
during construction of the relocated highway to ensure that the New York City
Air Pollution Control Code is followed. The CQ emissions from construction
workers driving to the site and construction equipment operating at the site
would not significantly affect air quality conditions.
Noise
As described above, relocation of the highway would include both construc-

tion of the new highway and demolition of the old elevated highway. Both of
these phases would be noisy.
Unshielded highway construction noise is typically in the upper 70s to

lower 80s dBA range at 100 feet from operations. However, the nearest noise-
sensitive uses to the construction activities -- any completed portions of the
new park and nearby residential buildings -- would be shielded from this noise
by the highway's western retaining wall and because the highway would be below
the project's Riverside Drive extension. In addition, the eastern section of
the park adjacent to the new highway would not yet be built when construction
is performed, so..sensitive parle uses would be some distance from the new high-
way. Therefore, noise levels in the new park and at the closest noise':'sensi-
tive buildings generated by the construction activities would be, at most, in
the high 60s to low 70s dBA range. (Absent the retaining wall on the west side
of the highway, noise levels in the park would be in the low to mid-70s dBA
•
range.) These levels would not be significantly higher than comparable ambient
conditions without construction activities in the general study area.
Demolition of the existing highway would generate brief sessions of very

high (above 90 dBA) noise levels in the new park within 100 feet of the activi-
ties. Because these high noise sessions would be accompanied by falling de-
bris, park access would be limited to the area from approximately 50 feet to
the east to 20 feet to the west of the demolition activities. At the nearest
noise-sensitive locations to the demolition, 50 feet away in the new park and
100 feet away at the residential buildings between West 70th and 72nd Streets,
maximum noise levels from the activities would be in the high-80s to low-90s
dBA range. These levels would be intrusive to indoor and outdoor activities.
South of West 70th Street, demolition activities would be farther from noise-
sensitive buildings and no significant impacts would be expected for indoor
activities.
Vibrations from debris striking the ground may be perceptible at noise-

sensitive locations within 1,000 feet of demolition activities; however, these
vibration levels would be below thresholds of concern for damage to any build-
ings in the area .
• S-51
C. ALTERNATIVES
• Development of the project site would require a Special Permit pursuant to

Section 74-861 of the New York City Zoning Resolution to allow developments in
railroad or transit air space. Therefore, no as-of-right development could
occur. This section discusses three alternatives to the proposed'project --
the No Build Alternative, a lesser density alternative, and a studi%ffice/
sports complex alternative.
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative assumes that the development site would remain in
its current condition and the proposed project would not be built. The major
variations between the No Build Alternative and the proposed project are as
follows.
o Under the No Build Alternative, no significant change in land use

would occur on the project site by 1997 or 2002. Streets would not
be extended onto the site, Freedom Place would not be improved, and
no new waterfront park would be created. The existing zoning on the
project site would remain unchanged,
o No new residents would be added to the project site, but the area's
•
population would continue to grow and displacement pressures, which
have led to a reduction in the housing stock available to low- and
moderate-income residents, would continue.
o The No Build Alternative would not place added demands on community

facilities and services, since it would not generate a new residen-
tial or worker population.
o Views of and across the site would not change, and the shoreline
would remain inaccessible to the public. Adjacent to the site, sev-
eral proposed new developments would change the visual character of
the area by adding tall new buildings to a currently vacant area.
Several other proposed towers would reinforce the emerging high-rise
residential character of the surrounding area.
o This alternative would forego the opportunity to enhance enjoyment of

the waterfront and redevelop an underused waterfront site. The bulk-
heads along the site's shoreline would not be repaired, no new water-
front park would be created, and public access to the waterfront
would not be provided .
• S-52
•
o A 2l.5-acre waterfront park linking Riverside Park to the proposed
Hudson River esplanade south of 59th Street, as well as several other
small open spaces, would not be created, and Pier I would not be
rehabilitated for recreational use.
o The No Build Alternative would not change the contexts of the histor-
ic resources close to the project site -- the West 69th Street trans-
fer bridge, Riverside Park and Drive, the four row houses at the
northeast corner of West 72nd Street and Riverside Drive, the Chats-
worth Apartments and Annex, the West 7lst Street Historic District,
and the Consolidated Edison Power House. Three proposed developments
between 6lst and 64th Streets would block some views of the Con Ed
Power House, however.
o Jobs and tax revenues generated by construction and operation of the

proposed project would be foregone. The retail/service study area
would gain new residents and a substantial amount of retail space,
but would not see the additional retail space proposed as part of the
project. Under both this alternative and the proposed project, the
industrial uses would continue to maintain a strong presence in the
- area to the south and southeast of the site, but there would be no
potential boost to the film industry support businesses expected with
the prQject's studio building.
o No new person or vehicle trips would be generated from the project

site, although the congested traffic locations would continue to
•
worsen. No new streets would extend onto the project site. Congest-
ed subway conditions, particularly those at the 72nd Street IRT sub-
way station, would continue to worsen. However, planned improvements
at the 59th Street-Columbus Circle subway station would improve con-
ditions at that station.
o In terms of air quality, no violations of carbon monoxide standards

are predicted to occur at receptor sites in either the primary or
extended study areas in the years 1997 or 2002 for the No Build Al-
ternative. However, an exceedance of the 24-hour S02 standard is
predicted to occur at the air intakes at 555 West 57th Street.
o Future noise levels under No Build conditions are not expected to

increase significantly over existing levels.
o Chemical residuals within the soil would not have any potential sig-
nificant adverse impact on human health, since no extensive soil-
moving activities would occur.
o The bulkheads along the project site would not be repaired or re-
placed, and siltation in the Hudson River would continue to make the
near shore area shallower.
o The site would remain vacant and sparsely covered with scrub vegeta-
tion. Siltation would continue along the shoreline, reducing the
•
water depths near the shore and creating a larger area along the
shoreline that meets the criteria defining a wetland.
S-53
Demands on the water supply and generation of sewage and solid waste
•
o
collection would remain negligible on the project site.
o Use of energy and utilities -- including electricity, gas, steam, and

telephone service on the project site would remain negligible.
o No temporary impacts caused by construction of the proposed project

would occur.
The Lesser Density Alternative examined has a total of 7.3 million zsf.
For this alternative, it was assumed that development on each parcel of the
proposed project would be reduced by 12 percent. It is also assumed that this
alternative, like the project, would include an affordable housing component.
An alternative of this size was chosen because it is essentially equal in size
to the Lincoln West project, the previously approved project for the project
site. A comparison of the Lesser Density Alternative and the proposed project
follows:
o In terms of land use and zoning, the Lesser Density Alternative would
have similar impacts to the proposed project.
o This alternative would add 12 percent fewer dwelling units and resi-
•
dents than the proposed project to the study area. With its mix of
market-rate and affordable units, the new residents would be similar
in demographic character to those of the proposed project, and this
alternative would create the same displacement pressures on residents
of SRO dwellings and unregulated rental apartments in buildings in
the study area as the proposed project.
o This alternative would generate a proportionally smaller demand on

local community facilities and services than the proposed project.
However, given projected overcrowding at elementary and intermediate
schools in District 3 in 2002, even with this smaller demand, it
would still cause a significant impact on public school resources
that would require the provision of school space on-site. Like the
proposed project, absent a commitment for mitigation, this alterna-
tive would result in a significant unmitigated elementary school
impact.
o While this alternative would have shorter buildings on most of the

development parcels, overall the project would appear the same as the
proposed project, and would be of similar design, bulk, and scale.
o Development under this alternative would affect open space conditions

in two ways. First, this· alternative would generate approximately
1,300 fewer residents and 800 fewer workers than the proposed proj-
ect, which would result in somewhat reduced demand for publicly ac-
cessible recreational facilities. Second, the smaller project would
• generate less funding for the waterfront park. While the reduction
5-54
in available funding would not affect the size of the park, the char-
• acter of the park would be of a lesser quality than the park provided
under the proposed project. Open space constructed under both the
proposed project and this alternative would meet the passive open
space needs of both residents and workers. Like the proposed proj-
ect, the active open space.ratio under this alternative would improve
compared with No Build conditions. Thus, neither the Lesser Density
Alternative nor the proposed project would produce active open space
impacts upon project completion.
o Like the proposed project, this alternative would alter the contexts
of nearby historic resources -- including the Riverside Park and
Drive, four town houses at the corner of Riverside Drive and 72nd
Street, the Chatsworth Apartments, the West 7lst Street Historic Dis-
trict, the West 69th Street transfer bridge, and the Consolidated
Edison Power House -- by converting the predominantly vacant site to
a part of the urban landscape. However, neither the project nor this
alternative would have significant adverse impacts on those re-
sources. Archaeological testing would be required under both this
alternative and the proposed project before construction to avoid
. impacts on potential prehistoric archaeological resources that may be
located at two locations on the site.
o In comparison with the proposed project, this alternative would gen-

erate approximately $492 million less in construction related activi-
ty, which translates into approximately 3,200 person-years of con-
•
struction employment, and $26.4 million in tax revenues for New York
City and State. Approximately 800 fewer permanent jobs would be
created on-site.
o The Lesser Density Alternative, by proportionally reducing each com-

ponent of the project, would reduce the travel demand for the overall
project by approximately 12 percent compared to the proposed project.
In the year 2002 this alternative would significantly impact 23 in-
tersection approaches in one or more peak hours, compared to 25 in-
tersection approaches for the proposed project. In the extended
study area, this alternative would have significant impacts on 18
principal intersection approaches, compared with 20 with the proposed
project. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would
have significant subway impacts at the 59th Street-Columbus Circle,
66th Street, and 72nd Street subway stations, and would have signifi-
cant impacts on five bus routes in the AM peak hour and four in the
PM peak hour. This alternative would have similar significant pedes-
trian impacts to the proposed project.
o In terms .of air quality, this alternative would have similar impacts
to the proposed project. In terms of mobile sources, neither the
proposed project nor this alternative would have a significant im-
pact. In terms of stationary sources, both the proposed project and
this alternative would result in exceedances of the 24-hour S02 and
PM 10 standards. Both the project and this alternative would exacer-
bate the No Build exceedance of the 24-hour S02 standard at the air
• intakes at 555 West 57th Street and cause exceedances of the 24-hour
PM10 standard.
S-55
\
o Noise levels in the waterfront park with both the proposed project
• o
and this alternative would represent significant impacts and be
higher than those recommended for outdoor activities according to the
CEPO-CEQR guidelines (i.e., they would exceed the 55 dBA L10 guide-
line value).
Conditions with respect to soil and groundwater would be the same

with the proposed project and this alternative.
o No significant impacts on the waters of the Hudson River are expected

to result from either the proposed project or this alternative.
o No negative impacts on terrestrial ecology are expected with either

the proposed project or this alternative.
o While this alternative would have fewer residents and office workers
than the proposed project, in terms of water supply and the genera-
tion of sewage and solid waste, its impacts would be comparable to
the proposed project.
o ,Like the proposed project, no significant impacts on energy would

result from this alternative.
o Construction of this alternative would have impacts that are similar

to the proposed project.
• Studio/Office/Sports Complez Alternative
This alternative would include a development program for the 2.1 million-
square-foot commercial building on Parcel N that would'consist of 1 million
zoning square feet (zsf) of studio space (versus 1.B million zsf with the pro-
posed project), 300,000 zsf of general office space (the same as the proposed
project), and an BOO,OOO-zsf Olympic caliber sports and training complex. The
building envelope would remain unchanged under this alternative. Like the
proposed project, this alternative would be completed in Phase II of the proj-
ect by 2002.
A comparison of this alternative with the proposed project follo~s.
o Like the proposed project, this alternative would replace a currently

underutilized site with a large-scale, mixed-use project. It would
provide somewhat less studio space than the proposed project and
would add an BOO,OOO-square-foot Olympic-caliber sports complex. Like
the proposed project, it would be consistent with the patterns of
land use and land use trends within the surrounding neighborhood.
Neither the proposed project nor this alternative would be expected
to create significant secondary development land use impacts.
o The studio component of this alternative is smaller than with the

proposed project and the projected users of this sports complex would
• not be included in the commercial open space population. Therefore,

as with the proposed project, the passive recreational space being
S-56
provided on-site by 2002 would be sufficient to meet the need of the
• o
office and studio wO.rkers in this alternative.
Traffic volumes for this alternative would be lower in the AM and

midday peak hours and slightly higher in the PM peak hour than for
the proposed project. Because of the expected higher rate of transit
utilization for the sports trainees, subway and bus ridership is
expected to be higher in all peak hours under this alternative than
for the proposed project. This alternative has the same impact loca-
tions as the proposed project except for two locations: Twelfth
Avenue northbound at 54th Street in the PM, which would only have
significant impacts for this alternative and not with the proposed
project, and Columbus Avenue southbound at 79th Street in the AM,
which would have significant impacts with the proposed project but
not with this alternative. This alternative would require about 50
fewer parking spaces than the proposed project during the midday
weekday period, but would have almost the same overnight demand as
the proposed project. Higher transit usage expected under this al-
ternative would result in impacts at the 59th Street-Columbus Circle
station. Stairway S3, which would be impacted in both the AM and PM
peak hours with the proposed project, would continue to be impacted
under this alternative. In addition, the greater number of subway
trips generated by this alternative in the PM peak hour would result
in an additional impact at stairway S5. Impacts at the 72nd Street
and 66th Street stations would be identical to those of the proposed
project. This alternative would have significant impacts on six bus
•
routes in the AM peak hour (versus five for the proposed project)· and
five bus routes in the PM peak hour (versus four for the proposed
project). This alternative would result in the same PM peak hour
pedestrian impact as the proposed project.
o In terms of air quality, this alternative would have similar impacts

to the proposed project. The minor incremental difference in the
generated vehicular traffic in the PM period between the proposed
project and this alternative would not result in any changes in the
findings determined for the proposed project.
o Noise levels with this alternative would be similar to noise levels

with the proposed project. In both cases noise levels at receptor
sites would not be significantly different from No Build values.
o The large number of sports trainees expected under this alternative

would place greater demand on infrastructure than the proposed
project.
Sewage Treatment Alternatives
The project has considered two alternatives in the event that the North
River Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) cannot accommodate project generated
•
sewage flows: (1) treatment of sewage at the project site or (2) flow reduc-
tions in the North River service area.
S-57
On-site treatment could consist of either conventional sewage treatment or
• natural system treatment. A conventional sewage treatment plant, using a com-

bination of physical and biological processes to remove the solids and the
dissolved organic material in the sewage, could be constructed on-site to treat
the project's 1.42 million gallons per day (mgd) of domestic sewage or up to
2.0 mgd to serve the project and other large proposed projects near Riverside
South. The plant could be located under Riverside Drive between 69th and 72nd
Streets and, if constructed, would be fully enclosed to allow for an effective
odor control system to be implemented. Construction of the plant would require
a special permit from the City of New York and would have to obtain a State
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (SPDES Permit) from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation for any sewage discharge from the
facility into. the Hudson River.
Natural wastewater treatment systems use natural environmental components

such as vegetation, soil, and microorganisms -- to provide the required
treatment. Because of the limited land available at the Riverside South site,
use of a natural treatment system for treatment of the proposed project's en-
tire wastewater stream is not feasible.
Flow reductions to the North River WPCP could be achieved by two means.
The first, a no net increase in flow effort, would require the retrofitting of
existing high-flow plumbing fixtures within" the North river service area with
water-saving devices that could reduce the flow to the North River WPCP by an
amount equal to the sewage generation of the Riverside South project. The ret-
rofitting effort, which would cost an estimated $15.0 million to implement and
•
administer, would require the voluntary participation of 26,600 households in
order to equal the sewage generated by Riverside South.
D. MITIGATION
Public Elementaty Schools
In 1997, project-generated elementary school students under both a 90-10

and 80-20 housing unit mix would have a significant impact on elementary school
resources by exacerbating conditions of overcrowding that would already exist
without the project. The projected overcrowding could be .potentially mitigated
in the following ways:
o Shifting magnet intermediate school programs out of elementary

schools serving the site to other underutilized elementary or inter-
mediate schools in School District 3;
o Consolidating or relocating administrative uses from schools;
o Redistributing grades from P.S. 191 and P.S. 199 to underutilized

schools in the district;
• o Leasing space that could be constructed on the project site.
S-58
These mitigation measures are pending approval by the Board of Education
• and could be implemented incrementally as needed. Without a Board of Education

commitment for implementation of these measures, the project would have an
unmitigated significant impact on elementary school resources.
At project completion,. project-generated students would significantly

impact public and intermediate school conditions in School District 3. These
impacts could not be mitigated through use of administrative actions. To miti-
gate these impacts, the project would provide, for sale or lease at fair market
value to the Board of Education, additional school space on-site sufficient to
accommodate 600 public e,lementary school students. This would be sufficient to
accommodate all project-generated elementary school students under both unit
mix scenarios and enough additional elementary school students from off-site to
accommodate the equivalent of most project-generated intermediate school stu-
dents. By shifting off-site elementary school students to the on-site school
space, the school district would be able to shift project-generated intermedi-
ate school students to off-site schools. Under the 80-20 unit mix, space for
an additional 86 intermediate school students may be required on-site or ab-
sorbed within the district.
In the absence of a commitment by the district to these shifts, the pro-

Ject would have a significant unmitigated impact on intermediate school re-
sources in 2002. Without a Board of Education commitment to lease or purchase
space on-site, the project would have a significant unmitigated impact on ele~
mentary and intermediate school resources in 2002.
• Historic Resources
Subway Mitigation
As discussed below, one measure proposed to mitigate significant impacts

at the 72nd Street IRT subway station would involve construction of a new en-
trance to the station. This entrance would be located on the north side of
Broadway, by expanding the median of Broadway. The new headhouse would include
new stairs and a widened station platform below. The reconstruction of the 226
feet of the eastern station wall required by this measure would involve demoli-
tion of the tiled sidewall and two of the wall's seven mosaics. Because the
72nd Street station, including its tiled walls and mosaics, is a New York City
Landmark, this mitigation measure would result in a potential significant ad-
verse impact on historic resources. This impact could be mitigated if recon-
struction plans are made in consultation with the New York City Landmarks Pres-
ervation Commission (LPC). After final station designs for the mitigation plan
are completed, mitigation options -- such as re-use of existing tiles and/or
mosaics where possible, and/or the use of suitable replacement tiles and repro-
ductions of the mosaics -- would be discussed with the LPC. If reconstruction
occurs without the implementation of any of these options, then this mitigation
measure would result in an unmitigated significant adverse impact.
In addition, the new station entrance would be located adjacent to. Verdi
Park, a New York City Landmark also listed on the State and National Registers
• of Historic Places. This would not result in a significant adverse impact on

that resource.
S-59
•
Construction activity on the project site could have a significant adverse

impact on nearby historic resources -- the Chatsworth Apartments, the four row
houses at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and 72nd Street, the West
7lst Street Historic District, and the Con Ed Power House. During construction
on the project site, a protection plan would be implemented to prevent damage.
The developer would hire an independent foundation and structural engineer to
fulfill the protection plan, which could include the following:
o An evaluation of the water level, extent, flow, fluctuations, and

variations on the site and adjacent properties;
o Borings and soil reports of the water table, establishing composition

stability and condition;
o Sheetpiling or cofferdam design;
o Foundation and structural condition information and documentation for

the historic properties and the related site; and
o Formulation ,of maximum vibration tolerances based on impact and dura~

tion consideration using accepted engineering standards for old
buildings.
The information would be evaluated by the New York City Landmarks Preser-
•
vation Commission (LPC) and/or appropriate resources with respect to the tech-
niques to be used. The consultant's reports and any comments prepared would be
submitted to the appropriate ~ity agencies as determined by LPC.
The following construction requirements would also be met:
o Final construction plans would be approved by the Department of

Buildings;
o The monitoring consultant would be retained by the applicant at its

sole cost to monitor the construction of the project on a regular
basis;
o Should the beginnings of any damage to historic building foundation

and/or structure be identified during construction, immediate steps
would be taken to halt work, prevent further damage, and repair the
damage; and
o The applicant would be adequately insured or would make alternative

provisions to provide a sufficient fund to cover the expenses of
restoration and/or replacement.
• To mitigate the potential for the proposed project to disturb or destroy

any potential subsurface prehistoric remains on the project site, archaeologi-
cal testing would be carried out in the two narrow strips of fast land (i.e.,
S-60
original land instead of fill) located between 59th and 62nd Streets. Should
• any artifacts of potential significance be found, further testing would be

carried out as necessary pursuant to the New York City Landmarks Preservation
Commission to identify the boundaries and significance of the find.
Traffic and. Transportation
Traffic
A combination of physical and operational changes in the traffic system is

proposed to mitigate the project's significant traffic impacts. The traffic
mitigation plan for the primary area has four elements -- implementation of a
West End Avenue Improvement Plan (WIP) , change in street directions of 61st and
64th Streets, change in signal timing and hardware improvements, and changes in
parking regulations.
o West End Avenue Improvement Plan (WIP) -- Repaving and restriping

West End Avenue from 62nd to 70th Street to remove the median and use
-the curb lanes for parking only when not needed for traffic flow.
The WIP would be implemented by 1997.
o Changing Street Direction of 61st and 64th Streets -- Make 6lst

Street one-way westbound between Amsterdam and West End Avenues to
reduce the demand on 57th and 59th Streets, which currently provide
•
the only westbound access in the area, and make 64th Street eastbound
between West End Avenue and Amsterdam Avenue to match the eastbound
configuration of the on-site 64th Street. Both of these changes
would be made in 2002.
o Signal Timing and Hardware Improvements -- Retime traffic signals to

process project traffic more effectively, and upgrade selected inter-
section controllers to provide time-date coordination that could pro-
vide several different signal timing plans for different peak hours.
These would be implemented as needed in both 1997 and 2002.
o Parking Regulations -- Eliminate parking where necessary in selected

peak hours in both 1997 and 2002. The parking elimination varies
from "day1ighting" (a 75- to 100-foot parking restriction at an in-
tersection approach) to elimination of standing on entire b10ckfaces.
The parking spaces removed would be offset by the new on-site supply
created on the site's new roadways.
In the extended area, the plan includes geometric changes along Twelfth
Avenue between 26th and 16th Streets to mitigate traffic impacts at the 23rd
Street and Eleventh Avenue intersections.
The mitigation measures proposed would mitigate all of the project's sig-
nificant traffic impacts in both the primary and extended areas. The mitiga-
tion plan would also be effective if the Miller Highway is relocated.
• S-61
The applicant is committed to funding all the proposed traffic mitigation
measures, including such physical improvements as the WIP and 23rd/Twelfth
Avenue mitigation plans, and such operational m~asures as changes in street
direction, parking regulations, and signal timing/hardware.
Subways
To mitigate project-generated significant impacts that would 'occur at four

of the 72nd Street IRT station's platform stairs in 1997 and 2002, between 1.8
and 2.3 inches of stair widening would be required. Two measures -- modifi-
cations to the existing s'tairways, and providing a new station entrance and
associated improvement package -- have been examined to try to mitigate project
impacts at this station. These measures are summarized below:
o Modification to the Existing Stairways -- Due to the location of the

existing stairs in relation to the platform edges and the landmark
status of the existing 72nd Street subway headhouse entrance, it is
not physically possible to expand the width of the eXisting stairway
openings.
o Providing a New Station Entrance -- It is possible to mitigate proj-

ect impacts and significantly improve the existing conditions at this
station by providing a new station entrance on the north side of 72nd
Street by expanding the median of Broadway. The new headhouse would
include a control booth and set of turnstiles, and two new stairways
leading from the new mezzanine to the southbound platform, one new
•
stairway leading to the northbound platform, and other additional
station improvements. However, given the existing level of usage and
design of this station, the high costs for this proposed plan (con-
struction cost of functional improvements is estimated by the appli-
cant's consultants to be approximately $25 million), and the limited
number of patrons added by the proposed project in relation to the
predicted No Build station usage, the developer is not prepared to
fully provide this mitigation. ' The developer proposes to commit $5
million for this mitigation, with the city and MTA funding the re-
mainder. Should the city and/or MTA not commit to their share of the
mitigation plan, there would be an unmitigated significant impact.
The project would have a significant impact on one stairway at the 66th
Street IRT subway station during both the AM and PM peak hours for 2002 Build
I~
conditions. The developer proposes to construct a new 8-foot stairway that
would mitigate conditions to below No Build values. The applicant is committed
to providing this mitigation (estimated by the applicant's consultants to cost
approximately $2 million).
No mitigation is proposed for project-generated significant impacts at

stairway S3 at the 59th Street-Columbus Circle station (the circular stairway
to the Paramount Communications building above) that are predicted to occur
during Phase II of the project, since stairway S3 is a private stair, the modi-
fication o~ which would require the participation of an uninvolved private
owner, and since the conditions with the proposed project would be within LOS D
during the peak five minutes. Therefore, the impact at stairway S3 would re-
• , main unmitigated .
S-62
In terms of subway line haul demand, since the MTA takes under its juris-
• diction any systemwide changes to subway service, no project-sponsored mitiga-

tion would be provided for the project-generated change of available capacity
from +1 percent t~ -3 percent on the IRT Nos. 1 and 9 lines during the AM peak
hour for 2002 Build conditions.
Bus Service
The proposed project would have a significant impact on five local bus
routes during the AM and PM peak hours in 1997 and 2002. To provide enough
capacity to service projected demand in 1997, three buses would need to be
added to the M5 route, one bus to the M57 route, and two buses to the Ml04
route during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the MIl and M66 routes
would each require two additional buses, while the Ml04 route would require the
addition of a single peak hour bus. During 2002, to provide enough capacity to
service projected demand during the AM peak hour, four buses would need to be
added to the M5 route, three buses to the MIl route, three buses to the M57
route, one bus to the M66 route, and four buses to the Ml04 route. During the
PM peak hour in 2002, the MIl and M57 routes would require the addition of four
buses to meet projected demand, and the M66 and Ml04 routes would each require
three additional buses. As standard practice, the New York City Transit Au-
thority routinely conducts ridership counts and adjusts bus service frequency, I·
within operating and fiscal constraints, to meet its service criteria. There-
fore, no project-sponsored mitigation would be provided.
To improve bus transit access to the proposed project, several existing
•
NYCTA bus routes would be adjusted to bring bus service directly into the proj-
ect site. The M66 and M72 routes would be adjusted by relocating their turn-
around points from West End Avenue and Freedom Place to Riverside Drive on the
project site. These changes would be made by 1997.
Pedestrian Conditions
The project-generated significant pedestrian impact during the AM peak

hour at the southwest corner of the 72nd Street and Broadway would be mitigated
by· the construction of a 20-foot-long by 6-foot-deep sidewalk extension or
"bulb" along the 72nd Street face of the corner.. The corner would be extended
by utilizing a portion of the parking lane along the south side of 72nd Street
(with the two travel lanes remaining unaffected), and therefore this mitigation
would have no effect on vehicle flow through the intersection.
To mitigate the project-generated significant pedestrian impact that would

occur in 2002 during the PM peak hour at the south crosswalk of the 60th
Street/Broadway intersection, the crosswalk would be restriped to a width of 15
feet.
Air Quality
Mobile Sources
• Neither the proposed project nor the proposed traffic mitigation measures
would result in any significant mobile source air quality impacts in either the
primary or extended study area in 1997 and 2002.
S-63
Stationary Sources
• The proposed project would cause exceedances of the 24-hour S02 and PM 10
standards at the upper level air intakes on the north face of a sealed commer-
cial building located at the southeast corner of 58th Street and Eleventh Ave-
nue (555 West 57th Street); exceedances of the 24-hour S02 standard on residen-
tial buildings Kl, K2, K3, and Jl at elevated receptors; and exceedances of the
24-hour S02 standard at elevated locations on the proposed Macklowe building,
515 West 59th Street, and 790 Eleventh Avenue. These exceedances would repre-
sent significant adverse air quality impacts.
To mitigate these impacts, one of the three boilers currently emitting

pollutants through Stack No. 5 at the Con Edison West 59th Street facility
could be connected instead to Stack No.1. This would shift 33 percent of the
emission from Stack No. 5 to Stack No. I, which is a considerably taller stack
than Stack No.5.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would eliminate all the proj-

ect's significant air quality impacts; with this measure the project would not
result in any exceedances of air quality standards. The implementation of this
mitigation measure would also eliminate the need to seal any parts of proposed
residential buildings Jl, Kl, K2, and
belowNAAQS.
° (K3). All concentrations would be
Implementation of this mitigation measure would require a modification of

the operating permits for the West 59th Street facility from the New York State
•
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Con Edison has committed to
implementing this mitigation if it is acceptable to DEC and funded by the
applicant.
Noise
Mobile Source Noise
No significant noise impact would result from the proposed traffic mitiga-
tion measures for the proposed project in either 1997 or 2002. All locations
would remain in the same CEPO-CEQR categories as they are in the No Build con-
ditions, except Monitored Location 8 in 2002. Location 8, on West 59th Street
near West End Avenue, would change from "marginally unacceptable" to "clearly
unacceptable;" however, the maximum L10(l) increase caused by the proj ect would
be 1.8 dBA, an imperceptible change, and the same change that would occur with
the project without traffic mitigation. All project buildings would have exte-
rior double-glazed windows and air conditioning such that window/wall noise
attenuation would be at least 30 dBA. The building on Parcel M would contain
additional noise window/wall attenuation to achieve at least a 35 dBA noise
reduction. This would ensure that interior noise levels would not exceed the
45 dBA L10(1) CEPO-CEQR requirement. Noise levels at locations in the proposed
park, both with and without the relocated highway, would exceed the CEPO-CEQR
55 dBA L10 guideline level. Noise levels next to active play areas in the park
•
would also exceed the CEPO-CEQR 55 dBA L10 guideline level. Noise levels in
the park would be comparable to levels in existing parks in New York City that
are located adjacent to heavily traveled roadways. No feasible mitigation is
S-64
available to reduce noise levels within the park, either with or without the
• relocated highway, to within the 55 dBA L10 CEPO-CEQR guideline level, and
eliminate the significant impact on park users. Therefore, this would consti-
tute a significant adverse unavoidable impact.
Construction Noise
To mitigate the significant noise impacts generated by construction-re-

lated noise, attempts would be made to ensure that the Leq(lh hour) would be s75
dBA at the nearest residential property line and sao dBA at the nearest commer-
cial building; these noise thresholds are promulgated by DEP for construction
noise associated with tunneling permits and, whenever possible, generally for
all construction activity. The feasibility of noise control measures, such as
quiet equipment and the erection of barriers, to comply with the standards
above would be explored. These thresholds are expected to be exceeded at sev-
eral locations, especially those next to the project site, resulting in unmiti-
gatible adverse noise impacts during construction.
The developer would also ensure that the contractors follow the guidelines
given in the DNA report, "Construction Noise Mitigation Measures" (CON-79-001,
July 1979). Property line sound and vibration level measurements would be made
on a monthly basis and the results compared with the estimated off-site sound
levels detailed in this report to assess the effectiveness of these measures.
Hazardous Materials
• Mitigation measures for potential significant adverse impacts resulting

from the presence of hazardous materials in the soil and groundwater on the
site would be implemented.
Most portions of the project site containing contaminated soils would be

capped off as a result of construction of the proposed project. For those
areas not to be paved or built upon, a remediation program that prevents human
contact with all site soils has been developed. Elements of the plan include
the placement and landscaping of clean soil filIon all uncovered areas, a
temporary layer of gravel over construction staging areas to prevent fugitive
dust, and a construction phase health and safety plan for all stages of
construction.
The presence of methane in particular portions of the site would be miti-

gated by the soil aeration that would occur during excavation, clearing, and
grading of the project site and during construction of the proposed project.
Aeration of soil would reduce the potential buildup of soil gases. Where high
methane readings have been identified, further monitoring would'be undertaken
to determine whether methane is present at potentially explosive levels. If
so, additional spoil aeration techniques would be applied, most likely the
installation of a passive or active venting system below affected structures to
allow escape of methane to ambient air, preventing its buildup in soil gases.
Because methane is an organic rather than a toxic substance, its release pres-
ents no adverse impact to air quality.
• S-65
Groundwater pumped during dewatering of the project site that does meet
• water quality standards for release directly into the Hudson River or the New
York City sewage treatment system may require treatment to reduce chemical con-
centrations prior to discharge. Because of the low levels of concentrations
found at the project site, remediation technologies, such as coagulation, neu-
tralization, clarification, and filtration, would successfully reduce metals to
meet the applicable standards.
Although there is no evidence of gasoline-related byproducts in the soil

or groundwater on the project site, to be prudent, vapor testing of the soils
would be undertaken prior to construction, and any necessary mitigation (i.e.,
aeration of soils) would be carried out in accordance with the construction
phase health and safety· plan.
All remediation plans and health and safety plans will be approved by DEP
and appropriate regulatory agencies before site disturbance or construction.
E. UHHITIGATED ADVERSE IMPACTS
Public Schools
•
In 1997, project-generated elementary school students would have a signif-
icant impact on elementary school resources by exacerbating conditions of over-
crowding that would already exi~t without the project at P.S. 191 and P.S. 199.
The projected overcrowding could be potentially mitigated by shifting magnet
intermediate school programs out of elementary schools serving the site to
underutilized schools in School District 3; consolidating or relocating admin-
istrative uses from schools; redistricting grades from P.S. 191 and P.S. 199 to
underutilized schools in other parts of School District 3; or leasing school
space that could be constructed on the project site. These mitigation measures
are pending approval by the Board of Education and could be effected increment-
ally as needed. Without a Board of Education commitment for implementation of
these measures, the project would have an unmitigated significant impact on
elementary school resources in 1997.
In 2002, project-generated students would significantly impact both ele-

mentary and intermediate school conditions in School District 3, necessitating
the addition of school space on-site to accommodate project-generated students.
The developer has committed to providing space for 600 additional elementary
school seats on-site for sale or lease to the Board of Education at fair market
rate. Under this arrangement, the district would have the fleXibility to shift
other off-site elementary school students to the project school space. Shift-
ing off-site elementary school students to the on-site school space would, in
turn, free up space within area schools that could be used to alleviate the
overcrowding in the district's intermediate schools. Without a commitment from
the Board of Education to such a shift, however, the proposed project would
have an unmitigated adverse impact on intermediate school capacity. Without a
•
Board of Education commitment to lease or purchase this space on-site, the
project would have an unmitigated significant impact on elementary and interme-
diate school resources in 2002~
S-66
• Subways
The applicant proposes to commit $5 million toward mitigation at the 72nd

Street IRT $tation. If the city and/or the MTA do not commit to the remainder
of the cost for this mitigation, there would be unmitigated significant impacts
at this station. The project's significant impact on stairways at the 59th ~
Street-Columbus Circle IRT and IND station in 2002 would also remain unmitigat-
ed. In addition, the project would have a significant impact on the southbound
Nos. land 9 IRT lines southbound during the AM peak hour, resulting in a ca-
pacity deficit. This impact would also remain unmitigated.
No project-sponsored mitigation is recommended for the project's signifi-

cant impacts on five local bus routes, the M5, MIl, M57, M66, and MI04, in both
1997 and 2002. However, the New York City Transit Authority routinely conducts
ridership counts and, within operating and fiscal constraints, adjusts service
to meet its service criteria. Absent a commitment for this mitigation, this
impact would be an unmitigated adverse impact.
Air Quality
• In terms of mobile source air quality, relocation of the Miller Highway

would produce carbon monoxide levels that are below standards but that exceed
de minimis values in areas of the park adjacent to the highway and in play-
grounds atop the park near portals, and would therefore result in a significant
impact. Without mitigation, this impact would be an unmitigated adverse im-
pact.
I?j
Noise
Traffic
Noise levels in the park both with and without the relocated highway would
exceed the CEPO-CEQR 55 dBA L10 guideline levels. There is no feasible mitiga-
tion to reduce noise levels to within these guideline levels. This would con-
stitute an unmitigated adverse impact on park users.
Construction
Efforts would be made to mitigate significant impacts from construction

noise by ensuring that the would be s75 dBA at the nearest residen-
Leq('h hour)
tial property line and sSO dBA at the nearest commercial building; these noise
thresholds are promulgated by DEP for construction noise. These thresholds are
expected to be exceeded at several locations, especially at those next to the
~ project site, reSUlting in unmitigatible adverse construction noise impacts.
S-67
CHAPTER I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• A. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Introduction
This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared in

response to the requirements of Executive Order No. 91 of 1977 issued by the
Office of the Mayor of the City of New York, governing the City Environmental
Quality Review (CEQR), and the regulations of the State of New York's State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) as found in Part 617 of 6 NYCRR, for
the proposed Riverside South mixed use development.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared to assess the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed discretionary New York City
actions that would facilitate the development of the Riverside South proposal.
The project description immediately follows and the specified discretionary
actions that would need to be taken to effectuate this projec.~ are identified
in section I.E.
Overall Development Program
• The Trump Organization is seeking a variety of discretionary approvals

from the City of New York in order to develop Riverside South, a major mixed-
use and open space project located on the West Side of Manhattan. As described
in section I.E of this chapter, these actions include:. City Map changes; chang-
es to the Zoning Map; and special permits for general large scale developments,
for developments in railroad or transit air spaces, for public parking, and for
the extension of time for completion of substantial construction.
The program and design for Riverside South have been developed by the
Riverside South Planning Corporation, consisting of representatives of the
Regional Plan Association, the Municipal Art Society, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, The Parks Council, Westpride, the Riverside Park Fund, and the
Trump Organization. The overall progr~ calls for the development of 5,700
dwelling units (6.2 million zoning square feet), including affordable housing
units; up to 102,500 zoning square feet (zsf) of retail space; up to 163,400
zsf of professional office or community facility space; 300,000 zsf of general
purpose office space; and up to a 1.8 mi11ion-zsf studio complex for film or
television production, including up to.35,OOO zsf of retail space; and publicly
accessible open spaces, including an approximately 21.5-acre waterfront park.
Below grade, the project would contain a 37 , OOO-square-foot, six-screen, 1,800-
seat cinep1ex; an additional 45,000 square feet of retail space; and 3,500
parking spaces. The project would be built on a platform above the former Penn
Central rai1yards and above the existing Amtrak right-of-way.
• The project would extend Riverside Drive south from 72nd Street through
the project site to 59th Street and Twelfth Avenue and, in most cases, would
1-1
•
extend the existing Manhattan street grid from the east to connect with the new
Riverside Drive. The project would provide space under and adjacent to the
extension of Riverside Drive that would enable the New York State Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT) to relocate the Miller Highway, which is currently be-
ing renovated, inboard of its current location. The relocation of the highway
is a separate and independent action from the approvals and plans of the River-
side South project. The applicant is seeking project approvals for two differ-
ent conditions -- one in which the Miller Highway is relocated and one in which
the highway remains in place.
Project Location
The proposed Riverside South project would be built on the 56. I-acre up-
land portion of an approximately 74.6-acre former railyard located along the
Hudson River on the West Side of Manhattan (see Figure I-I). Approximately
18.5 acres of the project site is located under water and privately owned;
that acreage and 31.1 acres of city-owned .underwater land would be mapped as
parkland. No new development is proposed in or over the Hudson River.
The project site is bounded on the north by West 72nd Street and Riverside
Park, on the south by West 59th Street, on the west by the Hudson River, and on
the east by buildings at the west end of West 72nd, 7lst, and 70th Streets, by
Freedom Place, by the Capital Cities/ABC studio complex building (between 66th
and 65th Streets), parking lots and vacant land between 61st and 65th Streets
•
(proposed for development by Capital Cities/ABC and the approved Manhattan West
project), and West End Avenue. Major uses next to the site include Lincoln
Towers, a 3,844-unit housing complex completed in 1965; Amsterdam Houses, a
l,077-unit public housing project completed. in 1948; the Con Edison West 59th
Street plant; and ABC facilities between 64th and 66th Streets (see Figures 1-2
and 1-3). A 0.7-acre strip of city property, under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Business Services (DBS, formerly Ports and Trade), abuts the
northwest corner of the site along the Hudson River between West 72nd and 70th
Streets. There are other small areas of property along the shoreline of the
site that are likewise under the jurisdiction of DBS. An additional 6.5 acres
of underwater city-owned property lie directly off the project's northern
shoreline.
Principal Site Features
The project site occupies about 0.6 miles of shoreline along the Hudson
River and ranges in width between 500 feet at its narrowest point (at 72nd
Street) to 1,070 feet at its widest point (at 59th Street) (including portions
both to the east and west of the Miller Highway). Much of the site was created
by landfill. Depth to bedrock ranges from 10 to 30 feet along the site's east-
ern boundary to more than 100 feet along the bulkhead line and more than 200
feet at the pierhead line in the Hudson River (see Figure 1-4). The site is
nearly flat, with grades toward the Hudson River ranging from 1 to 3 percent.
•
At its southern end, the site is at the same elevation as the adjacent city
street grid, but to the north, the site's elevation remains relatively con-
stant, while that of West End Avenue rises. This creates a vertical embankment
1-2
Regional Location
Figure 1-1
•
New York
!
N·
New York
New Jersey
•
\
i
QUEENS /-i
\
i
i
;
\
BROOKLYN
•
12091
Site Location
Figure 1-2
• !....A§J
~r.".J.;
...~
\ ~
•
1-
, T,
I
"
-.-.-.~
72nd St •
• Ij)L-
If-.r-
II-::
:f=--
I~
,;1==
Project
Site
59th St.
_
~-x::==:--
---1
•
I
i~~::.mor::::::~r:::::~::::::~I
oIICALE
I 3DOO_1'&1'
12091
Immediate Site Context
•
Figure 1-3
N.Y. City
Property
... :~_!_.....,
--=-.. . .]. ~LJID q

I .
.~
n
~
\--_....l :--\
] q
-ex: "
iI!!
. LllniOI, Towers ul '; I .
I,
I :
\..J-rS
:t~--- . . 0. ~:-:-:['--,;:-~~J_-=I
.!
<:
o j
w. 66th St.
o=]=--
•
CI)
Q <--:..:ilb D
I:n~ LJU
::::l
n----rl Sll
l: ,L...I ~ I.:
• - Retaining Wall
Wl't'tl1! Property Une
W///h Miller Highway
\.'\'\'\'\'\ Amtrak R.O.W.
--- u.s. Bulkhead Une
B through I Pier Identification
1 Loading Platforms
Z Ufschultz Fast Freight
5 Parking Lot
6 Con Edison Parking Lot
J Emergency and Access Road '7 Parking Lot
4 Industrial Buildings
o 310 4110 FIlEr
I I I
12091
Topography and Depth to Bedrock
Figure 1-4
r-----
r-I•______ -,
L- I !
o 2110 !OIl 7ID "!'lET

I i I I I
•
• _ . - Project Site Boundary ICALI
Depth to Bedrock:
//////. 10' to 30'
c:=::J 30' to 105'
12091
•
along the eastern boundary of the site that ranges in height from 0 feet at
59th Street to 44 feet at 72nd Street. A retaining wall supports the embank-
ment along almost the entire length of the eastern edge of the site (see Figure
1-3, above). The height differential physically separates the site from the
adjacent neighborhood. The city's street system currently does not traverse
the site ..
The most notable site features are the rights-of-way for Amtrak and the
Miller Highway. The Amtrak right-of-way is 55 feet wide by 18 feet high and
runs along the eastern edge of the site. The Amtrak right-of-way contains two
railroad tracks that run down the west side of Manhattan from Spuyten Duyvil in
the Bronx to Pennsylvania Station at 32nd Street. In April 1991, following a
period of reconstruction, Amtrak began running passenger trains from upstate
New York along these tracks to Pennsylvania Station, rerouting trains that
previously terminated at Grand Central Station. Approximately l3.passenger
trains per day utilize this right-of-way.
The Miller Highway currently runs within an aerial easement, generally 140
feet wide on the western portion of the property. The highway is elevated from
23 feet at 59th Street to 58 feet at 72nd Street. The highway supports sepa-
rate the bulk of the site both physically and visually from the Hudson River.
The highway is currently being renovated by NYSDOT. Renovation is projected to
be completed in late 1994 or early 1995.
The southern end of the site also contains several parking lots and unoc-
cupied·or partially occupied industrial bUildings .
• In addition to the rights-of-way for the Amtrak line and the Miller High-
way, a 10-foot-wide easement for a combined storm water and sanitary sewer
crosses the site at 66th Street and ends in an outfall at the bulkhead. A
relief sewer branches from this line at Freedom Place and runs north to 72nd
Street, mostly within the Amtrak right-of-way.
B. BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project site, occupied since the mid-19th century by freight and/or
passenger rail service, has been under consideration for large-scale develop-
ment since the early 1960's. At that time, the New York Central Railroad, the
owner of the site, in response to continued declines in traffic, began to con-
sider leasing development rights over its property. As rail operations contin-
ued to contract through the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's -- all rail traffic
ceased at the yards by 1983 -- and as ownership of the site passed from the New
York Central to Penn Central (resulting from the merger of the New York Central
and Pennsylvania Railroads) to Conrail.and then to private ownership, specific
development plans emerged for the site. Only one, Lincoln West (see discussion
below) was actually approved by the City. During this same time, the City
Planning Commission (CPC) issued a planning study for the Lincoln Square area
that focused on the development of the project site .
• 1-3
•
Litho City
In 1962, New York Local No. 1 of the Amalgamated Lithographers Union pro-
posed "Litho City," a mixed-use development to be built on a 36-acre platform
over the then-active rail yards. Litho City would have included 5,000 apart-
ments, retail facilities, parking for 5,000 cars, housing for 1,000 foreign
students, an international conference center with 500,000 square feet of space,
sports fields, and a rehabilitated waterfront with an extension of Riverside
Park, and a marina. The proposal never reached the stage of formal consider-
ation by the city.
Educatiooal Construction Fund
In 1969, the New York City Educational Construction Fund proposed the
construction of athletic fields for West Side city high schools and the private
development of 6,000 to 12,000 apartments. The athletic fields would have been
paid for by the residentia1- development. The proposal included the extension
of Riverside Park and the reconstruction of the waterfront. Like Litho City,
this p:roposal was neveI'.: formally considered by the city.
The TruIIlp Organization
• In 1975, The Trump Organization purchased an option on the Penn Yards and
proposed the construction of 12,450 apartments and an additional 1,600 units on
the adjacent New York Times site. At that time, the Upper West Side was seen
as an improving residential area, but one not yet able to support large-scale,
unsubsidized new housing. The proposal therefore called for middle-income
apartments to be supported by a New York State housing program. The project
would have included 250,000 square feet of retail space, a waterfront park, and
the lowering of the Miller Highway to improve waterfront access.
The developer discussed a number of proposals with Community Board 7 and

the city. There was no agreement, however, on the middle-income housing pack-
age or the allocation of the cost of public amenities. As the option on the
property was expiring, the proposal was withdrawn, and accordingly never
reached the stage of formal consideration by the City.
Lincoln Square and Its Waterfront
In 1976, the DCP issued a report (Lincoln Square and Its Waterfront) that
reviewed existing zoning, land use, demographic, transportation, and open space
conditions in the Lincoln Square area (bordered by 74th Street, Central Park
West, 57th Street, and the Hudson River), and addressed the primary issues
associated with potential redevelopment of the Penn Yards site. The project
site was considered to be a prime location for residential development, al-
• though the CPC noted the physical and design problems posed by the Miller High-
way viaduct. The need for new recreational space and direct access to the
waterfront was also stressed.
1-4
•
Lincoln Veat
In January 1981, Lincoln West Associates, a joint venture of the Macri

Organization and Hirschfeld Realty, proposed "Lincoln West," a mixed-use proj-
ect to be built over a 10-year period on a platform over the rail yards. The
proposal included 4,850 apartments in both towers and low- and mid-rise build-
ings; 500,000 square feet of retail space, including a mix of supermarkets and
other food stores, convenience goods outlets, restaurants, and specialty retail
shops; 1.0 million square feet of office space; a 500-room hotel; parking for
3,700 cars; 28.3 acres of open space that included a 22-acre waterfront park;
and facilities for active recreation. The approved project totalled 7.3 mil-
lion square feet of zoning floor area.
The Lincoln West proposal included a new north-south boulevard that would
have bisected the site, the rehabilitation of certain piers and the removal of
others, improvements to nearby streets and the Miller Highway, and the provi-
sion of 137,000 square feet of space within the project for Lifschultz Fast
Freight, which relocated to temporary facilities on the southern end of the
site in October 1982.
Lincoln West would hav~ been developed in two phases. The northern phase
of the project, between 72nd and 66th Streets, would have been constructed
first and would have contained approximately 30 percent of the proposed dwell-
ing units, about 20 percent of the project's retail space, and 25 percent of
the project's parking. The southern portion of the project site, i.e., the
• area between 66th and 59th Streets, constituting the balance of the program,
would have been completed in the project's second phase.
Since the Lincoln West site was zoned for manufacturing use, development
of the project included: a change in the Zoning Map to allow the proposed
residential and commercial uses (to a mix of RIO, R8, C4-7, and C3 zones);
special permits to allow development over Penn Yards, a general large plan, and
to allow parking spaces under the platform for parking in excess of that al-
lowed by the underlying zoning; and mapping actions -- both mappings and demap-
pings -- to extend the city grid system through the site.
The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Lincoln West proj-
ect identified a number of significant adverse environmental impacts associated
with the proposal. The discussion of the Lincoln West environmental impacts is
for historical purposes only and is intended to convey a general order of mag-
nitude of the types and extent of the significant adverse 'impacts that would
have resulted from the construction and operation of Lincoln West. Because of
changes in methodologies, the time that has elapsed since the Lincoln West FEIS
was completed, differences in Build years, and differences in design between
Lincoln West and Riverside South, the presentation of impacts sh~uld not De
directly,compared with the impacts of the proposed Riverside South project.
The impacts identified in the Lincoln West FEIS included:
o Significant traffic impacts at a nwnber of locations in the primary
•
traffic study area, 39 intersections in the extended study area, and
4 intersections in the secondary travel corridor beyond the study
area. Impacts at two intersections in the primary study area and two
locations in the extended study area were unmitigated.
1-5
•
o Significant impacts on five local bus routes.
o Significant air quality impacts at 23 receptor locations in the pri-

mary study area during the weekday peak periods, potential impacts at
two receptors in the saturday peak peri.od, and additional impacts on
the extended area.
o Violations of air quality standards would be created at nine receptor

locations during the weekday peak period and predicted No Build vio-
lations of standards would be exacerbated at 15 receptor locations
during the weekday peak period, and at additional receptor locations
in the extended study area.
o Creating exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS for SOz, PM10 ' and/or NO z on
the Lincoln West site, exacerbating elevated SOz exceedances on a
nearby proposed building, and creating ground-level SOz and PM 10 vio-
lations.
o Significant noise impacts at one noise receptor in the AM and PM peak

periods.
The Lincoln West project also included commitments for the reconstruction
of the 72nd Street IRT subway station and improvements to the 66th Street IRT
station, as well as a major stack extension at the Con Edison generating sta-
tion at West 59th Street.
• The EIS also identified the increased potential for the indirect displace-
ment of commercial and residential tenants, some obstruction of views for ten-
ants in residences to the east of the site, and additional shadows. Signifi-
cant impacts during construction of the project included noise impacts from on-
site construction activities, particularly on residential areas surrounding the
northern section of the site, and water quality impacts on the Hudson River
resulting from resuspension of bottom sediments during pier demolition and
reconstruction.
Lincoln West was approved by the CPC and the Board of Estimate in 1982.
The CPC report on the project noted the unproductive nature of the on-site uses
and the need to redevelop the site in a timely manner. Development of a mixed-
use project, with commercial uses centered in the southern end of the site to
relate to the 59th Street corridor, was recommended. Public recreational use
of the waterfront was considered the best option for that portion of the site.
The importance of creating a connection between the site and the local street
system wherever practicable and maximizing access to the waterfront were also
stressed.
The principal modifications to the Lincoln West plan resulting from the
approval process included a reduction in the number of apartments from 4,850 to
4,300, a set-aside of 5 percent of the units for low- and moderate-income
households, a reduction in the number of parking spaces, and the elimination of
the hotel. As part of the project's approval, the developer committed funds to
the MTA to assist in the planning and construction of an improvement plan for
•
the 72nd Street/Broadway and 66th Street/IRT subway stations, and committed
funds to assist the New York State Department of Transportation in financing
rail freight facilities in the Harlem River Yard in the Bronx.
1-6
•
The Lincoln West developer never proceeded with the project, and all work
on the project was halted in 1984. On-site work completed prior to that time
included the following:
o Removal of most of the rail sidings;
o Removal of one rail freight loading platform and parts of two others
and the demolition of the superstructures of three other platforms;
o Demolition of four abandoned one- and two- story buildings on the
northern part of the site between the Miller Highway and the Hudson
River;
o Demolition of two unused buildings on 59th Street 120 to 350 feet
west of West "End Avenue;
o Removal of waterfront debris from the site;
o Construction of an emergency and access road running from West End
Avenue and 60th Street to Twelfth Avenue (under the Miller Highway)
and 63rd Street;
o Installation of a site-lighting system; and
o Installation of a chain link fence on the site perimeter.
Television City
•
In December 1984, the project site was sold to The Trump Organization. In
November 1985, plans were announced for the development of Television City, a
~arge mixed-use development. As originally proposed, Television City would
have been set on a landscaped platform over the former railyards. Atop the
platform would have been a ISO-story mixed-use building (the world's tallest
building), seven 72-story residential buildings, and a- l7-story television
production technical building to accommodate production facilities, television
studios and related office use intended to retain the headquarters and broad-
casting facilities of NBC in New York City. This building, which would have
been located at the southern end of the site, would have contained 100,000-
square-foot floors. Six levels of space were to be developed below the plat-
form including additional studio space, a large retail mall, and parking.
Overall, the project was proposed to contain about 7,600 dwelling units, more
than 2.0 million square feet of office and studio space, 1.3 million square
feet of retail space, parking for approximately 9,000 cars, and 13.6 acres of
recreational space and a riverfront esplanade. The proposed project contained
18.5 million square feet of zoning floor area. Following the decision by NBC
to renew its lease at Rockefeller Center, the plans for Television City were
altered resulting in the proposal for Trump City, which is described below.
Trump City
The Trump City proposal eliminated the two-block-long studio building and
•
replaced it with additional parkland and two office buildings. The total park-
land was increased to 20.8 acres, including a l3-block-long waterfront espla-
nade. The number of residential units was unchanged. The project was also
1-7
•
planned to include about 3.6 million square feet of office space, a 7S0-room
hotel, and about 1.5 million square feet of retail space, including a regional
shopping mall and local retail space, and about 7,300 parking spaces. The pro-
posed project contained 14.25 million square feet of zoning floor area. The
plan retained the basic heights of the buildings proposed under Television City
including the ISO-story mixed-use building.
Trump City proposed a system of vehicular and pedestrian circulation based

on the extension of the existing street grid onto the site, creation of a new
central north-south boulevard to serve as the central focus of the design, ex-
tension of Twelfth Avenue under the Miller Highway structure, and creation of a
new southbound ramp from the Miller Highway onto the site. The plan would have
accommodated the existing freight forwarding operations at the southern end of
the site.
A notice of completion on the DEIS prepared for Trump City was issued in
February 1991. However, following negotiations with a coalition of civic
groups, on July 31, 1991, the developer withdrew the application for Trump
City.
Hemorandua of Agreement
On March 5, 1991, the City of New York, the State of New York, Donald
Trump, and a consortium of civic organizations (Municipal Art Society, Natural
•
Resources Defense Council, Parks Council, Regional Plan Association, Riverside
Park Fund, Westpride) announced an agreement on a concept that formed the basis
of a new plan for the Penn Yards site. The agreement envisioned the creation
of a new public waterfront park, which would connect with Riverside Park and
which would be built at the expense of the developer concurrent with the devel-
opment of the site and the highway; the development of-a project of 8.3 million
square feet, including residential, studio, office, and street level retail
space, which would be developed pursuant to design guidelines and a site plan
that would ensure that the buildings would be harmonious with the character of
the Upper West Side; the provision of land, at no cost to the city, for a
right-of-way for a future inboard highway, east of the existing elevated high-
way; and the withdrawal of applications for the previous proposal for the site.
Under the agreement, the plan would be subject to a full planning process
and applicable environmental and public review procedures. The planning pro-
cess would be coordinated by the New York City Department 'of City Planning and
would include the participation of the State of New York, Community Board 7,
the Borough President of Manhattan, other elected officials, and neighborhood
and civic groups.
The agreement acknowledges the immediate need to rehabilitate the existing

Miller Highway to provide safe and uninterrupted travel for the vehicles that
use the road on a daily basis, while providing a right-of-way for a successor
road at an inland location .
• 1-8
•
C. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Design Approach and Development Controls
The design of the project reflects both the development goals established
by the project sponsor and underlying site and neighborhood factors.
Project Development Goals
The applicant's goals for the proposed project are:
o Create a livable, mixed-use neighborhood tied to existing adjoining

neighborhoods;
o Restore public use of the waterfront by providing a waterfront park

that would be readily accessible to the public;
o Physically connect the project's waterfront park to Riverside Park

and, in the future, to the Hudson River esplanade;
o Provide pedestrian corridors onto and through the site and its water-
front and recreational areas;
o· Extend the city street grid onto the site and provide public view
•
corridors;
o Extend Riverside Drive onto the project site, connecting from 72nd
Street to the north to 59th Street and Twelfth Avenue to the south;
and
o Relate the development to eXisting neighborhood development patterns.
Site and Neighborhood Factors
Among the site and neighborhood factors that have affected the project's
design are:
o Planned or approved development projects immediately next to the

project site (i.e., the proposed Capital Cities/ABC development and
the approved Manhattan West development on West ·End Avenue between
6lst and 65th Streets);
o The proximity to the Con Edison facility located to the immediate

south of the project site;
o The proximity to Riverside Park, existing landmark buildings and an

essentially low- and mid-rise pattern of development next to the
northern end of the project site;
•
o The continued presence of the elevated Miller Highway and its related
right-of-way;
I-9
•
o The necessity to maintain clearance above the Amtrak easement running
along the eastern edge of the project site; and
o The depth of the site, which ranges from 500 feet at 72nd Street to
1,070 feet at 59th Street.
Design Approach
The design approach for the project incorporates the project goals and
site and neighborhood conditions, as described above, and results in a project
with a mix of uses, varied scales, an abundance of public spaces including a
large waterfront park, and a strong commitment to link the project to the sur-
rounding neighborhoods.
The creation of the waterfront park, the extension of Riverside Drive

south through the site, and the extension of the existing city street grid onto
the site from the east are the three major organizing elements shaping the
design plan. They have established the size and shape of the project's devel-
opment parcels (see Figure 1-5), the patterns of vehicular and pedestrian cir-
culation, and the distribut~on of uses and bulk on the project site.
Sensitivity to surrounding uses and patterns of development also strongly

influenced the project's design. The northern portion of the project is bor-
dered by Riverside Park, landmarks along 7lst and 72nd Streets, including the
Chatsworth Apartments on 72nd Street and a historic district on 7lst Street,
and a generally mid- and low-rise residential neighborhood. The stretch of the
•
project between 6lst and 70th Streets is affected by the presence of two large-
scale existing projects, Lincoln Towers and the Amsterdam Houses; an existing
Capital Cities/ABC studio building on the west side of West End Avenue at 66th
Street; one approved project, Manhattan West, located along West End Avenue
between 6lst and 63rd Streets; and one proposed mixed-use project, proposed by
ABC, on 64th Street and West End Avenue adjacent to its existing studios.
Their presence influenced decisions about access, the location of public
spaces, and building massing. The design of the southern part of the project
was affected by the proximity to the Con Edison facility on 59th Street, which
affects the height and/or design of nearby buildings, and the proximity to a
greater concentration of commercial/light industrial uses.
Because of the size of the project, a more detailed description of the

design approach has been divided into two geographic components, as described
below.
Northern Neighborhood
Reflecting the proximity to Riverside Park, landmark buildings, and the

neighborhood to the immediate north and east, the development plan calls for a
mid-rise (15 stories) residential building at West 72nd Street gently curving
onto Riverside Drive at the height of the Chatsworth (see Figure 1-6). The
permitted height of the residential buildings varies to the south, with the
tallest building at 70th Street (49 stories), a wide street already influenced
by the heights of the buildings at Lincoln Towers. From West 70th Street to
•
65th Street, building heights step down to the south in response to the widen-
ing of the park.
1-10
5·92
• • •
~I~g ~ -.. -oUII~~~~~ m~ldD
J!~~lln [ = I)~l mB~::!!PL ~ ;>ft" ,\I" "
- - - - Project Site Boundary

... Pedestrian Entry
A Vehicular Entry o 200 400 eoo 8DO FEET
I I
N Parcel Name SCALE
~ Park
Note: See Figures 1·6 and '·7 for more details
Site Plan Showing Existing Highway
Figure 1-5
North Neighborhood
•
Figure 1-6
-
-
i
i
I
i
i
~
u n
i
~
r
i
L~
I
~
I
•
;.
-
r--
Ii
j ,
.~--'~~~~~~~~~~~~~
n n
II I I·
I I I I I I
II II II II II II I
I I I I . I I II
II II ILl
._~),--J L~ L---1 ----l
o 100 200 3DO 400 SOD FEET

Project Site Boundary I I I I I I
SCALE
• Pedestrian Entry
L:> Vehicular Entry
• 18
N
Number of Stories
Parcel Name
12091
•
A main organizing element in the northern portion of the project site is
Freedom Place, currently a sparsely used, four-lane, two-way street separating
the project site from Lincoln Towers between 66th and 70th Streets. Freedom
Place's major characteristic is a 24-foot-high wall along its eastern frontage
broken only by ventilation grills and the parking garage entrances for Lincoln
Towers. One of the major goals of the design plan is to enliven Freedom Place
and to that end, Freedom Place would be narrowed, converted to a one-way
street, with retail uses incorporated along its western frontage.
Pedestrian movement would be emphasized and east-west linkages to River-

side Drive would be created along 66th, 68th, and 70th Streets. To prevent
increases in traffic along 7lst Street immediately east of the project site, a
low-scale block in a historic district, the existing cul-de-sac abutting the
project site would be maintained. Seventy-first Street, as well as 69th, 67th,
and 65th Streets, would be mapped as public access easements, open to local
traffic and emergency and service vehicles, and would be designed to enhance
the pedestrian environment. Access to the waterfront park would be provided at
several locations in the north neighborhood (see section below, "Open Space and
Landscaping Plan").
Southern Neighborhood
The 'design for the southern portion of the project site acknowledges the
proximity of both Manhattan West and the Capital Cities/ABC Studios and the
increased depth of the building sites. South of 65th Street, the buildings
again rise to a height of 41 stories (between 63rd and 64th Streets), then step
• down in response to the emissions of the Con Edison plant, which guide the
maximum allowable heights south of approximately 63rd Street (see Figure 1-7).
rhe buildings in the south would be organized around "two interrelated parks and
a system of open spaces between 61st and 64th Streets and along a new street,
Freedom Place South, which would expand on the system of open spaces already
proposed by the Manhattan West project. Retail uses would further enliven the
southern neighborhood. Building heights would range between 4 stories and 41
stories. Streets would be landscaped to encourage pedestrian movement, with
direct access to Riverside Drive provided at 61st, 62nd, 63rd, and 64th
Streets. Sixty-second Street west of Freedom Place South would be mapped as a
public access easement, with similar characteristics to those in the northern
neighborhood, and designed as a pedestrian street. Access to the waterfront
park would be provided at selected locations in the southern neighborhood.
The southernmost portion of the site would include a commercial building,

accommodating both general office use and a studio complex. This site was cho-
sen for the studio complex for three reasons. First, it is consistent in use
with the patterns of commercial and industrial development to the south and
immediate east of the project site. Second, given studio requirements for
large floor plates, it was the only building site that could accommodate such a
use. Third, because of the location of the new Riverside Drive and the Miller
Highway, access could not be provided to the waterfront along 60th Street,
thereby resulting in a decision not to map it as a public street.
Large Scale Special Permit Controls and Design Guidelines
• The proposed controls in the Large Scale Permit would ensure the provision
of bulk, massing, and scale in a manner generally consistent with the built
1-11
South Neighborhood
Figure 1-7
~
:
.. .
. .
D
. . " ,
0 .[J
..-- .
.
N ".
I
I
I I I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I I I
IL----II I I L~
L-
o 100 2IlO 3DO 400 SOD FEET
I I I I I I
. SCALE
-- Project Site Boundary
... Pedestrian Entry
•
t:. Vehicular Entry
18 Number of Stories
N Parcel Name
•
form along the West Side. The Design Guidelines would be self-imposed by the
developer, not controlled by the proposed regulatory controls. These controls
and guidelines would:
o Provide long-term guidance to the project, which would be built over

an extended period of time, ensuring compatibility between the proj-
ect and the surrounding neighborhoods and between different parcels
of the project itself;
o Ensure that the project incorporates accepted urban design and plan-
ning principles; and
o Implement an arts program for the project's development parcels and

open spaces, including the waterfront park.
The Large Scale Special Permit Controls establish criteria for use, bulk, and
landscaping; and specify mandatory streetwall and setback locations for the
buildings' bases, middle areas, and towers; the maximum building envelope on
each parcel; and total square footage for each parcel and for each tower.
Building heights could be lower than the maximum limits, but the EIS conserva-
tively assumes that development would be built to the maximum permitted. In
,addition, the Design Guidelines specify certain desi·gn details patterned after
those elements that give the Upper West Side its unique character -- including
windows, building materials, and colors.
The Large Scale Permit Controls are part of the ULURP application that is
• subject to review by the City Planning Commission and the City Council. The
Design Guidelines are not part of the city's discretionary review. The appli-
cant would use these guidelines in the future development of the site. They
would affect the likely development scenario; however, there is nothing in the
ULURP application or review process that would bind future development with
respect to these guidelines.
Large Scale Special Permit Controls'
use, ground plane, and building mass and form, and would be included as part of
the site's special permit under the New York City Zoning Resolution. They
would establish individual criteria for each development parcel, governing such
elements as:
o Building footprint -- the placement of the building on the develop-

ment parcel.
o Bulk -- the bulk of project buildings would be governed by streetwall

controls, tower controls, and building envelope controls. Specific
height and setback requirements would be established for the base,
middle, and high sections of each building. The building envelope
would define the outer perimeter within which all potential building
mass must be placed; the streetwall and tower controls define the
characteristics, composition, and bulk of the building mass within
•
the envelope.
Envelope Controls: These establish the outer limits of the

potential building configurations.
1-12
Streetwa11 Controls: These establish the overall character of
• the buildings from street level up to 190 feet. The length of

the front building wall along the property line, the setback
height, recesses, corner conditions (whether beveled, rounded,
square, etc.), projections, expression lines, and base (includ-
ing certain requirements of materials and percentage of glass)
would be mandated. Specific streetwa11 conditions would be
established for different portions of each development parcel,
to best relate to surrounding areas. For example, some parcels
would have a low-rise town house element along the side streets
with taller buildings on Riverside Drive.
Tower Controls: The maximum square footage and maximum dimen-

sions, including setback, shape, and height of the towers, would
be specified. These controls were set up to give the project a
distinctive profile along Riverside Drive, similar to the build-
ings along Central Park West. For example, on several parcels,
twin towers would be required.
o Allowable uses -- e.g., residential, commercial, retail, etc. Spe-

cific areas of neighborhood-oriented retail would be mandated along
Freedom P1a.ce and Freedom Place South, to provide service·s for the
project's res.idents and to encourage activity and architectural vari-
ety at street level. Retail frontage would be allowed and encouraged
at other locations, such as along public cross streets. The archi-
tectural treatment of the storefronts, including windows, signage,
•
awnings, etc., would be specified within the Large Scale Special·
Permit Controls.
Design Guidelines
The Design Guidelines would address such architectural elements as materi-

al, color, and lighting. Each building's consistency with these requirements
would be considered by a privately designated review body before construction.
However, these guidelines are not part of the ULURP application and are subject
to· change without city review. They would be implemented by the developer in
excess of the Special Permit Controls. The Design Guidelines would cover areas
such as:
o Building materials -- Including exterior materials, decorative mate-

rials, and amount of glass within the base, middle portion, and tower
of each building. Materials must be primarily masonry to reinforce
the relationships among buildings in the project and relate to the
existing context of the Upper West Side.
o Window proportions and subdivisions.
o Color -- A broad array of color would be allowed, within the range of

earth tones that characterizes the Upper West Side. More intense
co1o·r would be introduced in decorative elements.
o Exterior lighting -- including tower tops and lighting at entrances .
• 1-13
•
o Private open spaces -- i.e., building courtyards for use by project
residents and workers.
Large Scale Special Permit Controls Adjacent to Historic Resources
For parcels close to historic resources (Parcels A, B, N, and M -- near

the Chatsworth Apartments, the West 7lst Street Historic District, and the
Consolidated Edison Power House), more specific Large Scale Special Permit Con-
trols would be mandated. This is discussed in more detail in section II.H,
"Historic and Archaeological Resources."
Progr.. of Land Uses
Parcelization and Land Use Plan
The extension of Riverside Drive and the eXisting Manhattan street grid to
the project site has resulted in the creation of 15 separate development par-
cels (see Figure 1-5 above). The development parcels primarily front on the
extension of Riverside Drive. All development parcels would be located upland.
No new development is pr~posed in or over the water. .
A parcel-by-parcel summary of projected development is presented in Table

I-I. With the exception of Parcel N, all parcels would be developed with some
combination of residential and ground-floor professional office, community
• facility, and/or retail space. Parcel N would contain a mix of studio space,
general office space, and retail use. Total development above-grade is antici-
pated to total about 8.3 million zoning square feet (zsf) , more than 70 percent
of which would be in residential use.
The 15 development parcels are included on 8 separate zoning lots as pre-

sented in Table 1-2. For example, zoning lot A-B comprises development parcels
A and B, while zoning lot C-D comprises development parcels C and D, etc.
Residential Component
The proposed project would contain 5,700 dwelling units, with an approxi-
mate unit distribution as follows: 4.4 percent studios (250 dwelling units),
45.6 percent one-bedroom units (2,600 dwelling units), 44.4 percent two-bedroom
units (2,530 units), and 5.6 percent three-bedroom units (320 dwelling units).
The units would be a mix of market-rate and low-, moderate-, and middle-income
affordable housing. At a minimum, assuming no appropriate government subsidy
program is available, 10 percent of the project's total dwelling units would be
subsidized internally as affordable housing. The availability and utilization
of city, state, and federal programs would raise the proportion of affordable
units to at least 20 percent of the total housing units. (For analysis purpos-
es, the EIS assumes a conservative demographic profile based on income levels.)
The project would include strict transition provisions for the affordable hous-
ing units to protect tenants in place from displacement. These may include
resale restrictions and protections for the lifetime occupancy of in-place
•
rental tenants after expiration of the program restrictions .
I-14
• •
Table 1-1
•
PAIlCEL-BY-PAIlCEL LAIID USE PIOGIWI
(Above Grade)
Professioaal
Residential Offices1 Retail1 Office Studio Total Square Feet
DwelliDZ Par1d.uz
Parcel Units Zl'A· GlA4 Zl'A GrA4 Zl'A GFA4 Zl'A GrAs zrA GrA S!!!!ces zr, GrA
A 288 304,100 319,305 12,800 13,440 316,900 332,745
B 586 604,600 634,830 22,200 23,310 626,800 658,140
C 491 509,300 534,765 10,400 10,920 14,400 15,120 534,100 560,805
D 421 437,500 459,375 13,000 13,650 19,400 20,370 469,900 493,395
E 410 416,100 436,905 10,200 10,710 14,800 15,540 441,100 .463,155
F 311 338,000 354,900 7,700 8,085· 9,000 9,450 354,700 372,435
G 286 279,400 293,370 6,100 6,405 285,500 299,775
H 346 370,800 389,340 8,200 8,610 379,000 397,950
I 498 518,200 544,110 25,200 26,460 543,400 570,570
1-1
....
I J 675 692,900 727,545 14,700 15,435 13,600 14,280 721,200 757,260
VI
K 603 650,400 682,920 13,500 14,175 13,400 14,070 677,300 711,165
L 281 278,700 292,635 8,900 9,345 287,600 301,980
K 296 291,100 305,655 10,500 11,025 301,600 316,680
2
N 35,300 37,065 300,000 330,000 1,764,700 1,962,554 2,100,0002,329,619
0 ~ 243 1 000 255 1 150 17 1 900 18 1 795 260 1 900 273 1 945
7
5,700 1 5,934,100 7 6,230,805 163,400 7 171,570 137,800 144,6903 300,000 330,000 1,764,700 1,962,554 3,5006 8,300,000 8,839,619
Rotes,
Community facility space could be provided on each zoning lot in lieu of some professional office and some retail space; however, a
certain minimum of retail space would be provided. The maximum community facility space on a zoning lot would be equal to the total of
the maximum professional space plus the maximum retail space minus the minimum retail space required. Therefore, the square footages
listed here represent the maximum total square footages allowed.
2
Does not include a below-grade, six-screen, 37,000-square-foot, 1,800-seat cineplex.
3
Does not include cineplex and about 45,000 square feet of below-grade retail space.
4
The gross square foot figures were derived by adding 5 percent to the zoning floor area figures. All figures are approximate.
5
The gross square foot figures for office use were derived by adding 10 percent to the zoning floor area.
6
Total number of public parking spaces to be distributed among parcels in the project.
7 The sum total of floor area of the residential, professional office, and retail uses on the residential parcels is 6.2 million square
feet. The floor area for the professional office and retail uses represents a maximum for those uses. The residential floor area
could increase, but the number of residential units would not change.
Table 1-2
• Zoning Lot
Zoning
ZORING CALCULATIONS
lot Area (sf) Devel0l!!!!ent Parcels

Total Zoning
Floor Area
Pr2l!osed (sf}
A-B 75,902.24 A-B 943,700
C-D 87,756.49 C-D 1,004,000
E-F 72,299.48 E-F 795,800
G-H 64,882.90 G-H 664,500
I 43,238.40 I 543,400
J-K 152,704.40 J-K 1,398,500
L-M-N 356,181.80 L-M-N 2,689,200
o 41.606.88 0 260,900
TOTAL 894.572.59 8.300.000
The residential buildings would be developed on a platform above the for-

mer rai1yards and would be located on all parcels except Parcel N, which in-
cludes the studio and commercial office uses. The number of units per parcel
would range from slightly more than 200 on Parcel 0 to more than 600 units on
Parcels J and K. The heights of residential towers would range from 18 stories
on Parcel M to 49 stories on Parcel B. Low-scale multiple dwellings, some of
• which would resemble town houses, would be located along most cross streets .
As noted above, the lower heights of the buildings in the northern residential
section reflect the proximity to the mid-rise residential structures, certain
Landmark buildings on 71st and 72nd Streets (including the Chatsworth), and
Riverside Park, while the lower heights in the central section reflect the de-
sire to maximize sunlight and sky on the widest and what could be expected to
be the most heavily' used part of the waterfront park. The heights of the
buildings in the south reflect the proximity to the stacks of the Con Edison
facility on 59th Street. Retail and/or professional office space and/or commu- ,
nity facility space would be permitted on ground-floor and second-floor loca-
tions in all residential buildings.
Professional Office Space
Professional office space (primarily medical offices) would be permitted

in ground-floor and second floor locations on all residential parcels. A maxi-
mum of 163,400 zoning square feet of professional office space is anticipated.
A portion of this space would be marketed to public or not-for-profit entities
engaged in the provision of services defined in the fair share rules estab-
lished by the City of New York as local/neighborhood facilities, those serving
an area no larger than a community district or local service delivery district
in which the majority of persons served by the facility live or work. These
may include, but are not limited to, such facilities as branch libraries, com-
munity cultural programs, community health services, day care centers, fire
stations, local parks, police precincts, and senior centers .
• 1-16
•
Retail Component
The project is pr6jected to contain up to approximately 137,800 square

feet of above-grade retail space located on Parcels C, D, E, and F in the nor-
thern portion of the project site and on Parcels J, K, N, and 0 in the southern
portion of the site. An additional 45,000 gsf of retail space is expected to
be located below grade. In addition, the project is expected to include a six-
screen, 37,000-square-foot, l,800-seat cineplex below grade on Parcel N (the
studio parcel). Off-street queuing space would be provided for the cineplex.
With the exception of the cineplex, the retail uses are primarily intended to
serve the new residents and workers on-site and residents and workers from the
immediately surrounding neighborHood. Although the exact mix of the project's
retail component is not currently known, it is anticipated that the project
would probably contain at least one supermarket.
Office Component
The project would include approximately 300,000 square feet of general

office use to be included in a building of approximately 30 stories rising
above the studio complex on Parcel N.
Studio Component
A studio complex of approximately 1.B million square feet would be located

on Parcel N, a parcel bounded by 59th Street, West End Avenue, 61st Street, and
parcels Land M to the west. The studio complex would contain office space and
•
studio and production facilities for either a single tenant or mUltiple tenants
.involved in TV and/or film production. The base of. the studio building, con-
taining floors of approximately 250,000 square feet, would rise to a height of
eight stories (approximately 150 feet). The large floor sizes and floor-to-
floor heights are necessary to accommodate the.special needs of TV or film
production, including service corridors and storage areas for the large-scale
sets and equipment the studios use. This studio parcel would also include re-
tail space to serve both the studio workers and neighborhood residents.
The major entrance to the office space on the studio block would be on
West End Avenue, with employee and visitor entrances to the studio on 61st
Street. Service for the studio building would be accommodated below grade,
with access from West 59th Street. Garage entrances would be located on West
59th and 61st Streets.
Parking
The project would provide a total of 3,500 parking spaces. The parking
would be located below finished grade distributed among the parcels in the
project. The garages would be accessed from east-west public and private
streets. No access to the garages would be provided from Riverside Drive,
Freedom Place (north and south), and 72nd Street .
• 1-17
•
Access and Circulation
Vehicular Circulation
The vehicular circulation plan for the project calls for the extension of
the existing Riverside Drive south connecting to Twelfth Avenue at 59th Street,
and, in most cases, the extension of the existing Manhattan street grid to the
new Riverside Drive (see Figure 1-8). The new Riverside Drive, curving along
the western edge of the development would be a two-way, 45-foot-wide edge arte-
rial (the same width as the existing Riverside Drive) with sidewalk widths of
20 feet (west side) and 15 feet (east side) -- yielding a total right-of-way of
80 feet. It is anticipated that on-street parking would be permitted on both
sides of Riverside Drive. To connect the new road to the existing Riverside
Drive at 72nd Street, the northbound exit of the Miller Highway at 72nd Street
would be closed. The connection of Riverside Drive to Twelfth Avenue and 59th
Street would be at grade.
The east-west streets would vary in function and width. Several streets
mapped as public access easements -- 7lst, 69th, 67th, 65th, and 62nd Streets
-- but they-would be primarily pedestrian in. nature. Pedestrian use would be
encouraged and vehicular use would be discouraged through the use of wider
sidewalks, landscaping, dropped curbs, and other architectural treatments.
Neither 7lst Street nor 65th Street would be through streets.
Seventieth, 66th, 64th, and 6lst Streets would be two-way through streets
• with travel-ways of varied widths -- 52 feet for 70th Street, 40 feet for 64th,
and 45 feet for 66th Streets. Sixty-eighth Street, which would be 34 feet
wide, would be two-way during Phase I and "one-way eastbound at the end of Phase
II. The existing 66t4 Street, connecting Freedom Place with West End Avenue,
would be redesigned and raised by 6 or 7 feet starting just to the west of the
existing ABC truck" dock to clear the Amtrak right-of-way. Access to the ex-
isting ABC entrance on 66th Street would be maintained. Sixty-third Street 15
would be one-way (westbound).
The roadbed of Freedom Place, which is currently a lightly used two-way

street running between 66th and 70th Streets, would be narrowed and converted
into a one-way street northbound, and its eastern sidewalk would be widened.
In the south, a new two-way street, Freedom Place South, would be created to
connect 6lst and 63rd Streets on the project site and 64th Street to the west
of West End Avenue on the adjacent Manhattan West property. One existing
street, 60th Street, would not be extended to Riverside Drive in order to ac-
commodate the requirements of a superblock for the studio complex. The con-
struction of the streets, including the extension of Riverside Drive, would be
phased with and linked to the development of individual blocks.
Pedestrian Circulation
The project has been designed to foster the maximum pedestrian use, in-
cluding pedestrian access to the waterfront park. This would be accomplished
through landscaping treatment, the creation of pedestrian-oriented streets, as
•
described above, the widening of certain sidewalks, and the creation of a
varied open space plan (see section below on "Open Space and Landscaping
Plan").
1-18
tj W.73ND
:!J
I..!:::-:::-=-:-::-=STREET ::;"\
II
c.
l' I~
-:n
b!II~.~ :c I •
II W.~STREET-
I r~~W'''ST~~
F "
[I
r-H+ +t--""
,~
I
\ I
I HI \ ~~.87TH_S~ II
H
::t:
c: ·1 --:
" :;.z:s
t:J ~ W.86TH STREET
,
~[CI.
CI.)
0 .%
~
~
·1
.~
!=;== ~ _ W. 851H STREET _
Fb=:
-""
lJ >0
~
, !iii
lie
."
I 1/ , • "f--=-
lJ
·'tl 11I1I \..lUIl.:

- II W.II3RD STREET
~
~~O
>
t\
HI
.,..,.t\tD
D H§
:s
a.
."-ci
"l_
HI I~UY \ Ita' rn J Y ood
••
Ii I ~I IJ III Ie
C D WI
I'D
~ _
~
-0 m
Co::S
•
Service Vehicles
Except for the studio complex, service vehicles would use the new street
system, including the unmapped streets. The service area for the studio com-
plex, including a truck marshalling area, would be located below grade and
would be accessed via 59th Str~et.
Open Space and Landscaping Plan
The project's open space and landscaping plan, consisting of approximately

25. acres of publicly accessible open space and recreational facilities, con-
tains two major elements: a large-scale waterfront park and a system of land-
scaped pedestrian streets and open spaces, focused on Freedom Place and Freedom
Place South, linking the park to the city. Of this 25 acres, approximately
21.5 acres would be mapped parkland (the waterfront park).
Major features of these spaces would be designed by the Riverside South

Arts Program, an ongoing program to enrich the project's waterfront park as
well as its neighborhoods and streetscapes. The Arts Program would be run by
,an independent arts committee linked to the park design and construction entity
that the applicant has proposed to be responsible for the design and construc-
tion of the park (see discussion below). The program would commission artists,
working independently and in collaboration with other professionals (engineers,
architects, ecologists, etc.), to create permanent works and structures for
•
Riverside South. These commissions would range from the decoration and design
of functional elements -- bridges connecting the park to Riverside Drive; pav-
ing, seating, and lighting throughout -- to the creation of artwork for partic-
ular areas, such as Freedom Place and Freedom Place South. The Arts Program
would also initiate and organize changing exhibitions and other art events on-
site, working with the park corporation responsible for maintaining and operat-
ing the park.
Waterfront Park
A waterfront park of 21.5 acres of mapped parkland connecting to Riverside

Park at the north and a bikeway/walkway that is proposed in conjunction with
the Route 9A project at the south would be developed as part of the proposed
project. The new waterfront park, to be owned by the City of New York, would
represent one of the largest additions to the inventory of public park space in
Manhattan in decades and would be constructed at no cost to the City of New
York.
The proposed park, described in detail below, includes. a variety of fea-

tures, both active and passive, providing opportunities for sports and recre-
ation, strolling, sunbathing, and picnicking. Ballfields, playgrounds, lawns,
community gardens, and fishing piers would be included. Locations throughout
,
the park would be enhanced by panoramic views of the Hudson River and Pali-
sades. Access to the waterfront along walkways within natural areas would open
up more than ~ mile of shoreline to pedestrians. Bridges and walkways would
create inviting entrances to the park from Riverside Drive, link the park to
• the city streets, and cover substantial portions of the relocated highway .
1-19
•
and one in which the elevated highway remains in place. Both scenarios are
described in this section and are analyzed throughout this Ers.
The discussion of the waterfront park is broken down into four sections:
administrative aspects of the construction and operation of the park; the de-
sign implications if authorizations from the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers for
certain waterfront elements are not granted; a description of key park features
with and without relocation of the Miller Highway; and phasing.
Administration of the Waterfront Park
Ownership of the Park. The City of New York would own the new waterfront
park. The park would be constructed and given to the city at no cost. Approx-
imately 0.7 acres of the proposed park is currently already owned by the city,
under the jurisdiction of the Depart~ent of Business Services. The park would
be conveyed to the city in completed segments.
Construction of the Park. The developer and possibly the Riverside South
Planning Corporation_ (RSPC) would act _as a park design and construction en'tity
that would fund and supervise the construction of the park. The organization
of this Park Design and Construction Entity and the terms of its operation
would be the subject of a separate agreement between the developer and RSPC.
The developer and RSPC would establish an open collaborative process to allow
•
for full public comment on and participation in the final design of the park .
This collaborative process would include consultation with and review by the
Manhattan Borough President and the parks committees of Community Boards 4 and
7, and by the appropriate civic groups and neighborhood organizations. The
commissioner of the Department of Parks and Recreation would review and approve
the final design and the final park budget for conformance with ULURP
approvals.
Funding for the Construction of the Park. The construction of the majori-
ty'of the park would be subject to a system of construction performance guaran-
tees that would condition the issuance of temporary certificates of occupancy
for buildings or foundation permits (for buildings on the first two parcels to
be developed). Where the timing of the relocation of the highway makes perfor-
mance guarantees infeasible, buildings would make a cash contribution for park
construction, which would be held in escrow by the city, before certificates of
occupancy may be issued. These conditions would be ensured by the terms of the
Restrictive Declaration.
Park Operations and Maintenance. The operation of the park, including

programming and maintenance, may be undertaken by a public-private partnership
composed of appropriate community, civic, business, and public members as well
as the developer. The establishment, composition, and operation of this pub-
lic-private partnership would be subject to a separate maintenance and opera-
tion agreement between the applicant and the Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR) pursuant to standards established ~y the ULURP approval and would be
•
ensured by the terms of the Restrictive Declaration. The DPR would have over-
sight over the operations of this group.
1-20
•
Funding for Park Maintenance. The developer would contribute annually a
minimum of 50 percent toward the' reasonable cost of maintaining the park. It
is anticipated that the balance of the funds would come from concession reve-
I
nue and other sources. -?
u.s. Army Corps Authorizations
The park plan described below also includes waterfront elements -- most
notably, the pedestrian piers -- that require authorizations from the u.s. Army
Corps of Engineers. If these authorizations are not granted, the park would be
constructed without these waterfront elements, reducing the park size by about
1.7 acres (see discusslon below under "Waterfront Elements").
Proposed Park with Relocation of the Miller Highway
The following park plan envisions relocation of the existing Miller High-
way, which currently crosses the western part of the site on a viaduct, to a
site beneath and next to the Riverside Drive extension. That relocation would
open up broader views of the Hudson River and provide a more cohesive park de-
sign. As described below under "Phasing," the park's waterfront area would be
completed during Phase I, before relocation of the highway. The design of this
portio~., of the park would not depend on relocation of the highway and would be
the same if the Miller Highway is relocated or if it remains in place.
Park Features. The park with a relocated highway is described below from
north to south, and illustrated in Figure 1-9 .
• Parks Depar~men~ Facili~y: In the northern end of the park, between 72nd
and 70th Streets, partly beneath the elevated, relocated highway and new River-
side Drive, a l5,OOO-square-foot facility would be provided,for the Department
of Parks and Recreation. That facility would provide space for offices, stor-
age of materials and equipment, and vehicles. The facility would also include
comfort stations.
Ballcour~s: To the immediate west of the DPR facility, extending for a

distance of approximately 30 feet, a number of paved courts would be provided
for basketball, handball, and volleyball.
Ac~ive Open Space: To the west of the ba11courts, a level field of ap-
proximately 63,000 square feet, with movable backstops, would be created for
informal active recreational activities, such as soccer and football.
Nor~hern Play~round: Between 70th and 69th Streets, the park would be
extended on a platform over the relocated highway, and a p1ayground'of approxi-
mately 20,000 square feet, level with Riverside Drive, would be created. The
playground would include diverse facilities serving toddlers to pre-teens, in-
cluding a tot lot, swings, creative play equipment for older children, and
water play uses. Seating areas for parents and guardians would also be pro-
vided. The playground would be surrounded by a series of promenades. Access
to the park from the playground would be provided via stairs and ramps and from
an elevator at 70th Street. The design and equipment provided would be in
•
accordance with all requirements and regulations of the New York City Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
1-21
10·92
( 1I I I IJ II IJ 1I II IJ III v v IJ U I I IJ LU IIJ 1I IJ UUlJ LJ LJ UlJIj U IJ U I[ IJ U I

WEST END AVENUE
l-.r_
SlOPING lAWN
(.
BASI<ETIW.l
--
® Overlook
T_
easTWG CONCRETE
PlATFORM
TO BE
REMOVED HUDSON RIVER
Conceptual Park Plan

Figure 1-9
Cafe: Below the northern playground, a two-level cafe and food concession
• area would be developed; at the lower level, a slightly raised plaza would be
built for informal cafe seating.
Pier I: This pier, extending into the Hudson River on an angle from ap-
proximately West 70th Street, would be rehabilitated and resurfaced as part of
the pedestrian promenade and could be used for fishing, strolling, sunbathing,
1
and other unprogrammed pedestrian activities. This rehabilitation would not

preclude future use of the pier for ferry service to the project site.
Transfer Bridge Pier: The existing transfer bridge pier (also referred to
as the West 69th Street Transfer Bridge), located on Pier H, would be retained
and stabilized. This historic structure would provide a dramatic backdrop to
performances at the amphitheater (described below).
Amphitheater and Civic Lawn: Approximately between 70th and 67th Streets,
a natural amphitheater would be built into the north end of an adjacent earthen
promontory (described below). The amphitheater would rise about 40 feet and
would be, oriented northwest with views upriver. The amphitheater, a type of
terraced lawn, would overlook a flat, open lawn bordered by ~ tree-lined path.
It would have room for approximately 1,000 to 1,200 seats to allow for special
events, such as concerts. (No permanent stage would be developed.) At other
times, it would be available for recreational use and would create a descending
platform from Riverside Drive to the Hudson River. The 1.5-acre open lawn
could be used for a variety of activities, including informal active recrea-
tional uses, such as softball, volleyball, etc .
• Sloping Lawn: The park's major feature would be a lawn and wooded area of
about 11.0 acres sloping to the water. Along Riverside Drive approximately be-
tween 68th and 62ndStreets -- in the widest area of the park -- a wooded hill
in the park would rise. The elevation of this berm as it meets Riverside Drive
would vary. Part of this berm would cover the depressed highway: the highway
would be partially covered by the berm between 68th and 66th, and 65th and 64th
~
Streets, and completely covered between 66th and 65th Streets. The berm would I
form a crescent, following the curve of Riverside Drive, that would meet the
water's edge at either end (at about 67th and 62nd Streets) and enclose a lawn
sloping down to the water. Paths would follow the hill's curve, encouraging
pedestrians to meander to the riverfront. The portion of the lawn closest to
the water would be a natural area of approximately 2 acres, creating a "soft"
edge at the river (described more fully below).
Community Gardens: Between 6lst and 63rd Streets, at approximately the

sidewalk elevations, community gardens would be provided that would be connect-
1
ed via pathways to the southern play area. A nursery related to the community
gardens would be located on an island between 62nd and 6lst Streets created by
splitting Riverside Drive.
Southern Playground Area: A children's play area of approximately 10,000

square feet would be integrated with the community gardens between West 6lst
and 62nd Streets. This would be fairly similar in use and design to the chil-
dren's play area described above and would include areas for toddlers, 3- to 5-
year-olds, and 6- to 10-year-olds. However, because of its smaller size, it
• would not contain facilities for pre-teens. Seating for parents and guardians
would be provided. South of 6lst Street, basketball courts would be provided.
1-22
Boat Pond: Near 6lst Street, a hard-edged pond would be developed that,
• like the boat pond in Central Park, would accommodate model boating activities .
As with the boat pond in Central Park, ice skating would be allowed on the pond
during the winter.
Waterfront Elements: Along the entire waterfront of the park, an espla-

nade approximately 20 feet in width would join the different elements of the I
park together and connect the existing esplanade in Riverside Park to the walk-
way at 59th Street proposed as part of the Route 9A project. Recreational
biking would be permitted on the esplanade. I
I
In the north end of the park, the esplanade would run along the water's
edge west of the ballfield. To the south, Pier I would be rehabilitated and
resurfaced as noted above. South of Pier I, the esplanade would continue at
the water's edge past the amphitheater. In this area, the transfer bridge pier
would be stabilized, also described above. A small pedestrian pier, which
could be used for fishing and strolling, would extend into the water from about
67th Street and then curve back into the natural area to the south.
The esplanade would continue southward through the sloping lawn. West of
the esplanade between approximately 67th and 63rd Streets would be a natural
zo~e of about 2 acr~s. This area, created on top of the existing and restored
relieving platform, would be planted with appropriate native grasses, shrubs,
and perennials. Several boardwalks would meander through this area and join
1
paved paths curving down the wooded hill from Riverside Drive. Also, south of
this natural area, an eXisting inlet would be transformed into a stepped cove .
• The deteriorated piers along the waterfront in this area would be re-
tained. To ensure pedestrian safety, the two southernmost piers would be sev-
ered from the shoreline so they would be inaccessible to the public. As part
of the Arts Program,existing pili~gs and remnants of the three piers at 67th,
66th, and 65th Streets would be selectively cut to form a pattern in the water
depending on the tides.
1
At the southern end of the park, the esplanade would again run along the
water's edge. An overlook area would be provided at the water's edge at about
62nd Street. Two new pedestrian piers would extend into the water from the
south -- one at about 59th Street, the other at 60th Street -- providing places
for fishing and strolling.
Buffer Areas: In all locations adjacent to open areas of the highway,

heavily planted 10-foot buffer areas would be provided as'a safety measure.
Off-Site Improvements: The developer may construct a series of ball

courts in Riverside Park to the west of the Miller Highway in the area to the
immediate north of the project site (between 72nd and 73rd Streets).
Access: At 72nd Street, the park would connect to the existing Riverside
Park to the north. Direct access would be provided from Riverside Park's
waterfront esplanade, which would continue into the new park. The plan would
also provide additional connections from the existing underpass beneabh the
J
•
Henry Hudson Parkway, at about 73rd Street .
I-23
Pedestrian access to the new park would also be provided at all cross
• streets except West 60th, 67th, ·and 7lst Streets. At 70th and 69th Streets,
access would be provided via a series of stairways and ramps leading from the
northern playground into the par~. Connections would also be available to an
elevator at 70th Street. Pedestrian bridges over the highway would be provided
at 68th, 64th, and 63rd Streets. At 66th and 65th Streets, a large opening,
with benches and other seating areas, would be created through the berm and
would connect directly into the park's pathway system. At 6lst and 62nd
Streets, the existing street grid would be extended directly into the park and
would connect with a series of walkways into the park. At 59th Street, an at-
grade connection would be made with the proposed Route 9A walkway. To separate
pedestrians from the vehicular traffic on 59th Street associated with the
marine transfer station, the project is examining the feasibility of construct-
ing a pedestrian bridge providing a north-south connection over 59th Street on
the west side of Twelfth Avenue. At 6lst, 62nd, 63rd, and 65th Streets, the y•
entrances into the park would lead to overlooks that would provide sweeping
views of the new park and the Hudson River. The pedestrian bridges would be
coordinated with the project's Arts Program, described.earlier in this section.
All of these paths would be accessible to the disabled; all paths and ramps in
the park would have a maximum grade of 5 percent to facilitate access by dis-
abled park users.
Park Phasing.
The development of the park would occur in four phases: the creation of a
temporary park, the construction of the waterfront park elements west of the
•
current highway, the development of the balance of the waterfront park, and
enhancements in open space areas upland of the public park.
Temporary Open Space: Within the limitations created by the ongoing re-
construction of the Miller Highway, a temporary open space would be created for
. public use. Safe public access to this area would have to be available. This
space would likely consist of some temporary paved area for basketball or simi-
lar court sports and some lawn area for unscheduled recreation. The exact size
and shape or location of this temporary space is not yet fully developed. The
developer and the Riverside South Planning Corporation would consult with the
Manhattan Borough President, the Department of Parks and Recreation, city agen-
cies, and community representatives, including representatives of Community
Boards 4 and 7, as to the design and location of the temporary open space and
access to it. It is anticipated that the area would initially be at the north
end of the site to provide access from Riverside Park.
Phase I: During Phase I, all of the elements of the waterfront park that
would not be disturbed by subsequent relocation of the Miller Highway would be
completed in their permanent form. This would consist of all of the park's
waterfront elements: the waterfront esplanade, the rehabilitated Pier I and
neighboring transfer bridge pier, the pedestrian piers, and the work to be done
under the Arts Program on the other piers. The walkway along the waterfront
would be completed for the entire length of the project site (about 0.6 miles),
with all of the features that are to be included in the permanent park design
for this space -- including benches, lighting, etc. A temporary fence would be
constructed along the east side of the walkway to prevent access to the unfin-
• ished areas of the park. In terms of the sequence of the Phase I park, the
connection to Riverside Park, Pier I, the ballfields, and other elements of the
park to the west of the existing Miller Highway south to approximately 70th
1-24
1
•
Street would be constructed first. To open up waterfront access to the Clinton
community, assuming the Route 9A pedestrian connection at 59th Street is com-
plete, the next section to be completed would include all the waterfront park
elements south of 62nd Street and the fishing piers located between 65th and
67th Streets (subject to approval by the appropriate regulatory agencies). The
final portion of the Phase I park would include all work related to existing
dilapidated piers B, D, E, F, and G; stabilizing the West 69th Street transfer
bridge; a natural area and related work on the existing relieving platform; and
pathways along the natural edge area. In total, about 8.5 acres of open space
would be developed during Phase I. This space would be available for passive
recreation such as strolling and fishing, and for active recreation such as
soccer and football, and would provide public access to the waterfront.
As described earlier in this section, the completed Phase I of the park

would be the same if the highway is relocated or if it remains in place.
Phase II: It is anticipated that the remainder of the waterfront park

would be completed after the construction of the relocated highway is complet-
ed. Although it cannot be specifically determined what year the highway may be
relocated, a reasonable assumption of a 2002 Build year has been made. This
phase includes the following major park elements: the berm, the amphitheater,
the DPR facility, active recreation courts, playgrounds and tot lots, the com-
munity gardens, the sloping lawn, the civic lawn, and decorative and landscap-
ing elements on bridges crossing the highway. On completion of this phase, the
waterfront park would be considered complete and would be fully functional for
all programmed uses .
• Phase III: This part represents enhancements .in open space areas through-
out the project, upland of the public park (see section below on "Other Open
Space Elements"). These include Freedom Place, Freedom Place South, Riverside
Drive (and all other public streets), private streets, public access easements,
and trellises and/or other art work and related elements as part of the Arts
Program. This phase would be performed as each area of the development is
built, so that major adjacent street elements would be completed at the same
time as the buildings. These may not be required as part of the ULURP approv-
aL
Proposed Park Without Relocated Miller Highway (Interim Park)
As noted above under "Park Phasing," Phase I of the park -- the waterfront
elements west of the existing Miller Highway -- would be completed by 1997 and
would be the same if the highway is relocated or if it remains in place. For
Phase II, the park plan described above envisions relocation of the ·Miller
Highway inboard. However, as discussed elsewhere in this chapter, the reloca-
tion of the highway requires discretionary approvals on the part of both the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the New York State Department of
Transportation that are separate from the actions required to develop Riverside
South (for more details, see section I.D, "Relocation of the Miller Highway,"
beloW). If the required approvals for the relocation of the highway are not (-.
granted and/or if funding is not allocated, the entity responsible for design
and construction of the park would construct the Interim Park. Although it is
expected that the Interim Park would be provided by the year 2002, construction
• of the Interim Park may occur as late as 2002. A decision to construct the
Interim Park would then be made only if, after the best efforts of the city and
1-25
•
state, it becomes clear that the highway would not be relocated. This park
would become permanent if the Miller Highway is not relocated .
This Interim Park would contain all of the waterfront elements to be com-
pleted in Phase I (described above under "Park Phasing"). The rest of the park
would be developed as described below, and illustrated in Figure 1-10.
Park Features. The balance of the park has been designed to provide an
adequate permanent park in the event that the highway is never relocated and to
provide the basic elements to reconfigure the park as proposed with the highway
relocated, should that occur in the distant future. Consequently, many of the
features of the Interim Park would be similar to those in the proposed water-
front park. A facility for the DPR would be provided under the existing Miller
Highway. Paved. bal1courts and an open lawn for sports activities would be
developed adjacent to the DPR facility. A playground similar in use to the
northern playground described earlier would be provided on a raised landform
between 66th and 68th Streets, and limited cafe space would be provided under
the highway. In the vast area stretching between approximately 70th and 62nd
Streets, a gradually sloping lawn, starting at the waterfront and continuing
under the Miller Highway, would rise, echoing many of the features of the pro-
posed park. The amphitheater would not be provided. Between 63rd and §lst
Streets, a childre'll's p1ayarea ..and basketball court would be provided:· The
Interim Park would not uti·lize the public place preserved for the relocated
highway. Consequently, the overall size of the Interim Park would be approxi-
mately 4.0 acres smaller than the park proposed with the relocated highway.
•
In addition, for pedestrian safety, a temporary barrier would be con-
structed along the western. edge of the Riverside Drive extension. A barrier
would also be erected at park level along the top of the berm, parallel to
Riverside Drive. This barrier, which would consist of a fence, would prevent
pedestrian access to the space beneath the new Riverside Drive.
Access. The park would be accessed via pedestrian entrances from River-
side Drive at 68th, 66th, and 63rd Streets. Each access point would consist of
a pedestrian bridge extending across the future highway easement, terminating
in·stairs and/or ramps leading down to the park. The bridges and ramps could
be removed upon construction of the relocated highway at a later date. The
park would also be accessed from Riverside Park, to the north, and from the
proposed Route 9A walkway, to the south. No access would be available between >-i
68th and 72nd Streets and between 59th and 63rd Streets. I
Park Character. The Interim Park would differ markedly from the park with
the relocated highway. The primary difference would be the continuing presence
of the elevated Miller Highway structure, which would obstruct visual access to
the waterfront.
Many of the park's features would be crossed by the elevated highway

structure, including about a third of the lawn area. This area beneath the
highway would be divided by columns, unlike the open grassy area in the park
with the relocated highway. This park would also have less sunlight than the
park with the relocated highway. Waterfront areas adjacent to the highway
would be in shadow in the morning, and the grassy field adjacent to the highway
• would be shaded in the afternoon. Shadow diagrams for both parks are provided
in Appendix H.
1-26
'"_-><-__'__ 0.._ •• _ -", • " . . . . . . .0,,:~.::._,'<:·..'_""'~~'--,,_,.::--...,:,. __ ,__ ,
10·92
d L~JII
.....,,-
IlL ~·lllI
I
~u IJ~J~ . Illl Illl .11L
1
!
I
J
•I ,
J
!
-----ftI'-HI-::A ~·::::--···I...-
.-.-
-.- ::.J~D:">·~
.-::; ,,:,.--
c..-IIltIoI/AIIC
.-,-
--
t5..
-- - --aAi<Er1Wl-:-- ~' n I~ , ,, ___

~- - - .
.:-..... _. ~:=j
---
• • •• •
r.1_1 iiI
NYCDPR STORAGE
-=-=-~-.-=... ,.
2i~' ~
i
112 BASl<ElBAllIS'
f:- VOlI..EY8Ali.
,Ii: _
• j ,ha> ,
•. , '.
• •
(\
VCIlLEYIIAU..
PORTABl£ REMOVABl£ STRUClURE

FOR RESTROOMS & MAINTENANCE
HUDSON RIVER
--
Interim Open Space Plan

Figure 1-10
The highway's presence would be most pronounced in the south, where it is
• wider and lower in elevation. Except when standing on the waterfront and fac-
ing west, the highway structure would always dominate views. There would not
be an unobstructed vista of the riverfront as there would be with the highway
relocated. Park users would always be aware of being close to a highway, and
would be able to see and hear the traffic. In contrast, the park with the
highway relocated would provide an escape from the city by hiding the highway
in a partly covered depression. In that park, the river would dominate views.
Finally, the Interim Park would be noisier as well. Most locations would
be close to the highway, unlike the relocation scenario, where the highway
would be moved to one side of the park. Further, the elevated highway would
not have any barriers to block noise from reaching the park. This is unlike
the park with the relocated highway, in which the highway would be depres.sed
and separated from the park by a barrier, and often by a berm of earth. Noise
levels in different areas of the park are described in section II.L, "Noise."
As described in that section, L10(1) noise levels in the park would be in the
mid-60s to low 70s dBA range, generated by vehicular traffic on the elevated
Miller Highway and Riverside Drive, aircraft flyovers, and background noise
from the urban activity in the area. These noise levels would be higher than
those generally recommended for outdoor activities, but would ,be comparable to
levels in existing park§ in New York City.
In contrast, if the highway is relocated, L10(1) noise levels in the park

would be as much as 10 dBA lower, since traffic on the Miller Highway is the
dominant noise source in its current configuration. As with the highway in
•
place, these levels would continue to exceed those generally recommended for
outdoor activities, but would be comparable to levels in existing parks in New
York City.
Park Phasing.
Phase I: As described above in the discussion of the park with the relo-
cated highway, all waterfront elements of the park that would not be disturbed
by later relocation of the Miller Highway would be completed in their permanent
form during Phase I. The completed Phase I park would be the same if the high-
way is relocated or if it remains in place. This phase of the park would in-
clude all of the park's waterfront areas except the permanent planting of the
natural area: the waterfront esplanade, the ballfields, the rehabilitated
Pier I and neighboring transfer bridge, the pedestrian piers, the boat pond,
and the work on the other piers.
Phase II: If the required approvals for the relocation of the highway are
not granted and/or if funding is not allocated, the entity responsible for
design and construction of the park would construct the Interim Park. Although
it is expected that the Interim Park would be provided by the year 2002, con-
struction of the Interim Park may occur as late as 2002. A decision to con-
struct the Interim Park would then be made only if, after the best efforts of
the city and state, it becomes clear that the highway would not be relocated.
This park would become permanent if the Miller Highway is not relocated. The
park would become permanent if the Miller Highway is not relocated. Although
it is expected that the Interim Park would be provided by the year 2002, the
• applicant may begin, in accordance with the ULURP proposal, construction of the
Interim Park as late as 2002.
1-27
• The waterfront park would be linked to the city through the project's
other open space elements -- special treatments along project streets, particu-
larly Freedom Place and Freedom Place South, but also including Riverside Drive
and the side streets. These treatments, many of which would be implemented by
the project's Arts Program, are described below.
Riverside Drive
The Riverside Drive extension would be directly related to the adjacent

waterfront park. Running alongside the park, both sides of Riverside Drive
would be lined with trees, benches, and seating areas. The pedestrian bridges
over the highway leading from Riverside Drive into the park would be designed
in consultation with the Arts Program. At the north end of the park, an over-
look area on the west side of Riverside Drive would provide views of the park
and river. The park's wooded hill would meet the west side of the Drive be-
tween 66th and 65th Streets.
Freedom Place
Freedom Place, presently a sparsely used two-way street running from 70th
to 66th Street, would be specially treated as part of a site-specific and per-
manent art work, possibly designed to honor the Civil Rights movement in the
United States. The roadbed of Freedom Place would be narrowed to a one-way
street and the sidewalks expanded within the right-of-way. On the east side of
•
Freedom Place, the plan calls for a frees~nding decorative wall 15 to 20 feet
high in front of the existing Lincoln Towers wall, with openings for Lincoln
Towers as required, that would be developed as part of the Arts Program. On
both sides of the street, trees would be planted, and the sidewalk given spe-
cial treatment created as part of the Arts Program. In some locations, the
roadbed of Freedom Place would also have decorative paving. A series of arches
and canopies running along Freedom Place would also include such artwork. ~
Although the Arts Program may not be part of the ULURP approvals, the developer
in~ends to incorporate it into the project. I
Freedom Place would be centered at 68th Street, where there would be a
break in the overhead arches and a small landscaped island. The street here
would be specially paved.
Freedom Place South
Freedom Place South, between 63rd and 6lst Streets, would continue the
site-specific artwork from Freedom Place. Among the concepts being studied
here is a meandering path of specially designed posts or rails created under
the Arts Program, which would be driven into the street to form part of the
street paving. Between 64th and 63rd Streets, a landscaped area on the west
side of the street would continue the 1.2-acre park on the east side of the
street that is proposed as part of the Manhattan West project. At 62nd Street,
Freedom Place South would curve around another small park of approximately 0.35
acres, planted with trees. This park would abut the Manhattan West project to
the east.
• 1-28
Other Streets
• The project's cross streets would also be given special treatment to visu-
ally tie the park to the city and connect it with the city's street grid. On
the public streets (72nd, 70th, 68th, 66th, 64th, 63rd, 6lst, and 59th Streets)
this would include trees and special paving along the sidewalks. The other
streets -- 7lst, 69th, 67th, 65th, and 62nd -- would be private and pedestrian-
oriented. These private streets would have decorative paving and be lined with 1
trees, benches, and outdoor artwork, some developed under the Arts Program.
Private Residential Open Space
In addition to all of the open space features described above, the project
would also include private courtyards within many of its buildings. These
would be available to residents or workers in those buildings.
Infrastructure Improvements
A number of improvements to the project site's infrastructure are planned

to facilitate development of the proposed project. Generally, these improve-
ments would be placed in the streets in a conventional urban pattern and would
be phased in with the progression of the building parcels. A utility area
would run under the viaduct of the new Riverside Drive.
•
Water Supply
The project would connect to existing city water lines located along 59th,
66th, 70th, and 7lst Streets. New 20-inch water mains would be installed along
Riverside Drive, Freedom Place, and West 70th Street. New l6-inch mains would
be placed along 68th, 64th, and 6lst Streets. New 6-inch mains would be placed
along 60th, 62nd, and 63rd Streets. Hydrants would be spaced at every 250 feet
(see Figure II.P-4 in section II.P, "Infrastructure and Solid Waste").
Storm Water
The project would separate storm water from sanitary sewage. Storm water
would be discharged directly into existing city outfalls to the Hudson River.
All inlets to the storm water collection system would contain catch basins to
prevent pollutants in the runoff from flowing to the river. These basins would
contain hoods to prevent floatable material from discharging into the sewer,
and would meet all applicable city and state regulations. They would also
contain drop sections to collect heavy material prior to discharge. Most of
I
the storm water would be discharged via the 72nd Street outfall. (An assess-
ment is currently being made of the 59th Street trunk sewer to 'determine
whether a substantial portion of the project storm water could be directed to
that location.) A new 7-foot by 5-foot relief sewer proposed by the City De-
partment of Environmental Protection (DEP) would be constructed along 66th
Street to supplement the existing 48-inch line to improve existing storm water
flow in the area. This sewer does not currently serve the project nor· is it
•
contemplated to be used by the propo,sed development. This new relief sewer
would allow the conversion of the existing relief sewer located adjacent to
Freedom Place, which carries both storm water and sanitary sewage, to carry
sanitary sewage only.
1-29
Sanitaty Sewage
• The project's sewer system would consist of a series of new sewer lines
constructed along Riverside Drive between 62nd and 67th Streets, along 6lst
Street, Studio Place, 67th, 69th, and 7lst Streets and reuse of the former re-
lief sewer running parallel to Freedom Place. All parcels north of 62nd Street
would discharge to the combined sewer at 72nd Street. Parcels south of 62nd
Street would discharge to the 59th Street combined sewer.
Gas. Steam. and Electric
At this point in the project's design, no general decision has been made
on whether gas, steam, 'or oil, or some combination would be used for heating,
domestic hot-water generation, and/or air conditioning. (Either gas or steam
would be used as the energy source for Parcels F and N.) When that decision is
made, appropriate connections would be made to existing lines.
Rail Easement
Pursuant to the terms of a Restrictive Declaration, the proposed project

would provide an easement beneath project buildings for a single-track light
rail line that would access existing lay-up yards north of 72nd Street. Space
would also be provided for one or more stations along this rail line.
Treatment of £Elsting Waterfront Structures
• . A series of seven dilapidated structures run along the project's Hudson

River waterfront. As part of the proposed project, Pier I would be rehabili-
tated as an element of the waterfront park under a nationwide permit issued by
the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). As described above under "Open Space
and Landscaping Plan," south of Pier I, the existing West 69th Street transfer
bridge would be stabilized. The deteriorated piers south of the transfer
bridge would be retained. To ensure pedestrian safety, the two piers at 64th
and 63rd Streets would be severed from the shoreline so they would be inacces-
sible to the public. As part of the project's Arts Program (described above
under "Open Space and Landscaping Plan"), existing pilings and remnants of the
three piers at 67th, 66th, and 65th Streets would be selectively cut to form a
pattern in the water depending on the· tides.
Sustainable Development
The project would incorporate a reasonable program of sustainable develop-

ment for the project for feasible energy conservation enhancement, based on a
standard of a five-year payback for measures that are adopted. The program
would be administered by a review board appointed by the Riverside South Plan-
ning Corporation. The board would define the items encompassed within its sus-
tainable development guidelines. These would include, by way of example, major
pumps and motors, lighting devices, and air-conditioning systems. It will re-
• port on its administration of the program at regular intervals to the Borough

President, the Department of City Planning, the Department of Environmental
1-30
Protection, the Department of Telecommunications and Energy and Community
• Board 7.
Project Phasing
The project would be constructed over a 10-year period. For CEQR analy-
sis, it is examined in two phases. Phase I, projected to be completed in 1997,
would include the development of all parcels north of 64th Street (Parcels A
through H). This would include approximately 55 percent of the project's resi-
dential units (3,129 units), 90,000 zsf of professional office space, 57,600
zsf of retail space, and parking for approximately 2,000 vehicles. All the
land west of the current highway right-of-way would be finished as a waterfront
park at this time, and access would be provided.
Phase II, projected to be completed by 2002, would develop the parcels

between 64th and 59th Streets -- Parcels I through o. Phase II would include
the balance of the residential, retail, and professional office space, the
cineplex, and the project's office space and studio complex, as well as the
balance of the parking spaces. The waterfront park would be completed during
Phase,II, as would other elements of the project's open space plan. (The phas-
ing of the waterfront park under conditions with the Miller Highway remaining
in place is discussed earlier under "Open Space and Landscaping Plan." The
phasing under conditions with the relocation of the Miller Highway is discussed
under section 1.0, below.)
• The affordable housing units would be constructed on a "middle-loading"

basis. Thus, for example, by the time 25 percent of the market-rate housing
units have been completed, there must be 10 percent of the affordable housing.
done; by 50 percent,· there must be 40 percent of the affordable housing done;
by 85 percent completion, 75 percent of the affordable housing must be com-
pleted; and by 100 percent completion, all of the affordable housing must be
built.
Construction Sequencing
As currently contemplated, the construction of the project would proceed

from the north to the south. Access to the site for construction workers and
vehicles would be provided from 59th Street, utilizing the existing paved area
under the Miller Highway and/or a pathway located to the immediate west of the
Amtrak easement. Additional access to the building sites would be provided as
new streets are constructed. Parking for construction workers would be avail-
able in designated areas throughout the site. To construct the project, the
existing Amtrak tracks would have to be covered in segments as the construction
proceeds from north to south.
The first step in the construction of a typical building would be excava-

tion for the construction of foundations. This excavation typically takes a
period of approximately two weeks, requiring heavy construction equipment, such
• as bulldozers. Because of site conditions, only limited blasting, if any, may

be required in connection with the excavation for the parcels between 70th and
72nd Streets. The excavation would be immediately followed by the preparation
1-31
of foundations. On sites where piledriving is not required, the preparation of
• foundations could take between two to four months. Where piledriving is re-
quired, preparation of the foundations could take between six and seven months.
It is likely that several of the sites would require piles. Equipment used
during the preparation of foundations include piledriving rigs, earth movers,
and concrete mixing trucks.
Once the foundations are in, construction of the superstructure then fol-
lows. Each floor of the structure would take approximately two weeks until it
reaches street grade~ and approximately two weeks for the first two levels
above grade. Thereafter,· approximately one floor would be constructed every
three days. After the building reaches street level, the adjacent portions of
Riverside Drive and cross streets would be constructed. Concrete-mixing trucks
and cranes are the typical machinery on-site during construction of the super-
structure.
Exterior .work on the building, including the curtain wall and facade,
begins while the structure is still rising. Interior work, including utili-
ties, plumbing, electricity, elevator, sheet metal, and partition work, pro-
ceeds several floors behind the exterior work. All means of access to each
development site would be utilized.
Total construction ti~~ for a typical building, including excavation'and

preparation of foundations, would be approximately two years on average. The
studio building would take a period of approximately 3~ years to construct.
Each parcel would be responsible for a portion of the park and for infrastruc-
•
ture improvements related to the parcel .
It is contemplated that a new parcel would begin construction approximate-

ly every seven months. At the peak construction period, a maximum of four
buildings could be under construction simultaneously. At the peak construction
periods, approximately 1,000 workers would be employed on-site.
During the initial construction phase (prior to 1995), there may be an

overlap with construction activities related to the renovation of the Miller
Highway. Coordination between the construction activities associated with the
proposed project and the renovation of the existing Miller Highway and/or con-
struction of a relocated highway, if a decision is made to relocate the highway
(see discussion below), would require the development of a detailed operations
plan. Only after both the proposed project's roadways and the relocated high-
way are fully designed could this operations plan be formally developed.
Public Punding and Incentives
The project would actively be seeking government subsidies for the con-
struction of affordable housing on site.
No public funding is currently contemplated for the construction of other

elements of the proposed project. Although no decision has been made regarding
any other public funding for the balance of the project, including tax abate-
• ments, it is possible that the project would seek such assistance that may be
available.
I-32
D. RELOCATION OF THE HILLEa HIGHWAY
• As noted in section I.A, the project site currently contains an aerial

easement for the elevated Miller Highway, generally 140 feet wide, running
through the project site. The Miller Highway is currently being renovated by
NYSDOT, and that renovation is scheduled for completion in late 1994 or early
1995.
and one in which the elevated highway remains in place. Should the NYSDOT, in
conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, approve relocation of the
highway to an in-board location beneath and next to the extension of Riverside
Drive, the existing highway would be demolished. The relocation, which is
supported by the project sponsors, would open up broader views of the Hudson
River and the Palisades and provide for a more cohesive park design.
To accommodate the relocation of the highway, Riverside South has provided

space beneath and adjacent to the extension of Riverside Drive that could ac-
commodate the relocated highway (see Figure 1-11). That space would be mapped
as a public place and provided as a parkway corridor at no cost to the city or
state. The parkway corridor, which would connect that portion of the highway
located north of 72nd Street to Route 9A located at 59th Street, would provide
adequate space for the relocated highway, including three travel lanes in each
•
direction, full 8-foot shoulders on each side, associated utilities, and the
highway ventilation system. A retaining wall to be constructed as part of the
highway would be built along the western edge of the relocated highway. Par-
tial funding for the planning of this relocation has been authorized by the
u.S. Congress and New York State. In
The relocation of the highway is a separate and independent action from
the approvals and plans of the Riverside South project, and would be subject to
its own independent and separate environmental review pursuant to SEQRA and
NEPA. While the development of the upland portion of the project site would be
independent of the fate of the relocated highway, the relocation of the highway
would affect the design of the waterfront park.
With regard to phasing, because it is anticipated that the relocation of

the Miller Highway could not be completed by 1997, Phase I would be similar to
that described for conditions with the highway remaining in place. For EIS
purposes, it is assumed that the relocated highway could be in place by 2002.
E. REQUIRED ACTIONS
The proposed project will require approvals and other discretionary ac-
tions by city and state agencies. The discretionary actions that have been
identified are outlined below.
• 1-33
5·92
• • •
J!]M
] !
~g Q _un .ullli]l&j~~ ~
I Ii D ~n 1111 JI D JI II n c "I 01 {, ~
- -:- "
m~ldD

• Pedestrian Entry
o 200 400 100 800 FEET
6 Vehicular Entry I I
N Parcel Name SCALE
I?2'Z2I Park
Note: See Figures 1-6 and 1-7 for more details
Site Plan Showing Relocated Highway
Figure 1-11
City Actions and Approvals -- ULURP Actions
• The proposed project entails a number of actions

Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) and require
the CPC and the New York City Council. These actions
struction of Riverside South either with the existing
that are subject to the
discretionary approval by
would permit the con-
Miller Highway in place
or with a relocated highway.
City Map Changes
Streets
Pursuant to Sections 198 and 199 of the City Charter, the proposed River-
side South project would require City Map changes for new streets and the
Miller Highway. Specifically, the following streets would be mapped:
o The extension of Riverside Drive from 72nd Street to 59th Street

would be mapped as a public street;
o Seventieth, 68th, 66th, 64th, 63rd, and 61st Streets would be mapped
as public streets between Riverside Drive and the project's property
line;
o An 11-foot portion of 64th Street between the project's property line

and West End Avenue (on the Manhattan West site) would be demapped;
• o
o
That portion of Freedom Place South between 63rd and 64th Streets (on
the Manhattan West site) would be demapped as a public access ease-
ment and then mapped along with the portion of Freedom Place South
between 61st and 63rd Streets as a public street; and
The space set aside for a possible relocation of the Miller Highway
would be mapped as a public place and a parkway corridor would be
donated within the public place.
The developer proposes to change the City Map to include the areas noted
above as part of the city street system, and to construct those streets located
on the development site.
The City Map also would be changed to reflect the following action:
o To conform with NYSDOT plans to widen the existing Miller Highway to

the west, a new easement of approximately 22 feet would be mapped on
the west side of the highway.
Public Open Space and Public Access Easements
o The waterfront park would be mapped as public parkland -- this in-

cludes a 21.5-acre upland area east of the Riverside Drive extension
as well as 49.6 acres of underwater land (18.5 acres owned by. the
developer and 31.1 acres owned by the city);
• 1-34
o Seventy-first, 69th, 67th, 65th, and 62nd Streets would be mapped as
• o
public access easements; and
An area east of Freedom Place South between 63rd and 6lst Streets
would be mapped as public access easement.
Other Actions
o The map approved for the Lincoin West project, but never filed, would
have to be rescinded.
Zoning Map Changes
As shown on Map 8C of the Zoning Resolution, the site is currently zoned

RlO/Cl-5, R8, C4-7 (RIO equivalent), and C3 (R3-2 equivalent). Pursuant to
Sections 200 and 201 of the City Charter, most of the site is proposed to be
rezoned as RIO (infill). The studio block would be zoned C4-7. A portion of
Parcel I would be zoned C4-2F. Except for an area along the Riverside Drive
frontages extending 75 feet to the east on Parcel.s C-D, E-F, I, and J-K, a C2-5
overlay would cover most of Parcels A through K (see Figure 1-12).
The waterfront park (including approximately 21. 5 acres o.f upland area
east of the Riverside Drive extension and 49.6 acres of underwater land), which
is currently zoned C-3, would be mapped as public parkland (see Figure 1-12).
An area east of Freedom Place South between 63rd and 6lst Streets would be
mapped as a public access easement .
• ~t
In addition, the northern half of the marine transfer station on the pier
59th Street -- consisting of the land underwater from the northern line of
the extension of 59th Street to the center of 59th Street -- currently a non-
conforming use in a C-3 zone, would be zoned M2-3, to give the entire marine
transfer station a single conforming designation·.
RIO Infill provisions of the zoning resolution pertain to developments in

RIO (or equivalent commercial) zones in Community Board 7 in Manhattan. They
limit the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) to 10.0 and have special requirements
pertaining to front building walls, setbacks, the number of rooms, and ground
floor commercial space. Plaza and arcade bonuses are not permitted in RlO
Infill zones. Commercial development up to an FAR of 10.0 (to 12.0 with bonus)
is permitted in a C4-7 zone. Residential use, at an RIO equivalent, is also
permitted in a C4-7 zone. Lower density commercial and residential development
would be permitted on the portion of Parcel I zoned C4-2F; Maximum FARs in
C4-2F zones are 3.4 for commercial development and 6.02 for residential build-
ings. The C2-5 commercial overlay permits shops and neighborhood services to a
maximum FAR of 2.0, within the RIO underlying zone.
Special Permits
The proposed project would require special permits from the CPC for devel-
opments in railroad or transit air space pursuant to Section 74-681 of the New
York City Zoning Resolution (ZR), general large-scale developments (Section
74-74 ZR), for the provision of public parking, and to allow extension of time
• for completion of substantial construction .
1-35
10·92 • • •
J lUJ LJ III ~ lU lU U t i l ] LJJ lLJ L
-]1 I,--..~ r, II I
Il ---
Ii I I I . - --~ I
1\ Ii II " • • • b* S. Ii
M1-6
/
/
~! R88
R8
C4-7
PARK
/1,
o 200 400 100 100 FEEl

I I
SCALE
- - - - - - Project Site Boundary
C2-5 Overlay
PAE Public Access Easement
Proposed Zoning
Figure 1-12
Developments in Railroad or Transit Air Space
• The project sponsor is seeking a Special Permit pursuant to Section 74-681

of the ZR to allow developments within or over railroad or transit rights-of-
way or yards.
General Large-Scale Developments
The project sponsor is seeking a special permit pursuant to Section 74-74

of the ZR for a General Large Scale Development. This Special Permit would
allow the distribution of" floor area and dwelling units without regard to zon-
ing lot lines or district boundaries (ZR 74-743(a)(1»; and allow the location
of buildings without regard for the applicable yard, distance between build-
ings, or height and setback regulations (ZR 74-743(a)(3».
Public Parking
The project would require a special permit to allow 3,500 spaces of public
parking (ZR 13-462, 74-52, 74-681(a)(3)(ii».
Extension of Time
In connection with each special permit, the project would request an ex-
tension of time for completion of substantial construction pursuant to Section
74-99(c) of the ZR. I~
•
Restrictive Declaration
In connection with the approvals outlined above, a new restrictive decla-

ration would be recorded against the site to replace the one recorded for the
former Lincoln West project. A restrictive declaration would place conditions
on the future use of a site (e.g., maximum amount of permitted floor area,
controls on building design, bulk, provision of certain amenities), and on the
implementation and phasing of the project", its amenities, and mitigation.
Other City Action
The proposed project would not require any non-ULURP actions by the City
Planning Commission (CPC). However, it would require one additional approval.
Permit for Use of City-Owned Land
The city owns a 0.7-acre strip of land along the Hudson River between West
70th and 72nd Streets, which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Business Services (DBS). There are other small areas of property along the
shoreline that are also under the jurisdiction of DBS. As part of the proposed
project, pursuant to Section 704(h) of the City Charter, the developer would
obtain a permit for this property from the city to develop it as a public park .
• I-36
Certifica tion
• Certification to permit curb cuts on wide streets, waiving the provisions

of Section 26-05, would be sought, specifically for Zoning Lot C/D to permit a
curb cut on West 70th Street for access to loading, a curb cut on Freedom Place
and a curb cut on Riverside Drive, both for access to the public access ease-
ment at West 69th Street; for Zoning Lot E/F, a curb cut on Riverside Drive for
access to the public access easement at West 67th Street; for Zoning Lot G/H, a
curb cut on Riverside Drive for access to the public access easement on West
65th Street; and for Zoning Lot J/K, a curb cut on Riverside Drive for access
to the public access easements on West 62nd Street.
Uniform Land Use Review Procedure
The city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), mandated by Sections
197-c and 197-d of the City Charter, is a city process specifically designed to
allow public review of proposed actions at four levels: the Community Board,
the Borough President, the CPC, and the City Council. The procedure also con-
tains time limits for review to ensure a schedule of no more than 230 days.
Zoni~g text and zoning map amendments, and the review of urban renewal
plan amendments, are subject to automatic review by the City Council. Proposed
changes to the City Map and special permits are subject to City Council review
only if either (I) both the community board and the affected Borough President
•
have recommended in writing against the approval and the affected Borough Pres-
ident appeals to the City Council within five days of the CPC's decision, or
(2) if within 20 days of the filing of such decision with the City Council, the
Council resolves by majority vote to review the CPC's ~pproval.
Upon certification by CPC that the ULURP application is complete, the

application is circulated to the appropriate Community Board. The Community
Board has 60 days in which to review and discuss the proposal, hold a public
hearing, and advise the CPC and the Boro~gh President of their position. Once
the local board has acted, the Borough President's office has 30 days in which
to submit a written recommendation or a waiver to the CPC. The CPC then has 60
days in which to further review the proposal, hold a public hearing, and ap-
prove, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. If CPC ap-
proves or approves with modifications the proposal, it is forwarded to the City
Council, which has 50 to 65 days in which to hold a hearing and approve, disap-
prove, or modify the CPC's actions (the additional 15 days occur when the Coun-
cil is considering modifications to the CPC actions).
The actions of the council are subject to veto by the mayor within five
days of the council's vote. The council then has 10 days in which to override
(by a two-thirds vote) the mayor's veto.
Environmental Review
• This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared to provide

decision-makers with a full understanding of the environmental effects of the
proposed project and its alternatives, including the effects of the proposed
1-37
city street mappings that are necessary to facilitate the proposed project.
• The EIS conforms with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and
its implementing regu1atio~s (6 NYCRR Part 617) and the City Environmental
Quality Review (CEQR) set forth in Executive Order No. 91. SEQRA and CEQR are
intended to permit the analysis of environmental issues in the early planning
and decision-making stages of major propos.ed projects in the city.
The EIS provides a means for decision-makers to systematically consider

environmental effects along with other aspects of their project planning and
design, and to identify and, where practicable, mitigate adverse environmental
effects.
An EIS then assembles relevant and material facts upon which the decision
is to be made, identifies the potential environmental impacts and appropriate
mitigation measures, and evaluates reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project.
CEQR and ULURP have been integrated so that (1) the ULURP process does not
begin until the lead agencies under CEQR regulations -- the city's Department
of Environmental Protection and the City Planning Commission -- certify that
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is complete; (2) the DEIS ac-
companies the ULURP application through ULURP; (3) the CPC's hearing on the
DEIS usually is also its hearing underULURP; and (4) the CEQR findings pre-
pared by the CPC on the basis of the Final Environmental Impact Statement coin-
cide with the report it prepares for the City Council under ULURP.
• State Approvals
Approval may be required from the New York State Department of Environmen-
tal Conservation (DEC) and NYSDOT in connection with the proposed project, as
follows.
Tidal Wetlands Permit
In a preliminary review of the Trump City project's shoreline stabiliza-

tion and waterfront improvement plans and an initial assessment of on-site
waterfront conditions, DEC has determined there are areas where no bulkhead
currently exists, creating mud flats areas governed under the state's Part 661
regulations, thereby mandating that the project's proposed waterfront activi-
ties require Tidal Wetlands permits for activities in the·"adjacent area" as
defined in the state's Part 661 regulations. Such permits would be of the
"generally compatible - permit required" (GC p ) category, and pursuant to DEC's
Uniform Procedures (Part 621) are denominated as "minor" permits.
Use and Protection of Water
Under 6 NYCRR 608, the project may require a permit for the rehabilitation
of Pier I (at 70th Street) in connection with the waterfront open space areas.
Plans for this activity will be submitted to DEC for a determination of the
need for permits under this section. The project would also require a Consis-
• tency Determination.from the New York State Department of State Division of

Coastal Resources.
1-38
Approval for Closing of Highway Exit
• Approval would be required from NYSDOT for the closing of the northbound
exit ramp from the Miller Highway to 72nd Street.
Other State Approvals
Any work requiring a U.S. Army Corps permit would require water quality
certification (ECL, Article 15, 6 NYCRR 608). A State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit (El Article 17, 6 NYCRR 75) would be required for any
on-site sewage plant discharge, if proposed.
Federal Approvals
Authorization would be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps) for the construction of the pedestrian piers. Pier I would be rehabil-
itated under a nationwide permit from the Corps.
In addition, the approval of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

may be required in connection with __ the stabilization of the West 69th Street
transfer bridge .
• 1-39
CHAPTER II. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS AND PROBABLE
•
I~ACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. INTRODUCTION
Riverside South would develop a total of approximately 8.3 million zoning

square feet of residential and commercial space as well as a large waterfront
park of about 25 along the Hudson River between 59th and 72nd Streets. A total
of approximately 49.6 acres of underwater land along the project site's shore-
line -- 18.5 acres owned by the developer and 31.1 acres owned by the city --
would be mapped as parkland. The site, which is currently sparsely used, bor-
ders three distinct neighborhoods. To the east of the site lies the Lincoln
Square mixed-use neighborhood; to the south, the manufacturing portion of the
Clinton neighborhood; and to the north, Riverside Park and the residential
Upper West Side.
The size, nature, and location of the project necessitate an examination

of a full range of environmental areas, including: land use and zoning, neigh-
borhood character, demographics and displacement, community facilities and ser-
vices, urban design and visual character, waterfront revitalization, open space
and recreational facilities, historic and archaeological resources, economic
conditions, traffic and transportation, air quality, noise, hazardous materi-
als, water resources, terrestrial ecology, utilities and solid waste disposal,
•
energy, and construction activity .
Each section of the EIS begins with a description of the current environ-
mental setting for the site of the proposed project, followed by a description
of the expected future environmental setting. The expected future environmen-
tal conditions are based on anticipated changes that would occur in the future
if the project were not built. The analyses periods for these No Build condi-
tions mirror the analysis years for the proposed project, 1997 and 2002.
The sections conclude with the analysis of the potential environmental

impacts of the proposed Riverside South development in the years 1997 and 2002.
The EIS assumes that by 1997 project components north of 64th Street would be
completed, with the remainder of the project completed by 2002.
Where relevant, the impact analysis assesses changes that would occur
should the existing Miller Highway be relocated to an inbound location. The
relocation would not occur during the first phase of the proposed project.
Specific areas where the effects of the relocated highway are discussed are:
Land Use and Zoning (section II.B), Urban Design and Visual Character (section
II.E), Waterfront Revitalization Plan (II.F)., Open Space and Recreation (sec-
tion II.G), Traffic and Transportation (section II.J), Air Quality (section
II.K), Noise (section II.L), and Construction (section II.R). The effects of
the relocated highway are inconsequential for other subject areas and are
therefore not discussed in the text .
• II .A-l
B. LAHD USE AND ZONING
• Introduction
Issues and Approach
The development of the proposed project, located on an underutilized 74.6-

acre site (56.1 acres upland, 18.5 acres of underwater land owned by the devel-
oper, as well as an additional 31.1 acres of city-owned underwater) along the
Hudson River between 59th Street and 72nd Street, would represent a change in
use on the project site and one of the largest developments in Manhattan in
decades. From a land use perspective, the redevelopment of the former rail
yards poses several issues: is it consistent and/or compatible with land use
patterns and trends in the surrounding neighborhoods; is it consistent with the
underlying zoning or other statements of public policy in the surrounding area;
and would it stimulate additional land use changes or development activity off-
site.
To analyze these potential issues, existing land use patterns were deter-
mined through field surveys, land use trends were determined through a compila-
tion of major development proj ects, including those comple-ted, under construc-
tion or proposed, and zoning was examined through a review of the New York City
Zoning Resolution and recent actions undertaken by the City Planning
Commission .
• To facilitate a review of this chapter, the discussions of land use and

zoning have been separated. The discussion of land use begins on page II.B-7.
The discussion of zoning begins on page II.B-27.
Study Area Definition
In choosing a land use study area in a densely built up area like Manhat-
tan, the major consideration is the geographic extent of the project's poten-
tial impacts. Impacts related to consistency or compatibility with existing
land use patterns, trends, and zoning are very localized and tend, even on
large projects, to extend to the blocks closest to a project site. Secondary
development impacts, i.e., the stimulation of spin-off development activity may
extend over a larger area, though these efforts also tend to diminish with
distance from a project site as other market and development influences
predominate.
In recognition of these ~wo limitations, two study areas were chosen -- a

primary study area covering the area west of Amsterdam Avenue from 52nd Street
on the south to 79th Street on the north, and a secondary study area covering
the area to the east of Amsterdam Avenue between 52nd and 77th Streets. These
study areas, shown in Figure II.B-l comprise portions of Clinton, Lincoln
Square, and the Upper West Side.
II .B-l
•
ct
LU
-
~
ct
<::
Q
CJ:J
Cl
:::>
• :t:
o 1000 FEET
I ,
•
SCALE
Primary Study Area Boundary
• • • • • • I
- _ . Secondary Study Area Boundary

10 91 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
0
•
Recent Developaent History
Project Site
As detailed in "Historic and Archaeological Resources," the project site

was used as a rail freight yard for much of this century. After World War II,
changes in ~he city's economy and the steadily decreasing role of rail freight
in Manhattan led to the phasing out of the rail uses on the site. In 1968, the
financially ailing New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroads merged to form
Penn Central. The center of the new company's freight operations for Manhat-
tan, the Bronx, and Westchester County was the 60th Street yards -- now the
project site. However, soon after, the company relocated its shipping consoli-
dators to New Jersey, and determined that many of the activities handled at its
Manhattan yards could be handled more efficiently at yards in Croton, Yonkers,
and the Bronx. Penn Central reduced operations at its Manhattan yards, and
during the mid-1970's, shut down the 60th Street Yards entirely. By the late
1970's, the only rail freight operations were those associated with the ship-
ment of newsprint for The New York Times. With the railroad's bankruptcy and
absorption into Conrail in 1976, the 60th Street Yards were declared surplus
property and offered for sale. By 1983, all freight traffic had ceased at the
yards and most of the railroad tracks had beeri removed, although the Consoli-
dated Railway Corporation (Conrail) ret~ined a right-of-way for-two tracks
along the site's eastern border. This right-of-way was transferred to Amtrak
in 1986 in anticipation of the routing of long-distance passenger rail service
along Manhattan's West Side directly to Pennsylvania Station. Amtrak recently
•
laid new track in the right-of-way and in April 1991 began operating its trains
along this line.
As detailed in Chapter I, "Project Description," a number of proposals for

large-scale developments have been made for this site since the early 1960's,
including Litho City in 1962, the Educational Construction Fund plan in 1969, a
Trump Organization proposal in 1975, and Lincoln West in 1981. After receiving
all necessary approvals to proceed in 1982, the developers of Lincoln West were
unable to obtain financing and the project was halted in 1984. In connection
with that project, the Lifschu1tz Fast Freight trucking operations were relo-
cated by the city from Lower Manhattan to the southern end of the project site
in 1983, with plans to be incorporated into Lincoln West. The most recent
development proposal for the site was Trump City, a mixed-use project slated to
include 7,600 residential units as well as 3.6 million square feet of office
space (more than half located in what would have been the tallest building in
the world), a hotel, and extensive retail use. The proposal was withdrawn by
the developer in July 1991 after certification of the draft environmental im-
pact statement, before City Planning Commission certification.
Study Area
The area near the project site, particularly the Lincoln Square area, has
changed substantially over the past 40 years, initially as a result of public
actions and more recently as a result of market forces. In 1949, an early
urban renewal project cleared several blocks of tenements, factories, and
•
stores between 6lst and 64th Streets between Amsterdam and West End Avenues for
the construction of a 14-building complex of public housing between Amsterdam
and West End Avenues (Amsterdam Houses). In the 1950's and early 1960's, urban
II.B-2
•
renewal prQjects continued to transform the blocks west of Broadway, which were
generally occupied by tenement buildings. The major projects resulting from
this urban renewal activity, included the construction of the New York Coliseum
project (1956), occupying the blocks between Eighth and Ninth Avenue from 58th
to 60th Street; Fordham University (1962), occupying the blocks between 60th
and 62nd Streets and Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues; Lincoln Towers, covering
the blocks between Amsterdam Avenue and Freedom Place between 66th and 70th
Streets (1963), and Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, between 62nd and
66th Streets from Columbus to Amsterdam Avenue, which was constructed from 1962
to 1969. In all, these urban renewal projects dramatically changed the land
use pattern of a large portion of the study area to the east of the project
site and laid the groundwork for the subsequent surge in private market
~t~i~.
In 1969, urban renewal activity was extended to Clinton with the creation
of the Clinton Urban Renewal Area (CURA). Covering an area bordered by West
50th Street, Tenth Avenue, West 56th Street, and Eleventh Avenue, CURA has seen
the construction of several high-rise residential buildings built under the
auspices of the New York City Housing Authority and the New York City Depart-
ment of Housing Preservation and Development. Other sites have been condemned
by the City in anticipation of further development.
It has been primarily residential development around Lincoln Center that

has contributed most to the area's changing character since 1970 (see Table
II.B-1 and Figure II.B-2). Starting with the completion of One Lincoln Plaza
(1969), a 43-story mixed-use building that overlooks Lincoln Center's main
•
plaza, the first building produced under the new Lincoln Center Special Zoning
District, and continuing through the most recent completion of the Concerto, a
380-unit residential building on Amsterdam Avenue between 59th and 60th
Streets, and the Three Lincoln Center -- Juilliard Dormitory project, a com-
bined market rate residential-institutional structure developed under the aus-
pices of Lincoln Center completed in 1991, the Lincoln Square area, located
east of the project site, has been transformed into one of the most desirable
residential neighborhoods in New York City. With three major projects current-
ly in planning -- among them Columbus Center on the site of the former New York
Coiiseum, Manhattan West and Capital Cities/ABC on the former New York Times
site next to the project site -- this residential growth trend promises to con-
tinue westward in the future (see "The Future Without the Project," below for a
discussion of propo~ed projects in the study area).
The Lincoln Square area has seen some commercial and institutional growth
as well. The most recent commercial growth has primarilY'been in connection
with the expansion of facilities by ABC. These have included new studios and
ABC's new headquarters. Institutional expansion has been associated with Lin-
coln Center, Fordham University, Roosevelt Hospital, John Jay College, and the
New York City Public School System (LaGuardia and Martin Luther King High
Schools).
South of Lincoln Square (and the project site) development activity has
been more limited than in Lincoln Square but substantial nonetheless. Major
residential buildings have primarily been built in the Clinton Urban Renewal
Area and along 57th Street. The latter has included the Sheffield, the Colon-
• nade, One Central Park Place and the Aurora. The last major commercial build-
ing constructed here was the nearly 900,OOO-square-foot office building at
555 West 57th Street, which was completed in 1970.
II.B-3
Table II.B-1
• :RaaelAddress
S'1'UDY AREA DEVELDPIIER'I'. 1"'-1"1
Use Size
Ro. of
Stories
Year
COJIlD1gted
1. 1 Lincoln Plaza Mixed Use 691 units, 42 1969
office space
2. 555 West 57th St. Office 875,000 sq. 19 1970
ft.
3. Paramount Communica- Office 525,000 sq. 44 1971
tions Building ft.
4. 1 Sherman Square Residential 378 units 41 1972
5. Martin Luther King School 4 1974
High School
6. 2 Lincoln Square Residential 323 units 30 1974
7. 380 Amsterdam Ave. Residential 271 units 18 1974
8. 30 Lincoln Plaza Residential 609 units 32 1974
9. Amsterdam Houses Residential 172 units 27 1974
Addition
• 10.
11.
12.
Roosevelt Hospital
Staff Residence
Nevada Apartments
Clinton Towers
Residential
Residential
Residential
464 units
NA
395 units
33
28
39
1974
1974
1975
13. Harborview Terrace Residential 373 units 15 1977
14. Lincoln-Amsterdam I Residential 186 units 25 1977
15. Harkness Plaza Residential 292 units 26 1978
61 West 62nd Street
16. Sheffield Residential 849 units 48 1978
17. Capital Cities ABC Commercial 80,000 sq. 6 1978
SE corner Columbus ft.
Ave./67th Street
18. Encore Residential 308 units 25 1981
891 Eighth Avenue
19. ABC-TV Office 250,000 s.f. 7 1982
125 West End Avenue Conversion office
20. The Regent Residential 330 units 34 1983
45 West 60th Street
•
21. The Beaumont Residential 168 units 31 1983
30 West 61st Street
II. B-4
Table 11.8-1 (CoatiDued)
• . . .elAddress
S'ltJDY AJlEA DEVELOPIIER'l. 1969-1991
Use Sue
Bo. of
Stories
Year
C0IIlD1eted
22. Colonnade Residential 236 units 45 1983
347 West 57th Street
23. 45 West 67th Street Mixed Use 178 units, 32 1983
office space
24. 135 West 70th Street Residential 83 units 10 1983
25. Lincoln Plaza Tower Residential 150 units 30 1983
26. ABC-TV Studio 70,000 s.f. 4 1984
27. Bel Canto Residential 75 units 27 1985
1991 Broadway
28. Sofia Brothers Mixed Use 94 units, 24 1985
Warehouse 65,000 s.f.
47 Columbus Avenue office
29. South Park Tower Mixed Use 498 units, 52 1985
• 30.
3l.
52 West 68th Street

Level Club
253 West 73rd Street
Residential
Residential
100,000 s.f.
office
45 units
160 units
11
16
1985
1985
32. Lincoln Park Residential 58 units 16 1985

211 West 71st Street
33. Fiorello La Guardia School 9 1985
H.S.
34. 32 West 66th Street Residential 49 units 27 1986
35. The Austin Residential 93 units 17 1986
36. Haaren High School Office 220,000 s.f. 5 1986
Conversion/John Jay Conversion
College
37. The Copley Residential 162 units 28 1987
2000 Broadway
38. Midwest Court Residential. 220 units 7 1987
402 West 53rd Street
•
39. Tower 67 Residential 450 units 47 1987
ILB-5
•
Table II.B-1 (CoDtfDued)
. STUDY AREA DEVELOP.HERT. 1969-1991
Ro. of Year
RaJaelAddress Use Size Stories Ccmo1eted
40. The Alfred Residential 222 units 36 1987
161 West 61st Street
41. The Fitzgerald Residential 92 units 15 1987
42. The Aurora Residential 98 units 30 1988
43. One Central Park Residential 275 units 56 1989
Place
44. 4 Columbus Circle Office 100,000 s.f. 7 1989
45. Chequers Residential 121 units 25 1989
62 West 62nd Street
46. ABC Headquarters Office 397,000 s.f. 23 1989
47. Alexandria Residential 200 units 24 1990
•
201 West 72nd Street
48. Coronado Residential 158 units 21 1990
49. Three Lincoln Center Mixed Use 525 units, 59 1991
Jui11iard Dormitory 325 dorms,
Amsterdam Avenue & 58,000 s.f.
West 65th Street office,
20,000 s.f
other
50. The Concerto Residential 374 units 35 1991
51. Fordham University Mixed Use 1,000 dormi- 20 Under Con-
Amsterdam Avenue and tory units struction
West 60th Street
52. Roosevelt Hospital Hospital 597,558 s.f 14 Under Con-
hospital struction
• II.B-6
Study Area Development, 1969-1991
Figure II.B-2
• v
=
\
ct:
LU
-
~
ct:
<:
Q
CJ)
Q
:::,
• ::t:
o 1000 FEET
CI==:::::C==::::ll
•
SCALE
- _ . Primary Study Area Boundary
•••••• , Secondary Study Area Boundary
o Development Location
12·91 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
The Upper West Side community, north of Lincoln Square and the project
• site, has also seen new residential construction. The Alexandria on the north-
west corner of 72nd Street and Broadway and the Coronado on the northeast cor-
ner of 70th Street and Broadway, are recent additions to this part of the study
area.
Although development in the study area over the past 20 years has primari-
ly been iri response to ,strong market forces (except in the CURA), public policy
has continued to have a strong influence on development trends. The Special
Lincoln Square District has, until recently, played a major role in shaping the
large-scale development around Lincoln Center (see discussion below). In addi-
tion, several of the completed and proposed large-scale development projects
received discretionary zoning approval from the city including Tower 67, the
Alfred, One Central Park Place, Three Lincoln Center, the Concerto, and Manhat-
tan West.
To summarize, the prQject site is located in a rapidly changing area that

has experienced substantial new development and change in character in recent
decades. The following sections detail the land use patterns that presently
exist in the study area, changes that are likely to occur in the absence of the
project, and the potential impacts that implementation of the proposed action
and project would hav~ on land use.
Land Use
• Existing Conditions
Project Site
As noted in Chapter I, "Project Description," the project site is, for the
most part, physically cut off from the adjacent neighborhood by the area's
topography. It is also distinct from the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of
land use. The two dominant uses on the site are regional transportation
uses -- rights-of-way for Conrail and the Miller Highway. Two railroad tracts,
carrying passengers from upstate New York to Pennsylvania station, run along
the Conrail right-of-way located along the eastern edge of the site. The ele-
vated Miller Highway runs within an aerial easement on the western side of the
property and separates the bulk of the site from the Hudson River.
The southern portion of the site contains a mix of vacant and occupied
buildings and parking areas (see Figure II.B-3), including:
o Warehouse, office space, and truck loading and parking areas, under
lease to Lifschultz Fast Freight, a freight forwarding operation,
until 2002.
o A 300,OOO-square-foot one-story building and a three-story 70,000-

square-foot building fronting on 59th Street occupied by Jay-Gee
Motorhomes, a company providing trailer services to the film indus-
•
try. The company's lease expires in 1991-1992 .
II .B-7
Project Site Land Use
Figure II.B-3
•
n,'
LJ
_ _I;
.,j'
- Retaining Wall ~\\\\'\ Amtrack R.O.W.

0
I
SCALE
400 800 FEET
•
=t.:.~ Property Une U.S. Bulkhead Une
w///A Miller Highway Blhroughl Pier Identification
1 Loading Platforms 3 Emergency and Access Road 5 Parking Lot

2 Ufschultz Fast Freight 4 Industrial Buildings 6 Con Edison Parking Lot 7 Parking lot
10·91
•
o A parking lot (approximately 150 spaces) for Con Edison employees who
work at the power plant on the south side of 59th Street. The compa-
ny rents the lot on a short-term basis.
o A parking lot for the United States Postal Service, which uses the
lot for storage of postal vehicles. The company's lease runs until
1993.
o A public parking lot (850 spaces) at the corner of 59th Street and
West End Avenue, leased to Square Industry.
o Seven piers (B, D, E, F, G, H, and I), all unused and some in ruins.
o Several unused railroad freight loading platforms.
o A retaining wall that holds in place the vertical embankment on the

eastern boundary of the site.
o A long, low, deteriorated concrete shelter built against the retain-

ing wall. The shelter once served the yard's rail freight
operations.
o A site-illumination system consisting of floodlights "mounted on wood--"

en and metal poles.
o A chain link fence that surrounds the site on the north, south, and
•
east.
On the rest of the site, in addition to the rights-of-way for Conrail

(currently used for Amtrak passenger service) and the Miller Highway, a 10-
foot-wide easement for a combined storm water and sanitary sewer crosses the
site at 66th Street and ends in an outfall at the bulkhead. A relief sewer
branches from this line at Freedom Place and runs north to 72nd Street, mostly
within the Amtrak right-of-way.
PrimaIY Study Area
Land use patterns in the primary study area vary by geographic location.
To the north of the project site, the land use mix is primarily residential and
recreational. To the east of the project site, land use is primarily a mix of
institutional and residential uses. To the south the predominant use is indus-
trial (see Figure II.B-4).
North of 72nd Street. Residential use predominates north of 72nd Street

in the primary study area. Most of the midblocks and certain locations along
Amsterdam Avenue and Riverside Drive are lined with low rise row houses or
tenement buildings. Multi-story apartment buildings, generally ranging from 12
to 18 stories, line much of Broadway, West End Avenue, and Riverside Drive.
The most notable residential buildings are the Apthorp Apartments, covering the
full block bounded by 78th and 79th Streets from Broadway to West End Avenue,
the Ansonia, covering the full western blockfront of Broadway between 73rd and
•
74th Streets, the Schwab House, occupying the full block between West End Ave-
nue and Riverside Drive from 73rd to 74th Streets, and the Alexandria at the
II.B-8
Study Area Land Us.
Figure 11.8-..
• , 79th St.
a:
LU
-
>
ex: -----
--~
&"_--:'1
:----,
~
.
L_. __ .
• -~
0 L. __ :'
CI)
r~
Cl
:::>
J:
• -- 0 500 1000 FEET

• _ . - Project Site Boundary
I I
........ Primary Study Site Boundary Retail/Office/Commercial SCALE
• - - Secondary Study Area Boundary Cultural/Educational/Institutional Park

~"~ Residential ~ Industrial/Parking c:=:::J Vacant
10·91
•
corner of 72nd Street and Broadway (see Figure II.B-5). The Alexandria, com-
pleted in 1990, is one of the few new residential buildings constructed in this
area over the past several decades.
Commercial and retail uses are located along 72nd Street between Broadway
and West End Avenue, on Amsterdam Avenue and Broadway. These are primarily
located in ground-floor locations (see Figure II.B-6) though there are several
free-standing commercial buildings, most notably the 1andmarked Central Savings
Bank Building occupying the full block between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue
from 73rd to 74th Streets. While no new commercial buildings have been con-
structed in the area in recent years, there have been continuing signs of new
retail investment, including the opening of the large HMV music outlet in the
Alexandria.
Institutional, cultural, and recreational facilities are also located

within this portion'of the primary study area. The West End Collegiate Church
at 78th Street and West End Avenue and the Beacon Theater on Broadway at 74th
Street are the best known of these uses. Other cultural uses include the Prom-
enade and Second Stage theaters. This portion of the primary study area also
contains approximately 48 acres of the 267-acre Riverside Park, including a
waterfront promenade from 72nd Street to 83rd Street and the Hudson Harbor 79th
Street Boat Basin. Riverside Park is the largest open space in the study area
and h.a prominent".. feature shaping the character of the west side north of 72nd
street (see section II.G for a description of Riverside ·Park).
East of the Project Site. Large scale residential complexes dominate the
•
land use pattern in that portion of the primary study area located to the east
of the project site. Lincoln Towers, a complex of six 28- and 29-story apart-
ment buildings with nearly 4,000 units, was completed in 1963 on the blocks
located between 66th and 70th Streets between Amsterdam Avenue and Freedom
Place. Further south, between 61st and 64th Streets, from Amsterdam to West
End Avenues, is the Amsterdam Houses public housing project. Completed in
1948, Amsterdam Houses contains nearly 1,100 units of housing in a complex of
10 6-story and 3 13-story buildings. Both Lincoln Towers and Amsterdam Houses
are located directly across the street from· the project site.
The remainder of the residential stock in this portion of the primary

study area consists predominantly of row houses north of 70th Street, and mid-
and high-rise apartment buildings. The most notable of these buildings include
the Chatsworth, a 12-story landmark residential building abutting the project
site at 72nd Street, One Sherman Square, a 41-story building occupying the west
b10ckfront of Broadway between 70th and 71st Streets, the 'Concerto, a recently
completed, 35-story building occupying the west b10ckfront of Amsterdam Avenue
between 59th and 60th Streets, the 464-unit, 33-story Roosevelt Hospital Staff
Residence located to the immediate west of the Concerto (completed in 1974),
and three other subsidized buildings -- the Amsterdam Houses addition, a 27-
story, 172-unit building located on the north side of 64th Street between Am-
sterdam and West End Avenues (completed in 1974), Lincoln House, a 20-story,
421-unit building occupying the b10ckfront on 66th Street between West End
Avenue and Freedom Place (completed in 1961), and Lincoln-Amsterdam I, a 25-
story, 186-unit Mitchell Lama building located on West End Avenue between 64th
and 65th Streets (completed in 1977).
• II.B-9
Notable Bulldlng~
Primary Study Arei
•
Figure II.B-~
•
Lincoln
House
ABC
Development Site -r',":::~--+++---""";;iiAiiE
John Jay College "
International
Flavors & Fragrances
I = "'''''-1" AT&T
;!
I" "~f<:!1 ' Switching Center
•
'I
:.J ,,.)I}
•
"?'
1[_.
r"~"
fr~"
I""
.
","\
I
·i'iii: \\
1in-'
:
~ --L
" " n
r52ndlin·,
St."
0;;::;; :-r -
r:l; ral'
10·91
•
• (,)
- - - - Project Site.Boundary
• - _ . Primary Study Area Boundary SCALE

• • •••• Secondary Study Area Boundary
--Retail
*
11-91 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Supermarkets
•
Institutional uses are also substantially represented in this portion of
the primary study area. The major institutional uses include La Guardia and
Martin Luther King, Jr., High Schools, which occupy the western blockfronts of
Amsterdam Avenue between 64th and 66th Streets, two public elementary schools
. -- P.S. 199 on 70th Street just east of West End Avenue, and P.S. 191 on Am-
sterdam Avenue between 60th and 6lst streets, the Red Cross Building on Amster-
dam Avenue and 66th Street, and the Riverside Branch of the New York Public
Library.
Industrial uses, primarily auto-related and film-industry related, are

concentrated between 59th and 6lst streets to the immediate east of West End
Avenue. This is the extension of the larger industrial district located to the
south (see section 11.1, "Economic Conditions," for a more detailed discussion
of this industrial district). That part of this industrial area located on the
western portion of the block bordered by West 60th and 6lst Streets between
West End and Amsterdam Avenues, has been proposed for a rezoning that would
allow for residential use (see section on the Future Without the Project for a
description of the proposed rezoning action).
Retail uses are limited in this portion of the primary study area to sites
along Amsterdam Avenue between 66th and 72nd streets, along 72nd stree1=; and in
two small concentrations along~E!st End Avenue (see Figure II.B-6). Very lit-
tle retail use" is conveniently located near the project site. The major com-
mercial building in the area is the ABC studios on West End Avenue between 65th
and 66th Streets. That building, formerly occupied by a printing plant for the
New York Times, was converted to studio space by ABC in 1984.
• Open spaces in the area are generally limited to the playgrounds associat-
ed with the public schools. One large expanse of vacant land currently being
used for parking is the former parking lot for the New York Times, which previ-
ously occupied the ABC Studios. This site, immediately adjacent to the project
site, is the location of the approved Manhattan West project and the proposed
mixed use (residential and studio expansion) ABC project (see discussion under
the Future Without the Project for a description of these projects).
As the patterns of land use indicate, the portion of the primary study
area located to the east of the project site has been greatly influenced by
public policy actions in the post war years. The establishment of urban renew-
al projects, the availability of public subsidies for housing, the location of
public facilities (most recently the two high schools) and, more recently, zon-
ing actions (the Concerto was approved as part of the overall plan for the
upgrading and expansion of the St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital complex and the
more recently approved rezoning for Manhattan West), have encouraged a mix of
development in this area.
South of 59th Street. The portion of the primary study area located to
the south of 59th Street is primarily occupied by a mix of non-residential
uses. The Con Edison power plant, occupying the full block bounded by 58th and
59th Streets between West End Avenue and the Miller Highway, the CBS Broadcast-
ing Center located on the block between 56th and S7th Streets from Tenth to
Eleventh Avenues, the AT&T Switching Center on Tenth Avenue between 53rd and
•
54th Streets, the Ford Building, a 19-story office building occupying a large
II .B-IO
site on Eleventh Avenue between 57th and 58th Streets, the International Fla-
• vors and Fragrances Building, occupying a through-block site between 57th and
58th Streets to the west of Tenth Avenue, and John Jay College, occupying the
former Haaren High School Building on Amsterdam Avenue between 58th and 59th
Streets, are the major buildings here (see Figure II.B-5). Smaller buildings
containing a mix of auto-related, manufacturing, film-industry and warehousing
uses fill out the industrial land use in this area.
Residential use is limited to several publicly subsidized buildings in the

Clinton Urban Renewal Area -- Harborview Terrace, a 373-unit public housing
project on 55th Street (completed in 1977) and Clinton Towers, a 395-unit
Mitchell Lama building located on the east blockfront of Eleventh Avenue be-
tween 54th and 55th Streets (completed in 1975). DeWitt Clinton Park, occupy-
ing a 5.8-acre site between 52nd and 54th Streets between Eleventh and Twelfth
Avenues is the major open space in this portion of the primary study area.
The Hudson River piers immediately south of the project site are used for
industrial and public utility purposes. Piers 95, 96, 97, and 99, from 55th to
59th Street, are used for storing vehicles and other activities. The New York
City Department of Sanitation uses the two northern pies, and the New York City
Department of Business Services has leased Piers 95 and 96 and developed a
concrete plant. Pier 97 has been refurbished as a barge staging area and Pier
99 for a marine transfer station. The other piers in this area include Pier
98, at 58th Street, which is used by Con Edison for unloading oil for its power
plant on 59th Street, and Pier 94, at 54th Street, which is occupied by a
freight consolidating company. The piers immediately to the south of Pier 94
•
are part of the Passenger Ship Terminal operated by the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey.
SecondaIY Study Area
The predominant use in the secondary study area is residential (see Figure
II.B-4) followed by a strong presence of institutional and commercial uses.
Following the pattern in the primary study area, the discussion of land use
patterns and trend in the secondary study area will be divided into three sec-
tions -- the Upper West Side, Lincoln Square/Columbus Circle and Clinton.
Upper West Side. That portion of the secondary study area located north
of 72nd street, between Central Park West and Amsterdam Avenue, is part of the
larger Upper West Side neighborhood that extends to the north. With a few
exceptions, land use here is predominantly residential. Prominent apartment
buildings, generally ranging in height from 9 to 27 stories, line Central Park
West. These include The Dakota, between 72nd and 73rd Streets, the San Remo,
between 74th and 75th Streets and the Kenilworth Apartments on 75th Street.
Mid-rise apartment buildings also occupy certain blocks along Columbus Avenue,
Amsterdam Avenue and 72nd Street (see Figure II.B-7). The midblock locations
between Central Park West and Amsterdam Avenues are primarily occupied by row-
houses, though there are also scattered tenement buildings and small apartment
buildings in the midblocks. There has been little new construction in this
built-up area. The Park Belvedere, however, was completed just to the north of
the secondary study area in 1986 (on Columbus Avenue between 79th and 80th
Streets) .
• II.B-l1
Notable Buildings
Secondary Study Area
•
Figure 11.8-7
MUMUmof
\
History
The
•
2 Lincoln SqUI,.
Visitor Center)
Softl
Apartments {jio~OIIiiiI;,j...L .." Lincoln PIIIZIl
Church of
St. Paul the Apostle il)l1t~!$tJ1tMi!if@J.i
,IIYJohn
College --illi ~1ti#r:~,U
Regent
4 Columbus CIrcle
,., Yort Coliseum
One CenIIIJ Pirie Place
Colonnlde 57
Dlyslnn
Henry
Hudson
Hotel
Mldw_ Court
P.S.111
• 10·91
258
i
500
•
Retail uses line ground floor locations along 72nd Street between Columbus
and Amsterdam Avenues and along both Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues. There are
several free-standing commercial buildings along these avenues, but the retail
uses predominantly occupy the ground floor of residential buildings. Retail
investment has been a noticeable phenomenon of the area over the past two de-
cades, initially on Columbus Avenue, and more recently on Amsterdam Avenue.
There is a cluster of automobile supply shops, car rental offices, and garages
on 76th and 77th Streets between Amsterdam Avenue and Broadway that give an
industrial appearance to these blocks. .
Institutional buildings include such prominent uses as the New York His-
torical Society, occupying the Central Park West blockfront between 76th and
77th Streets and the Universalist Church, also on Central Park West at 76th
Street. Two public schools -- P.S. 87 and I.S. 44 are located on 77th Street
between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues.
Two uses just outside the study area -- the American Museum of Natural
History and Central Park -- are nonetheless prominent influences on the land
use patterns and trends in this portion of the secondary study area.
Lincoln Square. This portion of the secondary study area extends from
57th to 72nd Streets east of Amsterdam Avenue. Its most significant feature is
Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, New York City's pre-eminent cultural
center, which was constructed in the 1960's and occupies the blocks between
62nd and 66th Streets between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues. Lincoln Center
is occupied by the Metropolitan Opera House (the home of the Metropolitan Opera
•
and the American Ballet Theater), the New York State Theater (home to the New
York City Opera and New York City B~llet), Avery Fisher Hall (home to the New
York Philharmonic), the Vivian Beaumont and Mitzi Newhouse Theaters, the
Juilliard School of Music, the School of American Ballet, and the Performing
Arts Library, which houses much of the New York Public Library's collection of
music, dance, and theater material. Lincoln Center has expanded its campus in
the past several years with the construction of Three Lincoln Center. Three
Lincoln Center contains a private residential condominium on the corner of
Amsterdam Avenue and 65th Street, a new dormitory for students from Juilliard,
and additional facilities for Lincoln Center.
To the immediate south of Lincoln Center are other major institutional

uses the Manhattan campus of Fordham University, housing an undergraduate
college and the schools of law, business, education and social work, the John
Jay College of Criminal Justice (part of the City University of New York), the
Church of St. Paul the Apostle, and Roosevelt Hospital. These uses occupy the
blocks between 58th and 62nd Streets. Immediately east is the superblock occu-
pied by the now vacant New York Coliseum, an office building (10 Columbus Cir-
cle), and the Coliseum Park Apartments, prominent uses in one of New York
City's most visible locations.
Other institutional uses within Lincoln Square/Columbus Circle include:

Congregation Shearith Israel, the Second Church of Christ Scientist, and the
Society for Ethical Culture, all located on Central Park West; the Ansonia Post
Office, occupying the eastern blockfront of Broadway between 67th and 68th
•
Streets, the Abraham Goodman House on 67th Street west of Broadway, the Jewish
II.B-12
•
Guild For the Blind on 65th Street between Central Park West and Columbus Ave-
nue, the Manhattan campus of the New York Institute of Technology, the Mormon
Visitor Center, and the YMCA on 63rd street, also between Central Park West and
Columbus Avenue.
As explained in the recent development history section of this chapter,

since 1969, this area has experienced significant residential development ac-
tivity. These new high-rise residential buildings (listed on Table II.B-l)
occupy prominent locations along Broadway, along 57th Street, and along Amster-
dam Avenue and have added thousands of new units and residents to the study
area over the past two decades. These buildings have expanded the previous
residential base, which was primarily located in the blocks between Central
Park West and Columbus Avenue and between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues north
of 68th Street. Following the patterns to the north, the midblock locations
generally contain row-houses while larger apartment buildings, including the
Majestic Apartments and the Century Apartments, line Central Park West. This
portion of the secondary study area includes two hotels, including the Empire
Hotel opposite Lincoln Center and the Mayflower Hotel on Central Park West.
Commercial uses have a strong presence near the Coliseum and along 66th
and 67th Streets and Columbus Avenue. The most prominent commercial uses near
the Coliseum are the 44-story headquarters building for Paramount Communica-
.tions (formerly the Gulf + Western Building), which is located at- the southern
end of Central Park West and 10 Columbus Circle, part of the original New York
Coliseum development. Several smaller office buildings are also located around
the Coliseum, including the newly constructed Four Columbus Circle. The com-
•
mercial uses on 66th and 67th Streets are, for the most part, associated with
Capital Cities/ABC, including their new world headquarters and assorted broad-
casting facilities. ABC is currently completing a new building on the south-
east corner of 67th Street and Columbus Avenue. There has been a modest in-
crease in office use in this area in recent years, primarily on lower floors in
mixed-use building·s.
Retail uses are primarily located along Columbus Avenue, Broadway, Am-
sterdam Avenue, 72nd Street and 57th Street. As in the area to the north,
retail uses are usually located in the ground floor of residential buildings
but there are a few free-standing retail buildings in the area. Yhilenew
retail buildings have not been constructed in this area, the past two decades
has witnessed strong investment in the area's retail facilities,the most obvi-
ous being the Tower Records complex occupying the western blockfront of Broad-
way between 66th and 67th Streets.
Clinton. That part of the secondary study area located to the south of
57th Street between Eighth and Tenth Avenues is located within Clinton, a pre-
dominantly residential neighborhood bordering the midtown Manhattan Central
Business District, which stretches south to 34th Street. That portion of Clin-
ton within the secondary study area contains a mix of residential, commercial
and industrial uses. The housing stock is quite diverse, ranging from tall
modern apartment towers (the 48-story Sheffield on 57th Street, and the 25-
story Encore on Eighth Avenue), to the stately Pare Vendome apartments located
between 57th and 56th Streets east of Ninth Avenue, to the combination of row
houses, tenement buildings and six-story elevator apartment buildings in mid-
• block locations. The area has not seen substantial residential development
activity in recent years though the 220-unit Midwest Court, located on 53rd
Street between Ninth and Tenth Avenues, was completed in 1987.
II.B-13
Commercial and industrial uses are located throughout the area. The major
• office use is the headquarters building for Hearst Magazines, located on the
western side of Eighth Avenue between 56th and 57th Streets. Also located here
is the Days Inn Hotel (formerly a Holiday Inn) occupying a throughblock site
between 56th and 57th Streets west of Ninth Avenue. A New York City bus garage
occupies a very large site between 53rd and 54th Streets east of Ninth Avenue.
Retail uses are concentrated on Ninth Avenue and to a lesser extent on

Eighth and Tenth Avenues. The Ninth Avenue retail district, stretching south
to 34th Street, is one of the best known retail strips in Manhattan and is home
the annual Ninth Avenue Food Festival, a testament to the range of ethnic food
stores and restaurants located on Ninth Avenue.
This portion of the secondary stUdy area contains little in the way of
open spaces. There are vacant parcels of land used primarily for parking. The
only sizable institutional uses is P.S. 111 on the east side of Tenth Avenue
between 52nd and 53rd streets.
Population and housing density for the land use study area were calculated
based on 1990 Census data. The census tracts analyzed conform nearly to the
boundaries of the study area, covering the West Side of Manhattan from 50th
Street to 78th Street (see Figure II. C-1 in section C,"Demographics and the
Potential for Secondary Residential Displacement," below, for census tract
boundaries). As shown in Table II.B-2, in 1990 the 600.5-acre study area had a
•
population density of 139 persons per acre, ranging from a low of 40 persons
per acre in Census Tract 147 (the largely commercial and manufacturing district
southeast of the project site) to a high of 247 persons per acre in Census
Tracts 157 and 159 (the portion of the study area between 70th and 74th
Streets) .
The study area as a whole had 96 dwelling permits per acre in 1990. Hous-
ing densities were roughly proportionate to population densities, with the
lowest rate in Tract 151 (23 dwelling units per acre) and the highest in Tracts
139, 157, and 159 (176, 181, and 173, respectively).
The Future Without the Project
This section examines potential land use changes likely to occur in the
study area by the years 1997 and 2002, the projected years of completion of
Phase I and Phase II, respectively, of the proposed project.
Project Site. The existing uses on the project site -- Jay Gee Motor-
homes, the three parking lots, the Miller Highway, and the Amtrak rail cut --
will remain in place in the future without the project. The remainder of this.
large, predominantly vacant site will remain as it now is, though there is a
potential for retenanting existing vacant space or for increasing parking on
the site .
• II .B-14
Table II.B-2
• 1"0 STUDY A:aEA POP1JIA.TIOR AND HOUSING DDlSIT'f
Census lJ;:act
133
135
Acrel
44.8
78.7
PersODS Per 'cre
120
49
Units ler Acre
76
23
139 43.7 228 176
145 42.7 77 53
147 21. 7 40 24
149 44.4 113 85
151 89.8 49 23
153 44.1 193 144
155 33.0 210 153
157 45.6 247 181
159 37.9 247 173
161 38.8 177 121
163 .J2....1 218 147
Total 600.5 13' '6
Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing
•
Primary-Study Area. Three projects are proposed in the primary study area
by 1997, all in the area east of the project site between 60th and 66th
Streets. No new development projects are currently proposed for the northern
or southern portions of the primary study area by 1997 in the future without
the project. All proposed projects are listed in Table II.B-3 and shown in
Figure II.B-8.
All of the primary study area is part of an area under consideration for
de~ignation as the Hudson River Valley Greenway. The Greenway, which would
encompass 82 towns, villages, cities, and boroughs that line the Hudson River
from the Mohawk River to the Battery in New York City, would be a regional
alliance devoted to achieving appropriate economic development in conjunction
with a set of conservation objectives for the areas bordering the Hudson River.
As part of the Greenway, a Hudson River Trail, to run on both sides of the
Hudson for its entire length, would be developed by the year 2000. It would
connect existing parks, scenic highways, bikeways, and railroad rights-of-way.
The proposed Route 9A walkway and bikeway, described below, and Riverside Park
would be part of the trail. The vacant project site would break the continuity
of the walkway and bikeway.
Norch of 72nd SCreeC: The mix of midblock row houses and tenements and
multistory apartment buildings along Riverside Drive, West End Avenue, and
Broadway on the Upper West Side would remain in place by 1997 in the future
without the project. Little new development occurred in this portion of the
• II. B-15
•
Table 11 •• -3
PIlOPOSED ABD POTERTIAL DEVELOPIIEIIIT IR THE IA.RD USE STUDY AREA
Residential Comaercial Retail Other

(Units) (Sg~Ft.) (Sg.Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR COMPLETION BY 1991:

1. Roosevelt Hospital+ 618 Hospital
Beds
2. Alfred II* 285 8,000
3. Macklowe West 60th Street 335 62,750
Project**
4. Brodsky East* 644 158,000 30,000
5. Columbus Center* 700 1,260,000 550,000
6. 15 West 63rd Street* (YMCA) 215 28,000 comm.
facilities
7. Fordham Dormitory+ 1,000
8. Manhattan West* 1,000 35,000 8,000 comm.
facilities
13,000 health
club
9. ABC West 66th Street Site+ 150,000
10. West End Avenue/64th 937 27,480 14,000 280,000
Street** (ABC Site) (studio
•
expansion)
11. Lincoln Square (Ansonia Post
Office Site)+
PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR COMPLETION

314
AFTER 1997:
175,000 70,000 10-screen
movie complex
I
(Including Soft Site Development Scenarios)
12. Mack10we West 60th Street 190
Soft Site**
13. (Tenth Avenue/54th Street)** 300
14. 1860 Broadway *** 265 113,000 38,000
(Mayflower Site)
15. Cinema Studio Site*** 198 85,000 28,000
16. 445 West 59th Street*** 456 300,000
(John Jay) school
17. 2121 Broadway*** 170 19,000
18. 2067 Broadway*** 59 6,000
19. Chemical Bank/Saloon Site·** 176 76,000 25,000
20. 235 West 63rd Street*** 242
21. 1961 Broadway*** 249 83,000 27,000
22. 2180 Broadway*** 170 19,000
23. 318 Amsterdam Avenue*** 133 20,000
24. 8 West 70th Street *** 108
(Shearith Israel)
* Approved project
•
** Subject to discretionary city action
*** Soft site (no specific project)
+ Under construction
II.B-16
Proposed Development In the
Land Use Study Area
•
Figure II.B-8
1M~)"'''''a"i'r''''it::::-=J --Z
~ 1/ lit 0 \1i::J~[w."n"".=:J .......
IILJ' :
\ I O\Oi[W.mHST.=:J I
\
\
0 \ \Jil ;lW.75THST.=:J I
e\\\J:[• W.74THST.=:J I
II
II
'I
LJ -\\\1:l
\.I: w. 73RD ST.---.JI I. _. . II-I
a: ~~
40 \\';1• W.72N>ST. I II
lJ.J 'p"w!""o.------, e\ ;t l II
-a:
::::..
l--:=~ L-====:I
1l .. r--.i\\
- .
;~\\
w. 71ST ST.-.-J I
[W. 70TH
=ST.: J ,
lw 811THST~1
<: : ~ .. 1
Q :Dp lW.88THST.=:J 1
U) iD:'~ I· II
Q
:':) ~==~.
:[ ~\~
W.88THST.
10 III
I I:[~ , I I~
• :t 1'--0--'
L ]:~W.85THST. \e ,IlI-
W.64TH ST. : LINCOLN o
e C J I ; C~R ~\\ ell;
: ~\~ III
• W. B2ND ST. ~\ . ·1 ~
lie "~fDSLli~iP~I~~.--
; 9 I ~ W.8OTHST. \\J ~L-
...---==~=::.=.soiT'lr~~~~ 1 I:C. !tsr.o=J ~ -t> CENTfW.PAR( SOUTH
::::=====:1~c:·1 I~[.
c: w. 58TH ST. ~~c:~lo \ IL
L---~liK\\
~ "I
I~I'; W. 57TH ST. Iii '~D
i:!=
\ '~L
e
~l
~~
lilll \\\ 1:[
• W.58THST.=:J I~D
w
c=J~L
1M
'\~ ,\\\ lilw.55THST.=:J 110 0 L

II~I I \\\ 1111:[.. "", ...=:1 III \ 0 L
DEWITT 1:[W.53RDST
. .=:1
\\\ 'I' \\ 00 L
~'
CLINTON •
.---_~ 1:[ =:J . III L
·j·....·n....·.. \\\·jrW.52NDST. -'T---TI r--
PARK \\\
.............. In
D 1000 FEET
•
I I
SCALE
• • •••• Primary Study Area Boundary
I) PropOsed Development Site
5·92 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Note: See Table II.B-3 for reference
study area during the 1980's and no major projects are slated in the near fu-
• ture. Further, many of the existing buildings are built at floor areas at or
above the maximum allowed under the current zoning, and are therefore not like-
ly to be redeveloped. It is therefore unlikely that the current mix of resi-
dential, institutional, and cultural facilities would change noticeably by
1997.
The New York City Parks Department is planning renovations to the River-
side Park Boat Basin, at the northernmost end of the primary study area, over
which it has jurisdiction. Most of the capital funds earmarked for the project
will be spent on an extra electrical line to protect residents against a power
failure.
East ot the Project Site: As noted above, three projects are either pro-
posed or under construction and would be completed by 1997 in the portion of
the primary study area east of the project site between 59th and 66th Street.
As described above under "Existing Conditions," a rezoning of a portion of

the west side of West End Avenue between 6lst and 64th Streets will permit the
proposed development of a primarily residential project known as Manhattan West
on a 4-acre site abutting the eastern border of the proposed project site. The
Manhattan West development program includes 1,000 apartments in two buildings,
a 1.2-acre park, 10,000 square feet of community facility space, a 19,000-
square-foot health club, and 35,000 square feet of retail space, including a
20,000- square-foot supermarket. As part of the Manhattan West project, 63rd
and 64th Streets will be extended west from West End Avenue to the proposed
•
project site. A new street, to be known as East Tower Drive, will form the
western boundary of the Manhattan West site between 63rd and 64th Streets. An
additional 3,000 square feet of retail space is proposed for this street after
it is developed.
Capital Cities/ABC is currently seeking city approvals for a mixed-use

project directly north of the Manhattan West site. Capital Cities/ABC has
existing studio and office space on 66th Street west of West End Avenue; the
proposed project would involve both a 280,000-square-foot expansion of existing
studio space and the addition of a 937-unit residential building and 14,000
square feet of retail space in three 45-story buildings on the west side of
West End Avenue south of the ex{sting ABC structures.
A proposal has been made for the development of a 39-story, 335-unit resi-
dential building with about 62,750 square feet of commercial space on the west-
ern end of the block bounded by West 60th and 6lst Streets and Amsterdam and
West End Avenues. The proposed site would have to be rezoned to permit such a
development. A more detailed description of the necessary rezoning is included
below under "Zoning."
Development of these three projects is notable for several reasons:
o They are adjacent to or very near the project site;
o They are being developed west of Amsterdam Avenue, continuing a trend

toward the development of market-rate housing begun with the recent
• completion of the Concerto between 59th and 60th Streets;
II.B-17
o They are the first developments of any kind west of Amsterdam Avenue
• o
near the project site since La Guardia High School was completed in
1985; and
Together, they will add nearly 2,500 residential units and asubstan-
tial amount of commercial space, most notably retail space, which is
in extremely short supply in this part of the study area.
The balance of the part of the primary study area east of the project site
between 59th and 6lst Streets could be prone to development pressures by 1997
in the future without the· project, particularly if the above-mentioned projects
are built. The small auto- and television/film-related businesses located
there could become attractive for further residential development or support
retail uses as the residential land use pattern pushes west and south.
Soueh of 5geh Sereee: No new development projects are proposed by 1997 in

the portion of the primary study area south of 59th Street. The area is ex-
pected to maintain its mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses.
The only major development proposed by 1997 in the future without the project
is the Route 9A Reconstruction project. The northernmost piece of the recon-
structed highway will run through the southern part of the primary study area
to 59th Street along the Hudson River. By 1997 in the future without the
project, construction of both the highway and a planned walkway and bikeway
will be under way.
Secondary Study Area. The seven development projects proposed in the
•
secondary study area by 1997 in the future without the project are all located
in the Lincoln Square area east of the project site. There are no projects
proposed in the portions of the secondary study area north of 72nd Street or
south of 59th Street.
Noreh of 72ndSereee: The predominantly residential landscape north of

72nd Street and east of Amsterdam Avenue has remained virtually unchanged over
the last decade and will most likely remain unchanged by 1997 in the future
without the project. The Upper West Side mix of low-rise walk-up buildings,
tailer elevator buildings, institutional uses, and ground-floor retail use on
the avenues should continue.
Lincoln Square: As mentioned above, seven projects are either under con-
struction or proposed in the Lincoln Square area east of Amsterdam Avenue be-
tween 57th and 72nd Streets by 1997 in the future without the project.
Two of the proposed projects are components of the expansion and modern-
ization of Roosevelt Hospital. A new hospital building is being constructed on
the east side of Amsterdam Avenue between 59th Street and 60th Street immedi-
ately west of the eXisting hospital facility. The l4-story, 600,000-square-
foot structure will be physically integrated with the existing Winston Building
immediately to the east; together, they will provide a 6l4-bed hospital facili-
ty when the project is completed (see section 11.0, "Community Facilities," for
a description of the hospital program).
FollOWing completion of the new hospital building, hospital functions now
• housed in several buildings on the eastern portion of the block will be trans-
ferred to the new building, and the old buildings, except the Sym's Building,
II.B-18
will be demolished. Construction of a mixed-use building on the eastern end of
• the block, Brodsky East, is scheduled to commence in '1992 and be completed by

1994. Brodsky East will consist of two 45-story towers on a common 5-story
base. It will contain 644 housing units, 30,000 square feet of retail space, a
health club, and five floors of office space.
Two blocks north of the Roosevelt Hospital site, Fordham University is

constructing a l,OOO-room dormitory for its students. The dormitory, which is
expected to be completed in 1993, is directly south of the Alfred, a residen-
tial building completed in 1987. A second building, the 285-unit Alfred Court,
is planned adjacent to the Alfred, on the south side of 62nd Street.
Farther away from the proposed project site, Capital Cities/ABC is cur-
rently constructing a l50,OOO-square-foot office building immediately adjacent
to its recently completed world headquarters on West 66th Street. It is the
latest addition to what has become a multibuilding campus for the corporation
between West 66th and West 67th Streets from Columbus Avenue to Central Park
West.
Several mixed-use projects are planned for the secondary study area. On
West 63rd Street between Broadway and Central Park West, the West Side YMCA is
proposing an expansion that will include 215 units of afforda~~e and market-
rate housing, as well as an expansion of the existing YMCA facilities. Another
large-scale mixed-use project is Columbus Center, planned for the site of the
former New York Coliseum at Columbus Circle. As currently proposed, the proj-
ect is scheduled to include about 2.1 million square feet of space, including
•
700 residential units, 1.26 million square feet of office space, and 547,029
square feet of retail and entertainment-related uses. Currently under con-
struction on the full block located between 67th and 68th Streets between
Broadway and Columbus Avenue, formerly occupied by the Ansonia Post Office, is
Lincoln Square, a 47-story, 800,OOO-square-foot, mixed-use building. Lincoln
Square would contain more than 300 apartments, 175,000 square feet of commer-
cial space, including a large health club, 70,000 square feet of retail space
and a 10-screen movie complex.
Clinton: The existing landscape of the Clinton portion of the study area
south of 57th Street and east of Tenth Avenue will most likely remain unchanged
by 1997 in the future without the project. The development in the mid-1980's
of Worldwide Plaza, a mixed office and residential project that extended from
Eighth to Ninth Avenues between 49th and 50th Streets, was considered a possi-
ble inducement for further development in this part of the study area, but only
one additional project, the 220-unit residential building; Midwest Court, on
53rd Street between Ninth and Tenth Avenues has been constructed in this part
of Clinton. No projects of any substantial size are proposed in this part of
the secondary study area. A recent trend toward the upgrading of retail uses
along Eighth and Ninth Avenues, however, could continue by 1997 in the future
without the project, although in light of the current economic downturn, chang-
es in retail use may not be extensive.
Project Site. It is assumed that land use conditions in the project site
• would remain as described above for 1997. The site would continue to be only
partly occupied and underutilized.
II.B-19
Primaty Study Area. To date, no development projects have been identified
• that would be completed between 1997 and 2002 in the primary land use study
area. However, as noted in Figure II.B-8, seven sites were identified that are
currently developed substantially below the allowable floor area based on the
underlying zoning. These sites, nearly all of which currently contain low-rise
commercial uses, are considered most prone to potential future development
pressures should the projects proposed by 1997 be completed and should real
estate market conditions improve. If fully developed in the future without the
project, these sites could together add up to 1,264 residential units and
64,000 square feet of retail space to the land use study area. Potential maxi-
mum development scenarios are described in detail in Table II.B-3 and discussed
below.
Construction of the Route 9A project, including the adjacent walkway and

bikeway would continue in the primary study area in the future without the
project between 1997 and 2002.
North of '2nd Street: Three sites in the primary study area north of 72nd
Street were considered potential development sites by 2002 in the future with-
out the project. Two sites on Broadway, one on the west side of Broadway be-
I
tween 74th and 75th Streets and one on the east side of Broadway betwee~ 77th
and 78th Streets, are currently occupied by "taxpayers," typically two-story
buildings with retail uses on the ground floor and commercial uses above. A
third site, on Amsterdam Avenue between 75th and 76th Street, is occupied by a
five-story parking garage. These sites could be developed with commercial
buildings, but given their location in the primarily residential Upper West
•
Side, they would most likely be developed with residential buildings similar to
existing multistory elevator buildings found on Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue.
Lincoln Square: Three potential development sites are located near the
proposed project site. Six tenements, some of the few remaining from before
the Lincoln Urban Renewal Area was formed in the 1950's and most of the area's
tenements were demolished, are located between 63rd and 64th Streets east of
West End Avenue. This site may be attractive for higher-density residential
use and has been included among the soft sites listed in Table II.B-3
As mentioned above, a rezoning of a portion of the block bounded by West

60th and 6lst Streets and Amsterdam and West End Avenues was recently proposed
to enable the development of a mixed residential/commercial building. Should
the rezoning be granted, it would also result in a potential midblock
development site that currently contains a pair of small industrial buildings
and a vacant portion of a parking lot. This site could potentially be devel-
oped for residential use by 2002 in the future without the project.
A site on the west side of Broadway between 7lst and 72nd Streets that
contains several taxpayers has also been identified as a potential development
site.
Clinton: Only one potential development site was identified in the part
of the primary study area south of 59th Street. In 1988, a cross-subsidy pro-
ject was proposed for two sites in Clinton. Profits from market-rate condomin-
iums, proposed for a site south of the land use study area, would help finance
• II.B-20
the rehabilitation of 44 existing tenements on the west side of Tenth Avenue
• between 54th and 55th Streets and

able units. Although the project
may be undertaken sometime in the
conditions are more favorable.
the construction of an additional 300 afford-
has been put on hold, it is assumed that it
future when residential real estate market
The large-scale Manhattan West, Capital Cities/ABC, and West 60th Street
mixed-use developments described above as being proposed for completion by 1997
could, if completed, place development pressure on the industrial southwestern
portion of the study area by 2002 in the future without the project. Like the
potential development sites elsewhere in the study area described above, the
western half of the blocks bounded by 58th and 6lst Streets between Amsterdam
and West End Avenues are underdeveloped for their underlying zoning. The West
60th Street project has already been proposed for one of these blocks. By
2002, this area could be regarded as more of an extension of the primarily
residential Lincoln Square area than as the northern edge of an industrial
area.
Secondary Study Area. A total of six soft sites have been identified in
the secondary study area that could be developed by 2002 in the future without
the project. Together, they could add up to 1,452 residential units, 357,000
square feet of commercial space, and 118,000 square feet of retail space to the
secondary study area.
Nor~b of 72nd S~reet: None of the identified soft sites are located north
of 72nd Street. Conditions in this primarily residential portion of the sec-
•
ondary study area will most likely continue unchanged by 2002 in the future
without the project.
Lincoln Square: All six of the potential development sites are located
east of the proposed project site. Two of the sites are currently vacant: the
Mayflower site on the east side of Broadway between 6lst and 62nd Streets,
which has been cleared and fenced in for several years; and the Cinema Studio
site, a triangular block bounded by Broadway, Columbus Avenue, and West 67th
Street, which contains several vacant buildings. Like the sites north of 72nd
Street described above, two of the sites are currently occupied by viable com-
mercial uses, but are otherwise underdeveloped: the Chemical Bank/Saloon site
on the east side of Broadway between 64th and 65th Streets and the Tower Re-
cords site on the west side of Broadway between 66th and 67th Streets. Most of
these sites are located along the Broadway commercial and institutional spine
near Lincoln Center and would presumably be developed with a commercial/
residential mix of uses. The remaining two sites are part of John Jay College
(59th Street between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues) and Congregation Sheareth
Israel (70th Street and Central Park West) respectively. They could potential-
ly be redeveloped for residential or institutional use by 2002 in the future
Clin~on: None of the identified soft sites are located south of 57th
Street in Clinton. This area is assumed to be too far from the development
activity proposed along West End Avenue to be affected by it .
• II.B-2l
• The projects proposed for completion by 1997 and 2002 would raise popula-
tion density slightly in the study area from 1990 levels. As shown in Table
II.B-4, persons per acre would increase from 139 in 1990 to 156 in 1997 and 163
in 2002. The greatest increases would occur in Tracts 145, 147, 149, and 151,
between 58th and 66th Streets, where most of the No Build projects'are pro-
posed. Housing densities would rise proportionately in the study area, from 96
units per acre in 1990 to 108 in 1997 and 112 in 2002.
-Table :rZ.B-4
STUDY AREA. POPDLA.'l:rOIl ARD BOUSIRG DERSI'l"f -- 1997 ARD 2002
PoDUlation (PeJ;:sons ler Acrel goua;lns (Units Per Acrel

Census
Tract Acres 1990 1997 2002 1990 1997 2002
133 44.8 120 120 120 76 76 76
135 78.7 49 49 55 23 23 26
139 43.7 228 228 228 176 176 176
145 42.7 77 161 187 53 115 132
147 21. 7 40 92 106 24 57 65
149 44.4 113 147 153 85 109 113
151 89.8 49 83 88 23 44 47
• 153 44.1 193 207 227 144 153 165

155 33.0 210 210 210 153 153 153
157 45.6 247 252 252 181 185 185
159 37.9 247 255 258 173 178 180
161 38.8 177 177 177 121 121 121
163 35.3 218 218 239 147 147 160
Total 600.5 139 156 163 96 108 112
Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing.
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project
Project Site
Phase I -- 1997. Phase I of the proposed project, to be completed by

1997, would include the development of all project parcels north of 64th Street
(Parcels A through H), and would completely alter land use on the northern half
of the project site. Development would replace currently vacant land with a
projected 3,100 of the project's 5,700 residential units, 90,600 zoning square
feet (zsf) of professional office space, 57,600 zsf of retail space, and park-
ing for approximately 2,000 vehicles. All of the buildings would be con-
structed on a structure over the existing Amtrak rail right-of-way .
• II .B-22
•
A parcel-by-parcel summary of projected development is presented above in
Table I-I in "Project Description." As detailed in the table, Parcels A
through H would all be· developed with a combination of residential and ground-
floor and second-floor professional office, community facility, and/or retail
space. Residential buildings would include a range of building types and
heights, ranging from four stories through 49 stories. Professional office
space would be included on all eight parcels while retail use and/or community
facilities would be located along Freedom Place on Parcels C, D, E, and F be-
tween 66th and 70th Streets.
The Phase I open space plan calls for the concurrent development of an
8.S-acre portion of the planned waterfront park, including the rehabilitation
of the existing 0.86-acre Pier I as part of the park, subject to approval by
the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The waterfront park would extend Riverside
Park to the south and would provide recreational access to the Hudson River
waterfront. Chapter I, "Project Description," provides a description of the
proposed park with and without the relocated highway. The West 69th Street
transfer bridge would be retained and stabilized to its south. The existing
dilapidated piers would be retained, but to ensure pedestrian safety, would be
severed from the shoreline so they would be inaccessible to the public. Exist-
ing pilings and remnants from these piers would be selectively cut to form a
pattern in the water. In addition to the waterfront elements of the park, a
temporary open space would be created on-site for public use. The location of
the temporary open space has not yet been determined (see Chapter I, "Project
Description").
•
The Phase I development would extend the existing surrounding street grid
onto the project site. During Phase I, Riverside Drive would be extended south
from 72nd Street to 64th Street. East-west cross streets would be extended
onto the project site, although several of the streets are primarily intended
to serve pedestrians, emergency vehicles, or for garage access.
The project site would continue to maintain the existing Miller Highway
and Amtrak rights-of-way and the mix of parking areas and vacant and partially
occupied buildings at the southern end of the site. A new right-of-way would
be· provided beneath the new Riverside Drive extension to allow the New York
State Department of Transportation to relocate the Miller Highway inboard.
During Phase I, a portion of the project site would also be used as a staging
area for construction related to the project and renovation of the existing
Miller Highway. Additional portions of the site would be used as a staging
area for the construction of a new highway if approvals are granted by the New
York State Department of Transportation to relocate the highway inboard of its
current location. That decision to approve the relocation would be made inde-
pendently of the proposed project.
Phase II -- 2002. Phase II of the proposed project would see the develop-
ment of the part of the project site south of 64th Street, specifically Par-
cels I through 0, and would dramatically alter land use on the balance of the
project site. The Con Edison, U.S. Postal Service, and public parking lots,
the two buildings occupied by Jay-Gee Motorhomes, and the former Lifschultz
Fast Freight warehouse would all be replaced. In keeping with the overall plan
•
for the project site, all but one of the project parcels would be developed
with a combination of residential, professional office, and/or retail use in
buildings ranging from 4 to 41 stories. The largest building site, Parcel N at
II.B-23
the southern end of the project site, would contain a commercial office build-
• ing containing approximately 300,000 zsf of general office space, a nearly 1.B
million zsf studio complex, and a below-grade, six-screen, I,BOO-seat cineplex.
Buildings facing Freedom Place South (on Parcels J, K, N, and 0) would contain
ground-floor retail use, extending south the retail strip developed on that
blockfront during Phase I.
As with Phase I, the eXisting street grid would be extended through the
site, completing the extension of Riverside Drive, east-west cross streets and
creating a new street, Freedom Place South. During Phase II, the balance of
the proposed 25-acre waterfront park would be completed. The completion of the
proposed park would link Riverside Park north of 72nd Street to the Route 9A
walk- and bikeways south of 59th Street, which are scheduled to be completed in
the future without the project.
Under conditions with the Miller Highway relocated inboard under and next
to the extension of Riverside Drive, by 2002 the development of the upland
portion of the proposed project would remain the same as with the Miller High-
way in place. The character of the proposed waterfront park would, however, be
affected. For a detailed description of the development of the waterfront park
with both the in-place and relocated Miller Highway, see Chapter I, "Project
Description," and section II.G, "Open Space and Recreational Facilities."
Study Area. Phase I -- 1997
Primary Study Area. The development of the northern half of the project
•
site during Phase I is proposed where the Lincoln Square and Upper West Side
neighborhoods meet, but fairly distant from the portion of the primary study
area south of 59th Street. Despite its prominent size and location, the proj-
ect's land use effects on these neighborhoods would be limited.
North of 72nd Street: The proposed Phase I devel~pment would be consis-

tent with the land use patterns in that portion of the primary study area north
of 72nd Street, which consists primarily of residential buildings, public open
space (Riverside Park), and ground-floor retail space in selected locations.
The extension of Riverside Drive south through the project site and the devel-
opment of a portion of the waterfront park would provide linkages between this
portion of the primary study area and the project site that do not currently
exist. Because this portion of the study area has few, if any, development
sites and because many of the existing buildings are built at floor areas at or
above the maximum allowed under current zoning, substantial new development is
not expected in the future without the project, and no spinoff development
activity reSUlting from the proposed project is expected.
East of the Project Site: That portion of the primary study area located
to the east of the project site contains a mix of residential, institutional,
and industrial/commercial buildings. Development in the future without the
project, including Capital Cities/ABC, Manhattan West and Macklowe would con-
tinue the trend of residential growth in the western portion of Lincoln Square,
substantially increase the presence of residential use on West End Avenue, and
provide additional residential amenities, including retail stores and open
spaces. The Capital Cities/ABC project would also increase economic activity
• in the area through the expansion of existing studio space.
II .B-24
The proposed project would be consistent with the existing and evolving
• land use patterns and trends in this portion of the primary study area and,
through the extension of the existing street grid and by providing a large
waterfront park, would provide linkages to the surrounding neighborhood that
currently do not exist and would end the isolation of the project site.
The possibilities for spinoff development resulting from the proposed

project in this area are limited by the built-up nature of the surrounding area
and plans for future No Build projects. Two areas where the project may induce
land use changes are the SRO dwellings on West 7lst Street, which may be more
attractive for non-SRO residential use in the future without the project (see
section II.C, "Demographics and the Potential for Secondary Residential Dis-
placement") and the industrial/commercial area located on the blocks between
58th and 6lst Streets, east of West End Avenue. Because of the distance of
this area from the Phase I development and the projects planned in the future
without the project (including Mack1owe, which would require rezoning a portion
of this area), the project's land use impacts here would not be significant.
The existing commercial building on the eastern b1ockfront of West End Avenue
between 63rd and 64th Streets may also attract new uses in the future with or
South of 59th Str.eet: The Phase I development would be markedly cUfferent

in character from this predominantly industrial/commercial portion of the pri-
mary study area. However, because of the distance from the area, this would
not represent a significant land use impact. The proposed project's potential
to generate development activity in this part of the primary study area would
•
be minimal. Anchored by the Con Edison facility, Ford Building, the CBS broad-
casting facility, automobile showrooms along Eleventh Avenue, and a concentra-
tions of film and television industry businesses, this portion of the primary
study area, which is zoned for manufacturing use, is not likely be affected by
residential development taking place a half-mile to the north.
Secondary Study Area.
Upper West Side: Phase I of the proposed project would be consistent in

use with this predominantly residential portion of the secondary study area
(that area east of Amsterdam Avenue and north of 72nd Street). With low- and
mid-rise buildings on side streets, high-rise elevator buildings on Riverside
Drive, and a major park at its border, the Phase I development would resemble
the pattern of development along Central Park West and side streets in the
northern part of the secondary study area. Because of its distance from the
project site and the lack of development sites, this area·is not expected to
receive spill-over development pressure as a result of the project.
Lincoln Square: With its mix of residential uses, diverse cultural, edu-
cational, commercial, and institutional uses, development trends in Lincoln
Square have clearly proceeded over the past two decades unaffected by various
efforts to develop the project site. This lack of direct relationship between
development activity in the Lincoln Square area and the project site would
continue in the future. Phase I of the proposed project would add residential,
professional office, and retail uses west of an area already rich in these uses
and would not affect future land use trends in Lincoln Square. By creating a
• waterfront park, the proposed project would provide an amenity for Lincoln
Square residents, thereby fostering a linkage with the project site that does
not currently exist.
II.B-25
Clinton: Although Phase I of the proposed project is of a different scale
• than land use in Clinton, it would not affect land use trends in this subarea .
Clinton is relatively distant from part of the project site to be developed in
Phase I,' and the primary influences on development in Clinton derive from its
proximity to the west side of Midtown Manhattan. Its location within the
boundaries of the Clinton Special District, with its strict prohibitions on the
wholesale demolition or alteration of existing buildings, would further serve
to substantially reduce potential project-generated development pressure.
Study Area. Phase II -- 2002
Primary Study Area. Phase II of the proposed project would add a new
element -- the studi%ffice complex -- to the primarily residential Riverside
South development. All development in Phase II would occur south of West 64th
Street.
North ot 72nd Street: The continuation of Riverside Drive south and the
waterfront park through the project site and the development of residential
buildings from 64th Street to 59th Street during Phase II of the proposed proj-
ect would be consistent with the development undertaken in Phase I of the pro-
posed project and with the residential neighborhood north of 72nd Street. The
studi%ffice ,complex at the southern end of the site differs from land use
patt,erns found north of 72nd Street but would be located'sufficient1y far from
this part of the primary study area to not have any significant effect on land
use here.
•
The extension of Riverside Drive and the waterfront park would further
enhance linkages between the Upper West Side neighborhood and Clinton, and
through eventual connections with the Route 9A walkway and bikeway, to points
farther south as well.
East of the Project Site: The Phase II development would be consistent

with the growing residential presence on the western portion of this part of
the primary study area. The studi%ffice complex situated at the southern end
of the project site would be consistent with the land use to the east and south
and would be consistent with the proposed and existing Capital Cities/ABC of-
fice and studio complex between 64th and 66th Streets. The completion of the
street grid and the waterfront park would provide further linkages to the sur-
rounding neighborhood.
South of 59th Street: The concentrated industrial district south of 59th

Street in the primary study area would not be significantly affected by Phase
II of the proposed project. The studio complex that would be developed during
Phase II would be in keeping with the established film/video/television uses
that are located throughout the subarea, including the full-block CBS televi-
sion facility and the smaller Unitel Video studios, and could provide opportu-
nities for the many ancillary businesses in the study area such as lighting,
scenic design, and equipment rental firms. The industrial nature of the area,
its continued appeal to industrial users, and evidence of industrial reuse of
existing buildings (such as the International Center of Oriental Rug Importers)
would tend to limit the effect of the proposed project in this part of the
primary study area .
• II.B-26
Seconda[y Study Area .
• Upper West Side: Because of the distances between the Phase II develop-
ment and this portion of the secondary study area, issues of land use compati-
bility and secondary development are virtually non-existent. The project would
not be expected to affect the patterns of or trends in land use here.
Lincoln Square: Phase II of the proposed project is not expected to af-

fect land use patterns or development trends in the Lincoln Square neighbor-
hood, which would maintain its mix of residential, commercial, cultural, and
educational uses in the future with and without the project. The completion of
the waterfront park would enhance the linkages established with the Lincoln
Square area established by the Phase I development.
Clinton: Development in that portion of Clinton west of Tenth Avenue will

continue to be affected by the controls established by the Clinton Special
District and its proximity to the west side of Midtown Manhattan. The effects
of the development of Phase II of the proposed project would not be
significant.
With the completion of Phase I of the proposed project by 1997, both popu-
lation and housing densities in the study area would increase slightly. As
shown in Table II.B-5, persons per acre would increase to 167 in 1997 with 1
Phase I of the proposed project from 156 in the 1997 No Build condition. In
•
comparison, development of the northern half of the project site in Phase I
would result in a population density of 110 persons per acre. Similarly,
dwelling units per acre would be increased to 113 in 1997 in the future with
the proposed project compared with 108 units per acre in the 1997 No Build
condition. Housing density on the northern half of the project site would be
55 units per acre, less than half the 1997 rate for the study area.
In 2002 with completion of Phase II of the proposed project, study area

population density would increase to 182 persons per acre compared with 163
persons per acre in 2002 without the project. Project site popUlation density
would be somewhat higher at 202 persons per acre. Housing density on the pro-
ject site would be 102 dwelling units per acre in 2002, while study area
housing density would be 122 units per acre, slightly more than the 2002 No
Build level of 112 units per acre.
Zoning
Existing Conditions
Project Site
Before 1982, when approvals for the Lincoln West project were granted by
the Board of Estimate, the project site east of the Miller Highway wa~ zoned
Ml-4 and Ml-6, designations for light industry. The area west of the highway,
• II.B-27
including the piers, was zoned M2-3, a designation for heavier industry. The
• blockfront along 59th Street across from the Con Edison power plant was zoned
M3-2, a designation for the heaviest industry. These districts reflected the
previous use of the site as a rail freight yard and the use of the waterfront
for related shipping activities.
Table II.B-5
STUDY AREA POP1JIA.TIOR AND HOUSING DENSITY 1997 AND 2002
Population Housing
(Persons Per Acre) (Units Per Acre)
Census
Tract Acres 1990 1997 2002 1990 1997 2002
133 44.8 120 120 120 76 76 76
135 78.7 49 49 55 23 23 26
139 43.7 228 228 228 176 176 176
145 42.7 77 161 187 53 115 132
147 21. 7 40 92 106 24 57 65
149 44.4 113 147 153 85 109 113
151 89,8* 49 151 212 22 78 109 J
153 44.1 193 207 227 144 153 165
155 33.0 210 210 210 153 153 153
157 45.6 247 252 252 181 185 185
• 159
161
163
37.9
38.8
35.3
247
177
218
255
177
218
258
177
239
173
121
147
178
121
147
180
121
160
,
Total
Project
Site
600.5
56.1
139 167
110
182
202
·96 113
55
122
102 ,
* Including upland project site acres.
Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing.
Approval of the Lincoln West project in 1982 gave the site a mix of resi-
dential and commercial zoning (see Figure II.B-9)·, under special provisions for
large-scale residential development, and proposed the mapping of new streets on
the site. The following districts were created on the site under the new and
now existing zoning:
o RIO: An RIO district was created immediately east of the Miller

Highway north of 6lst Street, an area of 458,810 square feet. This
designation permits residential use up to an FAR of 10.0 (12.0 with a
•
bonus). The RIO area on the site includes a Cl-5 commercial overlay,
which allows 1.0 FAR of commercial floor area, typically for ground-
floor storefront retail.
II.B-28
Project Site Zonln~
. Figure II.B-~
• 72nd st.
......-._._
_._.-.....
.
.... _._.- .i
I• I
r------ C4-7
•
M2-3 M3-2 ~M1-5
•
o 400 800 FEET
• _ . - Project Site Boundary

C:! =:::r==:I!==:c:=::jl
SCALE
~~~ !i~:~:t Commercial Overlays in Residential Areas
5092
o RS: An RS district was created east of that R10 district, an area of
• o
347,517 square feet. This designation permits residential' use up to
an FAR of 6.02. The RS portion of the site includes ~he same Cl-s
overlay zoning noted under RIO to permit ground-floor retail.
C3: The area under and to the west of the Miller Highway was given a
C3 designation, which allows for waterfront recreation areas. Al-
though C3 zones permit commercial or residential uses up to 0.5 FAR,
the Lincoln West project was precluded from using that area to gener-
ate floor area for transfer to other areas on the site.
o C4-7: The 317,420-square-foot area south of 6lst Street and east of

the highway was zoned C4-7, a 10 FAR designation (12.0 with a bonus)
allowing both residential and commercial uses.
The new zoning was accompanied by special permits and other restrictions
that limited new development on the site to the Lincoln West project as it was
approved. Although the Lincoln West project was approved, its special permits
have since lapsed. In addition, a Lincoln West Street Map has never been filed
and a Mapping Agreement has not been concluded. The project site includes
railroad or transit air space, which may be developed only for a permitted use
accessory to the railroad or transit right-of-way or yard; a use permitted by
special permit pursuant to Section 74-681 of the Zoning Resolution (development
within or over a railroad or transit right-of-way or yard -- the type of spe-
cial permit that Lincoln West was granted); or a railroad passenger station
permitted by special permit pursuant to Section 74-62 of the Zoning Resolution.
.' Because of these constraints, the Lincoln West project (or any other likely
development option) could not be developed without the granting of a number of
discretionary approvals by the city. In effect, except for highly unlikely
railroad or transit projects, there is no "As-of-Right" development option for
the project site.
Study Area
Study area zoning is presented in Figure II.a-10 and defined in Table

II~B-6. The zoning reflects the transition in land use in the study area from
manufacturing, commercial, and residential uses in the southern part to commer-
cial and residential uses in the central part to residential uses with ground-
floor retail space in the northern part. In general, higher densities are
allowed on the north-south avenues and major crosstown streets than are allowed
in the mid-block areas.
Residential Districts. Residential districts are mapped on the Lincoln

Towers and Amsterdam Houses midblock sites as well as along Central Park West,
West End Avenue, Riverside Drive, 72nd and 79th Streets. There are four resi-
dential districts in the study area. ,The highest density residential zone,
R10A, is mapped along Central Park West, West End Avenue north of 72nd Street,
Riverside Drive, 72nd Street between Central Park West and Columbus Avenue and
west of West End Avenue and 79th Street. With a maximum FAR of 10.00 (to 12.00
with bonus), this designation allows the highest residential density permitted
.,
by the zoning regulations.
R10 Infill provisions of the zoning resolution pertain to developments in

R10 (or equivalent commercial) zones in Community Board 7 in Manhattan. They
II.B-29
Study Area Zoning
Figure 11.8-10
0:::
lLJ
>
0:::
•
z
o
(/)
c
:::>
J:
o 1000 2000 FEET

• - • - Project Site Boundary ~I=;=c=======c==~
SCALE
........ Primary Study Area Boundary
• - - Secondary Study Area Boundary
•
tXXXXJ eN • • • •
~ .... CommercIal Overlays In ResIdential Areas
~ Uncoln Square Special District
• Special Clinton District
iSR Special Midtown District
•
Table II.B-6
SUIIIWlY OF ZOBDIG DISftICTS IB THE STUDY AREA
District Definition/General Use Al.lowable FAR.
RS, RSB Moderate density, general residential 4.2 R*

district; RSB district subject to 4.SS-6.02 R
Quality Housing regulations 4.0 R in RSB zone
R9 High density, general residential 6.54-7.52 R
district
RIO Highest density, general residential 10.OR; with bonus,
district 12.0
RlOA Highest density, general residential 10.0 R; with bonus,
district, subject to Quality Housing 12.0
regulations
Cl-s Overlay of shops in residential areas 2.0 C, R governed by
along major avenues underlying zoning
Cl-S,Cl-SA Local shopping and services 2.0 C
6.54-7.52 R
C2-s Overlay of shops in residential areas 2.0 C; R governed by
• C2-7,C2-7A
C3
Local shopping and services with res-
idential uses
Waterfront recreation area
underlying zoning
2.0 C
7.52 R
0.5 C
0.5 R
C4-2F General commercial district 3.4 C
6.02 R
C4-6A General commercial district 3.4 C
10.0 R
C4-7, C4-7A Shopping centers and high bulk offic- 10.0 C, 12.0 with bo-
es in central areas nus
10.0 ~, 12.0 with bo-
nus
C6-2 General commercial area 6.0 C
6.02 R
6.0 C*
4.S-6.02 R*
C6-3 General commercial area 6.0 C
6.5-7.52 R
* For those parts of the study area in the preservation area of the Clinton
Special District.
II .B-30
•
Table 11.8-6 (ContiDaed)
S1JJIIWl.Y 01' ZORIRG DISDICTS IR THE ZOBIRG AllEA
District Definition/General Use Allowable I'AR
C6-4 Medium-bulk office buildings 10.0-12.0 C

10.0-12.0 R
C6-6 Highest-bulk office buildings 15.0-18.0 C
10.0-12.0 R
Ml-4 Light manufacturing with high perfor- 2.0 M, C
mance standards
Ml-5 Light manufacturing with high perfor- 5.0 M, C
mance standards
Ml-6 Light manufacturing with high perfor- 10.0 M C (12.0 with
mance standards bonus)
M2-3 Medium manufacturing with moderate 2.0 M, C
performance standards
M3-2 Heavy industrial use with minimum 2.0 M, C
performance standards
•
Source: New York City Zoning Resolution
• II.B-31
pertaining to front building walls, setbacks, the number of rooms, and ground-
• floor commercial space. Plaza and arcade bonuses are not permitted in R10
Infill zones.
Most of the residential midblock areas south of 68th Street and the larger
housing complexes are zoned R8. In R8 districts, which are common in the high-
er density midblock residential streets of Manhattan, residential use is limit-
ed to a maximum FAR of 6.02. This limit helps maintain the low to moderate
building heights typical of Manhattan's midblock residential areas. North of
68th Street the midblock areas are zoned R8B, a contextual zone under the
City's Quality Housing regulations that seeks to encourage development consis-
tent with existing neighborhood development patterns by requiring lower-rise,
higher coverage buildings. In R8B districts FAR is limited to 4.00.
The eastern and western ends of the block bounded by West 54th and West
55th Streets and Tenth and Eleventh Avenues in the Clinton Urban Renewal Area,
are zoned R9. Maximum permitted residential FAR in R9 districts is 7.52.
Commercial Districts. Commercial districts, all of which allow residen-

tial use, are concentrated along Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues, on Broadway,
on 72nd Street between Columbus and West End Avenues, around Lincoln Center and
Columbus Circle, in certain areas along 57th Street, on much of Tenth Avenue
south of 58th Street, and on a portion of the former New York Times site bor-
dering the project site.
The commercial strip along Columbus Avenue north of 68th Street is desig-
•
nated Cl-SA. C1 districts accommodate retail shops needed in residential
neighborhoods. The Cl-SA designation allows a commercial FAR of 2.00 or a
~esidential FAR of 7.52 (an R9 equivalent).
The commercial area on Amsterdam Avenue north of 73rd Street has a C2-7A
designation. C2 districts are designed to accommodat~ retail shops that serve
an area extending beyond the neighborhood. The C2-7A designation allows a
commercial FAR of 2.00 or a residential FAR of 7.52 (an R9 equivalent).
The portions of the study area along the Hudson River waterfront are zoned
C3. Waterfront uses to a maximum FAR of 0.5 are permitted.
The commercial districts around Columbus Circle, along 57th Street between
Eighth and Tenth Avenues, and on Tenth Avenue south of 58th Street have a C6
designation, except for areas with Cl and C2 designations at the intersections
of Ninth and Tenth Avenues with 57th Street. The C6 designation allows a full
range of high-bulk commercial uses requiring a central location (e.g., office
buildings, hotels, large stores). Commercial FARs in a C6 district range from
6.00 to 15.00 (18.00 if the building is awarded a bonus for including certain
public amenities). Residential FARs here range up to 10.00 (12.00 with a
bonus), an R10 equivalent.
The commercial districts on Broadway, 72nd Street, and around Lincoln

Center have various types of C4 zoning. C4 districts are located outside the
central business district and allow a variety of office and retail facilities
that serve an area extending beyond the neighborhood. The area along Broadway
• north of 72nd Street and along 72nd Street between Columbus and West End Ave-
nues is zoned C4-6A. This designation allows a commercial FAR of 3.40 and a
residential FAR of 10.00.
II.B-32
The area around Lincoln Center is zoned C4-7. The stretch of Broadway
• from 68th to 72nd Street is designated C4-7A. These designations allow a com-
mercial and residential FAR of 10.00. Zoning bonuses to an FAR of 12.00 are
permitted in the Lincoln Square Special District if the developer provides
certain public amenities, and in other C4-7 zones subject to the RIO infill
requirements for inclusionary housing (Section 23-15 of Zoning Resolution).
Developers of several recent projects in the study area requested and were
granted zoning changes from residential or manufacturing districts to commer-
cial districts. To facilitate the construction of a new hospital building and
housing on the full block bounded by 58th and 59th Streets and Columbus and
Amsterdam Avenues, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital was granted a zoning change
from R8 to C4-7. Although construction has yet to begin on the Manhattan West
project next to the proposed project site, that project secured a zoning change
from Ml-4 and Ml-6 to C4-7 and C4-2F.
Manufacturing Districts. Manufacturing districts are concentrated in the

southwestern part of the study area. Although this area has pockets of resi-
dential and commercial zoning, most of the area between the Tenth Avenue com-
mercial corridor and Eleventh Avenue has an Ml designation, a classification
that allows light industry. All of the area west of Eleventh Avenue and south
of the proposed project site has an M2-3 or M3-2 designation, which allows
heavier industry. Most of the Ml areas are zoned Ml-5. This designation al-
lows an FAR of 5.00. Four half-blocks on the east side of West End Avenue
between 6lst and 57th Streets have an Ml-6 designation, which allows an FAR of
10.00. The M2 and M3 areas allow an FAR of 2.00 .
• North of 6lst Street, only one site is zoned ~or industry -- the ABC site,
immediately east of the proposed project site between 64th and 66th Streets,
which is primarily zoned Ml-6, a designation that allows an FAR of 10.00. The
half-block site of the Con Edison substation, across from Lincoln Towers at the
southeast corner of 66th Street and West End Avenue, is zoned Ml-4, which al-
lows an FAR of 2.00.
Contextual Zoning. In May 1984, the New York City Planning Commission
rezoned much of the Upper West Side, including the part of the study area north
of 68th Street (between Central Park West and Amsterdam Avenue) or north of
70th Street (west of Amsterdam Avenue). The rezoning changed the R7 midb10ck
districts to R8 districts, but limited FAR in all midb10ck districts to 4.00.
It also appended to each residential or commercial district an nAn or "B" con-
textual designation that encourages new development to complement the existing
scale and character of the Upper West Side more than did the previous zoning
designations. The contextual designation established streetwa1l locations and
heights, setbacks, recesses, and, along Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues, manda-
tory retail use of ground floors. Different requirements were set for the
high-density avenues (Central Park West, Broadway, West End Avenue, Riverside
Drive), the mid-density avenues (Columbus and Amsterdam), and the low-density
midblock stretches of the cross streets to preserve and enhance the special
urban-design character of each of the three types of streets.
Special Districts. The study area also includes a. number of special zon-
ing districts, established to guide development within those areas and to en-
• courage certain amenities .
II.B-33
Special Lincoln Square District: Much of the commercial area around Lin-
• coln Center has been designated as the Special Lincoln Square District. This
district was created to promote the area as a unique cultural center with ap-
propriate shops, restaurants and pedestrian amenities.
Before May 1984, developers in the district, under special permit from the
City Planning Commission and the Board of Estimate, were allowed to build
structures larger than those allowed by the underlying zoning if they provided
covered spaces for pedestrians, improvements in pedestrian movement, or low-
and moderate-income housing. The rules governing the special district speci-
fied the height of building walls along certain streets, the prOVision of ar-
cades, and the types of commercial uses permitted on ground floors. Although
the underlying C4-7 zoning allowed an FAR of 12.00 (including a bonus of up to
2.00 for certain amenities), an additional FAR bonus of up to 2.40 provided by
the special district designation allowed a total FAR of 14.40. The result was
some of the large buildings built in the area, particularly along Broadway.
In May 1984, the City Planning Commission decided that many of the goals
of the zoning in the Special Lincoln Square District had been met and that the
value to the public of the continued granting of large FAR bonuses was dimin-
ished. It therefore eliminated the 2.40 FAR bonus allowed by the special dis-
trict designation an4 restricted the 2.00 FAR bonus allowed by the underlying
C4-7 zoning. Now developments can be granted a bonus only for the provision of
low- and moderate-income housing, selected subway improvements, and mandatory .
pedestrian arcades. The bonuses are also restricted to certain sites within
the district. Developments on Broadway between 6lst and 65th Streets or on
•
Columbus Avenue between 6lst and 66th Streets are required to have a pedestrian
arcade and are awarded an FAR bonus of 1.00, for a total FAR of 11.00. Devel-
opments near the 66th Street subway station can be granted an FAR bonus of 1.0,
again for a total FAR of 11.00, if the developer constructs certain improve-
ments to the station. The 1.0 FAR bonus for low- and moderate-income housing
is available throughout the district, but developers have generally chosen not
to take advantage of this provision.
Special Clinton District: Much of the study area south of·59th Street is
included within the Special Clinton District. The district extends between
Eighth and Twelfth Avenues as far south as 41st Street. Established in 1974,
the goals of the district include:
o To preserve the residential character of the community.
o To permit rehabilitation and new construction at rents that will not

substantially alter the mix of income groups now living in the area.
o To preserve the small-scale character and variety of the area's re-

tail land uses.
a To restrict the demolition of buildings suitable for rehabilitation

and continued residential use.
The part of the study area roughly south of 56th Street and east of Tenth
Avenue is included within the Preservation Area of the Clinton Special Dis-
• trict. Controls are most restrictive here. For residential and community
II.B-34
facility uses, FAR is limited to 4.20. For commercial uses, FAR is limited to
• 2.00 in Cl-5 and C2-5 districts and 4.20 in C6-2 districts. Other provisions
relating to the Preservation Area regulate lot coverage, yards, height, rooms
and dwelling units, storefronts, community facilities, demolition, alteration,
and off-street parking.
Portions of the study area along Eighth Avenue and, on the block bounded
by Eighth and Ninth Avenues and 57th and 58th Streets, are within the Perimeter
Area of the Clinton Special District. Developers here may be awarded an FAR
bonus (a~ increase from 10.00 to 12.00) if they provide rehabilitated housing
or park space in the Preservation Area.
Although some minor changes to the Clinton Special District were approved
in August 1990; they were not applicable to any locations within the study
area. Additional details on the Clinton Special District are described in sec-
tion II.C, "Population and Housing."
Special Midtown District: That portion of the study area along Eighth
Avenue and Central Park West from 56th through 61st Street is located within
the Special Midtown District. This special district was created to guide de-
velopment within the midtown central business district.
Within the Special District, certain urban design features are mandated,
such as continuity of streetwall and retail uses, off-street location of exist-
ing subway stairs, and provision of on-site pedestrian circulation spaces.
Special daylight evaluation criteria are used to ensure the availability of
•
light and air on midtown streets .
Pro1ect Site. The existing zoning on the project site would presumably
remain unchanged in the future without the project.
Primary and Secondary Study Areas. CurrentlY, two zoning changes are pro-
posed in the primary and secondary study areas by 1997 in the future without
the project. As described above, a proposed residential/commercial project on
the western half of the block baunded by 60th and 61st Streets and Amsterdam
and West End Avenues would require the rezoning of the block from its existing
Ml-6 designation. In conjunction with the project proposed for the westernmost
end of that block, a proposal has been made to rezone the half-block to C4-7
and C4-2F. The rezoning would extend an existing C4-7 commercial district on
the western side of West End Avenue to the eastern side for a depth of 125
feet. The remainder of the site would be rezoned C4-2F.
The C4-7 designation would allow commercial, residential, or mixed-use

development along the avenue with a maximum density of 10.0 FAR (an RIO equiva-
lent). With allowable bonuses, the potential density for development on this
portion of the ·site would remain unchanged from the existing zoning. However,
the types of uses permitted would change; specifically, residential use would
be permitted while no new industrial use would be allowed .
• II.B-35
On the C4-2F portion of the site, the maximum density permitted would be
• 6.02 FAR (an RS equivalent) for residential buildings and 3.4 FAR for commer-
cial buildings, both of which are consistent with the RS zone on the eastern
half of the block and development throughout much of the Upper West Side.
The rezoning, if granted, would serve to extend the residential part of

the Lincoln Square area south and west into an area west of Tenth Avenue that
is otherwise zoned almost entirely for manufacturing use (excluding the sites
of Harborview Terrace and Clinton Towers).
The second proposed zoning change is on the site of the proposed Capital
Cities/ABC site on West End Avenue between 64th and 66th Streets. The site,
which is currently zoned M1-1 and Ml-6 for manufacturing use, would be rezoned
C4-2F and C4-7 if the project is approved. The C4-7 zone would cover an L-
shaped area along West End Avenue from West 66th to West 64th Streets and along
West 64th Street from West End Avenue to the project site's western boundary to
a depth of 125 feet. The remainder of the site would be zoned C4-2F. The
rezoning would reduce the total possible floor area permitted from about 1.5
million square feet to 1.4 million. It would substantially alter the type of
use permitted on the site, allowing commercial and residential development on a
site that had been zoned for manufacturing and commercial uses. If approved,
the new zoning would be in place sometime before the project's anticipated 1995
completion date. . . . .
•
There are currently no proposed changes to the existing zoning on the
project site or in the primary and secondary study areas that would be enacted
by 2002 in the future without the project.
Project Site
Most of the project site, currently zoned RlO/Cl-5, RS, C4-7, and C3,
would be rezoned as RIO (infill) as part of the proposed project. The current
C4-7 zoning at the southern end of the project would be expanded to cover the
entire studio block. A portion of Parcel I would be zoned C4-2F. Except for
an area along the Riverside Drive frontages extending 75 feet to the east on
Parcels C-D, E-F, I, and J-K, a C2-5 overlay would cover most of Parcels A
through K (see Figure II.B-l1).
The waterfront park (including the upland area east of the Riverside Drive
extension and 49.6 acres of underwater land), which is currently zoned C-3,
would be mapped as public parkland (see Figure 1-11). An area east of Freedom
Place South between 63rd and 61st Streets would be mapped as a public access
eas.ement.
R10 Infi11 prov1s1ons of the zoning resolution pertain to developments in

R10 (or equivalent commercial) zones in Community Board 7 in Manhattan. They
pertaining to front building walls, setbacks, the number of rooms, and ground-
• floor commercial space. Plaza and arcade bonuses are not p~rmitted in R10
Infil1 zones. Commercial development up to an FAR of 10.0 (to 12.0 with a
bonus) is permitted in C4-7 districts. Residential use, at an RIO equivalent,
II.B-36
10·92 • • •
J lLJ LJ Iij
--...d.... _)
Ij lLJllU UJ tl
1 - .. - 1 -I
IJ UJ- ...U L
-JI I;:--"~ II II 10 II to II II II to .-. • II II - - ~. 5.
M1-6
.' ~ !
/ RSB
RS
PARK
/~
o 200 400 100 100 FEET

I I I
ICALE
- - - - - - Project Site Boundary
C2-S Overlay
PAE Public Access Easement
Proposed Zoning
Figure II.B-11
•
is also permitted in C4~7 zones. Lower-density commercial and residential
development would be permitted on the portion of Parcel I zoned C4-2F, to a
maximum FAR of 3.4 for commercial development and 6.02 for residential build-
ings. The C2-S commercial overlay permits shops, neighborhood services, and
such cultural facilities as theaters and dancing and theatrical studios to a
maximum FAR of 2.0, within the underlying R10 zone.
Primary Study Area
The proposed R10, C4-7, and C4-2F zoning proposed for the project site
would be consistent with existing zoning in the primary study area. As de-
scribed above under "Existing Conditions," the portion of the primary study
area north of 72nd Street is zoned R10A along Riverside Drive and West End
Avenue, R8B on the midb10cks west of Broadway, and C4-6A along and east of
Broadway. Like the proposed R10 zone on the project site, both R10A and C4-6A
zones permit residential development to a maximum FAR of 10.0.
The C4-7 and C4-2F zones proposed for the southern portion of the project
site would abut the proposed Manhattan West project site, which was rezoned in
1990 to C4-7 and C4-2F as part of that project's approvals, and an existing
Ml-6 zone on the east side of West End Avenue. C4-7 and Ml-6 zones both allow
commercial use to a maximum 10.0 FAR to 12.0 FAR with bonus; C4-2F zones permit
lower-density commercial and residential development, 3.4 FAR and 6.02 FAR,
respectively. (C4-7 zones also allow residential development to 10.0 FAR,
while Ml-6 districts permit manufacturing use to 10.0 FAR.)
•
In addition, the northern half of the marine transfer station on the pier
at 59th Street -- consisting of the land underwater from the northern line of
tpe extension of 59th Street to the center of 59th Street -- currently a non-
conforming use in a C-3 zone, would be zoned M2-3, to give the entire Marine
Transfer Station a single conforming designation.
The project site'S current and proposed zoning would differ in both per-
mitted use and density from most of the zoning in the portion of the primary
study area south of 59th Street. This portion of the study area is zoned pri-
marily for manufacturing use to a maximum FAR of 2.0 in M2-3 and M3-2 dis-
tricts, and 5.0 FAR in Ml-5 districts.
Secondary Study Area
The proposed R10 and C4-7 zoning on the project site would permit similar
residential development to that currently permitted along 'Central Park West,
Broadway, most of Lincoln Square between 58th and 68th Streets east of Amster-
dam Avenue, and the Columbus Circle area.
The 10.0 FAR commercial development permitted under the C4-7 zoning on the
site of the proposed studio complex is the same under the zoning covering most
of Lincoln Square, Broadway, the Columbus Circle area, and the Eighth Avenue
b10ckfront in Clinton. Commercial use permitted in the more residential por-
tions of the Upper West Side and Clinton is si~i1ar to development permitted in
the proposed C4-2F zone, ranging from 3.4 FAR on 72nd Street to 6.0 FAR between
Ninth and Tenth Avenues and S3rd and 56th Streets .
• II.B-37
C. DEMOGRAPHICS AHD THE POTENTIAL FOIt SECOtmAllY RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT
• Introduction
The nature of the Riverside South project, its scale, and location near
three residential neighborhoods -- Lincoln Square, the Upper West Side and
Clinton -- requires an analysis of its potential to stimulate market activity
that could indirectly lead to or accelerate the displacement of nearby resi-
dents. That activity could take a variety of forms, including increases in
property assemblage for new development, renovations of eXisting buildings,
conversion of single-room-occupancy units (SRO) to market-rate apartments or
hotel rooms, substantial rent increases in units that are not covered by state
rent regulation, cooperative and condominium conversions, speculative sales of
properties, and, sometimes accompanying these market activities, the illegal
harassment of tenants.
Attributing displacement impacts to particular projects is not like most

other EIS tasks where potential impacts relate to the number of residents or
workers (e.g., traffic and related air quality and noise impacts, transit,
pedestrian flows, sewag~_~lows, water and energy demand, school enrollments,
demand for local parks, etc.), ~obuilding form (e.g., shadows, views, contex-
tual impacts on landmarks), or to construction activities (e.g., archaeological
resources, soil and groundwater contamination). Conclusions about displacement
impacts cannot be as definitive because they are tied to the development con-
•
text of an individual neighborhood and to a host of imponderables, such as
enforcement of government regulations and the attitudes of property owners.
Study Area Definition
In establishing a displacement study area, three factors are important.

First, the geographic extent of the study area relates to the size of a proj-
ect, since larger projects tend to exert an influence over a larger area.
Second, actual physical barriers or clearly demarcated neighborhood boundaries
help to define a displacement study area. Third, regardless of the size of a
project, potential displacement impacts will be felt most strongly in the area
closest to the project site and will diminish with distance, as the influence
of other projects and trends surpasses that of the proposed project. Accord-
ingly, the New York City Department of City Planning generally prescribes a
displacement study area of between one-quarter and one-half mile from a project
site. The displacement study area for Riverside South, modified to conform to
census tract boundaries, as shown in Figure II.C-l, extends for approximately a
half-mile to 78th Street on the north, Central Park West and Eighth Avenue on
the east, 50th Street on the south, and Riverside Drive and Twelfth Avenue on
the west. That study area includes Census Tracts 133,' 135, 139, 145, 147, 149,
lSI, 153, 155, 157, 159, 161, and 163, and encompasses all the Lincoln Square,
Lincoln Square West, and Columbus Circle neighborhoods, as well as large por-
tions of Clinton and Upper West Side neighborhoods.
• II.C-l
Demographic Study Area
Figure II.C-l
• CJ 0 CJ
DJ] c::J
~I==='
::::=:::::
:::1==~
c:::ftJ c::J 1.....____:='
\J:...lr~~
,
I
.
\,,._.f~
...... {.I .
./ .
\ .'
-.,-'
:=1
'--~]
li~
_....---J
L...I
- 1 - -I I
r
II
l
I
Iii
II
II
0 1000
•
I I
Ittt!ItItl Project Site SCALE
~ Housing Developments That Dominate a Census Tract
10·91
Methodology
In assessing the potential for displacement impacts for an individual

project, a key first step is to determine whether any of the resident popula-
tion is especially vulnerable to displacement in the study area and whether
displacement pressures already exist. The assessment of potential vulnerabili-
ty depends not only on the characteristics of the population (primarily income)
but on the housing they occupy. Therefore, the first task in the analysis is
to develop a profile of the· area's population and housing. The major source of
this data is the Census of Population and Housing published by the United
States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Because only a limited
amount of data has been published from the 1990 Census (total population, total
housing units, race, and limited age data) this EIS relies primarily on data
from the 1980 Census in establishing a profile of the area's population and
housing stock. The census data are supplemented with other sources of infor-
mation. Key data here include subsidized housing in the area's housing stock
(which would diminish the number of potentially vulnerable residents) and the
presence of SRO dwelling units (which would increase the number of potentially
vulnerable residents).
Because displacement is a dynamic process, it is also critical to under-

stand and interpret trends that have or will be affecting the characteristics
of the local population. Because of the limited amount of data from the 1990
Census, past neighborhood trends are determined by reviewing census data going
back to 1970, where relevant, and reviewing data on more recent market activi-
•
ty, including new developments and co-op and condominium conversion. Future
trends, including the projected status of different forms of housing markets
such as rental, cooperative conversion, and condominiums, and their effect on
the population composition of the study area are assessed through a review of
planned development activity.
An analysis of potential displacement must also examine the types of pro-

tection against displacement afforded to tenants. Particularly relevant are
state regulations that limit the extent of rent increases that may be charged
and that reduce market factors in the normal turnover of apartments; rules
governing the conversion of rented units to either cooperative or condominium
ownership; special protection afforded to the most vulnerable groups, including
senior citizens and tenants of SRO dwellings; and provisions that prevent or
limit harassment of tenants.
With the above factors in mind, determining whether a given project has
the potential to cause the displacement of neighborhood residents or accelerate
existing pressures for displacement hinges on several questions:
1) Does the study area contain a potentially vulnerable population?
2) How does the proposed project relate to the study area:
o How does the project's projected population relate to the area's

existing population?
• o What is the relative size of the project reflected in the number

of units and residents added to the study area?
II.C-2
o To what extent would the project introduce a substantial new
• o
residential population with different characteristics from the
eXisting population?
Would it set a new trend in development -- i.e., price and type

of housing?
o Would the project be close enough to the vulnerable population

to be a key factor for change? and
3) How does the project relate to ongoing housing and population trends
in the surrounding area?
This last point is crucial in understanding whether the proposed project would
have an impact itself or whether it would be consistent with larger forces
shaping the study area.
ExistiD& Conditions
Population and Housing Characteristics and Trends
This section discusses characteristics 'of and relevant trends shaping the
population and housing stock in the study area. The discussion is based on
available data from the Census of Population and Housing, including data from
•
the 1990 Census, where available. Although data from the 1970 Census is over
20 years old, these data have been included, where appropriate, to show longer
term population and housing trends. Other information relating to known devel-
opment projects, and condominium and cooperative conversion are also discussed.
Data From the Census of Population and Housin~
Total Population
The study area contains 83,333 residents, according to 1990 Census figures
(see Table II.C-l). As a whole, the study area has undergone moderate popUla-
tion growth since 1970, with popUlation growth slowing somewhat during the
1980's; population increased by 1.9 and 1.1 percent between 1970 and 1980, and
1980 and 1990, respectively. By contrast, the Borough of Manhattan experienced
a decline of 7.21 percent between 1970 and 1980 but grew at a faster rate, 4.15
percent, than the study area between 1980 and 1990. However, although the
study area has grown by more than 2,450 residents since 1970, the borough has
still not returned to the 1970 population level, with a total decline over that
20-year period of approximately 52,000 residents or 3.4 percent.
During the 1980's, population growth was concentrated in the eastern por-
tion of the study area, principally in Census Tract 145. The growth in Tract
145 is attributable to several major projects constructed over the past decade
including the Regent, the Beaumont, Lincoln Tower Plaza, the Sofia Brothers
Warehouse renovation, South Park Tower, the Alfred, and Chequers, which com-
bined added over 1,580 new units to Tract 145. Population growth also occurred
• in tracts 133 and 153. That growth can similarly be tied to new development in
II.C-3
Table II.C-l
• POPDLATIOB
CHARGE 1970-1980 CHARGE 1980-1990

CENSUS ----------------- -----------------
TRACT 1970 1980 1990 MUHBER PERCENT MUHBER PERCENT
---------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- -------- --------
133 5,231 4,547 5,361 (68.4) -13.11 814 17.9%
135 1,597 3,661 3,837 2,064 129.2% 176 4.8%
139 9,608 9,904 9,943 296 3.11 39 0.4%
145 2,220 1,328. 3,267 (892) -40.2% 1,939 146.0%
147 215 787 869 572 266.0% 82 10.4%
149 2,102 5,345 5,031 3,243 154.3% (314) -5.9%
151 4,580 4,913 4,411 333 7.3% (502) -10.2%
153 8,177 7,865 8,517 (312) -3.8% 652 8.3%
155 8,150 7,128 6,940 (1,022) -12.5% (188) -2.6%
157 11,709 11,916 11,255 207 1.81 (661) -5.51
159 10,567 9,618 9,348 (949) -9.01 (270) -2.81
161 7,770 7,237 6,870 (533) -6.91 (367) . -5.11
163 8,948 8,184 7,684 (764) -8.51 (500) -6.11
STUDY AREA "80,874 82,433 83,333 1,559 1.91 900 1.11

HANBATTAH 1,539,233 1,428,285 1,487,536 (110,948) -7.21 59,251 4.11
• SOURCE: U. S. DEPAR'lMEHT OF CCHmRCE, BUlUWJ OF THE CENSUS, CENSUS OF POPULATIOH

AND HOUSING, 1970, 1980, AND 1990 •
• II. C-4
those tracts -- the Encore and Midwest Court in Tract 133 and the Copley, Tower
• 67, the Bel Canto and 45 West 67th Street in Tract 153. All three of these
tracts lost population during the 1970's.
Slightly over half of the study area's tracts (7 of 13) experienced popu-
lation declines between 1980 and 1990, ranging from a loss of 188 residents in
Tract 155 to a loss of 661 residents in Tract 157. Tract 149, which had added
more than 3,000 new residents during the 1970's, was one of the seven tracts
losing population during the 1980's. Because most of these tracts added hous-
ing units since 1980, the population declines were attributable to continued
declines in household sizes.
Tract 151, which includes the project site, experienced the largest per-
centage loss of residents during the 1980's, a loss of 10.2 percent. During
the 1970's, it added residents because of new development.
Total Housing Units
The study area contains 57,556 housing units according to the 1990 Census
(see Table II.C-2). The number of housing units in the study area increased
substantially between 1970 and the present, with increases of 11.4 percent
between 1970 and 1980, and 8:.1 percent between 1980 and 1990, considerably more
than the increases registered in Manhattan. Overall, the study area has added
more than 10,000 units since 1970.
All but three of the study area's 13 census tracts experienced increases
•
in the total number of housing units since 1980, with the largest increase in
Tract 145, 1,414 units or 62.3 percent, reversing a significant loss of housing
~nits in the previous decade. The increase in that tract over the past decade
is largely attributable to seven projects noted above: the Regent, the Beau-
mont, Lincoln Tower Plaza, the Sofia Brothers Warehouse renovation, South Park
Tower, the Alfred, and Chequers. Other tracts experiencing notable increases
in their housing stock since 1980 include~ Tract 153 with an increase of 1,009
units or 15.9 percent, largely attributable to 45 West 67th Street, the Bel
Canto at 1991 Broadway, 52 West 68th Street, the Copley at 2000 Broadway, and
Tower 67 at 145 West 67th Street; Tract 139 with an increase of 642 units or
8.3 percent, attributable to the Colonnade at 347 West 57th Street, the Aurora
at 475 West 57th Street, and One Central Park Place at 973 Eighth Avenue; and
Tract 133 with an increase of 553 units or 16.3 percent, attributable to the
Encore at 891 Eighth Avenue and Midwest Court at 402 West 53rd Street. The two
fastest growing tracts in the 1970's -- 149, which added more than 2,400 units
during that decade and 157, which added nearly 1,300 units, experienced a sub-
stantial decline in new construction during the 1980's.
One noticeable shift in housing construction between the 1970's and 1980's
was the decline in subsidized developments during the 1980's. Most of the
buildings constructed during the 1980's consisted of market-rate rental or
condominium units. During the 1970's, subsidized developments were con-
structed, including Harborview Terrace, Clinton Towers, and HudsonView Terrace
in Tract 135, the Amsterdam Houses addition and Lincoln-Amsterdam I in Tract
151, and the Roosevelt Hospital Staff Residence in Tract 147 .
• II .C-S
Table II.C-2
• 'l'O'lAL BOUSDIG 1JIII'lS
CENSUS CBAHGE 1970-1980 CBAHGE 1980-1990

TRACT 1970 1980 1990 RUHBER PERCENT RUHBER PERCENT
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
133 2,714 2,847 3,400 133 4.91 553 16.31
135 640 1,589 1,772 949 148;31 183 10.31
139 6,128 7,057 7,699 929 15.21 642 8.31
145 1,436 854 2,268 (582) -40.51 1,414 62.31
147 118 523 520 405 343.21 (3) -0.61
149 1,193 3,617 3,761 2,424 203.21 144 3.81
151 1,451 1,797 2,041 346 23.81 244 12.01
153 5,299 5,342 6,351 43 0.81 1,009 15.91
155 4,627 4,716 5,050 89 1.91 334 6.61
157 6,881 8,168 8,274 1,287 18.71 106 1.31
159 6,606 6,277 6,555 (329) -5.01 278 4.21
161 4,739 4,857 4,676 118 2.51 (181) -3.91
163 5,676 5,273 5,189 (403) -7.11 (84) -1.61
STUDY AREA 47,508 52,917 57,556 5,409 11.41 4,639 8.11

MANBATTAH 714,593 754,796 785,127 40,203 5.61 30,331 3.91
• SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF CCHIERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, CENSUS OF

POPULATION AHD HOUSING, 1970, 1980, AHD 1990'•
• n.e-6
Households and Household Size
• After a large increase in the number of households between 1970 and 1980
(see Table II.C-3), the number of households in the study area stabilized be-
tween 1980 and 1990, increasing by just 0.5 percent. This was slightly less
than the increase in population and substantially less than the increase in the
number of housing units during the same period. In contrast, during the
1970's, increases in the number of households outpaced the addition of dwelling
units and far exceeded the rate of population growth. During the 1980's, the
number of households decreased in five of the study area tracts (including all
four tracts north of 70th Street). Only Tract 145 experienced a large increase
in households during this period. .
The shift in household trends reflects two other census factors. First,
following longstanding declines in study area household size, including a de-
cline from 1.75 in 1970 to 1.59 in 1980, the average household size in the
study area increased slightly between 1980 and 1990, to 1.60 persons per house-
hold. In contrast to the 1970's when household sizes decreased in all census
tracts, household size increased slightly in 8 of the study area's 13 census
tracts during the 1980's. Household size remained considerably below the Man-
hattan size of 1.99 persons per household. Second, despite a surge in new
construction, reflecting.the struggling city economy, housing occupancy d,e-
clined between 1980 and 1990 (see Table II.C-11).
Household size remained considerably larger in the tract containing the

project site, Tract 151, than the rest of the study area but, nonetheless,
•
household size in Tract 151 continued to decline at a substantial rate -- from
3.36 in 1970 to 2.81 persons per household in 1980 to 2.56 persons per house-
hold in 1990. This larger household size is primarily the result of the pres-
ence of the Amsterdam Houses and the Lincoln Amsterdam Extension, which com-
bined contained approximately 1,250 of the tract's 1,797 housing units (70
percent) in 1980.· Public housing projects are generally characterized by large
household sizes. Tract 135, which also contains public housing, also had larg-
er household sizes than the rest of the study area. Household size continued
to. decline in this tract during the 1980's.
The small household size in the study area largely reflects a very high
proportion of one- and two-person households (see Table II.C-4). In 1990, 87.9
percent of the study area's households consisted of one or two persons. This
was higher than the already high figure for Manhattan. The growth of one- and
two-person households did, however, slow down considerably from the 1970's to
the 1980's. Only two of the area's tracts, 135 and 151, had lower percentages
of one- and two-person households, 68.7 and 56.9 percent, respectively, than
the borough, with 77.1 percent.
Age Distribution
Trends in age groupings ("age cohorts") add another measure of understand-

ing of the character of the study area population. As shown in Table II.C-5,
median age in the study area was higher than in Manhattan in 1990, 40.0 com-
pared with 36.9 years. In contrast to trends during the 1970's, when median
•
age declined in both the study area and Manhattan, the median age in both the
study area and Manhattan increased during the 1980's. In all three census
years, compared with Manhattan, the study area had a smaller proportion of
children, teenagers, and young adults,
II.C-7
• Table II.C-3
HOUSEHOLDS
1870 1880 CHANGE IN 1980 CHANGE IN

PERSONS PERSONS HOUSEHOLDS PERSONS HOUSEHOLDS
CENSUS PER PER 1870-1980 PER 1980-1980
TRACT NUMBER HOUSEHOLD NUMBER HOUSEHOLD NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER HOUSEHOLD NUMBER PERCENT
133 2.511 2.02 2.587 1.72 78 3.0% 2.983 1.75 398 15.3%
135 802 2.43 1,539 2.32 937 155.8% 1.880 2.22 141 9.2%
139 5.983 1.58 8.850 1.44 887 14.9% 8.938 1.43 88 1.3%
145 1.402 1.58 828 1.38 (574) -40.9% 2.052 1.55 1.224 147.8%
147 84 2.58 458 1.52 374 445.2% 512 1.87 54 11.8%
149 1.125 1.72 3.457 1.58 2.332 207.3% 3.227 1.55 (230) -8.7%
151 1.380 3.38 1.701 2.81 341 25.1% 1.720 2.58 18 1.1%
153 .4.900 1.65 5,205 1.51 305 83 5.508 1.54 303 5.8%
155 4.539 1.80 4.841 1.54 102 2.2% 4.651 1.49 10 03
157 8.558 1.70 7.972 1.49 1.418 21.8% 7.444 1.50 (528) -8.8%
159 8.381 1.65 8.110 . 1.53 (271) . -4.2% 5.934 1.57 (178) -2.9%
181 4.439 1.75 4.738 1.54 297 8.7% 4.331 1.58 .(405) -8.8%
183 5.432 1.83 5.104 1.53 (328) -8.0% 4.834 1.81 (470) -9.2%
•
STUDY AREA 45.294 1.75 51.188 1.59 5.894 13.0% 51.814 1.80 '428 0.8%
MANHATTAN 887.283 2.17 708.015 1.98 18.732 2.7% 718.422 1.99 10.407 1.5%
SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS.

CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING. 1970. 1980. 1990
• II.C-S
• Table II.C-4
00- AJ!ID 'IVO-PEIlSOB HOUSEHOLDS
1870 1880 1980

PERCENT OF PERCENT OF
NUMBER OF OCCUPIED NUMBER OF OCCUPIED NUMBER OF OCCUPIED
CENSUS 112PERSOH HOUSING 112 PERSON HOUSING CHANGE 1870-1880 112 PERSON HOUSING CHANGE 1I1II0·11i11i1O
TRACT HOUSEHOLDS UNITS HOUSEHOlDS UNITS NUMBER PERCENT HOUSeIOLD8 UNITS NUMBER PERCENT
..85._-
133 1,911 78.1~ 2,137 82.ft 22CS 11.8% 2,473 82.a 338 16.~
135 387 84.ft. 1,010 912._
e7.1~ 823 181.~ 1,154 88.~ 144 14.3%
138 5,275 88.R 8,358 1,083 2O.R 8,484 &G.ft. 108 1.~
145 1,260 801 a5.4~ (459) -38.4~ 1,885 a1.a 1,084 135.ft.
-
147 48 57.1~ 458 ea.ft 410 8S4.ft. 423 82.ft (35) ·7.ft
148 888 3,084 80.~ 2,128 220.3~ 2,ea4 88.~ (200) . 4R
151 488 38.S 5O.1~ 388 73._ 878 se.a 113 13.~
153 4,280 87.ft. 4,785 91 • • 485 11.ft. 4,852 ea._ 187 3._
155 3,752 82.~ 4,178 800ft 427 11.4~ 4,244 81.ft. e5 1.S
•
5,_ ae.a 7,245 81.1~ 1,58S
ea.
157 28.ft. 8,778 a1.1~ (487) -8.4~
158 5,573 87.ft. 5,520 8O.ft (53) ·1.~ 5,_ 88.~ (254) -4.ft
181 3,713 4,237 8O.ft. 524 14.1~ 3,830 ea.4~ (407) -8• •
1153 4,7UI _ft 4,573 •.R (143) -3.~ 4,022 88.8% (551) ·12.~
81\JDYAREA 38,031 84.~ 45,243 ea.4~ 7,212 18.~ 45,384 87.a 121 0.3~
MANHATTAN 482,038 71 • • 543,000 77.1~ 50,881 10.4~ 548,885 78.ft 3,ees O.~
SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF ntE CENSUS, CENSUS OF

POPUlATION N<IlJ HOIJSWG, 1870, 1880, 1980
• II.e-9
• Table II.C-5
AGE COHORTS. 1970. 1980. 1990
,. ,. 141 147 III
• •
UNOIRI
aol.
...
..' "
.,.
lit
5.ft
taft
"0
_
1ft
.....
•
.,
tl
•
......
11.'" lot .,... . t.- -.......
lot..
I....
_
_
".,
laol.
... .t..
,..
...
_
114 ,.... 147 .... • II .... It
.....
tOo'"
.....
-
»14 ..' " 140 . an. 711 11 ... 147
14.,.. lot. .. 4ft .... 711 ",.
-
It ""..
11.... _
,.... ..... ''''
.. 3U ItA U7I 11.... '41 41 21ft '41
t .... _ 'lot" _
.AHCIOVIR '''' tM ... 7at
TOTAL I t.
".. au ,...
t. ,. '41 t., I. tSt
• AGIGIIOUP
UNDIJIS
aol~
tn
",
•
aft
7•
SA
-
.
_
,
•
t., .....
15.ft _
1M ,....
I....
11
"
:10
35
:I.ft
.....
•
11:1
ItS
..,.. -
....
•
-
a. t..... _
"..
lao1l 11 a.a tn sa m
... -
I.ft 111 1ft 11
.....
»a. 51:1
l.m ..... 1.G111
,. t.aao
11. . . . ._
10.1.. 41
:110 ...,
ttl
.,.... 1.- ..' " 41:1
,..,.. ...
4I.ft ..... 1.141
t.Dlt a.a
11..
7111
_
11. .
,.....
...
I.1tO
D.fto
,...
311
541
t.-
• t.'" _ .....
10.lI0
.AHCIOVIR 11
.....'
TOTAL
MlDlAHAGI ".. 57.1 ..1
t. ,. '41 t47 t41 tit
• • • • • •
-
AGIGIIOUP
t.
-
t
UNOIRI
aol.
.
... ... ...
lao1l
»14
tl1
m
.........
:I.ft t.,
- . .....
.-
114
.....
tu..
,.'"
,.'"
111
t41
••
57
.. -- UIo
t ....
t.'"
.....
.....
II
47
11
t71
ttl
141
3U
- .. .. - - -
to.llo Itl II
....
:101
1.740 11.1.. " ,,.
.... '" t.."
•
un
1.- I•
• AHCIOVIR ., 11....
In
al..
t .....
U7I
t.- nt
,,
aft
41
t.t-
• TOTAL
at
tao.ow. •.t4I
••
II.C-10
".1 "..
tao.ow. ••4"
at
• ,.
Table II.C-5 (ContfDued)
AGE COHORTS. 1970. 1980. 1990

.
. . . . '"
. . .
'II' ,
,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,.
...--
•
..,..,.,.
UNCIIIII
.... -
. .
....... .... ........ ,.-
...
....
311
4711
4.,"
..... -_ ,.,
..... .- I.... ,.m
1ft.
. ,,. ....
:Me
.•
a.a
1ft.
7.'"
_
IMI
1.7'10 U3D
....• ,
--
1.7'10 I.ft .. aft 'IfR aft ,., aft ... aft ....
2M
tt. m
,.
4.nIo _ ..... _
711 UIIo VI 1.7'10 .... 1ft ,. . .
,.. UIJ . . a.o ". ..... aMI ,.. lUll
....
1._ .. UI7 aft ....
.NIOOVIJ'I
un
,ACIt ,
11.... a.
_..-14.& ... .... ,m ,..... I.'. ......
,..... ..,. D.ft an 1.740
,'" II.ft 1,111
11.... 211.117
,..... 114,171
TOTAL
.,.
"'77 ,Ga.", .., .
47•• ...7
lOIl.CIIIo 7.T70 '0Il.CIII0 ....
.1.0 .1.1
'0Il.CIII0 , ......
,. I. ,. '"
,a
• ,. , ,. • ,. • ,. • ,. • ,. ,. • ,.
. ....... ,.
•
'"
m
aot
IN
as.
U.·
I... '"
,.
.....
aft
.,.,. ,...
,.... I'. ,.-
17.'"
,
_
141
...
I A
aft
...
aft
11.
...,.
.
_,
1711
IN
11. . . . . . .
&.,.
• .11.
'.7'10
...
aft
aft
47.
,.....
- ... - ...... ,.,.
.11
_
.,
..'UI4M
,...,. '..,1
1ft
U!Io
I.
4I.ft
I'.
'II
..,
,,.
UI1
UGI
I.ft
.ft
aft
.....
,
17....
,.
311
_
UOI
, ...
I.ft
••
1ft
aft
4I.ft
......
11.1,.
U.
..115
...
..,.
,..11'
17...
, .....
I.," ',..7.
7.... ,_
a...
II.
II.'"
-.en
.,........ __
2M• • ,
.....
.....
.........
aft
..
11ft
".... IMI
tt..,.
TOTAL
IIIDIANAGI
,Ga.", 7.'. ,0D.ft
.., '0Il.CIII0 '.11' ,GUllo "'M

17.1
1- .... lOIl.CIIIo' . . . .
,. ,. '117
,. '"
,a
• ,. • ,. , ,. • ,. • ,. • ,. • ,. • ,. ,
..,.
UNC11115 141 ...,..-. ...,. -.. &.7'10 a.a U!Io
I.,"
an.
••
...-
,. ,....
.... ... ............ ,.
an. m
...........
11M 1ft.
' ..II
.NIOOVIJt
4, .,.
t.-
aft
".
11.'"
In
711
UIt
'JIll
ta
,...,.
'M
...11
UII
..,,.
aft
a,,.
1ft
...
...,.
I.ft
..".
,I.,"
.Do'........."
1ft
tl.7'lo
TOTAL
IIIDIANAGI at 11.1 . .t 17.1

tOD.ft 7'" tOll.Clllo __
tOD.ft
..
, .....
'. Il.C-ll
and a larger proportion of population 25 years old and over. The study area
census tracts generally followed this trend with the exception of Tracts 135
and 151, which tended to have larger proportions of children and young adults
than either the study area or the borough. Again, both tracts are dominated by
public and other subsidized housing and it is not unusual for public and subsi-
dized housing projects to have a younger population with larger numbers of
children. Tract 155, which contains Lincoln Towers, had a much higher repre-
sentation of elderly residents.
Between 1970 and 1990, the area experienced declines in all age groups.,
except the 25-to-44-year grouping, which experienced sizable growth, both in
absolute numbers and in proportional share. By 1990, this group constituted
44.9 percent of the study area population, up from 32.2 percent in 1970 and
41.6 percent in 1980. The growth in this age category, which includes persons
in their prime working years, has been a phenomenon common to many Manhattan
neighborhoods during the past two decades and was one of the strongest signs of
neighborhood change and displacement pressures. In the study area, the growth
in this age category reflected substantial new housing opportunities resulting
from new buildings constructed in the study area and the upgrading of the
area's substantial stock of brownstones and row houses.
Some noticeable variation in trends between the 1970's and 1980's is evi-
dent in the census data. The decline in both the elderly population (i.e.,
those persons more than 65 years of age) and those persons in the 20 to 24 age
cohort markedly accelerated. The elderly population declined by 12.5 percent
during the 1980's, compared with a less than 5 percent decline during the
• 1970's. The number of elderly residents declined in all but two of the study
area census tracts. The 20 to 24 age cohort experienced a decline of 19.2
percent during the 1980's, compared with a 1 percent decline during the 1970's.
In contrast, the number of young children (i.e., those less than five years of
age) and persons in the 45 to 64 age category reversed their declines of the
1970's and grew substantially during the 1980's. The number of young children
increased by 32.6 percent between 1980 and 1990, increasing in all census
tracts except 135 and 151. The number of persons in the 45 to 64 age category
increased by nearly 10 percent during the 1980's.
Income
An analysis of family income trends in the s'tudy area (see Table 11. C-6)
indicates the relative and growing affluence of study area families when com-
pared with families in Manhattan. In all three census years for which family
income was gathered (1969, 1979, and 1989), the median family income in the
study area far exceeded the median family income in Manhattan, and the differ-
ential was growing. By 1989, the median family income was more than twice as
high in the study area as in Manhattan, compared with a 46 percent difference
in 1969 and a 79 percent difference in 1979. Variations are, however, apparent
by census tract. Three tracts -- 133, 135, and 151 -- exhibited median family
incomes well below the median for Manhattan, and all other tracts had higher
median incomes -- up to three times higher -- than the borough. The median
family income in two tracts, 149 and 145, exceeded $100,000 in 1989.
•
Not only were the family incomes higher in the study area than in Manhat-
tan, but the rate of increase was also much greater. Between 1989 and 1979,
1l.C-12
• Table II.C-6
KEDIAR PAKILY IBCOKE, 1969, 1979, AND 1989
MEDIAN FAMLY INCOME, 1 . , tin, AND 1881
I. I. 1978 REAl. DOI.LAA 1978 1881 REAL DOI.LAA

MEDIAN INCOME MEDIAN CHANGE l8lllJ.lsmJ INCOME MEDIAN CHANGE 1878-1881
CENSUS FAMLY IN 1978 FAMLY IN 1881 FAMLY
TRACT INCOME DOI.LARS INCOME DOLLARS IPERCENT DOI.LAAS INCOME I
DOI.LAAS PERCENT
133 $7;382 $14,135 $11,815 ($2.2«1) ·18.0% $21,043 $27,_ se.4S8 30.~
135 18,782 $18,743 $13,480 ($5,253) -28.0% _,81M 125,240 $1,. 5.A
139 $10,827 $20,404 $18,788 ($818) 4.0% S35,084 $54,. $18,382 55.2%
145 $18,_ S35,847 $28,_ ($7,147) -20.0% $50,502 $107,948 $57,444 113.~
147 $8,000 $11,_ $25,714 $14,ISM 123.2% $45.565 sao,. $15,417 33.8%
149 $18,541 $31,758 S4S,_ $13,827 43.SY. sao.778 $117,578 $38,800 46.A
151 se.278 $12,054 .,947 ($2,107) -17.SY. $17,828 $18,958 $2.333 13.2%
153 $14,528 $27,898 $37,087 .,181 32.ft _,718 .,884 $28,148 42.8%
155 $18,_ $38,387 134,088 ($4,298) -11.2% $80,408 $74,818 $14,510 24.0%
157 $11,778 . $22.818 $29,544 se.- 3O.A $52,352 $75,417 _,oas 44.1"
•
158 $15,873 $30,092 S30,517 $425 1.4" $54,078 $75,587 $21,521 38.8%
181 $11,. $21,838 134,098 $12,480 57.8% sao,418 $83,_ _,187 38.3"
_ ,725 $87,_
183 $12,357 $25,780 $2.035 8.8% S4S,847 $41,913 RO%
STUDY AREA $13,131 $25.212 $29,303 $4,091 18.2% $51,92!5 $75,387 _,482 46.2%
MANHATTAN $8,l1li3 $17,247 $18,_ .') -5~ S28,mo $38,831 $7,901 27~
SOURCE: U.S. DEPARlMEMT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF nil: CENSUS,

CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1870, lIllO, 1 _•
• II. C-l3
•
unlike Manhattan, the study area experienced real increases in income -- real
family income increased by 16.2 percent, compared with a 5.3 percent decline in
Manhattan, measured ~n constant 1979 dollars. Between 1979 and 1989, real in-
come grew by 47.0 percent in the study area, compared with 27.3 percent in Man-
hattan when measured in constant 1989 dollars. All tracts experienced real
increases in median family income with the largest increase, nearly 114 per-
cent, in Tract 145.
This contrasted with trends between 1969 and 1979 when six tracts, most in
the southern portion of the study area (Tracts 133, 135, 139, 145, 151, and
155), experienced real declines in median family income.
Trends in median household income (a broader measure because households

include both family and non-family households), also portray the relative and
increasing affluence of the study area (see Table II.C-7). In both 1979 and
1989, median household income was considerably greater in the study area than
in Manhattan, and the rate of increase in the study area far exceeded the rate
of growth in household income in Manhattan. Although there were variations at
the tract level -- lower household incomes in Tracts 133, 135, ·and 151 and much
higher household incomes in Tracts 145, 149, and 153 -- all tracts except 135
experienced real increases in median household income between 1979 and 1989.
Another measure of the area's relatively strong but varied economic stand-
ing was the substantially lower proportion of persons living below the poverty
level. In 1990, 10.3 percent of the persons in the study area were living
below the poverty level, half the 20.5 percent figure for the borough (see
• Table II.C-8). This represented a decrease from the 13.2 percent figure for
1979 and, in contrast to the trends between 1969 and 1979, the total number of
persons living below the poverty level decreased (by 2,301 persons) between
1979 and 1989.
As with median family and household income, there was a marked difference
between the tracts in the study area. Tract 151 exhibited the highest percent-
ages of persons below the poverty level, 27.3 percent, followed by Tract 133
with 26.2 percent and Tract 133 with 18.1 percent. Only Tract 135 experienced
an increase in both the number and percentage of persons living below the pov-
erty level. All other tracts, including 151 and 133, experienced declines in
the number and percentage of persons living below the poverty level between
1979 and 1989.
Years of School Completed
The level of education in an area is a further indication of earning

power. As shown on Table II.C-9, among residents 25 years of age or older, the
study area had a much higher proportion of high school graduates and persons
attending four or more years of college than Manhattan in 1980 and experienced
very large increases in both categories between 1970 and 1980. Between 1970
and 1980, the percentage of high school graduates and the percentage attending
four or more years of college increased in all tracts. Nonetheless, the educa-
tional attainment varied considerably. High school graduation rates and col-
lege attendance in Tracts 133, 135, and 151 were substantially below that of
•
the borough. Tract 151, which contains the project site, exhibited the lowest
II.C-14
• 'lable II.C-7
IlEDIAJI HOUSEHOLD IRCOllE
1979 1979 1989 REAL DOLLAR

MEDIAN INCOME MEDIAN CHANGE 1~1989
CENSUS HOUSEHOLD IN 1989 HOUSEHOLD
TRACT INCOME DOLLARS INCOME DOLLARSlpERCENT
133 $9,268 $18,423 S2S,818 $10,393 83.3%

135 $10,602 $18,787 $17,840 ($947) -5.0%
139 $15,000 S2S,58O $35,921 $9,341 35.1%
145 $18,125 $32,118 $71,334 $39,217 122.1%
147 $18,962 $33,801 $41,091 $7,490 22.3%
149 $25,988 $48,047 $58,858 $12,811 27.8%
151 $8,551 $15,152 $19,865 $4,713 31.1%
153 $21,133 $37,448 $53,912 $16,464 44.0%
155 $21,675 $38,408 $48,717 $8,309 21.6%
157 $15,769 $27,943 $41,605 $13,662 48.9%
159 $18,094 $32,083 $42.138 $10,073 31.4%
•
161 $19,044 $33,748 $48,133 $12,387 38.7%
183 $15,258 $27,rrsr $45,054 $18,017 66.8%
STUDY AREA $15,759 $27,925 $42.002 $14,077 50.4%

MANHATTAN $13,904 $24,638 $32,262 $7,624 30.9%
SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS,

CENSUS OF POPULATlON AND HOUSING, 1970, 1980, 1990•
• II. C-1S
• Table II.C-8
PERSONS vrm mCOK! BlUDV 'lBE POVERTY LEVEL
CENSUS 1969 1979 1989

TRACT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
133 935 17.9% 1,180 28.2% 961 18.1%

135 220 14.7% 703 20.0% 992 28.2%
139 1,032 11.0% 1,260 12.7% 822 8.3%
145 165 .7.5% 142 11.2% 188 5.8%
147 49 27.5% 87 10.4% 47 5.2%
149 129 8.1% 448 8.4% 408 8.1%
151 962 20.8% 1,650 33.8% 1,203 27.3%
153 774 9.5% 814 10.4% 482 5.7%
155 417 5.1% 403 5.7% 3S!5 5.3%
157 1,379 12.4% 1,388 11.6% 1,189 10.6%
159 861 8.1% 1,018 10.8% 807 8.6%
181 :- 883 11.4% 885 9.5% 482 8.7%
163 1,284 14.1% 1,075 13.1% 624 8.2%
sruDYAREA 9,090 11.2% 10,849 13.2% 8,548 10.3%

MANHATTAN 282,033 17.3% 305,575 21.8% 297,617 20.5%
• SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSU

CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1970, 1980, 1990•
• II.C-16
• Table II.C-9
LEVEL 01' BDUCATIOJIAL A'lTADIIIE1I'l AlIOlIG PEIlSORS 25 ~ AIm OLDER.. 1970 ABD 1980
PERCENTAGE OF
PERCENTAGE OF HIGH PERSONS 25 YEARS AND
SCHOOL GRADUATES OLDER WITH 4 OR MORE
CENSUS 25 YEARS AND OLDER YEARS OF COLLEGE
TRACT 1970 1980 1970 1980
133 38.6% -65.4% 11.2'1. 24.4%

135 31.1% 49.4% 7.6% 10.0%
139 62.8% 81.7% 20.9% 34.2%
145 67.6% 78.5% 30.1% 34.0%
147 13.4% 98. • 4.1% 75.1%
149 80.6% 90.1% 41.7% 57.6%
151 28.1% 46.6% 2.7% 6.8%
153 72.9% 91.0% 33.6% 53.4%
155 82.9% 89.2% 41 . • 49.5%
157 65.6% 87.9% 27.0% 50.0%
•
159 74.2% 88.4% 34.5% 50.8%
161 70.2% 90.0% 31.5% 58.4%
163 69.5% 83.5% 28.0% 47.8%
sruDYAREA 66.8% 83. • 28.4% 45.0%

MANHATTAN 54.6% 6B.0% 20.7% - 33.2%
SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF

niE CENSUS, CENSUS OF POPULATION AND
HOUSING, 1970 AND 1980.
Note: Data not yet available from the 1990 Census.
• II. C-17
•
high school graduation rate in the study area, 46.6 percent and less than 7
percent of its residents had attended four or more years of college. The high-
est rates and greatest increases occurred in Tract 147, which resulted from the
development of the Roosevelt Hospital Staff Residence.
occupation
In 1980, as described in Table II.C-lO, the study area had a higher per-
centage of persons in professional and managerial occupations (57.2 percent)
and lower percentages of sales and clerical workers (25.8 percent), service
workers (9.6" percent) , and craftsmen and laborers (4.6 percent) compared to the
borough. Although this pattern was dominant in most of the area's census
tracts, Tracts 133, 135, and 151 had much lower proportions of managerial and
professional workers and generally higher percentages of service workers and
craftsmen and laborers compared with the study area as a whole and the borough.
Between 1970 and 1980, the number of employed persons 16 years and over
increased by 12.5 percent in the study area, reflecting both the 1.9 percent
increase in population, but more importantly the rising percentage of persons
in the prime working-age, 25-to-44-year bracket. The number of employed resi-
dents increased in all but four tracts, including Tract 151, with the largest
increase in Tract 149 (an almost 300 percent increase)~ The nUmber· of persons
employed in managerial and professional positions increased by 39 percent,
while declining in all other occupational categories.
Tract 151, which contains the project site, experienced a mod"est increase
• in the number of employed residents, with increases in managerial and profes-

sional workers and service workers compensating for losses in other occupation-
al categories. The increase in service workers contrasted with large decreases
of service workers in the study area.
Because of these firmly esta~lished trends and the nature of the housing
constructed since 1980, it is likely that this trend toward higher labor force
"participation and a growing preponderance of professionally employed residents
continued in the 1980's.
Occupied and Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Data on unit occupancy and ownership (see Table II.C-ll) indicate rising
vacancies and soaring rates of home ownership in the study area during the
1980's. The number of vacant units in the study area increased by more than
300 percent between 1980 and 1990. This was largely the result of the develop-
ment of a large number of new units in the study area -- the area gained over
4,600 new units between 1980 and 1990 -- coupled with a lag in the occupancy of
those units. While the vacancy rate increased in the study area, the number of
occupied units increased by less than 1 percent.
According to 1990 Census figures, 21.4 percent of the units in the study
area were owner occupied, approximately 32 percent higher than the comparable
figure for Manhattan, 16.3 percent. The number of owner-occupied units more
than tripled between 1980 and 1990, reflecting both the construction of new
•
condominium units and the widespread conversion of rental units ~o co-ops or
II.C-18
• Table II.C-1O
OCCUPA'lIORAL CBABAC'lEIlIS'lICS
U70
mtAL
HAHAGEHElIT " SALES "
EMPLOYED l'IOFESSIOlW. CLERICAL SERVICE
PERSONS iDXERS iDXERS CRAFTSHER LABORERS iDXERS
CENSUS 16 YEARS ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
TRACT AND OLDER NtImER PERCEHT HUHBER PERCEHT RUHBER PERCEHT HUHBER PERCEHT HUHBER PERCEHT
--------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
133 2,469 585 23.7% 630 25.5% 183 7.42: 409 16.62: 662 26.8%
135 637 112 17.62: 167 26.2% 53 8.3% 178 27.92: 127 U.9%
139 5,547 2,471 44.5% 1,644 29.6% 207 3.7:1: 382 6.92: 843 15.2%
145 1,062 648 59.92: 315 29.U 33 3.0% 22 2.0% 64 5.9%
147 43 8 18.62: 5 11.6% 6 14.0% 12 27.9% 12 27.9%
149 1,304 707 54.2% 438 33.62: 26 2.0% 57 4.42: 76 5.8%
151 1,490 152 .10.2% 456 30.62: 108 7.2% 482 32.32: 292 19.62:
153 4,960 2,501 50.42: 1,438 29.0% 199 4.0% 267 5.42: 555 11.2%
155 4,854 2,893 59.6% 1,419 29.2% 139 2.9% 191 3.9% 212 4.42:
157 6,105 2,995 49.U 1,660 27.22: 184 3.0% 487 8.0% 779 12.8%
159 6,207 3,149 50.7% 2,006 32.3% 162 2.62: 368 5.92: 522 8.42:
161 4,438 2,096 47.2% 1,274 28.7% 184 4.U 314 7.U 570 12.8%
163 4,869 2,055 42.2% 1,740 35.72: 193 4.0% 350 7.2% 531 10.97
STUDY AREA "",005 20,372 46.3% 13,192 30.0% 1,677 3.8% 3,519 8.0% 5,245 11.91
HANBATTAH 706,820 245,681 34.8% 209,621 29.7:1: 40,372 5.7% 98190 13.92: 112956 16.0'1:
•
1980
TOTAL SALES &

HAHAGEHENT "
EMPLOYED PROFESSIONAL CLERICAL SERVICE
PERSONS I«lUCERS I«lUCERS CRAFTSMEN LABORERS WORXERS
CENSUS 16 YEARS ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
TRACT AND OLDER HUHBER PERCENT HUHBER PERCENT HUHBER PERCENT RUHBER PERCENT HUHBER PERCENT
--------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
133 2;332 870 37.3% 528 22.62: 71 3.0% 379 16.3% 484 20.8%
135 1,470 378 25.7% 498 33.9% 57· 3.9% 177 12.0% 360 24.5%
139 6,483 3,193 49.3% 1,881 29.0% 287 4.4% 431 6.6% 691 10.7:1:
145 598 378 63.2% 140 23.4% 29 4.8% 18 3.0% 33 5.5%
147 603 . 505 83.7% 79 13.U 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 19 3.2%
149 3,572 2,476 69.3% 847 23.7% 56 1.62: 58 1.62: 135 3.8%
151 1,495 223 14.92: 429 28.7% 47 3.U 290 19.42: 506 33.8Z
153 5,326 3,390 63.7% 1,274 23.9% 141 2.62: 102 1.9% 419 7.9%
155 3,846 2,465 64.U 1,157 30.U 59 1.5% 49 1.3% 116 3.0%
157 7,541 4,570 60.6% 1,756 23.3% 235 3.U 284 3.8% 696 9.2%
159 5,785 3,648 63.1% 1,407 24.3% 179 3.U 153 2.6% 398 6.9%
161 5,207 3,288 63.U 1,276 24.5% 134 2.6% 140 2.7% 369 7.12:
163 5,229 2,916 55.8% 1,473 28.2% 94 1.8% 213 4.U 533 10.2%
STUDY AREA 49,487 28,300 57.2% 12,745 25.8Z 1,389 2.8% 2,294 4.6% 4,759 9.62:
HANBATTAH 689,727 309,554 41,.9% 191,403 27.8% 30,409 4.42: 74,008 10.7% 93,353 13.5%
SOURCE: u.s DEPARTHENT OF COHHERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1970 AND 1980.
• II. C-19
• Table II.C-Il
OCCUPIED UIII'lS AIm OVREB.-OCCUPIED BOUSDG 1JRI'l'S
OCCU'IED &N1'II AS OWNER QCCUIIED UNITS AS

CENSUS TOTAL HOUSING &N1'II
,_
TOTALOCCU'IED tN1'8 PERCENTOP TOTAL &N1'II OWNER OCCUOIED UNITS PERCENT OF lOTAL UNITS
,_
,.
lJIAC1' 1170 1II1II 1II1II 1170 1II1II 1170 1II1II 1II1II 1170 1110 1II1II 1170 1110
,.
,.
'31 2,714
140
",.
,....
,.- '.771
I.M7
7.-
..
MIlO
7._
.
.. .... .... .. . ...,.... ,. ...
2.1"
..,. ....,.
UT1
,
,.ICII
:ua
1.110
..
IUS
I..,,.
l7a
..,. 17.7,.
....,. 10.,,.
,,, 10.1,.
'1
I
30
44
'10
I I
G.7S
o.n.
0.1,.
,.1,.
004"
1.1"
.. ,zs
0.1,.
12.3S
'41
, ..7
148
II'
.
,,.,....,
"1
UII
lIS 1211
,AGI
,.,.
... ..... ..... ....
...,7
',717
1.7a1
,
2,04,
14
'.141
141
130
I.4SI
'.711
2.012
....
1'2
3.aa7
1.1:10
17..,.
71a
..a
71.,,,
,o,a
lI.OII.
ilia
"
14a
I
0
'01
'3 17
2
..
M
211
,
1711 o.n.
o.os
1.1"
o.n.
o.a
O.ft
3..,.
SA"
HA"
o.a
2',zs
10.1"
-
s.ao,
113 I.ZII
....,
...a7
U4S
&.GIG
...IDO
, .," N.a
I.ICII 11ft. IlA" 1&7S 424
422
771 ,'-
...,.
, ...1" 211.7S
4IA"
'11
117
".7'.
1.1• . 1.274
...... ......
UII 7.IU 7,444
....,.
N.a I7A"
12.\"
IG.OS ..... 3'3
III
2.341
1,84'
1.1"
1.1" ...,.
7a 11..,.
,.,
111
113
.....138
1.171
Un
".117
un
UII
4.171
",.
4.411
IA32
"'01
"UI
....,
I .....
".124
....,.
....,.
1I.7S
. .7S
17_ 10.1"
I2.ft
ILK ,.
213
aaa
II'
a,
..711
1.l1/li
120
'.011'
a.a
...,.
2.K
12.ft
1.1"
alA"
17.5"
18.'"
SlUDYNEA ..7.1C11 sua 17.111 4I.0Il2 11.173 1'",.. ".K _7S II.7S 2,114 3._ 12.327 ..,.
..
...,. 7.1" 21.4"
MANHATTAN 714.... 7114.711 7111,127 117'- 704.102 711.422 ilia ..a I,a 47.0lIl ".711 121.017 7.31' I~
• 8OCJI'ICE: u.s. GEPNmIENI'OP COUMERCE.IIUIEALI OF THE CENIUII. CEN8U8 OF POPUI.ATION AND HOU8ING,
'Im!, 1110. 1110.
• II.C-20
•
condominiums. The owner-occupancy data also reflect an inconsistency in the
way the census categorizes cooperative units. In 1970 and 1990, cooperative
units were likely to be classified as owner-occupied, but in 1980, cooperative
units were less likely to be classified as owner-occupied. The lowest owner-
occupancy rate was found in Tract 147, which has only 512 units, 465 of which
are located in the rental Roosevelt Hospital Staff Residence. Tracts 133, 135,
and 151 all had an owner-occupancy rates below that for Manhattan. All other
tracts had owner-occupancy rates above the rate for the borough. The highest
rate, nearly 50 percent, was in Tract ISS, which contains Lincoln Towers, which
was converted to condominium use in 1986.
Number of Units in Structure
The number of units in a residential structure is important because it

relates to the kinds of potential protection against displacement afforded to
tenants by the state. Specifically, buildings with fewer than either three or
six units are of importance because rent control applies to buildings with more
than three units built before 1947 and rent stabilization applies to structures
with six units or more built before 1974. (A full discussion of rent regula-
tion in New York City follows.) As noted in Table II.C-12, according to the
1990 Census, only 2.9 percent of rental units (1,130 units) were in structures
containing fewer than five units. Using data from the city's MISLAND files:
which identified 90 five-unit buildings in the study area, and assuming that
all were rental buildings, an additional 450 units (1.1 percent of the total;
15 percent of the Census five- to nine-unit category) were in five-unit build-
ings, then the total of unprotected units amounted to 4.0 percent of study area
• rental units. About 96 percent of study area rental units were in structures
containing six or more housing units. Thus, the vast majority of rental units
in the study area are potentially afforded protection under either rent control
or rent stabilization. This figure is generally confirmed by the data assem-
bled for buildings receiving offering plans for co-op or condominium conver-
sion. Those data indicate that about 93 percent of units in buildings receiv-
ing offering plans between 1980 and 1991 were either rent controlled or rent
stabilized .(see Table II.C-16, below).
Renters in Buildings with Five Units or Fewer
Tenants renting apartments in buildings with five or fewer units are not
protected by rent stabilization and are not likely to be protected by rent
·control. Thus, if their rents are low they could be vulnerable to displace-
ment. In 1990, an estimated 2,400 persons, or 2.8 percent of the study area
population, lived in buildings with five or fewer units. As shown on Table
II.C-13, 1,244 resided in one- and two-unit buildings, 448 resided in three-
and four-unit buildings, and 700 resided in five-unit buildings, assuming that
15 percent of the five- to nine-unit category lived in five-unit buildings.
Year of Construction
The year that structures were built is another pertinent factor in deter-
mining the number of study area units that could be rent controlled or rent
• * MISLAND is a standardized computer report package for land use, housing. and
demographic information, compiled by the New York City Department of City
Planning, Planning Support Division.
II.C-2l
• 'labl.·II.C-12
ROIIBEil OF 1JRI'lS D SmUC'l'DBE
1 AN02UNITS 3 ANO 4 UNITS BTOIUNITS TOTALUNITB

CEN8UI
TRACT , ,. , ,. , ,. , , ,. , ...
....,.
,.
,.
113
148
I
2
14
I
la
B.ft
1.....
0..,.
I
o
2
o
la
O.ft
0.3
O.ft
11
o
11
1
11a
O.ft
1.ft
o.a
71
4
111
I
41.'"
.....
1O.ft
1.4,.
m
• :I
1181
80ft
.,..,.
74.3 ..•
141
171
100'-
100.ft
tOO.ft
100.ft
.
147 o O.ft o O.ft o O.ft 1 100.ft o 0_ 1 100.ft
141 tI
o
20ft o
o
O.ft 4 0..... 73 I.'"
, ..,.
11M
.1._
11.1'"
...
711 100.ft
.. .a ,
tl1 O.ft O.ft 0..... 7 I.ft #111 lIa 211 100.ft
,. 1.'" 0.""
183 21 12 44 20ft 357 77.ft 100.ft
0.'"
,.
1M 11 O.ft o O.ft 31 1a UI7 lI.ft 2,341 100.ft
1."" 78.'"
..
157 27 14 0.'" It 3.'" tI.ft t,243 1.141 100.ft
tl1
•
tI
2.ft
2.ft
12
34
0.""
4.1.
74 3.""
17.ft
172
322
I.ft 1,"
307
14..,.
37.ft ''''
em
100.ft
100.ft
tI 1..... It l.ft S37 13.ft lI.ft 1.G2t 100.ft
113
157 ,..... "

II
1.1"
0..,. 417 1.734 12.327 100.ft

BTUDYAAEA
MAMfATTAN 1."1 4.ft 2,140 1.'" 4'" II,sB 1B.G37 100.ft
• CENBUB
1 AN02UNITS
, ,. ,
UNITS IN 8TRUCTUAE. ~ OCCUPIED 1110
3 ANO 4 UNITS
,.
BTOIUNITS
, ,.
10 TO. UNITS
, ,. , ,.
TOTALUNITB
, ...
.. ,. ....
TRACT
,.,.
133 72
118
41
7
1.""
004,.
322
12
11a
4.'"
1,110 41.4"
17.""
t.t11 ".
..,.
73.'"
U40
1.872
100.ft
100'-
... ...,.
It tI oa· 114 3.a 1,727 B."" 4,lI0II 1,111 100.ft
148
147
27
:I
o
o
O.ft
O.ft
1
3
0.'"
0 .....
21 2.ft 1.4111
441
II.'"
..a
t.477
111
100'-
100'-
12.'"
141 It 3 0.1"
• oa 120ft 2.G37 113..,. 2,4.
1.sos
100'-
....
111 21 7 0..... II 1.a... 147 Ma
-
100'-
,.
113 tI tI 0.4" 211 '.ft 1,. 34."" 2,031 Ma 3.811 100.ft
1M 27 o O.ft 1 O.ft 118 3.'" 2,111 11.1'" UOI 100.ft
157 31 0."" 12.ft 2,010 3Ia 2,731 47.'" 1,101 100'-
3-
1B 37 0..,. 414 12.1... 112 22.'" 2,410 It.". 4,Il0l 100.ft
,...,
..1-
tl1 41 44 1a 17.ft 2,101 1O.ft 7ID III..,. 3.111 100.ft
113 71 21 0.'"
_ 10..,. 1.122 31.1... Ma 3,s13 100.ft
BTUDYAREA
MANHATTAN
114
13.-
0..,.
1.'" 31_
III-
••• 100.ft
100.ft
SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF CC*MERCE. BUREAU OF THE CENBUB.

CENSUS OF Pa'UlATION ANO HQUIING, 1110
• II. C-22
• Table II.C-13
PElSOR BY UlIITS IR STB.UCTDBB. JlDTEB. OCCUPIED 1990
..
CENIU8 1 NIIJ 2 U'iII'8 3 NIIJ 4 U'iII'8 1 TO. U'iII'8 1D TO 41 UNITS 10 Cft MOM U'iII'8 TOTALlNTS
TRACT NUM8ER I'EACefT NUMBER PERCEHr MJMIIEft PERCENt' NUM8ER PERCEN1' NUUIIER PEACENr "...... P£ACENT
•
.
133 121 204.. 1.1.. .11.4" U2J 47_ 1,110 37'- 4." 100.OS
us
.. ..
131 11. 302.. 14 0.4.. 1. lit 14.1.. UII 7..... 3,7. 1QQ.QS
1.
141 37
Q.IS
1.7S
• D
Q.ft
o.os
317
1
3.7..
CI.ft
2._
31
31_
1....
1.441
1.1. ......
".1" 1,417
UOI
1QQ.QS
1QQ.QS
• ......
....
147 3 0.4S D o.os 0.... 111 1..... ?US 1QQ.QS
a•
14. 17 2.4.. o.a 11 Q.ft 414 n .... 3.011 UN 1QQ.QS
111 71 2.OS us 7lt 1.... 1.- a7S ua 4.011 1QQ.QS
1.
111
117
1.
31
•
.1
111
0.7S
1.1..
3 ....
:tIS
~
D
11
73
us
o.os
D....
1. .
421
..
3
1.011
I7D
aos
0.1 ..
1204..
n ....
1,111
101
U4I
1.-
....
33....
3.ft
14.'"
3.DIt
UIO
3.111
3,4711
.........
17_
.1.
1,371
UOO
1,111
1.771
100.OS
1OO.OS
1QQ.QS
1QQ.QS
111
1.
77
•
1.
1....
II
41
1.1.
CI.IS 141
17...
1C1.ft
3.D'11
1.-
an
aa
1,QIN
3.l1li ......
21.ft 1,171
I..
1QQ.QS
1QQ.QS
S1\JOYNEA
MANHATTAN
1.144
2I.m
1-
us
441
21.013
0.7S
1...
4."
"101 .....
7.7S 1"'"
1CII.137
.....
4US
31."
_.27D
laOS
47'-
IO.IIIS
1.1-._
1QQ.QS
100.OS
8OUACE: u.s. DEPARtUINT OFCCNMI!RCE.1UfIEAU OFlHE ~
•
~ OF JIOIIUIATION NIIJ HOUaICL 1110
• II. G-23
stabilized. As shown in Table II.C-14, in 1980, 59.1 percent of all residen-
tial units in the study area were built before 1940, 9.2 percent were con-
structed between 1940 and 1949, and 31.7 percent were built between 1950 and
1974. A relatively high proportion (6.4 percent) of units in the study area
were built after 1974, compared with only 4.2 percent in Manhattan. Combined
with the data in Table II.C-12, this indicates that the bulk of units in the
area are likely to be covered by either rent control or rent stabilization and
are afforded protection under those regulations.
Housing Market Activity
Behind the statistics provided by the census, which paint a clear picture
of a changing neighborhood, are certain housing market activities which high-
light those changes.
Development Activity
The most dramatic sign of change has been the surge of residential devel-
opment activity, both new construction and conversion from nonresidential uses,
that has occurred in the study area since 1980. As shown on Table II.B-l and
Figure II.B-2 in section II.B, "Land Use and Zoning," residential development
has been extensive and widespread over the past two decades. This has contrib-
uted to the increased population, home ownership, and affluence of the study
area that was highlighted in the census data.
Cooperative and Condominium Conversion
• Another indicator of the strength of the residential real estate market in

the study area is the degree of cooperative and condominium conversion activi-
ty. As presented in Table II.C-15, based on offering plans filed with the New
York State Attorney General's Office between January 1980 and March 1991, coop-
erative and condominium conversion activity had been a growing trend in the
study area through the mid- to late-1980's, although, consistent with citywide
trends, it has tapered off in recent years because of the city's recent econom-
ic downturn. A total of 139 buildings with a total of approximately 15,451
units received offering plans during the period, with the bulk of the activity
occurring between 1983 and 1987 (80 buildings with 11,936 units). Since 1987,
the number of offering plans has declined steadily. As seen in Table II.C-15,
the largest number of offering plans was recorded" in 1983, with 19 plans filed.
In 1986, the area also saw the largest number of units offered for conversion,
4,234 units, which was largely the result of the offering plan at Lincoln
Tower. This eight-building complex, with "over 3,800 units, was the largest
condominium conversion in Manhattan to date.
Four characteristics of the data presented in Table II.C-15 are worth

noting. First, the bulk of cooperative/condominium offering plans were offered
through non-eviction plans, particularly after 1984. As more fully described
later in this section, under a non-eviction plan, tenants who do not buy their
apartments are offered considerable protection from displacement. There has
been a decided shift toward non-eviction plans in recent years. Only 2 of the
81 (2.5 percent) offering plans (representing less than 0.3 percent of the
•
total units) submitted between January 1985 and March 1991 have been eviction
plans. In contrast, 36 of the 58 plans (62.1 percent) offered between 1980 and
1984 were eviction plans. The shift can be attributed to changes in legisla-
tion that governs cooperative and condominium conversion. In 1982, the
II.C-24
• 'lable II.C-14
DAB. 01' CORS'lB.UC'lIOIi 01' IlESIDD'lIAL UliI'1'S. 1980
CENSUS 187510 1880 1950101874 184010 1948 1 _ OR EARUER 1OTALUNIT8

TRACT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
133 8 0.3% 318 11.1% 281 8.B 2,241 78.7% 2,847 100.,",
-
135 sea 54.7% 370 23.3% 87 8.1% 253 15.B 1,_ 100.,",
138 783 10..... 1,848 27.8% 834 11 ..... 3,518 48..... 7,083 100.,",
145 34 4.,", 77.3% 58 8._ 101 11 ..... 858 100.,",
147 180 35..... 340 84.2% 0 0.,", 0 0.,", 530 100.,",
148 718 18..... 1,158 32.~ 265 7.3" 1,477 40..... 3,817 100.,",
151 240 13.4" 351 18.5% 727 40.5% 478 28.7% 1,787 100.,",
153 434 8.1% 1,458 27.3% 347 8.5% 3,105 58.1% 5,342 100.,",
155 7 0.1" 4,203 88.1% 133 2..... 373 7.B 4,718 100.,",
157
158
17
70
0.2%
1.1"
1,088
1,231
13.4%
18.....
878
878
8.3"
10.....
8,377
4,_
,78.1%
88.5"
8,168
8,273
100.,",
100.,",
181 8 o.a 173 3.8'Kt 248 5.1" 4,427 81.1% 4,857 100.,",
183 IS 0.1" 102 1.B 518 8 ..... 4,848 88.1% 5,273 100.,",
•
STUDY AREA 3,384 8.4% 13,407 25.3% 4,884 8.a 31,_ 58.1% 52,828 100.,",
MANHATTAN 31,788 4.2% 208,_ 27..... 80,701 12.'"' 421,858 55.B 754,418 100.,",
SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, CENSUS OF POPUt..ATION AND HOUSING, 1880.
Note: Data Ia not yet aYIIIIabIe from the 1880 c-.
• II.C-2S
• Table II.C-15
BUILDDlGS VI'I'II CO-OP AIm COBDOJlIRIDJl OPTEllIBG PIARS
UNITS
---------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL RENT RENT PROFES- EVICTIONI
ADDRESS UNITS CONTROLLED STABILIZED VACANT SIONAL OTHER NON-EVICTION
------------------------ -------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- -------- ------------
1980
23-25 WEST 64TH STREET 53 35 17 0 0 1 NON-EVICTION

10 WEST 66TH STREET 279 0 279 0 0 o EVICTION
17 WEST 71ST STREET 38 20 18 0 0 o NON-EVICTION
165-167 WEST 76TH STREET 30 0 0 0 0 30 EVICTION
160 WEST 77TH STREET 42 23 19 0 0 o NON-EVICTION
260 WEST END AVENUE 76 52 23 0 1 o EVICTION
277 WEST END AVENUE 80 35 37 4 4 o NON-EVICTION
SUBTOTAL 598 165 393 4 5 31
1981
44 WEST 6ZRD STREET 158 0 158 0 0 o EVICTION

56-58 WEST 71ST STREET 10 0 10 0 0 o EVICTION
322 WEST 7ZRD STREET 61 zz 38 1 0 o EVICTION
•
210 WEST 78TH STREET 38 Z6 6 6 0 o EVICTION
ZZ RIVERSIDE DRIVE 32 5 26 0 0 1 EVICTION
SUBTOTAL 385 75 302 7 0 1
1982

1-7 WEST 64TH STREET 90 28 46 0 4 12 NON-EVICTION
27-33 WEST 64TH STREET 42 23 19 0 0 o NON-EVICTION
128-38 WEST 67TH STREET 244 0 244 0 0 ONA
130-134 WEST 71ST STREET 30 7 ZZ 1 0 o EVICTION
171 WEST 71ST STREET 59 35 24 0 0 o EVICTION
300 WEST 7ZRD STREET 35 18 14 0 3 o NON-EVICTION
SUBTOTAL 824 160 644 1 7 12
• II.C .. 26
• Table II.C-1S (ContiDued)
BlJILDIRGS VITII CO-OP ABD CORDOKIlUUII OFFEIURG PIAIIS
UNITS
------------------------------------------------------.--
TOTAL RENT RENT PROFES- EVICTION!
ADDRESS UNITS CORTROLLED STABILIZED VACANT SIONAL OTHER NON-EVICTION
------------------------ -------- ---------- --------.- -------- -------- -------- ------------
1983
317-319 WEST 54TH STREET 38 6 32 0 0 o EVICTION

116 WEST 7ZBD STREET 69 15 54 0 0 o EVICTION
119-123 WEST 7ZHD STREET 91 29 57 5 0 o NON-EVICTION
115 WEST 73RD STREET 146 77 64 5 0 o EVICTION
322-326 COLUMBUS AVENUE 61 0 61 0 0 o EVICTION
11 RIVERSmE DRIVE 644 0 617 27 0 o EVICTION
52 RIVERSmE DRIVE 47 10 37 0 0 o EVICTION
255 WEST END AVENUE 58 19 37 2 0 o EVICTION
• SUBTOTAL
1984
422 WEST 57TH STREET

61 WEST 6ZHD STREET
72-76 WEST 68TH STREET
155 WEST 68TH STREET
3479
20
276
683
S8
509
6
0
22
0
2924
14
255
26
683
44
0
21
10
0
0
0
0
, 0
2 0
o EVICtION
o NON-EVICTION
o EVICTION
o NON-EVICTION
315 WEST 71ST STREET 10 2 8 0 0 o EVICTION
12 WEST 7ZHD STREET 172 2 170 0 0 o NON-EVICTION
40 WEST 7ZHD STREET 142 4 114 21 0 3 NON-EVICTION
305 WEST 7ZHD STREEt 50 21 23 6 0 o NON-EVICTION
23 WEST 73RD STREET 243 6 191 25 0 21 NON-EVICTION
10 WEST 74TH STREET 10 5 5 0 0 o EVICtION
SUBTOTAL 1908 116 1683 85 0 24
1985

300 WEST 53RD STREET 65 2 61 2 0 o NON-EVICTION
305-307 WEST 55TH STREET 20 0 .17 3 0 o NON-EVICTION
408 WEST S7TH STREET 144 0 144 0 0 o NON-EVICTION
• II.C-27
• Table II.C-1S (CoDtfDaed)
BUILDIlIGS llI'lII CO-OP AIm CORDOllIRIDll OFFERIBG PIABS
UlIITS
---------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL RERT RERT l'ROFES- EVICTIONI
ADDRESS UlIItS CONTROLLED STABILIZED VACANT SIORAL OTHER IION-EVICTIOlf
.-----------------------
34 WEST 69T1 StREET
--------12 ---------- .--------- -------- -------- .-------o ------------
2 10 0 0 EVICTION
140 WEST 69T1 stREET 157 9 126 22 0 o NON-EVICTIOlf
12-18 WEST 70Tl STREET 58 10 48 0 0 o NOlf-EVICTIOlf
46 WEST 71ST STREET 10 2 8 0 0 o ROlf-EVICTION
155 WEST 71ST STREET 54 24 30 0 0 o NON-EVICTIOlf
165 WEST 7lST STREIT 10 0 9 1 0 o EVICTION
49 WEST 721m STREET 78 32 40 6 0 o IfOII-EVICTIOIf
105 WEST 721m STREET 34 19 15 0 0 o lOll-EVICTION
269 WEST 721m STREIT 58 23 32 3 0 o ROlf-EVICTION
167-171 WEST 73RD STJIEET 30 2 25 3 0 o lION-EVICTION
252 WEST 74T1 STREET 10 3 7 0 0 o BON-EVICTIOIf
SUBTOTAL 955 229 668 58 0 0
1986
314 WEST 56T1 STREET 32 0 26 6 0 NON-EVICTIOIf

346-352 WEST 56T1 STREET 79 25 45 9 0 BON""EVICrION
26-28 WEST 69T1 stREET 20 5 12 3 0 NOlf-EVICTIOIf
24 WEST 7lST STREET 9 1 7 1 0 NON-EVICTION
304 WEST 75T1 STJIEET 117 47 62 8 0 BOR-EVICTIOIf
65 cmmw. PARE WEST 106 50 42 14 0 IfOH-EVICTIOIf
•
855-857 IIImI AVEHUE 33 4 29 0 o· lOll-EVICTION
140 WEST 11m AVEHUE 561 0 518 43 0 BON-EVICTIOIf
150 WEST 11m AVEHUE 454 0 424 30 Ii BOB-EVICTIOIf
160 WEST 11m AVEHUE 508 0 469 . 39 0 BON-EVICTIOIf
165 WEST EHD AVEBUE 403 0 .376 27 0 IfOH-EVICTION
170 WEST 11m AVEHUE 484 0 445 39 0 HOIf-EVICTIOIf
180 WEST 11m AVEBUE 452 0 427 25 0 BON-EVICTIOIf
185 WEST 11m AVEHUE 432 0 399 33 0 o BON-EVICTIOIf
205 WEST !II!) AVIBUE 543 0 520 23 0 o BON-EVICTIOIf
280 WEST EHD AVEHUE 10 0 9 1 0 o BON-EVICTION
SUBTOTAL 4243 132 3810 301 0 0
1987
321 WEST SSTI STREET 35 14 20 1 0 o BON-EVICTIOIf

36 WEST 69T1 STREET 10 3 6 1 0 o BON-EVICTIOIf
235 WEST 70Tl Sl'REET 61 5 56 0 0 o NON-EVICTIOIf
119 WEST 7lST STREET 37 18 18 1 0 o NON-EVICTIOIf
100 WEST 721m STREET 35 0 30 5 0 o BON-EVICTIOIf
112 WEST 72IID STREET 66 6 56 4 0 o BON-EVICTIOIf
310 WEST 72IID Sl'REET 119 51 61 4 3 o NON-EVICTIOIf
215 WEST 75T1 STREET 110 37 59 14 0 o RON-EVICTIOlf
40 WEST 76T1 STREIT 13 2 11 0 0 o NON-EVICTIOlf
105 WEST 77rB stREET 26 2 19 7 0 o BON-EVICTION
313 WEST 77T1 STREET 11 2 9 0 0 o BON-EVICTICIf
2021-2035 BROADWAr 270 0 226 44 0 o NOR-EvICTION
25 cmmw. PARX WEST 410 110 259 41 0 o BON-EVICTICIf
235 waT 11m AVEHUE 1108 63 73 12 0 o HON-EVICTION
SUBTOTAL 1351 313 903 134 3 0
• II.C-28
• Table II.C-15 (Cont1Dued)
BunDIRGS 1lITII CO-OP AIm CORDOJlIBIDJl OFFEllDlG PUBS
URITS
---------------------------------------------------------
rorAL REHT REHT PJICI'ES- EVICTIONI
ADDRESS URITS cat1'ROLLID STABILIZED VACAHT SIONAL OTBER NOH-EVICTION
------------------------
1988
-------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- -------- ------------
433 WEST 54rB StREET 20 2 16 2 ·0 o ROlf-EVICTION
242-244 WEST 61ST StREET 22 0 18 4 0 o NOH-EVICTION
44-46 WEST 65rB StREET 28 4 23 1 0 o BON-EVICTION
22-24 WEST 69rB StREET 19 7 8 4 0 o IfOlf-EVICTION
114 WEST 70rB SmEET 37 16 1!1 6 0 o IfOlf-EVICTION
6 WEST 71ST StREET 10 0 6 4 0 o NON-EVICTION
167 WEST 71ST StREET 21 3 17 1 0 o NOH-EVICTION
124 WEST 72IfD StREET 38 14 23 1 0 o BON-EVICTION
10!l WEST 73l1D StREET 37 1!1 19 3 0 o ROlf-EVICTION
!l4 WEST 74rB StREET 61 18 3!1 8 0 o ROlf-EVICTION
2!l1-2!13 WEST 74rB StREET 27 0 26 1 0 o ROlf-EVICTION
241-243 WEST 7!1rB StREET 17 1 14 2 0 o NON:-EVICTION
34 WEST 16rB StREET 13 4 7 2 0 o ROlf-EVICTION
243 WEST END AVEBUE 18!1 !l3 113 16 3 o NOH-EVICTION
SUBrorAL !l3!1 137 340 !I!I 3 0
1989
20 0 18 0 o NOH-EVICTION
•
411 WEST 52IfD STlIEEr 2
3!17 WEST 54rB StREET 19 4 10 !I 0 o NOH-EVICTION
50 WEST 67rB StREET 2!1 9 6 8 2 o HOlf-EVICTION
27 WEST 69rB StREET 9 0 9 0 0 o ROlf-EVICTION
33 WEST 71ST StREET 10 0 10 0 0 o HOlf-EVICTIOIf
140 WEST 71ST StREET 79 26 41 12 0 o NOH-EVICTION
126 WEST 73l1D SmEET 38 4 30 4 0 o BOH-EVICTIOIf
163-16!1 WEST 73RD SmEET 18 0 14 4 0 o lIOIf-EVICTIOIf
16!1 WEST 16rB STREET 10 0 9 1 0 o NOH-EVICTIOIf
167 WEST 16rB SmEET 10 0 10 0 0 o ROlf-EVICTION
304 WEST78rB STREET 7 2 5 0 0 o BON-EVICTION
SUBTOTAL 24!1 4!1 162 36 2 0
1990
333 WEST 57rB SmEET 170 4!1 97 28 0 o BON-EVICTION

444 WEST !l8rB STREET 1!1 !I 8 2 0 o BON-EVICTIOil
163 WEST 73RD STREET 18 0 14 4 0 o BON-EVICTIOlf
151 WEST 74rB STREET 46 10 31 1 0 4 BON-EVICTION
2101-211!1 BROADKA! 462 14 398 !l0 0 o ROIf-EVICTIOB
344 WEST END AVEBUE 8 0 7 0 1 o BON-EVICTIOB
SUBTOTAL 719 7. 555 85 1 4
1991
427 WEST 51ST StREET 79 24 46 9 0 o ROlf-EVICTION

161 WEST 15rB STREEl' 130 58 !l6 16 0 o NOH-EVICTIOlI
SUBrorAL 209 82 102 2!1 0 0
rorAL 15451 2037 12486 835 23 72
•
SOURCE: COOPERATIVE AND CONDCIfIBIllH CONVERSION DIGEST: A SURVEY OF OFFERING PLANS. 1980-1991
YALE lIOBlIIBS. INC.
II.C-29
•
Cooperative and Condominium Conversion Act was amended, raising from 35 to 51
percent (excluding qualifying elderly and handicapped tenants) the number of
residents who must be willing to purchase their apartments for an eviction plan
to be effective. Thus, sponsors shifted to the less restrictive non-eviction
plan. Second, about 13 percent of the units in buildings that received
cooperative/condominium offering plans were rent controlled with many indivi-
dual buildings having a substantially higher percentage of rent controlled
units. This is important to note not only because it indicates a still sizable
presence of rent-controlled units in the study area but because, regardless of
whether the plan is an eviction or non-eviction plan, rent controlled tenants
are not required to relocate unless the owner of a unit seeks in good faith to
use it for his own family's occupancy. (A full discussion of the rights of
tenants during condominium and cooperative conversion is provided later in this
section.) Third, more than 80 percent of the units were rent stabilized. If
the combination of rent controlled and rent stabilized units in these buildings
can be seen as representative of the overall housing stock, then it is clear
that the overwhelming number of residential households are afforded protection
under state rent regulations. Fourth, although warehousing of apartments
(i.e., keeping apartments intentionally vacant to advance conversion plans) has
been an expressed concern of community residents, only 5.4 percent of the units
in the 139 buildings receiving offering plans were vacant at the time of the
offering. This compares with an overall vacancy rate for the study area of 3.3
percent as reported in the 1980 Census and a vacancy rate of as low as 1.9
percent, according to most recent MISLAND and 1990 Census data.
The surge in offering plans during the 1980's presented in Table II.C-15
• is an indicator of market activity. The data presented in Table II.C-16 list

all buildings in the study area that were either developed as or converted to
condominiums or cooperatives. As shown in that table, the study area contains
a total of 269 condominium or cooperative buildings containing 27,512 units,
representing almost half the units in the study area. Obviously, given the
requirements for conversion (only 15 percent in a non-eviction plan), a sizable
number of these units are still operating as rental units. Nonetheless, the
data provided in Tables II.C-15 and II.C-16 indicate a considerable and signif-
icantly growing presence of owner-occupied units in the study area.
Other Factors Affecting the Vulnerability of Area Residents
SRO Units
SRO units are of particular concern in this analysis for three reasons:
SRO units have traditionally been and are still a source of housing for low-
and moderate-income residents, particularly elderly and minority residents; in
neighborhoods attracting substantial amounts of new investment, buildings with
SRO units have been vulnerable to upgrading with a related displacement of
their tenants; and there is a sizable stock of SRO units in the study area.
The units are primarily located in the eastern and northern portions of the
study area, specifically in Census Tracts 133, 135, 139, 153, ISS, 157, 159,
161, and 163 .
• II.C-30
• Table II.C-16
UIS'fiBG COOPEllATIVE ARD CORDOiUJlIOII BUIIJUliGS III 'l'IIE S'l'IJDY ABU
to1'AL YEAR. OF
DWEIJ.IlfG CClfSnwcTIONI
LOCATION UNITS CCKVERSIOIi
---------------------------- ----------
374
----------
1984
141-51 AHSl'ERDAH AVERU!
201-19 AMStER1W4 AVERU! 270 1988
279-85 AMStER1W4 AVERU! 146 1984
279-95 AMStER1W4 AVERU! 152 1982
1881-85 ~ !fA 1985
1991~ 75 1984
2000-10 ~ 162 1985
2010-18 ~ 237 1986
2021-35 ~ 270 1987
2039-49 ~y 378 1984
2061-65 ~y 5 *
2068-70 ~ 60 1984
2138-46 ~y 110 1987
2162-66 ~y 111 1980
25 cmmw. PARJ: WEST 410 1987
46-50 CEHtRAL PARJ: WEST 49 *
55 CElITRAL PARJ: WEST 109 *
61-65 cmmw. PARJ: WEST 106 1987
71-75 CEHtRAL PARJ: WEST 57 *
80-83 cmmw. PARJ: WEST 174 *
88 cmmw. PAlUC WEST 37 *
91 cmmw. PARE WEST 96 *
•
101-10 CEJmW. PAlUC WEST 96 *
115 cmmw. PARJ: WEST 231 *
145 cmmw. PAlUC WES'r 136 *
151 CElfTRAL PARJ: WEST 36 *
·376 COLUHBUS 8 *
871-87 EIGrB AVENUE 136 1984
855-57 IIIlIrB AVENUE 33 1986
887-93 KIlIrB AVENUE 47 1984
910-24 HINrB AVENUE 575 1987
102-16 WEST ElID AVERUE 186 *
140 WEST ElID AVENUE 561 1986
150 WEST Elm AVEllUE 454 1986
160 WEST ElID AVEllUE 508 1986
165 WEST Elm AVENUE 403 1986
180 WEST !HI) AVENUE 452 1986
205 WEST !HI) AVENUE 543 1986
220-30 WEST ElID AvErruE 342 1980
229-39 WEST ElID AVEKU! 532 1987
243-47 WEST !HI) AVEKUE 306 1989
251-55 WEST !lID AVEKU! 58 1984
261-67 WEST !lID AVEKUE 125 *
270 WEST EI'ID AVEKU! 35 *
271-79 WEST !lID AVEKUE 76 1983
290 WEST Elm AVENUE 380 *
310-18 WEST Elm AVERUE KA 1988
315-19 WEST EKD AVERUE 25 1980
320-26 WEST Elm AVEHUE 190 *
• II.C-31
• LOCATION
Tabl~ II.C-16 (ContiDued)
DISTIBG COOPERATIVE ARD CORDOJIDIIOJI BUILDIRGS IR 'lBE S'lDDY AllEA
'%O'tAL
DWELLIHG
UlfITS
---------------------------- ----------
YEA1I. OF
anrSDllCTION/
CONVERSIOH
----------
328-30 WEST EHD AVEHUE 90 1981
332-36 WEST EHD AVEHUE 107 *
333-335 WEST EHD AVEHUE 291 *
357 WEST EHD AVENUE 5 1980
400-06 WEST EHD AVElfUI 97 1982
411 WEST EHD AVENUE 104 1985
415 WEST 50TII STREEt 7 1984
447 WEST 50TII STREET 8 1984
427 WEST 51ST STREET 80 1989
305 WEST 5ZIfD STREET 65 1985
325-31 WEST 5ZIfD STREET 33 1981
300 WEST 53RD STREE1' 65 1985
351-53 WEST 53RD StREET 8 1981
317-19 WEST 54T11 StREET 38 1984
431 WEST 54T11 STREET 20 1984
304-18 WEST 55T11 STREET 61 1986
305-07 WEST 55T11 STREET 20 1985
443 WEST 54T11 StREET 20 1989
445 WEST 54T11 StREET 137 1984
315 WEST SSTII STREET 43 1986
321 WEST SSTII STREET 35 19117
327 WEST SSTII STREET 7 *
339-45 WEST 55T11 StREET 72 *
340-48 WEST 55T11 StREET 55 1982
357-75 WEST 55T11 StREET 74 1984
415-17 WEST 55T11 StREET 22 1980
•
306-12 WEST 56T11 StREET 114 *
314 WEST 56T11 STREET 32 1986
333 WEST 56T11 STREET 576 1983
342-44 WEST 56T11 STEET 42 1986
346 WEST 56T11 STBEET 79 1987
401 WEST 56T11 STREET 90 1983
301 WEST 57T11 STEET 302 1986
347 WEST 57T11 StREET 576 1983
405-11 WEST 57T11 StREET 47 1986
408 WEST 57T11 STREET 144 1985
413-15 WEST 57T11 STREET- 26 1984
421-23 WEST 57T11 StREET 41 1984
422 WEST 57T11 STREET 20 1984
451-61 WEST 57T11 STREET 237 1983
463 WEST 57T11 STREET 10 *
465-67 WEST 57T11 StREET 20 *
345 WEST 58T11 STREET 575 1987
400 WEST 58T11 STREET 46 1984
30-32 WEST 61ST StREET 165 *
33-43 WEST 61ST StREET 226 1987
157-61 WEST 61ST ST.REET 226 1987
44 WEST 6ZIfD STREET 158 1982
51-61 WEST 6ZIfD STREET 276 1984
17-21 WEST 64T11 STBEET 56 1984
1-7 WEST 64T11 STREE1' 90 1983
20 WEST 64T11 STREET 679 1983
23-ZS WEST 64T11 ST.REET 52 1981
.27-33 WEST 64T11 ST.REET 42 1984
5-13 WEST 65T11 STREE'l' 275 1981
29 WEST 65T11 STREE'l' 55 1985
44-46 WEST 65T11 STREET 52 1989
6-14 WESt 66T11 ST.REET 275 1981
32-64 WESt 66T11 STREET 47 1988
1 WEST 67T11 STREET 205 *
2 WESt 67T11 STREET 65 *
11-15 WEST 67T11 STREEt 34 *
•
17-21 WESt 67T11 ST.REET 72 1984
27 WESt 67T11 STREET 31 *
29-33 WESt 67T11 StREET 34 *
36-40 WESt 67T11 STlIDT 40 *
II.C-32
• Table II.C-16 (Continued)
EUS'lDIG COOPERATIVE AD CORD01lIBIOK BunDIRGS IS 'mE STUDY .ABEA
LOCArIOlI
----------------------------
39-41 WEST 67TB StREET
!OrAL
DWELLIIIJ
USUS
----------
47
YEAR or
COISTlWC'fIOHI
COlIVERSIOlI
----------•
42-50 WEST 67TB StREET 581 •
45 WEST 67m SDEEl 175 1983
1%8-38 WEST 67m SDEEt 244 1982
59-61 WEST 68m SDDT 16 1981
60-66 WEST 68m StREET 273 •
72-76 WEST 68m stREEr 58 1985
155 WEST 68m StREEt 683 1984
11-17 WEST 69m StREET 39 •
Z3 WEST 69m SDEEr 5 1983
26-28 WEST 68m SDEEl 20 1987
108 WEST 69m S'rREE'r 13 •
131 WEST 69m Sl'llEET
140 WEST 69m STREET
8
157
•
1985 ,
31 WEST 69m Sl'llEET 10 •
1%4 WEST 69m S'rREE'r 10 1987
1%-18 WEST 70m Sl'llEET 59 1986
24 WEST 70m STREET 4 •
31 WEST 70m StREET 10 1985
45 WEST 70m S'!REET 5 1981
50 WEST 70m S'IREET 4 •
52 WEST 70m STREET 4 •
60 WEST 70m STREET 5 1982
104 WEST 70m StREET 83 •
105-11 WEST 70m STREET 40 1983
11%-16 WEST 70m STREET 37 •
118-20 WEST 70m STREET 39 1981
•
1%8 WEST 70m STREET 10 1984
1%9 WEST 70m Sl'llEET 50 •
135-45 WEST 70m STREET 83 1983
155 WEST 70m StREEt RA •
225-29 WEST 70m STREET 38 1981
231-39 WEST 70m StREEt 217 1989
241-49 WEST 70m STREET 234 1981
251-53 WEST 70m STREET 5 1981
271-73 WEST 70m STREET 5 1983
305-29 WEST 70m STREET 185 •
341 WEST 70m S'rREE'r 36 1982
14 WEST 71ST STREET 7 •
17-23 WEST 71ST StREET 38 1980
20 WEST 71ST S'!REET 7 1980
35 WEST 71ST STREET 7 •
48 WEST 71ST Sl'REET 7 •
56-58 WEST 71ST StREET 10 1982
59-65 WEST 71ST StREET 38 •
67-73 WEST 71ST StREET 52 •
110 WEST 17m StREET 10 1984
117-21 WEST 71ST StREET 37 1989
130 WEST 71ST StREEt 10 1983
132 WEST 71ST Sl'llEET 10 1983
149-57 WEST 71ST STREET 55 1983
161 WEST 71ST SDEEl j 1985
207-11 WEST 71ST StREET 58 1985
240 WESt' 71ST STREET 6 1980
261-63 WEST 71ST STREET 9 1980
26·7 WEST 71ST StREET 8 1989
329 WEST 71ST S'rREE'r 5 •
331-WEST 71ST Sl'REET 4 •
1-7 WEST 72ND STREEl' 94 •
1% WEST 72ND Sl'REET 172 1984
•
15-25 WEST 72ND SDEEl 497 1980
20-28 WEST 72ND Sl'REET 172 1984
34-40 WEST 72ND STREEl' 139 1984
II.C-33
• Table II.C-16 (Continued) •
UISTDIG COOPERA'lIft AI1D COJlDOJUBIOK B1JIIJ)IRGS IB 'fBB STUDY ABU.
torAL n:AIl OF
DWEI.LDIJ CCIISTlWC'lIOIfI
LCCAtIOIf DlfIts CCIIVERSIOIf
---------------------------- ----------
78
----------
1984
49 WESt 72ND SrREEr
100-02 WEST 72ND STREEt 1IA 1988
10S-09 WESt 72ND STREEt 3S 1984
110-12 WEST 72HD SDIEt 66 •
114-16 WEST 72HD SrREEr 69 1984
119-23 WESt 72HD STREEt 91 1984
. 124-26 WESt 72HD SrREEr 38 1984
128 WESt 72HD STREEt 1IA 1989
242 WESt 72ND SrREEr 11 1983
303-07 WESt 72HD STREEt Sl 1985
310-18 WESt 72HD SrREEr 119 1989
322-28 WESt 72HD SDIEt 320 1981
330-36 WESt 72Nl) STREEt 62 1980
21-39 WESt 73lU) STREEt 244 1985
" WESt 73RD SrREEr 8 •
lOS WESt 73RJ) S1'REU 33 1989
122 WESt 73RJ) StREET 8 1982
1" WESt 73RD StREET 10 1984
2S3-67 WESt 73RD S1'REU 160 1982
16 WESt 74m S1'REU 11 1984
18 WESt 74m S1'REU !fA 1980
28-30 WESt 74m STREET !fA 1982
29 WESt 74m S1'REU 11 1986
32-34 WESt 74m STREEt 14 •
121-27 WESt 74m STREEt 43 •
140-44 WESt 74TH 27 •
146 WESt 74TH STREET 7 •
•
•
1" WESt 74m STREET S
201 WESt 74m STREEt 92 1985
2S1-S7 WESt 74TH StREET 27 1987
2S2 WESt 74TH STREET 10 1987
14 WESt 1Sm STREEr 7 1980
48 WESt 1Sm STREEr 6 •
100-02 WEST 7STH STREEt !fA 1986
133 WESt 1STH STREET i7 •
134-38 WESt 7SBr S1'REU 31 1983
3232 WESt 1Sm SrREEr 14 1982
238-42 WESt 72Nl) STREET 38 1989
241 WESt 1STH STREET 17 1986
243 WESt 1Sm SrREEr 9 1986
ZSO WESt 1Sm STREET 36 1985
302-04 WESt 7STH StREET 117 1987
309 WESt 1STH SrREEr 9 1982
318 WESt 1Sm STREEr 10 •
8 WESt 16m StREET 14 •
22 WESt 16TH S'rREE'r 7 •
34 WEST 16TH STREET 13 1989
38 WESt 76m S'rREE'r S •
40 WESt 16m S'rREE'r 14 1984
44 WESt 76m S'rREE'r 6 •
47 WESt 76TH S'rREE'r 10 1983
S3 WESt 16m S'rREE'r 14 1984
104 WESt 16m STREEr S •
116 WESt 16m StREET 9 1981
125-29 WESt 16TH STREEt 14S •
161 WESt 16m S:rREEr 10 1983
162-66 WESt 76TH STREEt 41 1982
168-70 WEST 16TH StREET 40 1980
311 WEST 16m STREEt 13 1983
314-22 WEST 16m StREET 72 1987
6-16 WESt 77TH STREEt 102 •
18-20 WESt 77TH StREET 31 •
32-42 WESt 77TH StREIr 489 •
•
44-48 WESt 77TH STREET 273 •
lOS WESt 77TH STREET 33 •
117 WEST 77TH STREE'l 6 •
II.C-34
• Table II.C-16 (CoDtiDaed)
UIS'lIIIIG COOPERATIVE ABD CORDOllIBIOH BUILDDlGS IB TIlE STUDY AJlEA
1'OfAL DAll OF
DWELLIRG amsTlWCTIOlfI
l.OCA%IOIf U1fIl'S COHVEBSIOlf
.--------------------------- ---------- ----------
119 WESt 77m S'rUEr 5 *
154 WESt 17m S'rUEr 9 1984
158-64 WESt 77T11 STllEEt 43 1982
266 WISt 17m StREEt 6 *
313 WESt 77T11 STllEEt 11 1985
314-316 WESt 77m StREEt 19 *
108 WISt 78m SmElT 5 *
120-22 WESt 78m S'mEE1' 18 *
128 WESt ·78m smEE'r 10 1981
132 WESt 78m SrREEr 6 1980
136 WESt 78m S'mEE1' 4 1982
202 WESt 78m S'mEE1' 10 *
204 WESt 78m SrREEr 20 1987
206-12 WESt 78m STREEl' 37 1981
304 WESt 78TH STREEl' 7 1990
1'OfAL 27,512
RODS:
•
!fA - lIUMBE1I. OF UNItS ltO'f REPORtED
* .- BUIIJJING CONVERtED OR CONStRUCTED PRIOR TO 1980
SOURCE: REAL !STArE DIRECTORY OF HANllATTAN, 1990-

1991, REAL !StAl'! DATA,me •
• II.C-35
•
To identify the number of SRO units in the study area, three steps were
taken. First, an inventory of SRO units in the study area was prepared using
the MISLAND 9B Report for Multiple Dwellings 1991, provided by the Department
of City Planning, and a list of SROs provided by the Department of Housing
Preservation and Development (HPD) , published in March 1989. Second, a field.
survey was conducted that included a visit to every building on these lists to
determine whether all of the units on the MISLAND/HPD lists were actually hous-
ing SRO tenants. Third, the lists were reviewed with the West Side SRO Law
Project, an advocacy group for SRO tenants, to check the consistency of the
data sources and the results of the field survey with their records.
The SRO inventory described below has several limitations that may affect
the final conclusions on the number of SRO units in the study area. First,
buildings that are clearly not operating as SROs or renting rooms out to SRO
tenants have been eliminated from the master list. These include hotels that
are operating as tourist hotels and not renting out rooms to SRO tenants (e.g.,
Howard Johnson's on Eighth Avenue, the Radisson Empire Hotel across from Lin-
coln Center, and the Day's Inn on 57th Street), vacant buildings, and buildings
that have been substantially upgraded to market-rate residential use. However,
some of these may still contain units that may legally be defined as SROs as
reflected in their certificates of occupancy or through registration with th~
New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) under the
rent stabilization guidelines.· Because the goal of this section is to identify
tenants rather than units at risk, excluding units that may be legally consid-
ered as SROs but which are not occupied by SRO tenants would not affect con-
clusions regarding displacement. Se·cond, there are buildings and ·units con-
• tained on the MISLAND/HPD lists that are in transition from SRO to non-SRO use
(to a transient hotel or to rental or co-op apartments) and contain a mix of
SRO and non-SRO tenants. Without a unit-by-unit survey, it is impossible to
definitively break down the SRO/non-SRO mix of tenants. In several cases, all
the units in these buildings (such as the Milburn, and Park Lincoln Hotels)
were conservatively classified as still in SRO use, though each clearly also
houses a sizable number of non-SRO tenants. In others such as the Broadway
American, Beacon, and Henry Hudson Hotels, it was assumed that 50 percent of
the units were in SRO occupancy. Third, the number of units reported in the
MISLAND and HPD files for each building may not completely agree with the num-
ber of rooms registered with DHCR. In several instances, based on data provid-
ed by the West Side SRO Law Project, DHCR data on number of units was incorpo-
rated into the inventory.
As shown on Tables II.C-17 and II.C-18, combining both lists created a

potential inventory of 8,126 SRO units located in 200 buildings in the study
area. To confirm the accuracy of these lists, a field survey was conducted
from October 21-24, 1991. A second field survey was conducted on January 13,
1992, to confirm comments received from the West Side SRO Law Project regarding
the accuracy of these lists. Buildings were checked for evidence of recent
conversion activity, such as new security systems, new doors and windows, new
lobbies, and the presence of uniformed doormen or concierges. Several build-
ings, both large and small, were found to be under construction for conversion
to non-SRO use. Vacant and abandoned buildings were eliminated from the inven-
tory of usable SROs. Lastly, buildings that conform to a definition of SRO but
•
are clearly not occupied by low- or moderate-income SRO tenants, such as first-
class and tourist-class hotels that primarily serve out-af-town visitors, were
eliminated from the usable inventory.
II.C-36
•
Table II.C-17
SIRGLB-Il.OOJI-OCCUPABCY (SID) OBITS IR THE IUVEIlSmE SOOTH STUDY AREA.
___________~Ad~dr~e~s~s__________ SRO Rooms Comments
CENSUS TRACT 133

318-322 West 51 Street 217 Washington Jefferson Hotel
324-328 West 51 Street 137
330 West 51 Street 70
319 West 51 Street 9 Cheshire Cheese Restaurant
321-323 West 51 Street 10 Rene Pujol Restaurant
TOTAL FOR TRACT 133 676.00
CENSUS TRACT 135

408 West 58th Street 10
• CENSUS TRACT 139

337 West 55 Street
305-307 West 55 Street
335 West 55 Street
354 West 56 Street
12
4
15
79
Good Condition
The Ashfield

353-361 West 57 Street 280 Henry Hudson Hote1*
TOTAL FOR TRACT 139 402
CENSUS TRACT 149

3-11 West 63 Street 140 West Side YMCA
CENSUS TRACT 153

39-41 West 67 Street 14 Excellent Condition
1-9 West 67 Street 4 Hotel des Artistes
70 West 68 Street 9 Vince & Eddie's Restaurant
63 West 68 Street 8
39 West 68 Street 9
21 West 68 Street 6
88 Central Park West 5 Luxury building
• • Assumes 50 percent of the units are not in SRO use.
II.C-37
•
Table II.C-17 (Continued)
SIRGLE-IlOOJI OCCOPARCY (saD) URITS III THE uvnsmE SOUTH STUDY All.EA
____________~A=d=dr~e=s:s______________ SRO Rooms Comments
30 West 69 Street 9
32 West 69 Street 6
52 West 69 Street 9
68 West 69 Street 6
53 West 68 Street 19 Beautiful Window Treatments
43 West 69 Street 13 Good Condition
91-97 Central Park West 1 Luxury building
115 West 69 Street __4 Good Condition
• CENSUS TRACT 155

210 West 70 Street
CENSUS TRACT 157

21 West 70 Street
174
5
The Bradford Hotel

16 West 71 Street 7
38 West 71 Street 7
67, 69, 71, and 73 West 71 37 Fishin Eddie, Los Panchos, and Cafe
Street La Fontana
55 West 71 Street 6
43 West 71 Street 12 probably 1147
115-123 West 70 Street 385 Stratford Arms Hotel
•
43 West 73 Street 6 Elegant building, two buzzers
II. C- 38
•
SIRGLB-B.OOJI OCCUPABCY (sao) OBITS IR THE ILIVEIlSmE SOUTH STUDY AllEA
Address no Rooms Comments
41 West 73 Street 5
15 West 73 Street 8
59 West 73 Street 3
174 West 72 Street; 14
287-295 Amsterdam Avenue 7 Large apartment building
•
136 West 74 Street _ _7
C:t;NSUS TRACT 159

238-244 West 73 Street 206 The Commander
260 West 73 Street 3 CPA ground f1
262 West 73 Street 14 Real Estate Broker ground floor
264 West 73 Street 11 Real Estate Agency ground floor
•
342-344 West 71 Street 126 Hotel Riverside--studios
346-348 West 71 Street 119 Poor condition
II.C-39
•
SIRGLE-ROOJI OCCUPARCY (SIlO) URITS IR THE IlIVDSIDE SOUTH STUDY AJlE&
Address no Rooms Comments
350-352 West 71 Street 114 Poor condition

311 West 72 Street --2J..
CENSUS TRACT 161

49 West 74 Street 2
45 West 74 Street 9
15 West 74 Street 9
•
42 West 75 Street 8
51 West 75 Street 19 Hephzibah House
164-168 West 75 Street 284 Park Linco1n--new lobby
18 West 76 Street 6
48 West 76 Street 8
57 West 76 Street 5 Ground floor restaurant
27 West 76 Street 9
• 168 West 77 Street 7

II .C-40
•
Table II.C-17 (ContiDued)
SIBGLE-I.0011 OCCOPARCY (81.0) tJRITS IR TIlE I.IVEIlSmE SOUTH STUDY AREA
___________ -===~~ _________ SI.O ~

Comments
15
2
532
4 Alfie Arms--Prime Time After-school

ground floor
12
12
4
13 Bicycle shop ground floor
10
8 Majestic Towers--luxury building with
doorman
129 The Milburn Hotel
8
35 JG Mellon ground floor
202 Broadway American Hotel·
160 Beacon Hotel·
298 Hotel Belleclaire
11
16
10 Lots of strollers inside front door
5
90 West End Plaza Hotel--luxury build-
ing, studios with kitchens for rent
19
14
10
4 Elegant building, all glass penthouse
12
11
21
10 Elegant building with iron fence
7
11
15
• • Assumes half of units in building are in SRO occupancy.
II .C-4l
•
Table II.C-17 (ContiDued)
SDlGI.B-ROOK OCCUPAIICY (S1l.O) URrrS IR TIlE UVEIlSma SOUTH S'lDJ)Y· AREA
Address no JlooIIls Comments
349 Yest End Avenue 2 Elegant building with historic mark-

er, built in 1890
351 Yest End Avenue 13 Elegant building
302 Yest 77 Street 3 Elegant building with historic mark-
er, built in 1890
326 Yest 77 Street 2
315 Yest 77 Street 19 Ground floor offices, mostly names of
theatrical groups
TOTAL FOR TRACT 163 1.212
·TOTAL AVAILABLE SRO UNITS 4,589
Source: New York City Department of City Planning, MISLAND 9B Report Multi-
ple Dwelling Unit Data, 1991; New York City Department or Housing
• Preservation and Development, List of SRO Units, 1989; and Allee

King Rosen & Fleming, Inc., field surveys, October 1991 and January
1992:
• II. C-42
•
Table II.C-ll
1JlII'lS IR TIlE STUDY AllEA ROT AVAILABLE FOil SIlO OCCUPAliCY
Address SIlO Rooms Comments
CENSUS TRACT 133

327 West 51 Street 9 Cortina Apartments--new for rent
317 West 51 Street 12 Undergoing Rehabilitation 10/21/91
847 8th Avenue 16 Boarded-up
851-869 8th Avenue 300 Howard Johnson's Hotel
421 West 50 Street 8 Boarded-up. For Sale
419 West 50 Street 11 Boarded-up. For Sale
426-432 West 52 Street 105 St. Clare's Professional Offices
CENSUS TRACT 139
308-310 West 58 Street 97 Westpark Hote1--tourists
353-361 West 57 Street 280 Henry Hudson Hote1--"The Thirteen
Bui1ding"*
423-437 West 56 Street 606 Days Inn Hote1--fronts on West 57
Street
400-404 West 57 Street 144
CENSUS TRACT 149
• 3-11 West 63 Street

CENSUS TRACT 153
22 West &8 Street
441
514
33
7
West Side YMCA**
The Radisson Empire Hotel
The Swiss Institute Gallery

Rehab
62 West 70 Street 11 Building being gutted 10/21/91
147-157 West 66 Street 256 Permanent Mission of People's Republic
of China to the United Nations
2012-2018 Broadway 136 Cooperative Apartments--a1so known as
140 West 69 Street
CENSUS TRACT 157
44 West 73 Street 1 Locked, looks.abandoned
500 West 71 Street 47 Does not exist, no numbers above the
300's
CENSUS TRACT 161
27 West 74 Street 7 Boarded-up. U.S. Government Seizure
108 West 75 Street 8 Boarded-up. for sale
114 West 75 Street 17 Boarded-up, for sale
118 West 76 Street 13 Boarded-up
• *
**
Assumes 50 percent of the units are in SRO occupancy.
Assumes 110 units are in SRO occupancy.
II. C-43
•
Table II.C-l8 (Conttnaed)
URrrS IR THE STUDY AJlEA. ROT AVAILABLE POB. SJlO OCCUPANCY
Address sao llooms Comments
CENSUS TRACT 163

201 West 74 Street 84 The Fitzgerald--new lobby, condomin-
iums
2124-2134 Broadway 160 Hotel Beacon--under renovation·
244 West 75 Street 3 Elegant building, iron gate, looks
rehabbed
311 West 75 Street 4 Offices--law, cinema, communications
212-222 West 77 Street 201 Broadway American Hotel·
TOTAL UNAVAILABLE FOR SRO 3,547

OCCUPANCY
Source: New York City Department of City Planning, MISLAND 9B Report Multi-
ple Dwelling Unit Data, 1991; New York City Department of Housing
Preservation and Development, List of SRO Units" 1989; and Allee
•
King Rosen & Fleming, Inc., field surveys, October 1991 .
• • Assumes 50 percent of the units are in SRO occupancy.
II.C-44
•
As a result of the field survey, it was determined that 3,547 units are no
longer available for use by low- and moderate-income residents of the study
area for SRO occupancy. Although these buildings may still contain some SRO
tenants, the use has already changed to some form of market rate tenancy, such
as cooperative or condominium apartments or transient hotel occupancy. This
leaves a potential inventory of 4,589 SRO units within the boundaries of the
study area.
The SRO units were located in nine of the study area census tracts -- 133,
135, 139, 149, 153, 155, 157, 159, 161, and 163.
The southern part of the study area, below 58th Street west of Eighth
Avenue, contains 16 buildings that clearly contain SRO units used by low- and
moderate-income groups. Two of the buildings are large with more than 100 SRO
units, such as the Washington Jefferson Hotel. In all, there are 1,078 SRO
units in Census Tracts 133 and 139. Within this portion of the study area,
there are a significant number of units listed in MISLAND 9B and by HPD as SROs
that are transient hotels and do not serve low- or moderate-income SRO tenants.
Among these are the Howard Johnson's Hotel on Eighth Avenue with 300 units, the
Days Inn on West 57th Street with 606 units, and the Westpark Hotel on West
58th Street with 97 units. Another building that does not contain SRO units is
the St. Clare'S Professional Building on West 52nd Street. The area south of
58th Street also contains several buildings on the MISLAND or HPD list that are
vacant and boarded up, or not currently occupied, such as 400 West 57th Street,
which has 12 tenants remaining out of 156 units.
• No SRO units are listed in either the MISLAND 9B report or by HPD in Cen-
sus Tracts 145, 147, and lSI, which includes the project site. Only two build-
ing were listed in Census Tract 149 -- the West Side YMCA and the Radisson
Empire Hotel. The current policy of the YMCA is to discontinue long-term resi-
dential use through attrition. To that end, rooms formerly occupied by SRO
tenants are being transferred to student or transient use when they become
available. As of 1988, no more than 110 of the 551 units were occupied by SRO
tenants, and the YMCA expects the number of permanent rooms to decline by 10 to
20 per year. The Radisson Empire Hotel with 514 units on West 63rd Street
functions as a first-class hotel. Rooms are not available by the month, and
the lowest room rate is $120.00 per weekday night.
In Census Tract 153 between 66th and 70th Streets, 215 SRO units are scat-
tered in 22 buildings -- primarily smaller brownstone-type structures, typical-
ly five stories with 5 to 20 units. A few SRO units apparently remain in luxu-
ry buildings, such as the Hotel des Artistes and 88 and 91 Central Park West.
This part of the study area also has several large buildings that are listed as
SRO's but do not serve low- or moderate-income SRO tenants. These include the
Perm~nent Mission of the Peoples Republic of China to the United Nations with
256 units on West 66th Street, and 2012-2018 Broadway (also known as 140 West
69th Street), which formerly contained 136 SRO units but has recently been
converted to cooperative apartments. It should be noted that classifying the
215 units identified above as SRO units is conservative and likely overstates
the actual number still in SRO use. Some of them may be vacant, and some may
have already been upgraded .
• II.C-45
•
The number and density of SRO units increases north of 70th Street. In
Census Tract 157, there are 39 buildings with 722 SRO units, and in Census
Tract 159, there are 29 buildings with 761 SRO units. Although a majority of
these buildings are five-story brownstone-type structures, there are several
buildings that contain a large number of SRO units, such as the Commander with
206 units on West 73rd Street, the Hotel Riverside with 126 units on West 71st
Street, and two adjacent buildings, 342-344 and 346-348 West 71st Street, that
contain 119 and 114 units respectively. A total of 406 units in 11 buildings
are located on blocks next to the project site, principally 71st Street to the
west of West End Avenue.
Many·of the brownstones with SRO units in these tracts stand side-by-side
with previously renovated brownstones, typically with no more than 10 apart-
ments for market-rate tenants. Most of the SRO buildings themselves are in
excellent condition, with such signs of upgrading as new doors, and security
systems that indicate ~hat there are likely to be fewer SRO buildings and units
than listed in the inventory. Because the apartments themselves were not in-
spected during the field survey, this analysis assumes that the MISLAND 9B and
HPD lists are accurate, despite physical evidence to the contrary. The survey
also observed that in some instances younger, more affluent-looking tenants
were entering or leaving buildings listed as SROs.
There are 30 buildings containing 532 SRO units in Census Tract 161. More
than half of these units are located in the Parc Lincoln Hotel, which adver-
tises itself as a transient hotel but still has SRO units. Most of the remain-
ing units are located in brownstone-type structures, typically with five floors
• and 5 to 20 units. Brownstones are the most common building type in this area,
and except for the luxury buildings along Central Park West, there are no large
buildings housing SRO tenants. The field survey found that four brownstones
that formerly contained SRO units were vacant; three were advertised for sale.
The highest concentration of usable SRO units in the study area was found
in Census Tract 163. Thirty-five buildings contain 1,212 SRO units in build-
ings ranging from four-story brownstones to the sprawling Broadway American
Hotel, from West End Avenue luxury buildings to Amsterdam Avenue tenements.
The largest number of units are located in older hotels, such as the Broadway
American Hotel (formerly the Ben Franklin) with 403 units on West 77th Street
(it is assumed that half are in SRO occupancy), the Hotel Belleclaire with 298
units on Broadway and West 77th Street, and the West End Plaza Hotel with 90
units on West End Avenue and West 78th Street. Although it is clear that these
buildings house SRO tenants with low and moderate incomes, particularly the
elderly, there was some indication that younger, more affluent tenants also use
these facilities. For example, studio apartments with kitchens are available
for rent in the West End Plaza Hotel. Some, such as the Broadway American,
advertise themselves as transient hotels with double occupancy rates of $89.00
per night, and have a policy of not renting rooms by the month.
There are signs of conversion activity in this area that have diminished
the inventory of SRO dwellings. For example, The Fitzgerald with 84 units at
201 West 74th Street was recently converted to condominiums and the Beacon
Hotel with 320 units on Broadway and 75th Street is now under renovation. (For
•
this analysis, half the units in the Beacon were assumed to be in SRO
occupancy.)
II.C-46
•
An additional 1,026 SRO units in 20 buildings are located adjacent to the
study area. These include 320 units in 4 buildings located south of 58th
Street between Broadway and Eighth Avenues including the 192-unit Hotel
Mansfield Hall, 177 units in 9 small buildings located north of 77th Street
between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues, and 529 units in 7 buildings located
north of 78th Street west of Amsterdam Avenue, including the 266-unit Hotel
Lucerne and 227-unit Imperial Court Hotel. Many of the units at the Hotel
Lucerne are rented out to students on a monthly basis.
Protection of Current Residents
Whether or not residents will be potentially vulnerable to involuntary

displacement is largely a consequence of several factors, including market
conditions and trends, and public policy decisions. Within the study area,
these include the presence of subsidized housing developments where the selec-
tion of tenants and rents are typically controlled by government regulations
and therefore not significantly subject to outside market forces; the presence
of property that is directly owned or under the control of the city; special
regulations governing development, such as the Special District Zoning in
Clinton; or State legislation regulating the rents paid by tenants and the
process by which buildings may be converted to cooperative or condominium use.
Subsidized Housing. Since construction of the Amsterdam Houses in 1948,

housing developed with public subsidies or with some form of public interven-
tion has been a major component of the area's housing base.
•
As shown in Table II.,C-19, nearly 11,500 units (about 20 percent of the
study area totals) were built with some form of public assistance. However,
not all provide any special protection to tenants against displacement. This
category would include those buildings built with the assistance of Title I of
the National Housing Act (Lincoln Towers and the Coliseum Park Apartments), the
New York State Redevelopment Company Law (Lincoln House) or Section 207 (the
Dorchester, Lincoln Center Apartments, New York Hanover Corporation, South Park
Apartments, and the Westerly). This reduces the inventory of units receiving
special forms of protection to about 5,200. Of these, 1,622 are public housing
including the Amsterdam Houses, a 1,077-unit public housing project in Tract
151, the tract containing the project site; the Amsterdam Houses Addition, a
172-unit project also located in Tract 151; and Harborview Terrace, a 373-unit
project located in Tract 135. Tenants of city-administered low-income public
housing are also protected from major rent increases. Generally, total rent is
limited to 30 percent of household income.
An additional 1,869 units were built pursuant to the New York State or
City Mitchell-Lama programs, and 1,600 units were built with federal assis-
tance, either federal mortgage insurance to finance low- or moderate-income
'housing or rent subsidies. Rental rates in Mitchell-Lama buildings are estab-
lished by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)
according to guidelines established by New York State (New York Codes of Rules
and Regulations, Volume 9, Executive C, Section 1728) and are set every two
years. Under these regulations, rent levels are established based on the need
to cover operating expenses, debt service, and a return on equity to the devel-
•
oper. Mitchell-Lama subsidies expire after a period of 20 years, at which time
II.C-47
•
Table II.C-19
PUBLIC AND PUBLICLY ASSISTED HOUSING

(EKcludes projects uaiDg J-Sl and 42l[a] taz abateaent and ezemption progr... )
. . .e (by goveruaent agency

administering assistance) Address Program·
NYC Housing Authority (NYCIHA>

Amsterdam Houses 205 W. 61st St. Fed PH 1,077 1948
Amsterdam Houses Addition 238 W. 65th St. NYS PH 172 1974
Harborview Terrace 525 W. 55th St. Fed PH 373 1977
NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (NYClHPD)

Lincoln Towers 140 West End Ave. Title 1 3,844 1965
Lincoln House 301 W. 66th St. NYS RCL 421 1961
Coliseum ,Park Apts. 345 W. 58th St. Title 1 571 1956
Lincoln-Amsterdam 1 102 West End Ave. NYC ML 186 1977
Hudsonview Terrace 747 Tenth Avenue CML 396 1977
Polyclinic Apartments 350 West 51st St. CML 141 1978
Hamilton House 141 W. 73rd St. NYC ML 174 1972
Hargrave House 111 W. 71st St. NYC ML 112 1975
•
Clinton Towers 780 Eleventh Ave. NYC ML 395 1975
464 West 51st St. 464 West 51st St. TIL 8 1983
468 West 51st St. 468 West 51st St. TIL 3 1983
320 W. 53rd St. 320 W. 53rd St. TIL 6 1979
322 West 53rd St. 322 West 53rd St. TIL 4 1988
444 W. 54th St. 444 W. 54th St. TIL 19 1979
453 W. 54th St. 453 W. 54th St. TIL 20 , 1981
450 W. 55th St. 450 W. 55th St. TIL 19 1981
500 West 55th St.** 500 West 55th St. TIL 10 1991
502 West 55th St.** 502 West 55th St. TIL 10 1991
504 West 55th St. ** 504 West 55th St. TIL 8 1991
458 W. 57th St. 458 W. 57th si:. TIL 15 1979
498 West 58th St. ** 498 West 58th St. TIL 8 1991
786 Ninth Avenue 786 Ninth Avenue TIL 13 1979
762 Tenth Avenue 762 Tenth Avenue TIL 8 1980
827 Tenth Avenue** 827 Tenth Avenue TIL 8 1991 '
NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal

Roosevelt Hospital Staff Residence 428 W. 59th St. NYS ML 465 1974
• II.C-48
•
PUBLIC AND PUBLICLY ASSISTED HOUSING
.... (by soveraaent asency

admfnister1na assistance) Address Proaram*
U.S. DeRartment of Housing and Urban Deve10Rment (USIHUD}

Dorchester Towers 155 W. 68th St. 207 682 1967
Lincoln Center Apts. N.A. 207 142 1963
Lincoln Plaza South 30 W. 63rd St. 221d4 609 1979
R.M. Golder House 55 W. 73rd St. 221d4 8 1969
Su1ubar Imperial Gardens 135 W. 77th St. 221d4 7 1968
Beaumont 30 W. 61st St. 221d4 225 1981
XDI Corp. 38 W. 70th St. 221d4 7 1972
328 West 53rd Street 328 West 53rd St. Sec. 8 SR 41 1980
Clinton Manor 520 West 52nd St. Sec. 8 NC 235 1981
Polyclinic Apartments 341 West 50th St. Sec. 8 SR 151 1981
N.Y. Hanover Corp. 442W. 57th St. 207 118 1960
South Park Apts. 435 W. 57th St. 207 275 1962
Westerly 300 W. 55th St. 207 352 1965
Clinton 1 786 Ninth Avenue 221d3MR223 53 1978
•
Tower 54 (Encore) 301 W. 53rd St. 221d4 264 1980
Iote.,
* Fed PH: Federal Public Housing. This is low-income housing subsidized by tax-ex-
empt financing, operating subsidies, and local real estate tax concessions.
It i. operated by local public housing authorities. In conventional public
housing, the kind found in the study area, the local housing authority fi-
nances the project with tax-exempt bonds and acts as developer. The debt
service and operating deficits are covered by the U.S. Department of Hous-
ing and.Urban Development.
NYS PH: New York State Public Housing. This is similar to Federal public housing,
except that deficits for projects in New York City are covered by the city.
Title 1: Federal Full-Taxpaying Title 1 Program. This is a provision of the Na-
tional Housing Act permitting FHA-insured loans for the construction or
rehabilitation of housing. It has been used, as in the study area, to ac-
quire blighted properties through eminent domain and write down the cost of
land to encourage the construction of middle-income housing •
• II.C-49
•
Table II.C-l9 (ContiDued)
PUBLIC ABD PUBLICLY ASSISTED BOUSDlG
NYS RCL: Law.This is a state program that

~~~~~~~~~~~~~a=g~e~t~r~o~u~~e~m~i~nent domain and the provision of
partial real estate tax exemptions to allow the removal of substandard and
unsanitary housing and the construction or rehabilitation of modern dwell-
ings. It has no provision for below-market interest rate financing.
NYS HL: New York State Hitchell-Lama Program. This program encouraged the con-
struction of middle-income housing by facilitating site assemblage through
eminent domain, by issuing bonds to finance mortgages with below market
interest rates, and by providing partial real estate tax exemptions.
NYC HL: New York City Hitchell-Lama Program. This is similar to the state program,
but is run by the city.
TIL: Tenant Interim Lease Program. This is a program in which tenants living in
tax-foreclosed city-owned housing contract with the city to manage the
buildings as an alternative to direct NYC/HPD management. The goal of the
program is to allow tenants to purchase buildings at a nominal price
through non-profit cooperative ownership.
207: Section 207 -_ Hulti-famil Rental Housin Federal Hort a e Insurance Pro'"
grid. is is an FHA mortgage insurance program genera y use inance
mid Ie-income housing, although it has no income limits.
221d4: -- Hulti-famil Rental Housin for Low- and Hoderate-In-
come Fami ies Fe era Hortgage Insurance Program. is program provi es
mortgage insurance to finance low- or moaera~e-income housing •
• 221d3HR223:
Sec 8 SR: Section 8 Substantial Rehabilitation Program. The Section 8 program is a

Federal rent subsidy program in which BUD contracts with a developer to pay
the difference between the market rent of an apartment and 25 to 30 percent
of a tenant's income. Tenant income may not exceed 80 percent of the area
median income as determined by BUD.
** In the process of entering the TIL program.
Saurcea: New York City Department of City Planning, Housing Database, 1983; and New York
City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Division of Alternative
Hanagement Program (DAMP) Building List, 1991 •
• H.C-50
•
the original developers of these projects are no longer eligible for tax abate-
ments and subsidies. As a result, some developers could potentially sell the
buildings to other parties who would not be covered by the obligations imposed
on the original owners. Substantial rent increases could be charged to tenants
as a result. For the past several years, the New York legislature has consid-
ered an extension of the law that would prevent landlords from withdrawing from
the program for anoth~r 15 years; in addition, the legislature has considered
extending the tax abatements and allowing landlords a larger return on their
investment. However, at this time, there is no specific measure before the
legislature to alter the Mitchell-Lama legislation.
Rental rates in 10w- and moderate-income developments rece1v1ng federal

mortgage insurance are controlled by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HOD) guidelines, which require tenants to pay a base rent or 30
percent of their gross income, whichever is more. Rent supplements are avail-
able for tenants who cannot cover the base rents. Under the Section 8 New
Construction or Substantial Rehabilitation Program, HUD contracts with a devel-
oper to pay the difference between the market rent of an apartment and between
25 and 30 percent of a tenant's income. Tenant income may not exceed 80 per-
cent of the area median income as determined by HUD. The contracts typically
extend for a period of between 20 and 30 years. Individuals must be recerti-
fied as eligible for the Section 8 subsidies annually. On expiration of the
contract with the developer, a contract can be renewed with HUD, or the devel-
opment can be withdrawn from the Section 8 program on notification of HUD and
the tenants. Tenants would still be eligible for Section 8 vouchers. The
status of the building is tied to the types of subsidies received and to the
•
state in which it is located. If the project received a Section 8 subsidy
only, with no other public programs involved, there are no restrictions on the
rent increases that may be charged after the expiration date. If the building
is also rent stabilized, then rent upon expiration would equal the base rent
set by the federal government at the inception of the Section 8 subsidy, plus
the rent stabilization increases that occurred in the intervening period. In a
Section 8 building financed by an FHA mortgage, tenants are protected from
eviction after the expiration date. In addition, these tenants may apply for
New York City Housing Authority vouchers, which function like Section 8 subsi-
dies. A building with a Section 8 subsidy alone may be sold by the owner imme-
diately after expiration; governmental control over the sale is greater if
other programs were also involved.
City-Owned Residential Properties. In some neighborhoods, because of tax

foreclosures, the city is a major property holder and therefore directly influ-
ences rent levels and the character of a building's residents. The city's
prime residential holdings in the study area include the public housing proj-
ects (described above) and property in the Clinton Urban Renewal Area (CORA)
stretching from 50th to 56th Streets and from Tenth to Eleventh Avenues. Fif-
teen buildings in this area, containing 159 units, are currently in the pipe-
line to enter or are participating in a program sponsored by HPD, the Tenant
Interim Lease Program (TIL). TIL enables tenants to acquire title to their
apartments after a period of self-management. An additional two buildings,
containing 10 units, have been sold by the city through this program to their
occupants as cooperative units .
• II.C-5l
•
Special Clinton District. As noted in Section lIB, much of the study area
is included within the Special Clinton District. Certain regulations of the
Special Clinton District support efforts to reduce displacement pressures on
existing tenants. Specifically:
o No demolition permits or alteration permits involving a decrease in

the residential floor area in a building of more than 20 percent
within the preservation area of the Special Clinton District may be
issued by the Buildings Department unless the building is an unsafe
building, or a special permit has been issued pursuant to Section 96-
108 of the Zoning Resolution. Such special permit is subject to
ULURP and CEQR/SEQRA.
o No significant alterations within residential buildings would be

allowed without an owner notifying the Department of Housing Preser-
vation and Development (HPD) of his intent to alter, and HPD finding
that legal eviction and relocation procedures have been followed, and
that no harassment of tenants has occurred.
The harassment provision was originally meant to prohibit any alteration

of a building, in perpetuity even if the building was sold to a new owner. To
date, the Speci~l Clinton District zoning has been effective at controlling new
development. The harassment provision, however, while sending a serious mes-
sage to landlords and developers as to the consequences of their, actions, often
resulted in buildings that were left vacant harboring dangerous and/or illegal
activity ..
• In January 1988, the City and the Clinton community agreed to amend the
special District zoning regulations to provide a cure for harassment. An owner
of a building where past harassment has been found may now alter or demolish a
building provided that at least 28 percent of the total residential floor area
of the new or renovated building is provided as low-income housing.
Rent Regulation.
Rent Control and Rent Stabilization: Two of the most important measures
protecting tenants in New York City are rent control and rent stabilization.
Both regulation systems are administered and enforced by the New York State
Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).
Rent control was administratively imposed by the Federal government in

January 1942 during World War II to dampen upward price pressures and specula-
tion on the existing housing stock and to divert investment of capital from
housing into sectors of the economy involved in the war effort. It was admin-
istratively imposed on New York City in November 1943. With the passage of the
Federal Housing and Rent Act of 1947, units built after February 1947 were
exempted from national rent control and eventually the Federal government
passed on the prerogative to continue, eliminate, or modify rent contro~ to the
State and local governments. Rent control was extended in New York by the
passage of the Emergency Housing Act of 1950 by the New York State legislature.
By the end of the 1950's, New York State was the only state still administering
•
a rent contro1program. The enactment of the Emergency Housing Act of 1962
passed administrative responsibility for rent control from the State to New
York City. The program continued to affect pre-1947 buildings only.
II.C-52
•
In 1969, the rent stabilization program began, which imposed controls on
the previously uncontrolled (i.e., post-1947) portion of the market. The con-
trols applied to buildings with six or more units.
Over the past 15 years, various attempts have been made to alter the laws
regulating rental apartments and administrative responsibility for both rent
control and rent stabilization has shifted back to the State. As it exists
today, rent control applies to tenants living in buildings built before Febru-
ary 1, 1947, who moved in before July 1971. When a rent-controlled apartment
located in a building containing six or more units is vacated, the apartment
shifts into rent stabilization. In buildings of less than six units, the
apartment is decontrolled and under no rent regulations, except in cases where
the landlord is receiving J-5l or 42la tax benefits. As noted in the section
on co-operative and condominium conversion, 13 percent of the units in the 139
buildings in the study area that received offering plans between 1980 and
mid-199l were rent controlled, with many buildings containing a substantially
higher percentage of rent controlled units. These data indicate the continued
sizable presence of rent controlled units in the study area.
Rent stabilization, which covers a far greater number of apartments, ap-

plies to all buildings with six or more apartments that were:
o Constructed after February 1, 1947 but before January 1, 1974, or
o Extensively rebuilt after January 1, 1974, with the benefit of J-5l.

All units in any building receiving benefits under the J-51 Program
• are subject to rent stabilization or control, depending on the status

of the building before its rehabilitation under the program. Units
created after January I, 1974 are rent stabilized as long ~s program
benefits are in effect. After the program expires, rents continue to
be either stabilized or controlled until the unit becomes vacant.
For units occupied after July I, 1985, rent regulation terminates

upon expiration of program benefits, provided that each lease and
renewal lease sent to the tenant included a notice of the date of the
unit's deregulation; or
o Any new building given a 42la tax exemption. Section 42l-a of the
New York State Property Tax Law grants partial tax exemption for
newly constructed multiple dwellings. The tax exemptions can expire
in 10, IS, and 25 years, depending on the specific project. After
the expiration date, units completed before July I, 1984, are subject
to rent regulation until they become vacant. Units completed after
this date are also subject to vacancy decontrol, unless each lease
and renewal lease has included a notice of the date of the unit's
decontrol.
It also applies to units in buildings built before February I, 1947, where the
tenant moved in after June 30, 1971. As noted in the section on cooperative
and condominium conversion, more than 80 percent of the units in buildings
receiving offering plans since 1980 were rent stabilized. Both public housing
•
and Mitchell-Lama projects are exempt from rent stabilization .
II.C-53
•
The greatest protection. afforded to rent controlled and rent stabilized
tenants is the limitation of rent increases landlords can charge when leases
are renewed. Leases for both rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments
must be renewed on the same terms and conditions as the expired lease except to
the amount of rent and the length of the lease. However, rent controlled ten-
ants usually do not have current written leases, but are entitled to remain in
their apartment as "statutory tenants." Rent stabilized tenants may choose
between either a one- or two-year lease.
The amount of rent increases for both rent controlled and rent stabilized
tenants is determined by the Rent Guidelines Board. Under rent control, rent
adjustments may be made only if the building contains no rent impairing viola-
tions and if the rent does not exceed the maximum base rent (that rent that
would be required to operate the unit under prevailing cost conditions and to
provide the owner an 8.5 percent return on the equalized assessed value of the
building). In addition, rent adjustments may be made in the form of fuel
pass-alongs, which are extra charges granted to cover the increases in heating
fuels.
The amount of the increases for rent stabilized apartments varies year to
year according to what is deemed a fair reflection of the year's inflation and
increase .in maintenance costs (particularly heating fuel prices). Currently,
the allowable increases are 4 percent for one-year leases and 6 1h percent for
two-year leases.
In addition to guideline increases, a landlord may apply to DHCR for hard-
• ship rent increases, increases for major capital improvements (MCls), or in-
creases as a result of apartment improvements. Hardship rent adjustments can
be based on a "comparative hardship" formula, where the owner must show an
inability to maintain average net income in the current period compared to a
base period, or on an "alternative hardship" formula, where the owner must show
that annual eligible operating expenses are 95 percent or more of annual gross
rental income. Regardless of the formula used, the maximum hardship rent ad-
justment charged to an individual tenant is 6 percent each year; the maximum
frequency of application is once every three years. In practice, hardship rent
adjustments are difficult to obtain, particularly those based on the "compara-
tive" formula.
An owner may also apply for permanent rent increases based on the actual
cost of MCls completed within the previous two years. The maximum rent in-
crease assigned to an individual tenant as a result of MCI work is 6 percent
per year. All MCls completed in a single year are considered in one applica-
tion, and the combined rent adjustment for work done in a single year cannot
exceed 6 percent. A tenant could experience an MC! rent adjustment of more
than 6 percent in one year, however, if the owner is also granted a retroactive
MCI increase (6 percent maximum) for an application which was made in a previ-
ous year but received approval in the current year. Recent legislation passed
by the New York City Council limits MC! rent increases if the owner receives
benefits under Section J-Sl (now 11-243) of the New York City Administrative
Code. Within the study area, 397 buildings, containing more than 11,000 units
are receiving J-Sl benefits .
• !I.C-S4
•
For apartment-specific improvements, rent maybe increased by 1/40th of
the cost of the new services and equipment provided to that particular unit.
If the apartment improvement is made to an occupied unit, prior written consent
by the tenant to the rent increase is required. No tenant consent is required
in the case of a vacant apartment.
Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption (SCRlE): This program, adminis-

tered by HPD, provides added rent regulation for senior citizens. SCRIE ap-
plies to tenants who are 62 years old and over and whose household income is
$15,000 or less. Annual rent payments cannot exceed 30 percent of a SCRIE
tenant's annual income. Thus, guideline rent increases or any other rent ad-
justments (including MCI adjustments) that would raise a SCRIE tenant's rent
above this ceiling would not apply. If the total amount of legally allowable
rent exempted as a result of the SCRIE program exceeds an owner's real property
tax liability, the owner is entitled to a cash refund of the balance.
SRO Units: Permanent tenants of regulated SRO dwellings are afforded

protections under the Rent Stabilization Law, as implemented by the New York
City Rent Stabilization Code. The Code regulates rents, the provision of ser-
vices and eviction procedures. The Code covers units in hotels which contain
six or more unit~, were constructed on or before July 1, 1969, and where rooms
were renting for less than $350.00 per month or $88.00 per week on May 31,
1968. It also includes SRO dwellings in rent regulated apartment buildings and
units in rooming houses which do not provide hotel services.
A permanent tenant is an individual who (a) requests a lease for at least
• six months, or (b) continuously resides in the same building for at least six
months, or (c) is in occupancy pursuant to a lease of at least six months, even
if the actual occupancy is less than six months, and (d) a family member resid-
ing with the individual. A tenant has the right to request a six month lease
at any time after registering in the hotel; any request to become a permanent
tenant automatically gives the tenant the right to remain in occupancy as a
permanent tenant with all the protections under rent stabilization; the land-
lord must provide a lease within 15 days of the request. Unlike owners of rent
stabilized apartment buildings where stabilized tenants are offered renewal
leases for one or two years at the tenant's option, hotel owners are not re-
quired to provide renewal leases to permanent tenants. However, a permanent
tenant has the right to remain in occupancy whether or not the lease is renewed
by an owner. Permanent tenants are subject to annual increases set by the New
York City Rent Guidelines Board, whether or not they have leases. Currently,
the RGB has authorized a rent increase of 3.5 pe-rcent for SRO hotel and rooming
house tenants. However, the RGB has authorized only a 2 percent rent increase
for certain types of SRO buildings technically known as "converted tenements."
These rent increase rules are in effect from October. 1, 1991 until September
30, 1992.
For permanent tenants who commenced occupancy after August 15, 1983, the
owner may not charge more than the most recent lawful rent paid by the most
recent prior permanent tenant, plus any lawful increase and/or vacancy allow-
ance permitted by the New York City Rent Guidelines Board. The rent is re-
quired to be registered with DHCR. The owner may apply for other increases
•
based on the verified cost of new services, equipment or improvements, furni-
ture or furnishings provided to the unit, or the cost of completed capital
improvements, or for a hardship where the rent is not sufficient to enable the
owner to obtain a fair return on investment after expenses.
H.C-55
•
As for services, owners must provide building-wide services such as heat,
hot water, janitorial services, maintenance of locks and security devices,
repairs and maintenance, and painting every three years. Ancillary services
provided by the owner, such as laundry room facilities and telephone switch-
board, may be charged separate and apart from the rent.
With regard to evictions, a hotel occupant who has lived in a room for 30
days or longer, even though he has not requested a lease and is not a permanent
tenant, may only be evicted pursuant to an action or proceeding instituted in
Civil Court. Tenants who have lived in their units for less than 30 days and
who have not requested a lease can be evicted without court process. Certain
eviction proceedings require the approval of DHCR and others do not. Tenants
may be evicted by Court Order without approval by DHCR for certain wrongful
acts, such as non-payment of rents or other charges, illegally using or occupy-
ing the housing accommodation, unlawfully refusing the owner access, etc. No
approval for DHCR is required in circumstances where the owner wants to use the
housing unit for personal use or for the personal use of his/her immediate
family or in those instances where the unit is owned by an institution such as
a hospital, college, or not-for-profit charitable organization and that insti-
tution requires the unit.for its charitable or educational purpose.
DHCR approval of an eviction is required where the landlord seeks to with-

draw a unit from the rental market, to demolish the housing accommodations for
the purpose of constructing a new building or to eliminate inadequate, unsafe
or unsanitary conditions. In order to withdraw a unit from the rental market,
the owner must demonstrate that he/she does not intend to sell all or any part
• of the land or structure and that the unit is required for his/her own use in
connection with a business which he/she owns and operates or there are viola-
tions which cannot be economically removed. In order to demolish a unit an
owner must demonstrate that he/she has either filed or'has approved plans for a
new building and has the financial ability to construct'the new building. In
the case of demolition, the owner is responsible relocate the tenant to suit-
able housing at the same or lower regulated rent in a closely proximate area
and pay moving expenses. An additional stipend required to be paid to the
tenant where the relocation housing is at a rent in excess of the subject
apartment. Where a tenant is moved because of inadequate, unsafe or unsanitary
conditions, the owner must agree to offer tenants the right of first occupancy
following any rehab at a rent as determined by applicable laws. In practice,
according to a representative of the DHCR, it is not easy for an owner to re-
ceive approval for evicting SRO tenants.
Tenant Protection During Cooperative and Condominium Conversions. For all

practical purposes, when a landlord decides to convert a rental apartment
building to either cooperatives or condominiums, the tenants are protected from
eviction, regardless of their decision to buy their apartment or not. This
both reflects actual protection built into the legislation guiding conversion
and market factors that have shaped conversion plans in recent years.
When an owner decides to convert a rental building, there are two kinds of
plans that can be followed -- eviction or non-eviction. In an eviction plan,
51 percent of the tenants must agree to buy their apartments within 15 months
•
from the date the plan is accepted and approved by the New York State Attorney
General's office. Rent stabilized tenants who decide not to purchase their
II.C-56
•
apartment cannot be evicted for three years from the date the plan is declared
effective. If the apartment is occupied by a rent controlled tenant, the ten-
ant may be evicted after the three-year period expires only if the purchaser of
the apartment is seeking it for his/her own family use. Non-eviction plans
require that only 15 percent of all units be sold (either to tenants or out-
siders) before a plan is declared effective. Non-purchasing tenants may remain
as rental tenants, paying rent to the purchaser or sponsors, who must provide
the tenant with all of the services required under the applicable laws. Dis-
abled and senior citizens (62 years or older) are protected from eviction re-
gardless of the kind of plan offered, their income level, or the length of
residency in the building. Both disabled and senior citizen tenants must com-
plete a special exemption form and, in the case of disabled persons, the spon-
sor may dispute the claim.
As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of cooperatives and condominium

conversions taking place in the city and in the study area are now non-eviction
plans. Thus, the potential for displacement of tenants because of cooperative
or condominium conversion is limited.
Anti-Harassment Provisions
-
Despite the protections afforded tenants under rent control and rent sta-
bilization, tenants can be forced out of their apartments through illegal ac-
tivities, such as harassment by landlords. This may take the form of physical
threats; the removal of essential building services such as heat and hot water;
failure to make necessary repairs; illegal eviction of tenants; and the removal
• of doors, locks, or tenant possessions. Citywide and neighborhood anti-harass-

ment provisions and remedies are available to study area tenants who experience
illegal harassment from landlords. These measures are administered by DHCR and
the New York City Department of HPD.
The Housing Litigation Bureau of HPD provides support to tenants who make
claims of harassment by landlords. The Housing Litigation Bureau works with
tenants in cases in which the landlord is withholding building services or has
failed to remove housing violations. If a voluntary agreement cannot be
reached, the Housing Litigation Bureau can be a named respondent in cases of
alleged harassment. Tenants may initiate action on an individual basis or in
groups (when an entire building is involved). HPD can make a determination of
harassment after an administrative hearing is held. A court-approved adminis-
trator may be assigned to make necessary repairs.
The New York State Rent Law and Regulations also include anti-harassment
provisions. The Enforcement Bureau of the State's Office of Rent Administra-
tion, a component of DHCR, is responsible for enforcing the anti-harassment
regulations. Tenants must file a formal harassment complaint with DHCR, which
first attempts to attain a voluntary agreement between tenant and landlord.
If this fails, DHCR can take legal action in housing court on behalf of
the tenant to compel services and repairs. In more severe cases, an adminis-
trator may be appointed for the building or criminal proceedings may be under-
taken. Persons found guilty of harassment and illegal eviction may receive a
• II .C-57
•
prison sentence of up to one year or a fine of up to $5,000, or both. Inaddi-
tion, a permanent injunction against violations of the Rent Law may be ob-
tained, and civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation against a rent-
controlled tenant and $2,500 for each violation against a rent-stabilized ten-
ant may be imposed (each day such a violation occurs may be considered a sepa-
rate violation).
With regard to SRO dwellings, no plans for demolition or alteration can be

approved by the Commissioner of Buildings unless the Commissioner of HPD has
certified that there has been no harassment of lawful occupants within the 36
month period prior to the date of submission of an application for certifica-
tion of no harassment, or has issued a waiver of such certification. In addi-
tion, the owner must submit a sworn statement that there will be no harassment
of lawful occupants during the construction period, and must submit a plap for
safety and health of the occupants during the construction period.
Conclusions
Displacement has been evident in the study area throughout the post-war
years. Much of the displacement pressures and activities prior to 1970 were
publicly supported as large urban renewal projects cleared thousands of units
of low- and moderate-income housing and: thousands of low- and moderate-income
residents to make way for such developments as Lincoln Center, the New York
Coliseum, and Lincoln Towers. Somewhat less dramatically, renovation activity,
particularly of the area's large stock of row houses and brownstones, boarding
houses, hotels, and other SRO buildings, has also contributed to the displace-
• ment of low- and moderate-income residents. Although that process continues

today, the discussion and data presented above provide evidence to indicate
that the population in the study area potentially vulnerable to displacement is
limited. Among the factors contributing to that conclusion are:
o An increasing proportion of the area's population lives in the over

10,000 units of housing constructed over the past. 20 years. For the
most part, that housing has consisted of market-rate condominiums.
Residents of this housing are not likely to be susceptible to devel-
opment-related displacement pressures.
o The data from the 1990 census indicate that the construction of new
condominiums and the extensive co-op and condominium conversion ac-
tivity of the last decade has resulted in a large and growing propor-
tion of study area households who own their own home. Homeowners are
not likely to be susceptible to deve10pment- related displacement
pressures.
o Although co-op/condominium conversion activity has been widespread

throughout the study area over the past decade, virtually all offer-
ing plans since 1984 were via the non-eviction procedures established
by the State. This virtually ensures that all non-buyers are pro-
tected from displacement by this conversion activity.
o The study area does not contain an unusually large proportion of
•
residents who fit the profile of residents most subject to displace-
ment pressures -- i.e., low income, minority, and/or elderly. To the
II.C-58
•
contrary, census and other data indicate that the study area popula-
tion is predominantly white, affluent, well-educated, and profession-
ally employed. Trend data, particularly with respect to income,
indicate that these characteristics have strengthened in recent
,
years. This group is less likely to be susceptible to market-driven
displacement pressures.
o The low-income minority population in the study area generally re-

sides in public and other subsidized housing and is therefore af-
forded a high degree of protection against market-driven displacement
pressures.
I
o The elderly population, which declined at a rapid pace during the
1980's, is heavily concentrated in Lincoln Towers and the Coliseum
Park apartments. Elderly tenants in these developments, which were
originally built as rental housing pursuant to Title I of the Nation-
al Housing Act and are now operated as either a condominium or co-op,
are not subject to displacement pressures.
o Virtually all the study area's rental housing stock is covered by

rent control or rent stabilization, which affords a degree of pro-
tection against market-driven displacement by limiting rent increases
that can be charged to tenants, or is subsidized, where tenant selec-
tion and rentals are set by government agencies.
o The stock of SRO units, traditionally and still a major source of
• housing for low- and moderate-income tenants, has fallen considerably

over time. Those that remain are subject to legal and community
support structures that require heavy penalties for illegal
evictions.
With these factors in mind, the universe of residents most susceptible to

displacement pressures consists of residents in units not regulated by rent
control, rent stabilization, or the special regulations pertaining to subsi-
dized housing developments, and the remaining low- and moderate-income resi-
dents of existing SRO units.
With regard to SRO tenants, this vulnerability does not result from a lack
of protection provided under rent regulation. Practically all tenants of SRO
dwellings in the study area are covered by the range of protections described
earlier in this chapter. However, a variety of factors, including, in some
instances, illegal activities by landlords, tenants who are uninformed about
their rights, and lack of adequate enforcement, have contributed towards the
displacement of low and moderate income residents of SRO dwellings despite the
protections afforded under the law.
The exact universe of those two population segments is hard to quantify

for a variety of reasons. First, although the Census and MISLAND data show
there are 2,400 residents living in rental buildings with fewer than six units,
the do not indicate which of these units are covered by rent control (which can
apply to buildings built before 1947 with fewer than six units), owner occupied
•
(the co-op/condo data contained in Table II.C-17 indicate at least 17 buildings
II.C-59
•
with fewer than six units are now operating as co-ops or condominiums), Qr al-
ready occupied by market-rate tenants. If we conservatively assume that these
factors have reduced the potentially vulnerable units by at least one quarter,
that would leave a total of about 1,800 residents in rental buildings most
vulnerable to displacement.
1
Second, surveys conducted for this EIS have indicated that there may be as
many as 4,589 SRO units in the study area. This was derived from a field check
of all SRO buildings and units on lists provided by the city's MISLAND files
and from HPD. This field survey eliminated units that, though possibly still
classified as SRO dwellings, are not currently housing low- and moderate-income
residents vulnerable to displacement. This number is likely to overstate the
number of residents truly susceptible to market-generated displacement pres-
sures. Like the units not covered by rent stabilization, this inventory of SRO
units is likely to contain units that are vacant, units that have already been
upgraded and occupied by higher-income tenants, or transient hotel rooms that
are no longer rented to SRO tenants. However, conservatively assuming that all
these units are occupied by low- or moderate-income SRO tenants, this would
result in about 4,500 residents of SRO units that are potentially vulnerable to
displacement. Because virtually all SRO units in the study area are located in
buildings covered under Rent Stabilization, most of these tenants are afforded
certain protection against displacement as a result of either unregulated rent·
increases or harassment. Although these protections do not appear to be abso-
lute barriers against displacement when landlords do not adhere to the law,
they do provide protection against displacement for well-informed tenants and
for tenants in buildings where landlords do adhere to the requirements of the
• law. Thus, the actual number of residents who are actually vulnerable to dis-
placement pressures is likely to be substantially below the figure cited above.
This section examines shifts that can reasonably be expected in the socio-
economic composition of the study area and the status of those residents iden-
tified above as potentially most vulnerable to displacement pressures. The
analysis focuses on two years -- 1997 and 2002, the years the two phases of the
proposed project are expected to be completed .-- under the assumption that the
proposed project is not built. Key factors that will contribute to both an as-
sessment of future socioeconomic composition and displacement are the nature of
planned development activity and other signs of residential market change,
including condominium and cooperative conversion, changes in the stock of SRO
units, and changes in the various programs that afford residents protection
from displacement.
Residential Market Conditions
New Development Activity
1997. By 1997, 14 new residential, dormitory, or mixed-use buildings,

containing 5,831 residential units, are scheduled to be completed in the study
•
area (see Tables II.B-l and II.B-3). (This includes five buildings, containing
1,327 residential units, completed prior to 1991 but not fully occupied that
II.C-60
•
were not included under existing conditions.) These include such large proj-
ects as the l,OOO-unit Manhattan West and the 937-unit Capital Cities/ABC proj-
ects, both immediately adjacent to the project site, the 700-unit residential
component of Columbus Center proposed on the site of the New York Coliseum, and
a 644-unit residential project (Brodsky East) developed in conjunction with the
expansion and modernization of Roosevelt Hospital. Another project close to
the project site is the 335-unit Macklowe West 60th Street project, covering
the eastern blockfront of West End Avenue between 60th and 6lst Street. (The
Capital Cities/ABC and Macklowe projects are dependent on rezoning actions that
have not yet been approved. The other projects have already been approved.)
In addition to these typical residential projects, two of the new projects will
include a total of 1,325 dormitory units for Fordham University and Juilliard
School of Music.
Consistent with the predominant type of development occurring in the study

area over the past two decades, the new residential development in the study
area would primarily consist of market-rate condominiums. The YMCA project
would include below-market-rate units. Sixty-five of the YMCA's 185 to 215
units would be developed under the city's Inclusionary Housing program for
lower-income residents.
2002. Potential development by 2002 consists primarily of potential proj-

ects on soft sites in the area that are currently vacant or underdeveloped,
rather than defined development projects. Thirteen potential projects contain-
ing 2,716 residential units have been identified in the study area. As dis-
cussed above for 1997, new development would consist predominantly of market-
• rate units. However, one project, a 300-unit residential building at Tenth

Avenue and 54th Street, has been proposed for low- ,and moderate-income housing
under a cross subsidy program with a proposed development located farther south
in Clinton. Neither project has been approved or has advanced beyond the con-
ceptual stage.
Condominium and Cooperative Conversion
Condominium and cooperative conversion activity was a major factor in the

study area's residential market during the 1980's, though that activity has
markedly slowed since 1986. The slowdown in condominium and cooperative offer-
ing plans is the result of two major factors: the downturn of the city and
national economies and, given the extensive previous conversion activity, a
reduction in the supply of buildings available or suitable for conversion.
While the number of offering plans have slowed down, actual conversion activity
may remain strong as many of the plans previously offered are accepted over the
next decade. This would not be expected to directly increase displacement ac-
tivity in the area given the fact that since 1986 all. conversion plans have
been offered on a non-eviction basis and any new plans would likely be of this
type.
Single-Room-Occupancy Units
As discussed previously in "Existing Conditions," MISLAND and HPD data

identify an inventory of SRO units in the study area that is far larger than
•
the number of units in actual SRO use. Several factors, including upgrading of
SRO hotels to tourist-class hotels, conversion of SRO units to market-rate
II.C-6l
•
residential use, and warehousing of SRO buildings in expectation of future
renovations have contributed to the decline in the number of units available
for SRO occupancy in the study area. This established trend is likely to con-
tinue in the future without the project. In fact, several of the hotels --
including the Broadway American, the Milburn, and the Park Lincoln -- in the
study area where all units were classified as SRO units under existing condi-
tions (see Table II.C-17) are already in the midst of transformation to hotel
use and it is likely that by 1997 or 2002 that transformation would be com-
pleted. The character and scale of proposed development in the study area will
further encourage the transformation of the area's remaining SRO inventory and,
consequently, the supply of available SRO units is likely to continue to de-
crease in 1997 and 2002. The net result will be a marked reduction in the low-
and moderate-income housing stock in the study area in the future without the
project.
Protection of Residents
As noted in "Existing Conditions," strong protection is offered against

involuntary displacement of existing residents. This includes various rent
regulations, which cover most of the area's stock of rental housing, and addi-
tional regulations controlling the conversion of rental buildings to coopera-
tives or-condominiums. The study area also has a sizable stock of subsidized
housing. No substantial changes in these programs are expected in the future
without the project that would change the prospects for the displacement of
tenants.
• Because Section 8 subsidies can expire, it is possible that subsidies for

the three Section 8 buildings in the study area -- 328 West 53rd Street, com-
pleted in 1980, and Polyclinic Apartments (341 West 50th Street) and Clinton
Manor (520 West 52nd Street), completed in 1981 -- could expire before 1997.
Eligible tenants would still be covered by Section 8 vouchers.
Under current provisions of the Mitchell-Lama program, Hamilton House and

the Roosevelt Staff Residence, completed in 1972 and 1974, can leave the
Mitchell-Lama program as of 1992 and 1994. Several other buildings, including
Hudsonview Terrace (1977), Hargrave House (1975), and Clinton Towers (1975),
can leave the Mitchell-Lama program after 1994, before 2002. However, current-
ly, according to DHCR and HPD, the state and city agencies overseeing the
Mitchell-Lama programs, none of these buildings have filed with the respective
agencies to opt out of the program. Even if these buildings leave the
Mitchell-Lama program, the existing tenants do not become appreciably more
vulnerable to displacement. If the building contains rental units under the
Mitchell-Lama program, following the opt-out, base rent would be the last rent
under the program and subsequent rent increases would be subject to rent sta-
bilization. If upon opting out of the Mitchell-Lama program the owner wishes
to convert the building from rental to coop or condo, that conversion would be
subject to cooperative and condominium conversion regulations. As virtually
all conversions are non-eviction plans, existing residents would not be partic-
ularly vulnerable to displacement. However, although opting out of the
Mitchell-Lama program does not appreciably affect the vulnerability of existing
residents to displacement, it would ultimately diminish the supply of middle-
•
income housing in the area, thus limiting the ability of middle-income tenants
to move to the area.
II.C-62
•
Demographic Characteristics of the Study Area
Projecting future population in the study area is primarily a consequence

of two factors -- population directly added by new development and changes in
household size. Assuming no change in average household size from the 1.60
figure derived from the 1990 Census (see Table II.C-3) and full occupancy, the
new residential developments projected for 1997 will add approximately 9,270
new residents to the area. The two dormitory projects will add an additional
1,325 residents, bringing the study area's total population to approximately
93,926 residents in 1997. This represents an approximately 13 percent increase
over 1990 conditions.
Given the type of development expected in the study area, primarily mar-
ket-rate rental and condominium units, and assuming an eventual continuation of
the cooperative and condominium conversion activity that was evident in the
mid-1980's, the population trends exhibited during the 1970's and 1980's are
likely to continue through 1997. Specifically, the new developments would
increase the number and proportion of affluent, professionally employed resi-
dents, mostly in the 25-to-64-year age categories. Furthermore, development of
condominium units and continued conversion activity would reinforce the trend
toward increasing owner-occupancy in the study area.
The continued presence of public housing and other subsidized developments

and the continued but declining presence of SRO dwellings will help to maintain
• a mix of population in the area .
Based on an average household size of 1.60, the new residential develop-I

ment projected for 2002 will add 4,318 new residents to the area, bringing the
study area's total population to approximately 98,245 residents in 2002. This
represents an approximately 18 percent increase over 1990 conditions. Because /
much of the projected post-1997 growth is attributed to the development of soft
sites on which no specific project is actually planned and because, given cur-
rent market conditions in Manhattan, that level of development is not likely to
be attained by 2002, this represents a conservatively high estimate. Given the
nature of the proposed projects -- only one of these projects would contain a
substantial below-market-rate component -- the strong existing trend toward a
wealthier, professional and managerial population in the 25-to-64-year age
categories would be further reinforced. Furthermore, the trend toward increas-
ing home ownership would similarly be reinforced.
The number of low- to moderate-income residents can be expected to de-

cline, primarily as a result of a continued decline in the inventory of SRO
units. Public and other forms of subsidized housing will continue to maintain
a mix of income and racial groups in the study area.
Potentially Vulnerable Population
•
As noted under "Existing Conditions," the population in the study area
potentially most vulnerable to displacement consists of residents of non-
regulated rental apartments and, despite protections afforded under rent
II .C-63
•
stabilization, tenants of the remaining SRO dwelling units in the study area .
Several factors would affect the population potentially vulnerable to displace-
ment:
o The established market activities that have fostered displacement

pressures in the study area, including new market-rate residential
development, cooperative and condominium conversion, and hotel con-
version are expected to continue in the future without the project.
o As a result of this continued market activity, the supply of avail~

able SRO units in the area is expected to continue to decrease, re-
sulting in both the displacement of existing low- and moderate-income
tenants and the loss of housing opportunities for a low- and moder-
ate-income population. As a result, the area would contain a smaller
population of vulnerable residents in the future. By current conser-
vative estimates, the area contains approximately 4,500 SRO residents
vulnerable to displacement. As some of these residents are displaced
in the future, this number will decrease by 1997, and decrease fur-
ther by 2002.
o The trend toward increasing owner-occupancy will continue, which

would further limit the vulnerability of area residents to
displacement.
o Although several Mitchell-Lama buildings in the study area will be

eligible to opt out of the program by 1997, and all by 2002, none of
• o
the buildings in the area have taken steps to do so. Even if these
buildings do opt out, tenants would still be afforded protection,
either through rent stabilization, coop and condo conversion regula-
tions, or continued ownership.
Tenants in public housing or private rent controlled or rent stabi-

lized units would continue to be afforded protection from
displacement.
Again, the population potentially vulnerable to displacement is difficult

to quantify. Relative to existing conditions though, the population is likely
to decrease in size for two reasons. First, the total number of units in
buildings with between three and five units is not likely to change. However,
assuming a revived cooperative and condominium conversion market, more of these
units may become owner or occupied by market-rate tenants. Second, the loss of
SRO units is likely to continue in the area as it has over at least the past
several decades. As the supply of available SRO units decreases, vulnerable
tenants will be displaced from the area. As a result of these two pre-existing
factors, there would be fewer vulnerable residents in the study area in 1997
than under existing conditions, and fewer still in 2002.
•
Introduction
Attributing a displacement impact to a project depends on several factors:
II. C-64
•
o First, there must be a population that is particularly vulnerable to
displacement.
o Second, the potential impact of a project must be measured in the

context of existing residential market and population conditions and
projected conditions that would occur in the future without the proj-
ect. This is necessary for determining whether a project would cre-
ate new displacement pressures in a neighborhood, whether it would
accelerate existing displacement pressures, or whether it would have
no appreciable effect on activities which promote displacement. To
make this type of judgment, it is necessary to answer some of the
questions posed in the introduction to this chapter. How does the
projected population relate to the area's existing population? What
is the relative size of the project reflected in the number of units
and residents added to the study area? To what extent would the
project introduce a substantial new residential population with dif-
ferent characteristics from the existing population? Would the proj-
ect set a new trend in development, i.e., price and type of housing?
o Third is the issue of proximity. Although the study area examined

for potential displacement extends about a ha,lf mile from the project
site, the, extent of a project's impacts tends to lessen with distance
as the more immediate" effects of other new proj ects, pre-existing
land use trends, or other factors gain predominance over the effects
of an increasingly distant project. Each project has its own sphere
of influence, defined in part by the nature of surrounding uses, the
• number of other planned projects in the area, and pre-existing demo-

graphic trends that are shaping the area independently of the pro-
posed project.
The Proposed Project
As described in Chapter I, "Project Description," the proposed project

would include 5,700 residential units, as well as retail, office, television ~
studio, and other space. The proposed project would be constructed in two
phases. The first, including all blocks north of 64th Street, is scheduled for
completion by 1997 and would include approximately 3,129 units. The second
phase, including all remaining blocks south of 64th Street, is scheduled for
completion by 2002 and would include the remaining units. As currently contem-
plated, the projected unit breakdown includes: 4.4 percent studio apartments
(250 units), 45.6 percent one-bedroom units (2,600 units), 44.4 percent two-
bedroom units (2,530 units), and 5.6 percent three-bedroom units (320 units).
The project would contain a mix of market-rate and low-, moderate- and
middle-income affordable units. At a minimum, if no government subsidy pro-
grams are available, 10 percent of the total number of units (570 units) would
be subsidized internally as affordable housing. Through the use of a broad
range of city, state, and federal programs, if available, a total of at least
20 percent of the housing units (1,140 total) would be developed as affordable
housing. Under either scenario, this would represent one of the largest incre-
ments of affordable housing in the study area in several decades. For EIS
•
analysis purposes, it is assumed that the affordable units would be constructed
in approximately the same proportion as the market-rate units and that the unit
breakdown would be similar to the overall unit breakdown of the project.
II.C-65
•
While the precise breakdown between low-, moderate- and middle-income
units has not yet been established, for purposes of estimating total population
and the impacts on community facilities and infrastructure, it will be assumed
that a full 20 percent of the project's units would be subsidized for low in-
come households. This would maximize the number of residents and therefore
potential impacts. (The school analysis assumes a more realistic mix of low,
moderate, and middle income units -- see page II.D-20.) For analysis of poten-
tial displacement impacts, the lower proportion of affordable units would
represent worst case conditions.
For purposes of estimating population, the average household size for the
proposed project's market-rate units is projected at 1.85 persons per house-
hold. This figure was derived from a survey of households in Battery Park City
that found the following breakdown: 1.27 persons per studio, 1.60 persons per
one-bedroom, 2.1 persons per two-bedroom, and 2.29 persons per three-bedroom.
The Battery Park City data were used because they reflected actual surveyed
information and were assumed to represent a similar large-scale, primarily
market-rate Manhattan development. This household size is 15.6 percent higher
than the comparable figure for the study area, 1.60 persons per household in
1990. It is even higher than many of the census tracts in the study area that
currently contain similar development (which exhibit household sizes between '
1.39 an4- 1~54 persons per-household). For the low-income units, an average
household size of 2.56 is assumed. This is based on the average 1990 household
size for Census Tract 151, which contains the Amsterdam Houses, a population
likely to be fairly consistent in income mix to the residents of the on-site
affordable housing. This would result in a project population of approximately
•
11,350 -- 6,200 as a result of the Phase I development and 5,150 additional
resident as a result of the Phase II development.
NeiBhborhood Context
Vulnerable Population
As described in detail in the previous two sections of this chapter, the

study area contains a limited population that is vulnerable to displacement.
This population consists primarily of residents of non-rent-regulated apart-
ments and residents of SRO dwellings. Both non-regulated apartments and SRO
dwellings are concentrated in the Clinton census tracts and in the tracts to
the north and east of the project site. Based on-historical and established
neighborhood trends, it is likely that the population most vulnerable to dis-
placement will decline in the future without the project, a result of ongoing
market activities which encourage displacement.
Residential and Population Conditions
The study area around the project site has been the location of a large
number of new developments during the past two decades. Thousands of primarily
market-rate units have been constructed, buildings have been renovated, co-op
and condominium conversion activity has been widespread, and the number of SRO
dwellings has fallen. Although the overall population has increased modestly,
the area's population has grown more affluent and less susceptible to displace-
•
ment pressures. The typical household in the study area today is likely to
consist of either one or two persons who are professionally employed, have
relatively high incomes, and are increasingly likely to own their own
apartment.
II.C-66
•
Analysis of future conditions without the project indicate a continuation
of the underlying trends of the past two decades. The number of dwelling units
is expected to continue to increase substantially both by 1997 and 2002. Prac-
tically all the dwelling units expected to be added are likely to be market-
rate, with most being condominiums. Co-op and condominium conversion activity,
which has recently slowed to a virtual halt, is expected to revive as the
city's economy improves and as a result the proportion of the area's housing
stock expected to be owner-occupied will continue to increase. The number of
dwelling units available to SRO tenants will similarly follow the pattern of
the past two decades and will continue to decline. The population in the study
area will continue to increase and, also following the trends during the past
two decades, the proportion of residents who are not particularly susceptible
to displacement pressures will increase, and the population most vulnerable to
displacement will continue to decline.
Project Impacts
Housing Units. The proposed project is projected to add 3,129 new dwell-
ing units to the study area, an increase of approximately 5.0 percent over the
total number of units projected in the future without the project. Between 10
and 20 percent of the units would be affordable housing. The market rate units
would be consistent with those constructed in the study area over the past two
decades and with the units that are planned in the future without the project.
I
The affordable units would, whatever their final composition, also be consis-
•
tent with the types of affordable housing in the area. Thus the project would
not introduce a new type of development into the study area.
Population. Under the assumptions of 80 percent market rate units and 20

percent low income units, the proposed project is projected to add approximate-
ly 6,200 new residents to the study area by 1997 -- approximately 4,600 new
residents of the market rate units and 1,600 residents of the affordable units.
Conservatively assuming that all of these would represent actual new residents
for the study area, they would bring the study area's population to approxi-
mately 99,500, an increase of 6.6 percent relative to conditions in 1997 with-
out the proposed project.
Residents of the market-rate units would be expected to be relatively
I
affluent, predominantly in the 24-to-64-year-old categories, and employed in
managerial and professional positions. As such, the project would be consis-
tent with the area's eXisting character and the pre-existing demographic trends
shaping the area. Residents of the affordable units would be of a lower income
and would contain a higher proportion of children than the market rate units.
The inclusion of affordable units would broaden the tenant base and would make
the project somewhat more reflective of the overall tenant mix on the West
Side.
The Effects on the Population Vulnerable to Displacement. Displacement

has been a phenomenon in the study area for the entire post-war period. Ini-
tially, this occurred when older low-income buildings were replaced through
•
government-sponsored large-scale urban renewal programs. In more recent times,
displacement has primarily involved changes within existing buildings -- e.g.,
the conversion of SRO hotel rooms to transient use -- rather than the demoli-
tion of low-income housing that occurred in connection with urban renewal ac-
II. C-67
•
tivities prior to 1970. Displacement pressures have existed because of the
overall state of the market brought about by several decades of market-rate
construction, which has changed the character of the area's housing stock and
population.
Because of this clear pre-existing trend, it can be concluded that the

project would not be the catalyst triggering displacement pressures. Because
the proposed project would not be creating a new development trend in the study
area or adding a population group that did not already exist in the study area,
it would also be reasonable to conclude that its influence on ongoing displace-
ment activities within the overall study area would not be significant. These
displacement activities will continue essentially unaffected with and without
the proposed project. However, notwithstanding the major development projects
proposed in the future without the project, such as Manhattan West, Capital
Cities/ABC, and Macklowe West 60th Street, the development of Phase I of the
proposed project would be expected to contribute to and probably increase dis-
placement pressures near the project site.
The area deemed to be most vulnera~le to the potential effects of the

project is defined as that area near the project site, specifically the blocks
west of Amsterdam Avenue to the south of West 72nd Street and to the north of
West 5"7th street .. The residential context of these blocks would be changed by
the project: this area, which now appears to be a mixed commercial/industrial/
residential neighborhood at Manhattan's periphery, would be in the middle of an
active residential neighborhood, characterized by new market-rate buildings,
more pedestrian and vehicular traffic, revitalized and new retail uses, and new
• public amenities .
Most of the residents of this area are not especially. vulnerable to dis-
placement. Most of the residents here live in public housing, publicly as-
sisted housing, owner-occupied housing, or housing covered under state rent
regulation. Within this area, there are a total of 325 residents living in
units not likely to be covered by rent regulation.* Most of these residents
were living in Tracts 151 and 159. A total of 653 SRO units are located on the
blocks between 70th and 72nd Streets, west of Amsterdam Avenue. Assuming that
all the SRO units are or will be occupied and an average household size of 1.0
persons per SRO unit, these units could house a total of approximately 635
residents potentially vulnerable to displacement, bringing the total number of
residents who would be more vulnerable to displacement as a result of the proj-
ect to 960. In actuality, this is a conservatively high number of persons sus-
ceptible to displacement as a result of the proposed project. It is likely
that not all of these units are or will be occupied and that some may have
already been converted to non-vulnerable occupancy, thereby reducing the uni-
verse of potentially vulnerable residents. In addition to these units, all the
SRO units are also likely to be covered by rent stabilization with all the
* This assumes that 15 percent of the residents identified in Table II.C-13 as
•
residing in five- to nine-unit rental buildings were residing in five-unit
buildings and that, given the boundaries of Census Tract 159, half of the
residents in Tract 159 living in buildings with less than six units were
included.
II. C-68
•
attendant protections afforded to tenants. Although these protections have not
always proven to be a firm barrier against displacement, it would also be rea-
sonable to assume that with effective enforcement of the laws regulating tenan-
cy of SRO dwellings and against illegal actions on the part of landlords,
effective protection against displacement may be afforded to some of these
residents even with elevated market pressures created by the project. It is
also likely that these units would be subject to displacement pressures in the
future without the project. However, as a result of the proposed project, dis-
placement pressures on many of these tenants would be increased.
The inclusion of affordable housing on site would provide a measure of

relief to the increased displacement pressure and may provide housing opportu-
nities for those persons who would experience accelerated displacement pres-
sures as a result of the proposed project.
Housing. The proposed project would add an additional 2,571 new dwelling
units between 1997 and 2002, bringing the total number of units added by the
project to 5,700. This would represent an increase of approximately 8.6 perc-
ent over conditions that wO\lld exist in 2002 without the project. The type of
housing constructed, a mix of market rate and affordable units, would be con-
sistent with the types of housing in the study area: Therefore, it would not
be introducing a new trend in residential development in the study area.
Population. With completion of both phases of the proposed project, the
• total project would include approximately 11,350 new residents. If all of the
project's residents were new residents to the study area, the population of the
study area would increase to approximately 109,600 in 2002, an increase of 11.6
percent relative to conditions in 2002 without the proposed project.
As noted above, consistent with the predominant character of current and

projected residents of the study area, residents of the market rate units would
be expected to be relatively affluent, in the 24-to-64-year-old categories, and
employed in managerial and professional positions. Residents of the affordable
units would broaden the tenant base of the project, making the project more
consistent with the diverse population base of the West Side. Further, it
would represent an acceleration of the demographic trends that have shaped the
area for more than 20 years and are expected to continue in the future.
The Effects on the Population Vulnerable to Displacement. Because there

are no SRO units or unregulated rental apartments near the southern portion of
the project site, the development of the full project would have no more addi-
tional effect on displacement activities in the study area .
• II. C-69
•
D. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Introduction
The proposed project would add up to 11,350 new residents and 6,700 new
workers to a site that currently houses about 16 workers. The increase in
population and activity would increase the demand for certain public services.
Of particular concern are police and fire protection, schools, public librar-
ies, day care (both public and private), and health care. (The adequacy of
open space and recreational facilities is examined in section lI.G, and the
adequacy of neighborhood shopping is discussed in section II.E, "Economic Con-
ditions.") The community facilities in the study area have been examined to
identify the current level of adequacy of such services, changes that could
affect the delivery of service in the future without the project and to deter-
mine the possible impacts of the project on the delivery of those services.
Ezisting Conditions
Po1ic~
The part of the study area north of 59th Street, including the proposed
project site itself, lies within the New York City Police Department's (NYPD)
•
20th Precinct, which has its headquarters at 120 West 82nd Street. The 20th
Precinct covers the west side of Manhattan from 59th Street to 86th Street.
The part of the study area south of 59th Street lies in the Midtown-North Pre-
cinct (formerly the 18th Precinct), which has its headquarters at 306 West 54th
Street. Midtown North covers much of the Midtown Central Business extending
south to 43rd Street and east to Lexington Avenue. A map indicating the loca-
tion of the precincts is shown in Figure II.D-1.
As of April 1992, the 20th Precinct, which covers a predominantly resi- I

dentia1 neighborhood, has a patrol force of 186 police officers, approximately
37 percent greater than the 136 officers assigned to the precinct in 1985.*
The Midtown-North Precinct, which covers a much different, largely commercial
neighborhood, has a force of 315 officers, about the same as the 311 officers
reported in 1985.*
Discussions with the community affairs officers at both precincts reveal

that existing staffing levels are sufficient overall to meet the needs of the
community. Of necessity, Midtown North focuses much of its attention on the
Midtown Manhattan central business district, which is outside the study area to
the south and east. According to the community affairs officer at the pre-
cinct, crime conditions in Clinton have improved over the last several years .
• * Source of earlier data, the Trump City Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment, February 1991.
Il.D-1
Municipal Servlces-
Police, Fire and Sanitation Facilities
•
Figure II.D-1
• Itatl~n D.p~rtm.nt PI'ers::::J Q c::J I IL I c:::

==w:.:.;.~ ~san;ltatlon Ol~trlct. '4&7 Hd;t:;) 'C::J I II C I
====!.:.'.,;.)::.:r:.,. I I I
; C:::::rl
I I
I
I L..) 0 L ::oJ L
Midtown-North Pollee Precinct Hdqtrs. ---,
c::: ::::::oJ
110 1 II II elc::JOL.. __:::J Ie r--
~
I II II Ic:::.JOI IC
. :c:::J:1 I~I 1:1 I:C:::::, '0 I I I c:::
~c:=:J=1 121 1",1 j.. r--I TI I:::=::J i c:
c::J Midtown-North Precinct =:J i c::
I:::::J C - - , J1 l--~ I I I C
::::::J I
c:=:J1
I II
II
\"
'. I• I•
l c:::
46 •j r
~
--
c=J1 II \[_._:=JL~C:
__.....C":l~II II : " Ii Ie:

~ /~;cue C~.,1 I II I Dc=:J i i c:
I II )I I I l L :..J nr:=:J I ~ ::::::
• 10·91
1/::/:::::::1111 Project Site
•
The most prevalent problem in the part of the precinct within the study area
has been drug selling, particularly along Tenth Avenue, which is typically
handled by saturating a given location with police for a period of ~ime, usual-
ly resulting in the activity shifting to another location. According to the
police, moving the illegal activity defuses or often eliminates it completely.
The homeless, who have erected shantytowns along the riverfront, are another
problem within the precinct as well as throughout the city.
The portion of the study area within the 20th precinct has experienced a
surge in development activity over the past two decades which has resulted in
more than 10,000 new housing units and about 2,500 new residents. The precinct
representative believes that although the additional housing and population may
have resulted in increases in certain crimes such as auto theft and burglary,
the overall effect has been to' increase pedestrian and other street activity in
the Upper West Side and Lincoln Square neighborhoods, particularly in the
evenings, resulting in a greater degree of safety for local residents and visi-
tors. As in the Midtown North precinct, the presence of homeless persons,
particularly in local parks, plazas, and the Broadway medians, was cited as an
ongoing problem in the precinct.
Fire Protection
The part of the study area south of 72nd Street, including the proposed
project site itself, lies within the area covered by the New York City Fire
Department's (NYFD) 9th Battalion. The part of the study area north of 72nd
Street is located in the area covered by the 11th Battalion .
• There are two fire stations located in the study area. Engine Company 40
and Ladder Company 35, part of the 9th Battalion, which was previously located
on Amsterdam Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets, was recently relocated to
the southeast corner of 66th Street and Amsterdam Avenue within the ground
floor of 3 Lincoln Center, a residential tower at the northeast corner of
Amsterdam Avenue and 65th Street. This station has a force of 9 firefighters
and 2 officers on each of two daily shifts. Ladder Company 25, part of the
11th Battalion, is located at 205 West 77th Street. This station has a fire-
fighting force of five firefighters and one officer on each shift. The loca-
tion of these fire stations is shown in Figure 11.0-1.
Units responding to a fire are not limited to those closest to the fire.
Normally, a total of three engine companies and two ladder companies respond to
each fire call. Engine companies carry hoses, while ladder companies provide
search, rescue, and building ventilation functions. In addition, rescue compa-
nies are called for fires or emergencies in high-rise buildings. The fire
department can calIon units in other parts of a battalion's district or from
more distant parts of the city as needed. Both the 9th and 11th Battalions
have firefighting units other than those housed within the study area. Within
1 mile of the project site, the 9th Battalion has Rescue Company I, at 530 West
43rd Street, and the 11th Battalion has Engine Company 74, at 120 West 83rd
Street.
Schools
• Schools in or immediately adjacent to the stUdy area are mapped in Figure

II.D-2 and listed in Table lI.D-i.
lI.D-2
Public Schools in District- 3 - Region I
Figure II.D-2
• D:=:a::::::::
~
Q:!
«
a.
a:
IJJ
-a:
~
...J
«
a::
~
.-z
w
0 u
• CI)
Q
::l
J::
tW:_ Project Site

- - - School District 3 - Region I Boundary
• Public School
• 10·91
_
!
_FEET
I
Table II.D-l
PUBLIC SCHOOL UTILIZATIOR. CAPACITY. AIm ElUlOLIJIENT FIGURES
1991-1992 SCHOOL YEAIl -- SCHOOL DISTRICT 3. REGIOR I
• 1 P.S. 9
School
100 West 84th St.

Programs
P.S. 9
Enrollment Caacitx
753 921
Available
Seats
+168
Utilization
82%
2 P.S. 75 P.S. 75 833 714 -119 117

735 West End Ave.
3 P.S. 84 P.S. 84 801 789 -12 102
32 West 92nd St. J.H.S. 118 118 126 +8 94
4 P.S. 87 P.S. 87 1,127 1,012 -115 111
160 West 78th St.
5 P.S. 145 P.S. 145 851 916 +65 93
150 West 105th St
6 P.S. 163 P.S. 163 758 669 -89 113
163 West 97th St.
7 P.S. 165 P.S. 165 667 1,001 +334 67
234 West 109th St J".H.S. 54 89 151 +62 59
8 P.S. 166 P.S: 166 574 648 +74 89
132 West 89th St.
9 P.S. 191 P.S. 191 312 283 -29 110
210 West 61st St. I.S . 44 212 277 +65 77
• 10 P.S. 199
270 West 70th St.
P.S. 199
J.H.S. 118
Total -- Elementary SChools·
511
124
7.730
630
176
8.313
+119
+52
583
81
70
93%
11 I. S. 44 I.S. 44 1,251 1,403 +154 89

100 West 77th St.
12 J .H.S." 54 J.H.S. 54 993 1,084 +91 92
103 West 107th St
13 J.H.S. 118 J.H.S. 118 966 1,244 +278 78
154 West 93rd St.
Total -- Intermediate/Junior High· 3.210 3.731 +521 86%
14 La Guardia High School 2,472 2,445 -27 101

100 Amsterdam Ave.
15 Martin Luther King High School 3,157 2,414 -743 130
122 Amsterdam Ave.
Total -- High School- 5.629 4.859 -770 116%
Source: • School Utilization Profile, New York City Public Schools,
-
•
Division of School Facilities, July 9, 1992 .
Department of City Planning, October 1992.
II .D-3
•
Public Schools
Elementary Schools. The proposed development is located within Region I

of School District 3, the latter covering the west side of Manhattan from 59th I
to 110th Streets. Ten public elementary schools are located within Region I.
During the 1991-1992 school year (the most recent year for whichstatis-
tics have been published), the public elementary schools in Region I of Dis-
trict 3 were cumulatively operating at 93 percent of their capacity, with 583 ,
available seats (nearly 2,100 seats were available districtwide). Most of the
available capacity was at P.S. 165 located on West 109th Street between Broad-
way and Amsterdam Avenues, P.S. 9 on West 84th Street between Columbus and
Amsterdam Avenues and P.S. 199 on West 70th Street near West End Avenue.
Trends in Region I since the 1981-1982 school year indicate steadily rising en- ,
ro1lments at the elementary school level with the addition of 1,858 elementary
school students (a 32 percent increase during the period; see Table II.D-2).
Table II.D-2
ERROLLKENT HISTORY. 1981-1992

DISTRICT 3. REGION I. ELEIIENTAllY AND IRTERHEDIATE SCHOOLS I
Elementary Percent Change Intermediate Percent Change
Year Enrollment From Previous Year Enrollment From Previous Year
1981-1982 5,709 3,001
•
1982-1983 5,941 +4.1% 2,680 -10.7%
1983-1984 5,959 +0.3 2,603 -2.9
1984-1985 6,177 +3.7 2,686 +3.2
1985-1986 6,264 +1.4 2,660 -1.0
1986-1987 6,839 +9.2 2,815 +5.8
1987-1988 6,799 -0.6 2,544 -9.6
1988-1989 6,951 +2.3 2,625 +3.2
1989-1990
1990-1991
1991-1992
7,283
7,567
7,730
+4.8
+3.9
+2.2
2,805
3,128
3,210
+6.9
+11.5
+2.6 ,
The main catchment schools for the project site are P.S. 191 at 210 West
61st Street and P.S. 199 at 270 West 70th Street. The elementary school catch-
ment area for these schools (i.e., the area from which students are drawn)
stretches from 59th Street to 72nd Street on the west side. As noted in Table
II.D-1, during the 1991-1992 school year, both schools accommodated students I
from elsewhere in the district in addition to housing their own students.
During the 1991-1992 school year, P.S. 191 accommodated programs of I.S. 44 I
which is located on West 77th Street, and P.S. 199 accommodated programs of
J.H.S. 118, which is located on West 93rd Street. Initial decisions to locate
other school programs in these elementary schools reflected earlier conditions
of significant underutilization following declines in enrollment during the
1970's .. Adding outside programs was a way of using these buildings more effi-
ciently. The programs are now constituted as magnet sub-schools. ,
• II .D~4
•
During the 1991-1992 school year, P.S. 191 had an overall rated capacity
of 560 and an enrollment of 524 for a utilization rate of 94 percent. However,
the space programmed for elementary school use contained slightly more than
half of the total school seats and was operating at 110 percent of capacity (a
shortfall of 29 seats). P.S. 199 had 635 students and a capacity of 806 for a
utilization rate of 79 percent. About 22 percent of its capacity was allocated
to programs from J.H.S. 118. The elementary school portion of the site was
operating at 81 percent of its capacity with room for an additional 119 stu-
dents. Enrollment in the elementary school portions of both schools has been
increasing in recent years. Between the 1985-1986 and 1991-1992 school years,
elementary enrollment in P.S. 191 increased from 227 to 312, a 37 percent in-
crease. At P.S. 199, enrollment increased by 50 percent, from 339 to 511,
during the same period. This increase in enrollment is partially attributable
to the large increase in residential units in the catchment area for these
schools.
Intermediate Schools. Region I of District 3 also contains Ehree middle

schools, I.S. 44 at 100 West 77th Street (the catchment school for the project
site), J.H.S. 118 at 154 West 93rd Street, and J.H.S. 54 at 103 West 107th
Street. During the 1991-1992 school year, the three schools were operating at
a cumulative utilization rate of 86 percent, with 521 available seats. After
fluctuating during most of the last decade, intermediate school enrollment
f
increased substantially over the last four years. Overall, however, middle
school enrollment has increased by about 7 percent during the past decade (see
I
Table 11.0-2).
• The catchment area for I.S. 44 extends from 59th Street to 90th Street on
the west side. The 1991-1992 utilization rate for I.S. 44, which serves the
project site, was 89 percent (1,251 students for 1,403 spaces). The two
schools farther away from the project site, J.H.S 118 and J.H.S. 54, had utili-
zation rates of 78 percent (966 students for 1,244 seats) and 92 percent (993
students for 1,084 seats) respectively. As mentioned above, I.S. 44 and J.H.S.
118 operate programs respectively at P.S. 191 and P.S. 199 buildings.
High Schools. The closest citywide open admission high school to the
project site is Martin Luther King, Jr. High School located between 65th and
66th Streets. Fiorello La Guardia High School of Music and the Arts, a special
school with admissions criteria for students wishing to pursue training in the
arts as well as academic courses, is located one block south at 108 Amsterdam
Avenue. Park West High School, a comprehensive vocational school at 525 West I
50th Street is also located fairly close to the project site.
Martin Luther King High School was overcrowded during the 1991-1992 school
year, with 3,157 students for 2,414 seats, a 130 percent utilization rate.
La Guardia High School operated just above capacity, with 2,472 students for
2,445 seats, a 101 percent utilization rate. Park West High School was operat-
ing at 76 percent of capacity, with an enrollment of 2,024 students and a ca-
pacity of 2,676 seats.
Private Schools
•
The area in the vicinity of the project site is also served by private and
parochial schools. During the 1990-1991 school year, 2,515 students in grades
11.0-5
•
kindergarten through 12 were enrolled in 10 private schools located between
West 52nd and West 79th Streets (the area approximately a half-mile from the
project site). It is assumed that 'a number of these students come from farther
away and that students within a half-mile of the project site travel longer
distances to schools farther away from the project site. Unlike public
schools, these schools have no set capacity. Enrollment is typically based on
demand, admission criteria, and school policy. Private schools and their loca-
tions are listed and shown in Table II.D-3 and Figure II.D-3. The closest
private schools to the project site are the Professional Children's School on
Amsterdam Avenue and 60th Street, and the Manhattan Day School at 310 West 75th
Street.
Day Care Facilities
There are two major categories of day care services in New York City:
publicly funded programs sponsored by the city's Agency for Child Development
(ACD) of the Human Resources Administration (HRA) and private, independent day
care facilities.
Public Day Care
Currently, there are three means by which public day care is provided:
o ACD fully funds facilities on a long-term basis thro~ghout the city.
o ACD may purchase up to 49 percent of available slots in an existing
• o
facility on a yearly basis ("limited purchase of service") .
ACD uses a voucher program by which it purchases places in private,

licensed programs for persons meeting the eligibility requirements
for public day care. ACD sponsors 1,300 voucher spots citywide.
These programs are conducted predominately in licensed home care
centers. Eligibility is determined by the same criteria as eligibil-
ity for public day care service. ACD pays private family day care
providers $15 per day for infant child care and $10 for pre-school
children.
Eligibility for public day care in New York City is based on a.maximum
income of $27,430 for a family of two individuals, $29,878 for a family of
three, $31,731 for a family of four (two to three children), and $34,477 for a
family of five.
Currently, ACD sponsors 43,625 slots in centers citywide. This figure

does not include 14,764 federally funded Head Start slots. There are 966 slots
for group and family day care allocated to Community Board 7. The allocation
of slots is determined by measures of relative unmet need in an area. This
measure is based on examination of several factors in a specific area, such as
the total number of children, birth rates, income, existing public day care
services (particularly fully funded programs), and the general availability of
private and public facilities. In allocating day care slots, ACD acknowledges
the severe limitations in funding and that, as a result, the vast majority of
•
children who meet the eligibility criteria will not be served. This is re-
ferred to as "unmet need."
II.D-6
Table II.D-3
OTHER EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, DAY CARE CENTERS, AND LIBRARIES
•
IN THE STUDY AREA
________Pr~~iva~t~e~S~c~h~oo~l~sL___________~A~d=d=r~e~s~s~______ Enrollment Grades

1 Sacred Heart of Jesus School 456 West 52nd Street 424 K-8
2 Blessed Sacrament School 147 West 70th Street 219 K-8
3 Collegiate School 370 West End Avenue 546 K-12
4 Jewish Guild for the Blind 15 West 65th Street 32
5 Manhattan Day School 310 West 75th Street 410 K-8
6 Ethical Culture School 33 Central Park West 512 K-8
7 Professional Children's School 132 West 60th Street 167 K-12
8 Robert Louis Stevenson School 24 West 74th Street 45 K-12
9 Stephen Gaynor School 22 West 74th Street 96
10 Winston Prepatory School 4 West 76th Street 64 K-8
Day Care Centers Address Enrollment

11 Polly Dodge (Public) 538 West 55th Street 79
12 Mabel Barrett Fitzgerald 243 West 64th Street 110
(Public)
• 13 Westside YMCA
14 Magical Years Infant/Toddler
Center
15 Stephen Wise Free Synangogue
16 1st Class for Kids
5 West 63rd Street
57 West 75th Street
30 West 68th Street

235 West End Avenue
112
10
60
100
17 Christ and Street Stephen's 120 West 69th Street 32
Church
18 West End Collegiate Church 368 West End Avenue 90
New York Public Libraries Address

19 Columbus Branch 742 Tenth Avenue
20 Riverside Branch 127 Amsterdam Avenue
21 Performing Arts Library 111 Amsterdam Avenue
• II .0-7
.f • •• •
CD I
I i
I
• I
r- V) ~ HUDSON RIVER .
O~a
1"1 &._. ~
~ '<., Pl ~
~ ~
::J V)
a » if
o III I fl -, -1 -. • ., r ~ -1
[ gg
=- a a
I
I
I, !
I
II
I
(,
\\
,l,1.L.LJ
i i II i 11\iJ
I
II
~. ·t·J
I
I
--'
( I,
I
ELEVENTH AVE. WEST END AVE. I

In no OODOQ-=- D
~
I nDQ~ ~nDn~llJl[ln I
[ "a
~~ - ~~UUlJAU lJUIJU U -::dCloOOD!C D !

]~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~I~ ~.~ cf§ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
~~D~ ~~D~D~D~D~D~~~D~[J~EJ~[!J~u~D
;
0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
" f
~ ~ nwn~ ~6
~ ~~~~[][][]D~[]D~[
~ ~ c ~. ~ l! CD
i ID~~
]Drn~~~~N~D]~~'~~~~jJJJJ D~~~~ INf !i

~n- JDDbTI-ODEDrlTHbnVE.7n-:-o~---?a~GIT ~! 5
BROADWAY ~ ~ , - , rl j! . IE' I: :
nnnnnnnnnnr\l CENT RAL RK . \h ~~i

lID",
w DJ ~
•
Based on a recent survey by HRA, Community Board 7 has no ACD voucher day
care centers, 9 fully sponsored group and family ACD programs, and one volun-
tary family day care program, ranking 22nd highest in unmet day care service
need. Broken down by age group, Community Board 7 has the 19th highest need
for day care for children 0 to 2 years of age, 20th highest need for day care
for children 3 to 5 years of age, and the 25th highest need for school-age day
care services.
There are two publicly funded day care centers located in the study area
the Fitzgerald Center, in the Amsterdam Houses, with 105 slots; and the
Polly Dodge YMCA-YWCA Center, in Harborview Terrace, with 73 seats (see Figure
II.D-3). Both programs are currently full. ACD also purchases 49 slots at the
Westside YMCA day care center. The New York City budget for fiscal year 1992
shows a total of $1.49 million in cuts in Community Board 7 where the Fitzger-
ald Center is located. The specific nature of the cuts, if any, on the two day
care centers is not yet known.
Private Day Care Centers
The area in the vicinity of the project site is served as' well by several
private day care facilities. Several of these are sponsored by neighQorhood
institutions, such a~ the Westside YMCA, Stephen Wise Free Synagogue~ West End
Collegiate Church, and Christ and St. Stephen's Church, while other are private
for-profit facilities. In all, approximately 410 children are served by six
private day care facilities near the project site (see Table II.D-3 and Figure
II.D-3). All facilities are operating at capacity.
• Public Libraries
Two branches of the New York Public Library are located within the study
area. They are the Riverside branch, a neighborhood library at Amsterdam Ave-
nue and 65th Street, and the Performing Arts Library at Lincoln Center, which
serves the entire metropolitan area. Another neighborhood library, the Colum-
bus branch, is located adjacent to the study area at 50th Street and Tenth
I
Avenue. A ·map indicating the location.of these libraries is shown in Figure
II.D-3.
The Riverside branch recently relocated from 69th Street and Amsterdam
Avenue to new facilities at 3 Lincoln Center, the recently completed addition
to the Lincoln Center campus at Amsterdam Avenue and 65th Street. With the
move, the Riverside Branch doubled its space to 15,000 gross square feet. As
of September 20, in response to added city funding, the Riverside Branch is
operating five days a week.
The Performing Arts Library at Lincoln Center houses much of the library's
collection in music, drama, and dance, and serves the entire city. It houses
more than 250,000 books and records in its circulating collection. With the
inclusion of its non-circulating archives, the Performing Arts Library houses
close to 2 million items. Close to a half-million people use this library each
year, and facilities for sitting and reading or listening to music are often
crowded. The library has no room to expand in its current building, but will
•
be acquiring 15,000 gross square feet of new space at 3 Lincoln Center .
II.D-8
•
Health care facilities located in or next to the study area are shown in
Figure II.D-4 and listed in Table II.D-4.
Hospitals
Roosevelt Hospital, with 535 beds, is the only short-stay general hospital
in the study area. It is part of St. Luke's/Rooseve1t Hospital Center. In
1990, Roosevelt Hospital had approximately 22,400 admissions, more than 60;000
emergency room visits, and an occupancy rate of 86.7 percent (per Health Sys-
tems Agency [HSA] of New York). Most patients are from the West Side. Its
emergency room, originally designed to handle 50,000 visits per year, is able
to operate at a higher volume because of innovations that have increased its
efficiency. Roosevelt Hospital is in the process of rebuilding and expanding
its entire complex (see discussion below under "The Future Without the Proj-
ect").
St. Clare's Hospital, with 250 beds, is located just beyond the southern
boundary of the study area. In 1990, St. Clare's had approximately 4,500 ad-
missions, 15,500 emergency room visits~ and an occupancy rate ranging from 80
to 85 percent. This facility has converted 30 percent of its general acute
care beds to the long-term care of AIDS inpatients.·
Manhattan has a number of other first-rate hospitals that also serve resi-
dents of the study area, particularly for nonemergency treatment. According to
• the HSA, those that serve residents 'Of the s_tudy area include Columbia Pres-
byterian, Lenox Hill, and Mt. Sinai Hospitals.
Other Health Care Facilities
A number of other health care facilities, all of which provide services to

more limited groups, are located in the study area. These include the Jewish
Guild for the Blind, the Children's Day Treatment Center (a psychiatric facili-
ty), Local 32B-32J Service Employees International Union Health Care Center,
and Phoenix House and the Areba Casriel Institute (treatment centers for drug
abusers). No municipal health clinics are located in the study area. The
closest are the Riverside Health Center, on West 100th Street, and the Lower
Manhattan District Health Center, on Ninth Avenue at 28th Street.
As described above under "Land Use" (see section II.B) and "Demographics
and Displacement," (see section II.C) the development projects proposed for the
study area by 1997 would add approximately 9,300 residents, 1,325 dormitory
residents, and 6,300 workers to the study area. Based on the estimated size of
• • Phone conversation with office of Anna Marie McCrohan, Vice President,

Regulatory Affairs, October 22, 1991.
II.D-9
~ • • •
I ·
• I !
!
:I:
o
-S'
;
-2. ~ ~.a
2'
> ..
~ ~ r. 1
HUDSON RIVER
~
f11"
'" III if I I 1-' rl -. . ., --1 ~ rl '
~ ~
Q, Q,
I II
I !
· i
I · .
· i!!. i· i. · 11~
.~ t·J
· ~
( II \
• TO ~1J[[j ~ ~! ..-.-.-.-. [~~-J foITITrnnlc

i J~ ~~~[]D[[}3~~ ~~ [J~~~~~DI[
.]iD~~ ~; ~ UVL1i
illlD~n;JiDi
~u[j~ ~
~ iliO 0~~M
D~~llD~lD;[
d~ t!2J60Du ~UuuL1i Vi i
c
]0 00~01JP~~~~~[[fJJJ] O~OOO IN! I

~WJIlOOUQ~R~nT~---?~ ~i
nnnnnnnnnnr\~ II J(j\(-{ Ih' ~~
I
AfI'
ID
Table II.D-4
HEALTH CAllE FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONAL RESIDENCES
•
IN THE STUDY AllEA
Facility Address
Hospitals:
1 Roosevelt Hospital 428 West 59th Street
2 St. Claire's Hospital 426 West 52nd Street
Other Health Care Facilities:
3 Children's Day Treatment Center 255 West 71st Street

4 Jewish Guild for the Blind 15 West 65th Street
5 Local 32B-32J Service Employees 920 Ninth Avenue
International Union Health Care
Center
6 Phoenix House 164 West 74th Street
• 1I.0-1O
•
anticipated soft site developments, an additional 4,300 residents and 2,000
workers can be assumed by 2002, a cumulative increase from 1990 of nearly
15,000 residents and 8,300 workers (including students in dorms). For EIS
purposes it is assumed that all of the residents and workers would be new for
the study area. However, as also noted in section II.C, based on population
trends between 1970 and 1990 (a much lower growth in population than in housing
units), the actual net increases in the study area's population is likely to be
substantially less than indicated.
This section assesses the effect of the additional population on community

facilities by 1997 and 2002, the years in which Phase I and Phase II of the
project would be completed if approved, assuming the proposed project is not
built. The effect of the current city fiscal crisis on future service levels
is also considered in this analysis.
Police
By 1997 the future without the project, the police department is one of
the few City agencies that is expected to add personnel. This is as a result
of a $1.8 billion anti-crime program, proposed by Mayor Dinkins in October
1990, and approved by the state legislature in February 1991. The program
would add about 3,500 police officers to the New York City force over six
years, bringing the city's active force to more than 31,000 officers, its larg-
est size ever, by 1997 in the future without the project. Under the legisla-
• tive agreement, the additional officers would be financed through three sourc-
es: a four-year extension of a surcharge on the city's personal income tax; a
property tax increase, and a new $2 scratch-off lottery game.
The allocation of police personnel around the City, including the new
officers added as a result of the mayor's anti-crime program will be based on
the Department's Patrol Allocation Plan (PAP). The plan, which is analyzed
twice a year, consists of four components:
1. Radio Motor Patrol Allocation Model. This model, developed by the

Rand Corporation, uses data on the most recent 12 months' radio calls
for service on a daily basis. The number of patrol cars translates
into a certain number of officers. Such factors as average dispatch
time are factored into the model.
2. Sustained Operational Component. This component considers unique

operational needs that require additional officers. Examples include
embassy posts, areas with particularly dense concentrations of work-
ers or shoppers, and certain parks.
3. Public Safety Factor. This component computes the weighted percent-

age of crime as a proportion of the entire city. Violent outdoor
crimes are the key factor.
4. Local Police Judgment. The first three factors result in a suggested
•
number of officers for each of the 75 precincts in the city. This
allocation is reviewed and can be modified by the seven borough com-
manders and the chief of patrol.
II.D-ll
•
Discussions with representatives of the Midtown North and 20th precincts
indicate that the Police Department is aware of ongoing activity and develop-
ment plans in the area and will adjust their allocation of personnel as the
need arises. Increased allocations to the precinct level would not be consid-
ered until increased demand in the area became apparent. It is Police Depart-
ment policy not to make adjustments on planned or potential development. None-
theless the commanding officer at the 20th Precinct indicates that by fiscal
year 1993, 233 officers will be assigned to the precinct, a 25 percent increase
over current levels. 1
Further adjustments to the size and deployment of the police force based
on development-induced population increases, budgetary factors, or other policy
decisions could be made by 2002 in the future without the project.
Like the Police Department, the Fire Department does not allocate p~rson
nel based on proposed or potential development, but rather responds to demon-
strated need. Because of recent New York City budget cuts, several fire sta-
tions have been closed in recent months, but such action is not anticipated in
the study area by 1997 in the future without the project .
• The Fire Department would continue to evaluate the need for personnel and
equipment as development continues in the study area by 2002 in the future
Public Schools
Factors Affecting Future Conditions. Four factors may affect conditions

in the catchment schools serving the project site by 1997 in the future without
the project: programmatic changes that can affect school capacity; increasing
enrollments; new capital projects; and administrative actions that can affect
enrollments, capacity, or utilization at individual schools.
Programmatic Changes: Programmatic changes, such as providing additional

classrooms for special education, the adoption of all day kindergarten classes,
or lowering the number of students per classroom in selected grades have low-
ered school capacity calculations, and therefore, raised utilization rates
throughout the city over the past decade. Because no specific programmatic
changes at the schools serving the project site are currently planned, no ad-
justment is being made in the analysis for program changes.
Changes in Enrollment: Changes in enrollment at the catchment schools
• that would serve the project site are expected by 1997 in the future without
the project partly due to specific proposed development projects. Currently,
there are seven large residential projects planned for completion before the
end of Phase I of the proposed project (see Table II.D-5). Together these
II.D-12
Table II.D-5
STUDEBTS GEREIlATED BY 1997 ARD 2002
NO BUILD PJl.OJECTS IN DISTB.ICT 3. eGlON I
• No Build Year 1997
Pro1ect
Manhattan West l
Units
Total with 2+
Units BedrOOlllS IncOJDe
1,000 104* High 17
NUmber of Students~
Elementary Intermediate
10
High
School
13
West 60th Street l 335 200* High 17 17 9
Columbus Center l 700 350 High 30 21 9
YMCA l 215 75 High-ISO 9 4 4
Mod-65** o o o
ABC l 937 469 High 40 28 13
Alfred III 285 143 High 12 9 4
Ansonia Post Office l ---ll! 157 High 14 10 .J±
Subtotal 3,786 1,498 139 99 56 \
No Build Year 2002 NUmber of Students
Units
Total with 2+ High
Pro1ect Units Bedrooms IncOJDe Elementary Intermediate School
W. 60th St. Soft Site l 190 95 High 9 6 3
1860 Broadwayl 265 133 High 12 8 4
• Cinema Studio Site l

445 West 59th Street l
2121 Broadway2
2067 Broadwayl
Chemical Bank/Saloonl
198
456
170
59
176
99
228
85
30
88
High
High
High
High
High
9
20
8·
3
8
14
6
6
2
6
3
7
3
1
3
235 West 63rd Street l 242 121 High 11 8 4
1961 Broadwayl 249 125 High 11 8 4
2180 Broadway2 170 85 High 8 6 3
318· Amsterdam2 133 67 High 6 4 3
8 West 70th Street l ~~ High _5 ---1± _3
Subtotal 2,416 1.210 110 78 41
TOTAL 6.202 2.708 249 177 97
* Unit breakdown for these projects only are known. For all other projects,
50 percent 2-bedroom units is assumed.
** Subsidized units will .contain no 2-bedroom units.
*** The rates have been adjusted to reflect a shift of sixth grade classes from
elementary schools to middle schools in School District 3 and a shift of
ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools.
1
Located in both elementary and intermediate school catchment areaS
2
Located in intermediate school catchment area only .
• II.D-13
•
projects will add approximately 3,800 housing units to the elementary school
and intermediate school catchment areas with an expectation of generating 139
public elementary school students, 99 public intermediate school students, and
56 public high school students (see Table II.D-5).
The student generation numbers were projected by utilizing a methodology

developed by the Capital and Community Planning division of the Department ~f
I
City Planning (WP) in cooperation with the Board of Education for estimating ~
the number of students who will be generated for the public school system by
proposed projects. The methodology has been developed based on empirical stud-
ies conducted by the Board of Education ~nd on actual student generation at
large-scale residential projects throughout the city and on an extensive analy-
sis of data in the 1980 Census of Popu1a~ion and Housing. That analysis indi-
cates that the critical factors determining public school student generation
are the income mix of the individual development and the proportion of units of
two bedrooms or greater. Higher-income households tend to generate few stu-
dents for the public schools, as do residents of smaller apartments. The Board
of Education has created a matrix that considers these factors and predicts the
number of elementary, intermediate, and high school students per 100 units for
a project based on these unit-bedroom breakdown and income factors. For exam-
ple, a market-rate development where 50 percent. of the units are two bedrooms
or larger would generate five public elementary school students, three public
intermediate school students, and one public high school student per 100 dwell-
ing units. Increasing the proportion of two- or more bedroom units would in-
crease the number of students generated per 100 new units as would lowering the
target income group for the housing .
• All the 1997 No Build projects were assumed to be 100 percent market rate
except the YMCA project which would have about 30 percent moderate income
units. The unit breakdown for three projects -- West 60th Street, Manhattan
West, and the Towers -- was known. For all other projects, it was assumed that
similar to the proposed project, 50 percent of the units would be two-bedroom
or more except for the moderate income units which are assumed to have fewer
than two bedrooms.
Based on recent trends in enrollment, it would be reasonable to assume

some continued growth in enrollment beyond that identified for individual de-
velopment projects. The Board of Education and Department of City Planning
have done separate enrollment projections for District 3 for 1996. Both agen-
cies use the same basic cohort survival method but use somewhat different in-
puts and have certain different assumptions. Both sets of projections show
that in 1997, accounting for background growth and including the impact of the
No Build housing, and extrapolating the projection one year, there would be
sufficient capacity in the district to accommodate the projected enrollment,
still leaving room in the district for the projected impact of the proposed
project. However, the two schools in the project catchment area, P.S. 191 and
P.S. 199, will experience overcrowding, and mitigation would be required as
discussed. New school space would not be required at this time, but there
would be a need to reorganize existing school space (see discussion below on
project impacts).
•
Administrative Actions: Administrative actions on the part of the local
school district can also affect local school utilization in various parts of
the district. The range of administrative actions can include b~t is not lim-
ited to shifting school zones to move students from more overcrowded schools to
II.D-14
•
schools with available capacity, truncating grades from one school to another
(e.g., shifting a ninth grade out of a junior high school to a high school or
shifting' a sixth grade class from an overcrowded elementary school to a less
I
crowded middle school), moving administrative programs out of school buildings
into other Board of Education facilities, shifting satellite facilities, or es-
tablishing satellite programs in underutilized schools. District 3 is expected
to take two administrative actions that would affect the utilization of schools
within the district by the 1992-1993 school year: 1) the board will shift
sixth grade students from elementary schools to intermediate schools in the
district and 2) the board will truncate the ninth grade from all intermediate
schools in the district. Shifting the sixth grade students to intermediate
schools would open up capacity at elementary schools. However, because both
P.S. 191 and 199 are already operating as K through 5 elementary schools, this
action would not open up capacity at the project's catchment schools. Shifting
the sixth grade into the intermediate schools would, in effect, replace the
ninth grades shifting out. All intermediate schools would also be converted
into "free choice" schools which would allow access to any student within the
district regardless of catchment area. This would encourage students to choose
schools based on their special offerings and not necessarily on geographic
proximity and would utilize the available capacity throughout the district more
effectively.
New Capital Projects: The renovation of J.H.S. 88 (originally the Wad-

leigh High School for Girls) located at 215 West l14th Street, should be com-
pleted in time for the 1993-1994 school year. That school will accommodate
I
•
programs at the junior and senior high school level. A total of 540 intermedi-
ate school seats (grades 6 through 8) and 720 high school seats (grades 9
through 12) would be added. At the current time, the Board of Education is
exploring the possibility of opening a new 2,000-seat high school in the former
John Jay College annex at 444 West 56th Street and a new 1,000-seat high school
at 10 Union Square East.
Elementary Schools. During the 1991-1992 school year, ,P.S. 199 and P.S.
191 had a cumulative available capacity of 90 seats, P.S. 199 had 119 available
seats, and P.S. 191 was operating with a deficit of 29 elementary school seats.
The additional 139 public elementary students generated in the proposed proj-
ect's catchment area by the 1997 No Build projects would raise the combined
utilization of these elementary schools to 105 percent of capacity, a combined
deficit of 49 seats. Background growth unrelated to specific development proj-
ects could be expected to further increase deficits at the elementary school
level.
The additional students to P.S. 191 and P.S. 199 by 1997 could likely be
accommodated if Community School District 3 instituted one or more administra- I
tive or programmatic changes. These could include the shifting of school zones
so the influx of students expected from projected projects in the southern end
of Region I could be accommodated in schools with available seats in portions
of the region where development activity and substantial enrollment increase
are not expected; the relocation or partial relocation of satellite facilities
I
currently located in the elementary schools (e.g., P.S. 191 accommodated 212
students in 277 seats allocated for I.S. 44, and P.S. 199 accommodated 124 stu-
• dents in 176 seats allocated for J.H.S. 118 in 1991-1992) to make additional
seats available for elementary grades; or the establishment of a satellite
elementary school facility at existing intermediate/junior high schools, should
there be capacity at those schools.
II.D-15
• I
Intermediate Schools.. Students generated by the No Build proj ects and
expected background growth will utilize a portion of the available capacity at
local intermediate schools by 1997. However, given over 500 available seats
during the 1991-1992 school year, combined with the establishment of "free
choice" intermediate schools in District 3 and the addition of capacity at
District 3 intermediate schools through the opening of J.H.S. 88, some capacity
should remain in the future without the project. It is also possible that
sufficient capacity would be available at the intermediate school level to
I
provide options for administrative solutions to projected overcrowding at P.S.
191 and P.S. 199.
Hi&h Schools. As is the case for current students, the 56 public high I
school students expected to be generated by 1997 could attend the citywide
school of their choice, and would therefore not be expected to significantly
add to overcrowding at Martin Luther King High School. With possible addition-
al capacity added to public high schools -in Manhattan, certain existing condi-
tions of overcrowding may be relieved.
Private Schools. It is likely that the No Build projects would add stu-
dents to existing private schools both in and outside the study area. Most of
the private schools in the study area adjust capacity to m~et demand, although
any expansion will be. limited by the number of students legally permitted with-
. in a school structure.
• Factors Affecting Future Conditions. By 2002, no further programmatic

changes or capital projects are now anticipated beyond those described above
for the 1997 No Build year. The administrative actions that will be taken by
1997, including the shifting of sixth grade students from elementary to inter-
mediate schools and the truncating of ninth grade in all District 3 schools,
are assumed to remain in effect by 2002 in the future without the project.
I
Based on 12 identified soft sites, an additional 2,416 units are projected

by 2002. Of these, 9 sites with 1,943 units are located in the same elementary
school catchment area as the proposed project. All 12 sites with 2,416 units
are located within the same intermediate/middle school catchment area as the
proposed project. It was assumed that like the proposed project 50 percent of
the units in these projects would have two bedrooms. Based on the Board of
Education student-generation matrix, by 2002, potential development projects
are expected to generate an additional 90 public elementary school. students for
P.S. 191 and P.S. 199, 78 intermediate/middle school students, and 41 public
high school students (see Table II.D-5). The impact of these additional stu-
dents on public schools in the catchment area is described below. Based on
enrollment trends, it would also be reasonable to assume some continued growth
in enrollment beyond that identified for individual development projects. The
Board of Education and Department of City Planning have done separate enroll-
ment projections for District 3 for 2001. Both agencies use the same basic
cohort survival method but use somewhat different inputs and have certain dif-
ferent assumptions. By the Build year of 2002, again extrapolating the projec-
tions one year from the 2001 enrollment projections, both agencies project a No
e·
Build overload of enrollment over capacity for elementary and intermediate
schools, the Board of Education by a total of 2,400 and the City Planning
II. D-16
• I
Department by a total of 700. In either case, the projected impact of the pro-
posed project would exacerbate the off-site overcrowding. This calls for miti-
gating the impact by providing on-site seats for the project-generated public
school children (see discussion below on project impacts).
ElementaIY Schools. By 2002, additional elementary school students in the ~

P.S. 191 and P.S. 199 catchment area would further overcrowd those schools.
The Board of Education and Department of City Planning have determined that
administrative measures alone could not serve to accommodate the additional I~
elementary school students generated by 2002 No Build projects.
Intermediate Schools. The Board of Education is projecting a deficit of

nearly 1,700 intermediate school seats in District 3 by 2002. The DCP projec-
tions indicate a much smaller intermediate school overload.
I
High Schools. As is the case for students generated by 1997 No Build
projects, public high school students generated by 2002 No Build projects could
attend the citywide high school of their choice.
Day Care Facilities
Public Day Care. In 1991-1992, ACD will expand day care slots through the
new Federal Child Care and Developmental Block Grant, increasing its citywide
capacity by approximately 2,000 Slots, and raising its total capac'ity to 45,625
• slots. It is unknown how much, if any, of this Federal funding will be avail-
able at ACD facilities serving the study area. As noted above in "Existing
Conditions," municipal funding for ACD facilities is being reduced due to the
current fiscal crisis.
Private Day Care. The private day care industry is assumed to respond to
increased demand for services in any area and would provide additional facili-
ties as need warrants in the future without the project.
Public and Private Day Care. No additional changes in the supply of pub-
lic and private day care slots is currently planned by 2002 in the future with-
out the project.
Libraries
As mentioned above under "Existing Conditions," the Performing Arts Li- 1

brary will be acquiring approximately 15,000 square feet of new space at 3
Lincoln Center.
•
There are currently no long-term policies regarding library services
planned for the study area by 2002 in the future without the project.
II .D-17
•
A major expansion in health services in the study area by 1997 in the

future without the project is the new St. Luke'sfRoosevelt hospital building
currently under construction at the western end of the block bounded by West
58th and 59th Streets and Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues. The new building, a
l4-story structure, will be integrated with the existing Winston Building to
the east. The combined Winston Building and the new hospital building will to-
gether provide 614 beds, an increase of 79 beds from the 535 that exist there
today. The new facility is expected to be completed in 1992. The new building I
is designed to expand vertically by two additional floors, but no plan for that
expansion currently exists.
No further changes in study area health services are expected by 2002 in

the future without the project.
Project Characteristics
• The potential impacts of the proposed project on community facilities and

services in the area are a function of the number and characteristics of the
population that would be generated by the project and by the kinds of facili-
ties to be added by the project.
Population
As noted in Chapter I, "Project Description," and section 11.C, "Popula-

tion and Housing," the project would contain approximately 5,700 dwelling
units, of which 50 percent would be two-bedroom units. Eighty percent of the
units would be market-rate and, for EIS purposes, it is assumed that 20 percent
would be affordable with a mix of low-, moderate- and middle-income units.
Because household size tends to be inversely proportional to income, for esti-
mating total population, it is assumed that all affordable units would be low-
income units.· Based on a survey conducted at Battery Park City, a household
size of 1.85 persons was determined for the market-rate units. This is approx-
imately 16 percent higher than the average household size in the study area,
based on the most recent data published by the census (see Table II.C-3).
Based on data for Census Tract 151, which contains the Amsterdam Houses, the
average household size for the affordable units is 2.56 persons per household.
This would result in the addition of approximately 11,350 people -- 6,200 in
Phase I and the balance, 5,150, by 2002 .
• • For the public school analysis, alternative unit breakdowns are consid-
ered. See page 11.0-20.
11.0-18
I
•
Consistent with the overall characteristics of the population in the study
area, the market-rate units would primarily attract persons in their prime
working years with relatively few children. Using data from the 1990 Census
(see Table II.C-5), it is anticipated that between 45 and 50 percent of the
residents of the market-rate housing (between 3,800 and 4,200 residents) would
be between the ages of 25 and 44, approximately 20 percent (1,700 residents)
would be between the ages of 45 and 64, up to 16 percent would be over 65
(1,350 residents), up to 3.0 percent would be less than 5 years old (250 resi-
dents), and about 7 percent would be school age (600), with the balance between
the ages of 20 and 24. Aside from the differences in household size and income
expected, the affordable low-income housing units, would have a different age
mix than the market rate population. As noted on Table II.C-5, the age mix of
residents in Census Tract 151 varied from the overall study area, particularly
a much higher proportion of residents 19 and under (27.5 percent compared with
only 10.1 percent in the study area) and a much lower proportion of residents
in the 25-to-44 age cohort (23.8 percent compared with 44.9 percent in the
study area). Depending on the ultimate unit mix and source of funding for any
below-market-rate component, this alternative may also house more low-income
elderly residents than would be indicated by the census data for the study area
or Tract 151.
Community Facilities Provided
The proposed project would add up to approximately 163,400 square feet of

professional office space. It is likely that a large portion of this space
would be used for medical offices. Local community facilities could be accom-
• modated in this space. Based on agreements reached with the Manhattan Borough
President's office, the project is committed to a community services marketing
goal, under which the project would seek to lease space to public or not-for-
profit entities providing local/neighborhood facilities as defined in New York
City's fair share criteria for the location of community facilities. As
defined, local/neighborhood facilities are those serving an area no larger than
a community district or local service delivery district, in which the majority
of persons served by the facility live or work. These include, but are not
limited to" such facilities as branch libraries, community cultural programs,
community health/mental health services, community based social programs, day
care centers, drop-off recycling centers, employment centers, fire stations,
local (non-residential) drug prevention and/or treatment centers, local parks,
parking lots/garages, police precincts, sanitation garages, and senior centers.
The exact square footage to be marketed in this manner has not yet been
determined.
Police
As described under the section, "The Future Without the Project," about
3,500 police officers will be added to the city's active force by 1997. Allo-
cation of these and other police personnel to an area is dependent on the
city's overall operating budget and on a process internal to the police depart-
ment, which evaluates needs and allocates personnel to each of the 75 police
•
precincts in New York City. Specific commitments are made only when operation-
al statistics are available. They are not made based on anticipated future
developments.
II .D-19
•
According to the police department,* new development does not always
translate into automatic increases in demand for police services. Increased
development and the level of attendant activity in an area can, and often does,
lead to decreasing levels of criminal activity. The proposed project site, in
particular, is devoid of activity and therefore creates opportunities for crim-
inal activities that would not occur with a more active use of the project
site. The development of the proposed project would bring pedestrian activity
at all times of the day, which would enhance the sense of security in this part
of the West Side and would not necessarily require additional police resources.
The spokesperson for the 20th Precinct indicated the possible need for a satel-
lite facility of the 20th Precinct on-site to improve the efficiency of the
precinct. Whether or not additional personnel would be allocated to either the
Midtown North or 20th Precinct as a result of the proposed project would only
be determined after the actual effect of the project on service demands is
determined.
The Police Department would continue to evaluate demand for police ser-
vices. during construction of Phase II of the proposed project. Personnel
changes would only be made based on actual demonstrated service demands.
The fire department has indicated that it has sufficient resources to

serve both the 1997 and 2002 phases of the proposed development and surrounding
• areas (see letter from the fire department in Appendix F) .
Schools
As described above, the formula used by the DCP and BOE for determining I
how many public school students are generated by a project is based on the in-
tended income mix of the development and the proportion of units with two bed-
rooms or more. The proposed project would develop a total of about 3,100 dwel-
ling units by the end of 1997 (Phase I). For this analysis, two alternative
unit mixes are examined. The first would consist of 90 percent market-rate
units and 10 percent low income affordable units. Under the second, the unit
mix would consist of 80 percent market-rate and 20 percent affordable units.
It is further assumed that the affordable units would b~ broken down as fol-
lows: 50 percent low income, 25 percent moderate income, and 25 percent middle
income for the 80-20 mix. It is further assumed that residents of market-rate
I
units would have high incomes and that 50 percent of all the units would have
two or more bedrooms.
As Table II.D-6 shows, assuming a 90-10 mix as described above, in 1997

the project would generate a total of 400 public school students (210 elemen-
tary, 124 intermediate, and 66 high school students). Assuming an 80-20 mix
(see Table II.D-7) as described above, the total number of students generated
• * Conversation with Detective Lupinacci, Community Affairs Officer, 20th

Precinct.
II.D-20
•
Table II.D-6
PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDDI"lS GDEllATim BY THE PllOPOSED PllOJECT
(90-10 Unit X:lx)
,
Pull Build Phase I Phase II
Total Units: 5,700 3,129 2,571
Market-Rate
Affordable Housing***
Elementary School:
5,130
570
2,822
314
2,308
256
I
DCP,BOE Student Generation Ratio
Market-Rate 4.29* 4.29* 4.29*
Affordable Housing*** 28.31 28.31 20.66* I
Number of Public Elementar~
School Students
Market-Rate 220 121 99
Total Number of Public Elementarl
161
381
.M
210
.J.1.
171 \
School Students
Intermediate School
Market-Rate 3 3 3
Affordable Housing*** 12.34 12.34 10.42 I
Numbe[ of Public Intermediate
•
School Students
Affordable Housing*** 70 -1l
Total Number of Public
Intermediate School Students
224
-12.
124 100 \
High School
Market-Rate 1.33** 1. 33** 1. 33**
Affordable Housing*** 9.34 9.34 9.34 I
Number of Public High School
Students
Total Number of Public High
School Students
21
121
.22.
66
24
55 \
TOTALS 726 400 326 I
* This is based on an adjustment of the DCP rate of 5 elementary school
students per 100 market-rate dwelling units and 39 elementary school
students per 100 low-income dwelling units, reflecting a shift of sixth
grade students to middle schools.
** Based on an adjustment of the DCP rate of 1 high school student per 100
market-rate dwelling units and 11 high school students per 100 low-income
dwelling units, reflecting a shif~ of ninth grade students to high schools .
• *** Based on the assumption of a 10 percent low-income affordable housing

component.
II .D-2l
I
,,,..
•
Table II.D-7
PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDERTS GEREllATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
(80-20 Unit Mix)
Full Build Phase I Phase II

Total Units: 5,700 3,129 2,571
Market-Rate 4,560 2,503 2,057
Affordable Housing*** 1,140 626 514
Elementary School:
DCP/BOE Student Generation Ratio
Market-Rate 4.29· 4.29· 4.29*
Affordable Housing**· 20.66 20.66 20.66
Number of Public Elementary
School Students
Affordable Housing*** 235 129 106
Total Number of Public Elementary 430 236 194
School Students
Intermediate School
Market-Rate 3 3 3
Affordable Housing*** 10.42 10.42 10.42
Number of Public Intermediate
School Students
•
Affordable Housing**· 119 -.22 54
Total Number of Public 256 140 116
Intermediate School Students
High School
Market-Rate 1. 33** 1.33** 1. 33**
Affordable Housing·*·
Number of Public High School
8.57 8.57 8.57
I
Students
I
Affordable Housing*·* ~ 54 44
Total Number of Public High 158 87 71
School Students
TOTALS 844 463 381
* This is based on an adjustment of the DCP rate of 5 elementary school

students per 100 market-rate dwelling units and 39 elementary school
students per 100 low-income dwelling units, reflecting a shift of sixth
grade students to middle schools .
•* Based on an adjustment of the DCP rate of 1 high school student per 100
market-rate dwelling units and 11 high school students per 100 low-income
dwel~ing units, reflecting a shift of ninth grade students to high schools.
**. Based on the assumption of a 20 percent affordable housing component broken
•
down as follows: 50 percent low income, 25 percent moderate income, and 25
percent middle income. The generation rate is an aggregate rate for the
three income categories used by DCP.
II.D-22
•
in 1997 would be 466 (236 elementary, 140 intermediate, and 87 high school·
students). The expected effects of these additional students on local public
schools are described below.
\
ElementaIY Schools. As described above in "The Future Without the Proj-
ect," by 1997 additional students generated by specific proposed development
projects in the catchment area schools, P.S. 191 and P.S. 199 combined with
some additional background growth would utilize the remaining capacity at these
two schools, would raise the utilization of the schools to more than 100 per- ~
cent of capacity, and would create a shortfall of seats based on each school's
current configuration. As noted above, this shortfall could possibly be recti-
fied with administrative actions on the part of the local school board, such as ~
utilizing the available capacity of the satellite schools that share space with
the elementary schools (I.S. 44 at P.S. 191 and J.H.S. 118 at P.S. 199), shift-
ing school zones so that schools with available seats could accommodate more
students, shifting satellite facilities from more crowded to less crowded
school buildings, or creating new satellite facilities in schools with avail-
able capacity.
Depending on the unit mix, Phase I of the proposed development would gen-
erate between 210 and 236 elementary level students who. would be expected to
'attend either P.S. 191 and/or P.S. 199. Under either scenario, project-gener- I
ated elementary school students would have a significant impact on elementary
school resources by further exacerbating conditions of overcrowding that would
already exist in the future without the project, raising the deficit in seats
and raising the combined utilization rate at the two school to well over 100
,
• percent of capacity .
This shortfall of elementary school seats under either scenario would re-
quire one or a combination of the following mitigation measures:
o Rezoning actions to shift the boundaries of school catchment areas to

move students to less overcrowded schools, such as P.S. 9 at 100 West
84th Street, which has 193 available seats, or P.S. 165 at West 109th
Street, which has 332 available seats (see Table II.D-l),
o Creating new satellite facilities in less crowded schools,
o Leasing school space to be constructed 'on the project site either

within proposed structures or in a free-standing mini-school, or
,
o Shifting all or portions of the satellite facilities back to their
parent schools or to other less crowded school buildings.
These and other mitigative measures are described in more detail in Chapter IV,
"Mitigation." At this time, there is no Board of Education commitment to any
mitigative measures. The proposed project would result in a significant unmit-
igated elementary school seat impact if none of these initiatives are taken.
Intermediate Schools. As described above, under "The Future Without the

Project," the current availability of seats combined with the prospective re- I
•
opening of J.H.S. 88 on West l14th Street, the conversion of all middle schools
in the district to free choice schools, and the shifting of ninth grade to high
II.D-23
•
schools expected in the future should maintain sufficient capacity at middle
schools in school district 3 to accommodate added students generated by back-
ground growth and the 1997 No Build projects, as well as the 124 to 140 public
intermediate school students generated by the proposed project by 1997. The
District would be required to rearrange intermediate school attendance patterns
so as to avoid overcrowding at the schools nearest the project.
High Schools. As mentioned above under "Existing Conditions," New York

City public high school students may attend any citywide high school. There-
fore, the 66 to 87 project-generated public high school students would not be ,
expected to affect conditions at public high schools. The possible opening of
a new high school in the former John Jay annex on West 56th Street could open
up additional capacity at the high school level.
Assuming a 90-10 unit mix, in 2002 with full development of the proposed
project, the project would generate 726 public school students (381 elementary,
224 intermediate, and 121 high school). The corresponding numbers, assuming an
80-20 mix, would be 844 students (total), 430 (elementary), 256 (intermediate),
and 158 (high school). The expected effects of these additional students on
local public schools are described below.
ElementaIY Schools. In the year 2002, depending on the unit mix scenario,
a total of between 381 and 430 public elementary school students are projected
to be generated by the proposed project. These additional students would gen-
• erate a significant impact on school capacity by significantly exacerbating the

shortfall of elementary school seats. While the Board of Education and the
Department of City Planning disagree on projected future shortfalls in seats in
District 3, they have determined that administrative actions to keep elementary
school utilization at or below 100 percent of capacity would not be possible
with the proposed project and have suggested the need to provide on-site seats
to mitigate the impacts of project-generated students. The applicant has
agreed to provide new elementary school space on-site for sale or lease to the
Board of Education "at fair market rate". The additional school space could
accommodate 600 elementary school students -- all the project-generated elemen-
tary school students under both unit mix scenarios plus others from off-site.
The consequences of providing additional school space are described in Chapter
IV, "Mitigation Measures."
Intermediate Schools. Despite the expected reopening of J.H.S. 88 on West

l14th Street in September 1993 and the administrative actions expected to take
effect in the 1992-1993 school year, the Board of Education and Department of
City Planning are projecting shortfalls in intermediate school seats in Dis-
trict 3 by 2002 and have concluded that the intermediate school students gen-
erated by the proposed project by 2002 would significantly increase overcrowd-
ing.at intermediate schools. Consequently, they have suggested providing on-
site seats to mitigate the impacts of project-generated students. As noted
above, the applicant has agreed to provide school space on-site for sale or
lease to the Board of Education at fair-market·rate. That space would accommo-
date 600 elementary school students. Under the 90-10 mix, that school would be
• sufficient in size to accommodate the total number of project-generated elemen-

tary and an additional 220 elementary school students from off-site. By accom-
modating enough off-site elementary school students, this mitigation would make
11.D-24
•
room in off-site schools for the 224 intermediate school students generated by
the project. (These students would be accommodated in annexes in elementary
schools.)
Under the 80-20 unit mix, the new school seats provided on-site would be
able to accommodate 170 elementary school students from off-site. By accommo-
dating off-site elementary school students, this mitigation would make room in
off-site schools for nearly 70 percent of the project-generated intermediate
school students. The balance could be absorbed through the provision of addi-
tional seats in other community facility space on site or absorbed in other
District 3 schools. Without a commitment from the Board of Education to such a
shift, however, the proposed project under both the 90-10 and 80-20 mixes would
have an unmitigated adverse impact on intermediate school capacity. The conse-
quences of providing new school are described in Chapter IV, "Mitigation
Measures."
High Schools. The project would generate between 121 and 158 public high
school students. These new students would not be expected to significantly
affect conditions at public high schools.
Public and Private Day Care Facilities
Households of the market-rate units would not be expected to generate an

increase in demand for public day care, since the expected income levels of
•
residents would be higher than the maximum qualifying income for public day
care. It is however likely that the market-rate units would house as many as
140 children under the age of 5 with completion of Phase I of the proposed
project, generating an increase in demand for private day care facilities. By
1997, the affordable low-income households would generate up to 100 children
under the age of 5, who would likely increase the demand for public day care.
Since there are limited publicly funded day care facilities in the study area
and the available facilities are currently operating at capacity with no plans
for added capacity in the future, the number of eligible children likely not to
be served by existing publicly funded day care would increase.
As described above under "The Future Without the Project," demand for pri-
vate day care would likely be met by new or expanded private day care facil-
ities responding to the market for additional services. The provision of addi-
tional public day care would depend on the allocation of funding from the
Agency for Child Development.
Both public and private day care are eligible facilities pursuant to the
applicant's community services marketing goal.
Demand for private and public day care would increase by 2002 with the
addition of more children under the age of 5 -- 250 in the market-rate units
and 175 children in the affordable units. By 2002, the anticipated worker
•
population generated as a result of the completion of the proposed studio space
could also create some demand for public day care seats.
II.D-25
•
Public Libraries
1997 and 2002
Residents of the proposed project would be served by the two general-in-

terest public library branches in the study area: the Columbus branch and the
Riverside branch, and the special-interest Performing Arts Library at Lincoln
Center. With the expansion of both the Riverside Branch and the Performing
Arts Library, the increase in demand for library services which would be ex-
pected with the proposed project would be ameliorated. These libraries would
be able to adequately serve the project population.
I
The proposed development would generate up to 6,200 additional residents

in the study area by 1997. The project is also projected to generate 765 jobs
on-site (see Table 11.1-6 in section 11.1, "Economic Conditions"). Utilizing
the standard measurement of health service adequacy in a particular area used
by the Health Systems Agency of 3.5 beds per 1,000 residents and. about two beds \
per 1,000 workers, the proposed project would generate the need for approxi-
mately 23 beds by 1997.
Both Roosevelt Hospital and St. Clare's Hospital operated below 100 per-
cent of capacity in 1990-1991, Roosevelt at approximately 86 percent and St.
• Clare's between 80 and 85 percent. With the proposed expansion of Roosevelt

Hospital, which will add 79 beds to the 535-bed facility in the future without
the project, area hospitals would be able to meet the increased need for hospi-
tal beds generated by the proposed project's residents and workers. With much
of the proposed project's professional office space likely to be filled by
medical offices, a substantial amount of local health care needs would be met
at the proposed project site. Given the projected income level of the proj-
ect's residents, it is likely that much of their health care and hospital needs
will be met at facilities outside the study area as well.
The proposed development would further generate up to 5,150 residents and

6,050 workers on-site by 2002. This would translate into a need for approxi-
mately 30 additional hospital beds. Based on the available capacity in the two
hospitals closest to the site described above, and the expansion of Roosevelt
Hospital, this small increase in demand would be easily met .
• II.D-26
•
E• URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL CHARACTER
Introduction
This section assesses the visual character and urban design consequences
of the proposed project in relationship to the surrounding study area. Specif-
ically, this section examines how the proposed project would relate to the
existing built form in terms of scale, street grid, streetwa11, view corridors,
natural features, and overall visual character. It also assesses the extent
and significance of the shadows to be cast by the new buildings. The analyses
focus on the parts of the study area c10sest ..to thep.r.oje.ct site, which are
most likely to be affected by the proposed project. In addition, the project's
effects on the neighborhood character of the area -- visual character together
with land use, public spaces, character of residents, historic and cultural
resources, etc. -- are assessed in section 11.0 later in this EIS.
Existing Conditions
Project Site
Views on the Site
• Much of the project site, located along the Hudson River between 59th and
72nd Streets, is vacant and grassy. Both the Miller Elevated Highway and rail-
road tracks used for Amtrak passenger trains run north and south through the
site, and a number of small-scale industrial buildings are located at the
southern end of the site, near 59th Street (see Figures II.E-1 and II.E-2).
Along the waterfront are the dilapidated remains of piers and a floating trans-
fer bridge.
The site meets the West Side's street grade only at 59th Street. The rest
of the 13-b10ck-10ng site is below street level and is edged along its eastern
boundary by the concrete retaining wall, which ranges in height from 20 feet at
the southern end of the site to 50 feet at its northern end (see Figure
II. E-2) . The Amtrak right-of-way runs beside this wall. The northern border
of the site is marked by an elevated ramp leading to the Miller Highway.
The Miller Highway, about 24 feet high at 59th Street and rising to about
58 feet at 72nd Street, .has a strong visual presence over the site, particular-
ly near 72nd Street, where the roadway is widest and highest (see Figure
II.E-2). The highway is supported by steel columns. From ground level, the
underside of the highway appears dark and rusted, but the structure's height
allows some sunlight to enter. Shadows cast by the structure are predominantly
those of the rectangular shadow of the roadbed and of the supporting steel
girders, with more intricate shadows north of 64th Street when the sun is low.
The site's shoreline is characterized by piles that protrude above the

water (the remains of former piers), deteriorated but still standing piers, the
charred remains of former pier buildings, abandoned freight hoisting equipment,
and a deteriorated bulkhead (see Figures II.E-3 and II.E-4).
II. E-1
Project Site Photographs
Figure II.E-l
• View south
• Project site viewed from southern end in line with 62nd Street
10·91
Figure II.E-2
• Typical on-site view of Miller Highway
10·91
Figure II.E-3
• View north along shoreline in line with 62nd Street. Pier "S" to left
"""~
'~. ,,' ,0' '4~
..
-.
.~
~
.,'
• ...,.. ."..
•• / ' •
... "t '."
.:.
"
•
,. l"-.Q:
'4
")
of,
~~
.~ ~ ';"'/#~~
-i/!:.'";,..;.-~' -, _"~~~'.:
. p.;"~ .. '..,
't....." ':-
.1'. '". :.~~i\..'J ..~ " .
~ ......
. '~:+.~>'
......
.• '" "'!"', .,I .
..... -':",:", . ., •
• ~~
View north along site shoreline from 67th to 69th Streets. Portion of pier "C" (foreground), pier "H" (background)
~
11·91
• • •
.-._- .. ---.-... - --~
,.,"
Westbound view of pier "G" (67th Street) Westbound view of pier "'" (70th Street)
-- - .. -- .. ---------------- ._-------- ---.

~
"', ": .~ :.,::' -:,"

, ,.-, "'.-
--~ . :-;:, ';'r'~'~-,.
",. .<>:-"":,;l ~ ~.-
""'_;_ " :."
Northbound view of pier "H" from pier "G" (67th-69th Streets)
Views of Piers G, H and I

Figure II.E-4
Figure ILE-5
--
-- ~.
--.""~'-"<.... ..
~.~~.: ...:.-.1 ....
--,.
• South from project site in line with 62ndStreet; lifshultz structure at right, Con Ed building in background
• -
On-site structure, S9th Street side, three-story portion in foreground
1J 091
•
The only buildings on-site are located at the southern end of the proper-
ty, close to 59th Street. These include a low-rise brick structure, concrete
rai1yard storage buildings along the retaining wall embankment, and a series of
raised concrete loading platforms (see Figure II.E-5). Much of the rest of the
southern area, to about 62nd Street, is paved and used for parking.
Despite these small-scale structures and the presence of the elevated

highway, the prevailing character of the project site is of isolation and broad
open space. Visually, the site is very different from the surrounding area,
and its physical isolation and inaccessibility make it uninviting despite the
proximity of the Hudson River. The condition of the shoreline makes access to
the river dangerous and unpleasant.
Views from the Site
From the project site, the surrounding buildings of Manhattan's West Side
contrast with the vacant site (see Figures II.E-6 and II.E-7). From the south-
ern end of the site, the surrounding area to the south and east appears low,
with the tall smokestack of the Con Edison Power House and the tall slabs of
the 20-story Ford Building and 33-story Roosevelt Hospital staff residence the
most dominant features (see Figure II.E-6). From some locations on the stte, a
backdrop of taller buildings farther east can also be seen.
Moving north, low buildings along the site's border (actually along the
east side of West End Avenue) give way to Capital Cities ABC's complex, which
•
abuts the site with a blank wall; Lincoln Amsterdam-1; and two tall and domi-
nating buildings of Lincoln Towers (see Figure II.E-7). One of these Lincoln
Towers buildings is situa.ted parallel to the project site, so although actually
setback from the site by a courtyard, it appears to form a high wall along the
site's eastern border. At the north end of the site, the unadorned sides of
mid-rise apartment buildings abut the site from 70th to 72nd Street, creating a
high wall that appears as a continuation of the concrete retaining wall.
Views from the site's shoreline are panoramic and impressive. Long
stretches of both the New Jersey and New York shores, from the World Trade
Center to the George Washington Bridge, are visible. From under and east of
the Miller Highway, the river, Palisades, and sky are visible between the high-
way columns.
Views of the Project Site
The steep drop from the study area to the project site bars physical ac-
cess to the site and its waterfront, while the retaining wall, topped by a
chain link fence, impedes visual access. At many locations, large buildings
block views of the site from areas farther east.
From 59th Street and West End Avenue nearby, the southern end of the
project site appears as a jumble of low-rise industrial buildings and paved
parking areas beside the elevated highway and the massive Con Ed Power House
nearby (see Figure II.E-8). The rest of the site is not really visible. From
West End Avenue between 60th and 66th Streets, the Miller Highway is the domi-
• nant feature of the site, with vacant grassy areas visible only at some loca-
tions (see Figure II.E-9). Expansive views of almost all of the site are
II. E-2
Views from Site Toward Manhattar
Figure II.E-~
. -
View east from project site between 59th and 64th Streets
View east from projectsite between 59th and 61st Streets; Roosevelt Hospital staff residence at left,
•
Ford Building at right, Con Edison building at far right
10·91
'_fila Views from Site Toward Manhattan
Figure II.E-7
•
\.
View east from project site between 61 st and 63rd Streets.

Amsterdam Houses (mid-ground), Park Tower South (highrise at far right)
• View northeast from project site between 66th and 72nd Streets. Uncoln Towers in middle,
ABC Building at right
10-91
10'91
• • •
.-"<i"
St;;
, .,
.. ·~t ·-··'i
.~;a _ .....SZ . ..-r-:x...i! .. ;,; .' •
. --..
. .....__......... .
View northwest toward project site from West End Avenue between 59th and 65th Streets
Southern End of Project Site

Figure II.E-8
10·91
• • •
~
1\\ill"1 11 ~
:~ ,I
1111' i __
'...Jt-- .
L.~~
"
,-
~
,'.
';;'
View west toward project site from West End Avenue between 61st and 64th Streets' View west from West End Avenue at 65th Street. Sloped ABC parking lot obstructs views
(note roof of Ufshultz structure at left) of site and Palisades
View of Project Site from West End Avenue

Figure II.E-9
•
available from Freedom Place through the chain-link fence (or above it, if one
climbs onto the cement wall). The site appears as a grassy expanse, dominated
by the Miller Highway (see Figure II.E-lO). Similar views are available from
parts of the grounds at Lincoln Towers. Views of the waterfront structures are
available between the columns of the elevated highway. Similar views of the
site are available from the cul-de-sac at the end of West 7lst Street and from
the highway ramp at 72nd Street (also shown in Figure II.E-lO). From an auto-
mobile on the Miller Highway crossing the project site heading south, most of
the site is not readily visible, but heading north, some of the former railyard
can be seen to the east. Full views of the site are available to passengers on
Amtrak trains traveling through the site. Some of the site's waterfront is
visible from Riverside Park just west of the Henry Hudson Parkway and north of
72nd Street.
The project site can also be seen from many apartments in nearby build-
ings, including those along West End Avenue between 59th and 66th Streets; in
the Amsterdam Houses Addition, Lincoln-Amsterdam 1, Lincoln House, and Lincoln
Towers; and in the apartment buildings at the ends of 70th, 7lst, and 72nd
Streets, and along 72nd Street. A total of approximately 1,300 apartments
within a block of the site now have either direct or angled views of the Hudson
River over the project site: approximately 900 apartments in, Lincoln Towers,.
300 apartments in Amsterdam Houses, and 10'0 apartments in lio West End Avenue.
Apartments in other, taller towers farther east may also have views of the
site.
From all locations, the site is clearly distinct and separate from the·
• surrounding area, distinguished by its separation in grade and by its lack of

development. From many locations east of the project site, the Miller Highway
blocks views of the water and/or portions of the sky and the Palisades.
Study Area
For the analysis of visual character, the study area is divided into three
contextual sections, distinguished by their generally different building types,
scales, and character: southern (Clinton), central (the area around Columbus
Circle and Lincoln Square), and northern (the start of the traditional Upper
West Side). Figure II.E-ll illustrates the general boundaries of each of these
areas and the overall contexts within them. These divisions are the result of
the historic pattern of development in the study area, as described briefly
below and in more detail in section I1.H, "Historic and Archaeological Re-
sources." To accompany the discussion of each contextual area, Figures II.E-12
through II.E-14 present the predominant building types, building heights, and
location of towers within the entire study area. In addition, various photo-
graphs are provided to illustrate the discussion. A key to these photos can be
found in Figure II.E-15.
Development History
As described in section II.H, the large railroad yard and adjacent stock
yards once located on the project site affected development of the immediate
surrounding area. South of 60th Street, development was largely related to
•
railroad and shipping activities along the western edge of the city, and
slaughterhouses, freight yards, factories, and tenements to house workers were
constructed. Today, the southern area has retained an industrial character and
contains repair shops, garages, warehouses, and light industrial lofts. Other
II. E- 3
RIVERSIDE
SOU T H View of Project Site from Freedom Place
Figure II.E-l0
•
View west at project site from Freedom Place between 68th and 70th Streets
• View west at project site from west side of Freedom Place
1()O91
Visual Context in the Study Area
Figure II.E-l1
• , ........./~:.
-
.........,....-J
'\\~5
.~) ',----;:] r
" t".c::;t ~ l
(-'~~~
_u "-
79th St.
UPPER WEST
SIDE
"".
- ~.'.~
~.-:/
:.......
".
-..... .. ,
,I
" ~~
.I_.-._._-' 1- .
:::::::1 '
!:..>::',"
"·_,-1-.•.
r·-·-·-.\.· .
COLUMBUS 1._._._.'
,
~._._
•
• • .r
r
CIRCLE/ I
LINCOLN :::::::V'
• -.-1_1,
SQUARE I
~.-.- ..
.; i
_,-
-_I .. / / /"..
./ ,J
/y
/'i-,
I,
I
.'_._._- ~
CLINTON
WI8~.· "I { S2nd St.

G i l i l .. ~
===600
• ----- Project Site Boundary
_ _ ,Visual Context Boundary
'W//H. Upper West Side Contextual Residential
_ Residential Superblock
" " " Instituti~nal Superblock
' :':::WX Residential Clinton
OOOC Industrial Clinton
0CI
SCALE
I::===':s200 FEET
><>< Mixed Mid-Rise/High-Rise Office/Residential
~~ Institutional
••••• '. Residential
10·91
Predominant Building Types
Figure II.E-12
•
\
1..J
• ,r
.
ct .
: I' 'I
lJ.J :-._._.-.. I" '
-
I
~ :::::::-.
I'
:..-".'.
_r·-~~·I!!-~~
ct 1._ •••••
'-,.,-,
I
..
<! :::::::1
._._._.,
•
0
CI)
a
~.-.-
I
..
.-.-.-~ (Predominantly
f' 6-13 Stories)
:::l
. Houses
:t:
.
••••••••
,
I
i
~.
-.--~
----- Projed Site Boundary

====500
0CI :c===1::JOOO FEET
SCALE
_ _ Study Area Boundary
•
~\.\.\.\.~ Low-rise (3-6 Story) Midblock Townhouses, Late 19th/Early 20th Century
mNfX~ Low-rise (1-6 Story) Industrial, Prewar
WA Mid-rise (7-20 Story) ReSidential, Prewar, on Aves. and Major Cross Streets
>OOOc Mid-rise (7-20 Story) Commercial, Prewar; on Aves. and Major Cross Streets
_ Modem High-rise (20 + stories) Residential
'/'//// Modem Super-block Development (Building heights within outlined area)
* Modem High-rise Commercial
10'91
RIVEHSIDE
SOU T H Building Heights in the Study Area
Figure II.E-13
• 79th st.
.
I I
- I:
..-'."'.y'/ :
• I
r-.--~ ,.1
----'.,
/"
... /"
/'
i·
I'
/ .- '"
t. _ .,....;--." ::1'
f-·?/
_____ .::: I)!
Ii
r---- ; ill
I
•
" _ . _ •. / ;,,'1
r ---..,,- I ; I'
I
-.-~]"1'1
/
r·4~ I:!
"
/:1
,
It
I //'
-~-A, :' \
/~\i
•
\
/ I ( /1
I
r=: c
• _I 7-20
• _._. Projed Site Boundary
, _ _ Study Area Boundary
0-6 'irm:tiiJj: Number of Stories
'21-30 ~-
31+_"
•
D ====~~c====='5~~H
I C
SCALE
1()o91
RIVERSIDE
SOU T H
ex:
IJJ
-ex:
~. -
• ~
·0
CI)
Q
:::>
::t
• ----- Project Site Boundary

31
*
No. of Stories
Residential
• Planned-NYC Discretionary Approval Granted
• Commercial
D ====;C:::=:::j1i FEET
I C
SCALE
1()O91
•
late 19th and early 20th century structures east of the project site, primarily
tenements, were replaced during the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's by large-scale
urban renewal efforts.
Development in the northern part of the study area took a very different
course from that of the area south of 70th Street. The creation of Riverside
Park and Riverside Drive on the west and Central Park on the east created natu-
ralistic and picturesque edges that spurred the fashionable development of the
area between them. Many architecturally distinguished late 19th century and
early 20th century structures built in this area are still standing. (The many
designated historic resources and historic districts on the Upper West Side are
described in section II.H, "Historic and Archaeological Resources.")
Southern Area -- Clinton
The southern part of the visual quality study area generally extends from
52nd Street north to 56th Street between Eighth and Tenth Avenues, and to 59th
Street from Tenth Avenue to the river, but also includes a small industrial
area remaining close to the project site between 59th and 6lst Streets (see
Figure II.E-11). This area is dominated by low-rise, industrial buildings west
of Tenth Avenue and low-rise residential buildings east of Tenth Avenue.
Urban Form. In Clinton, the street grid is regular and continuous until
it terminates at the West Side Highway. Between 55th and 57th Streets, the
highway cuts westward at an angle, so the blocks between Eleventh Avenue and
the h~ghway south of 57th Street are shorter than other blocks in Clinton. On
• some blocks, a service road runs beside the West Side Highway. The border
created by the highway and service road limit traffic in the western part of
Clinton.
The street grid is also broken by Dewitt Clinton Park, a "superblock"

between 52nd and 54th Streets, Eleventh Avenue, and the West Side Highway.
Fifty-third Street dead-ends at the park, creating a block twice the size of
the others in the area. Another visual superblock is created between 55th and
57th Streets adjacent to the West Side Highway, where the Department of Sanita-
tion's large building cuts off 56th Street at the western end. However, the
street continues via an underpass through the building.
Buildings. This is an area of predominantly low-rise (six stories or

less) buildings that is dotted with some taller structures (see Figures II.E-12
and II.E-13). The tallest buildings are 39-story Clinton Towers, on the east
side of Eleventh Avenue between 54th and 55th Streets, and the 2l-story AT&T
Switching Center on the west side of Tenth Avenue between 53rd and 54th
Streets. Close to the project site is the 20-story Ford Building at 58th
Street and Eleventh Avenue. The only other buildings this tall in the Clinton
subarea are on or close to Eighth Avenue -- the 25-story Encore Apartments
between 53rd and 54th Streets, and 20-story and 23-story apartment buildings on
the two blocks to its north. They appear as extensions of taller midtown to
their east and the Columbus Circle area to their north (discussed below). The
Con Ed Power House's 500-foot-tall stack, just south of the project site at
59th Street and Eleventh Avenue, is the tallest feature in the Clinton subarea.
•
In general, the tall buildings appear out of scale in this low-rise area. At
the borders of the Clinton subarea, low buildings give way to taller, newer
buildings in the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area, discussed below.
II. E-4
•
Natural Features. The only prominent natural area in Clinton is Dewitt
Clinton Park, a grassy space with trees and recreational facilities. From the
western end of the park, which is elevated above the adjacent West Side High-
way, views of the Hudson River are available. The river is not generally ac-
cessible, either physically or visually, at other locations in the Clinton
subarea, since it is blocked by a clutter of low-rise pier and bulkhead struc-
tures. Most of Clinton's streets slope upward from the river to about Tenth
Avenue.
Visual Character. The low-rise industrial buildings in Clinton are gen-

erally bulky, often with few windows, and built to the street line (see Figure
II.E-16). They form a low and jagged streetwall (alternating from one through
six stories in height), temporarily broken by open garage--doors and loading
docks, 'as well as numerous open areas and gasoline stations. Pedestrian activ-
ity is minimal, and traffic flow is also limited except for trucks serving the
area's industries and vehicles finding their way to and from the West Side
Highway. Throughout the area, particularly along the wider streets, the ave-
nues, and the West Side Highway, Clinton is characterized by a feeling of open-
ness; large areas of the sky are visible.
Closest to the project site, along 59th, 60th, and 6lst Streets, as in the
rest of the area, uses are primarily industrial and the scale of buiidings is
small. Contrasting with the typical unadorned structures is the Con Edison
Power Plant, which occupies the entire block just south of the project site and
visually dominates the area. The plant's scale and architectural detail con-
•
trast sharply with surrounding development, and its tall stack is a strong
visual element.
Views and View Corridors. Looking westward down 52nd, 54th, and 55th
Streets, the West Side Highway and open sky beyond can be seen. Fifty-third
Street ends at Dewitt Clinton Park. As described above, the Department of
Sanitation Building between 55th and 57th Streets blocks views westward on 56th
Street. The elevated highway, which begins in a ramp at 57th Street, creates a
barrier that blocks views down 57th, 58th, 59th, and 60th Streets, but moving
east of Eleventh Avenue, the grade rises and views are available of the river
and Palisades over the highway ramp (see Figures II.E-17, II.E-18, and
II.E-19).
Central Area -- Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square
As shown in Figure II.E-ll, above, the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area

extends generally from 56th Street east of Tenth Avenue and 59th Street west of
Tenth Avenue, to 68th Street east of Broadway and 70th Street west of Broadway.
It is bordered on the east by Central Park and on the west by the project site. '
Urban Form. The dominant features of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square

area are various superblock developments -- most built between the late 1940's
and mid-1960's as urban renewal projects -- and Broadway, which travels diago-
nally through the area. The superblocks include Lincoln Center, Fordham Uni-
versity, Lincoln Towers, Amsterdam Houses, 'the New York Coliseum, and the for-
mer Penn Yards. The superblocks interrupt the typical Manhattan street grid,
•
and as a result, from 59th to 70th Street, only 60th, 66th, and 70th Streets
II. E-5
Key to Photographs'of Study Area
Figure II.E-1S
• . . . . . . ~:......·..·····...."1
~ __ ~\\U
r .._..·...._ ..·............"\ \ ~
I
[ ......·........·..........·....·........·....·1
I~____
[.'!!:.?~!?!!!~.................
\ r•
I•
· ,.......·......·........".........·1
1. . . . . . .:o!IEIlI........:
r.·. .·. . . . . ·. . . .·. \ ,. . . ·. . . . .·. . . . . .·.
'--~lJ!l,IIi"I'............~........_._..............l ._............................................
\. ~
;;:.~~.~;...................
·1 ,...................................
w. nST ST.
J
• ..l ~. i i :I&l\\ LI~------
·
.. ___ ,.:W:.:...7:.::,:OTH=ST,,-._ _
------""
I .-.~."'- " .".
..;
\i"+ \'\ : i
\'\
"" =-=---
r·,.",,-,.::...
~l\
",
'--.-1
OT
2""
"I.",
.".
'W::.._
<'1
...../ .
• ..,..., I r-.m
0:
LU
r-·_·]":
'"
·-·_·-r""
\. .;
\l\\1. \u rum"
-
~
0:
•------
1. ____ .".
~.......:timJ;
\~ IW.67THS~"
\\~
<= r-·-·l
1- _ _ _ _ _
\
1\
i __
,W.6STliST.
•
0 '-.--------:~'- ~ W.651liST.
•
CJ}
I• I~
·. . ._.-..j
..
,
Q "--w-.64--TH-,.ST..,.....-
:::l
::t: L._ ...:::,,,.:
.;.....
.",
. ~
x
a:
\ s= ~\\. _. . . .
\, ~
~
\
•
Ci
il
n\~
~\'--
• \
I!il " ,'" I
t-V
l..m
~I
r::;s\\\
I• II.i i: ~ i \
\ ..'1'-m....~.............................. : ~a:..'!!:.!C!.!~.!!!.............................~ ~
,I
,..----- .................................,
. _. _II_. _. J
1
• ____ _
1. '·i i' i8 .
i ....................................... .................;..............................!
1"..............................................., ~ : I~ r'!!:·~·!!!~· ..·........................] ~ " - - - _
r---------, ~ ~ W. 58TH ST. ~ ...--_ _ __

L.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...l5 [':~\~:':. .....
m ......................... ..J L.. . . m ............: .................... ...J z 1...................................
\,~i,\\·l I r - - - - -. . c---~~------,
-;;.,,:
W.57THST.
,'~ I I \\ '. 1
o 500 1000 FEET
tl========tl======~1
. _ . - Project Site Boundary SCALE
• +fD View Direction and Figure Reference Number of Photograph
Note: See section II.E for study area photographs referenced in this figure. The photographs are
referenced here by figure number; if a figure contains two photographs, "A" refers to a photo
at the top or left of the figure and "B" refers to a photo at the bottom or right of the page.
5·92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Predominant Building Types in Clinton
Figure II.E-16
• ",~:fif~ ';:~I-;"j> • iN •
t·s:::::~~~::~:~·
giH, ,H~
- ........ '"
• View east from 60th Street between West End Avenue and Amsterdam Avenue
--.--....
. . .; , "'>'.
. )
• View west from 57th Street west of Eleventh Avenue

RlVERSIDE
sou T H 59th Street Western View Corridor
Figure II.E-17
• View west along 59th Street from Amsterdam Avenue
I
••
• View west along 59th Street from West End Avenue
5'92
60th Street Western View Corridor
•
Figure II.E-18
• View west along 60th Street from Amsterdam Avenue
• View west along 60th Street from West End Avenue

RIVERSIDE
SOU T H 61 st Street Western View Corridor
•
Figure II.E-19
• View west along 61 st Street from Amsterdam Avenue
• View west from 61 st Street and west End Avenue

•
are uninterrupted between Central Park and the proposed project site (this is
illustrated in Figure II.E-20). Because of the superblocks, vehicular and
pedestrian passage through the western part of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln
Square subarea is difficult and, consequently, many of the side streets see
little traffic or pedestrian activity.
Throughout the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area, but particularly in

front of Lincoln Center, the normal street grid is further broken by Broadway,
which cuts diagonally across the entire West Side north of 59th Street. Broad-
way intersects with Central Park West at Columbus Circle, creating complicated
traffic and pedestrian patterns. At Lincoln Center, Broadway crosses Columbus
Avenue at 65th Street, creating oddly shaped blocks and several small open
plazas. Sixty-fifth and 66th Streets are heavily traveled because they provide
access to and from the East Side through Central Park, and this bow-tie-shaped
intersection is busy and confusing for vehicles and pedestrians alike.
Closer to the project site, the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square subarea

also includes Freedom Place, an anomalous street running along the western
boundary of Lincoln Towers beside the project site. This street is little used
because it is an unexpected (and generally unnecessary) extension beyond the
subarea's regular street grid .-_,/whichends at West End Avenue - - and is
blocked from sight by the bU'il4i'l1gs. of LincoIn Towers.
Buildings. Much of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area is dominated

by taller, modern buildings, most built within the last 20 years. Almost all
•
of the buildings 20 stories or taller in the larger study area are located
here, most concentrated in the blocks surrounding Lincoln Center. The tallest
residential towers in the study area are generally between 40 and 50 stories,
although several of the newest are between 50 and 60 stories (see Figures
I1.E-12 through II.E-14, above).
South of Lincoln Center, close to Columbus Circle, tall towers are con-
centrated along 57th Street -- including the 56-story One Central Park Place,
45-story Colonnade, 48-story Sheffield, and 30-story Aurora. Much of the rest
of 57th Street to Tenth Avenue is lined by mid-rise buildings of 7 to 20
stories.
Lincoln Center and Fordham University, extending from 60th to 65th Street
between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues, form the center of this subarea. Gen-
erally, these two institutions form one large, low area, dominated by large-
scale but low buildings within expansive level plazas. Behind them (to their
west, along Amsterdam Avenue) are more tall buildings -- the 52-story Park
South Tower and 36-story Alfred I, on the east side of Amsterdam Avenue, and
the 35-story Concerto and 33-story Roosevelt Hospital Staff Residence west of
Amsterdam Avenue. These towers are set off by open spaces and large plazas.
In front of Lincoln Center is the relatively open area where Broadway,

65th Street, and Columbus Avenue intersect. The area immediately east of Lin-
coln Center and Fordham University, particularly the blocks between 60th and
64th Streets east of Columbus Avenue, is almost completely occupied by tall
buildings. Nine buildings here are between 20 and 45 stories high. These
•
include the 44-story Paramount Communications building at Columbus Circle; the
34-story Regent and 3l-story Beaumont between 60th and 6lst Streets; and the
II.E-6
Vehicular and Pedestrian Routes
Interrupted by Superblocks
• Figure II.E-20
~==:::::I :::'
'---_~I
==~
\..1 __
oJ
Uncaln .....:.-~~+-~
Tower.
=-~~~~~,(!----1r~ Centar
Uncaln
Amsterdam _-.-!:~HH---Ii
•
House•
DC
I ===600
CI==1S2fFEET
SCALE
. .- - Pedestrian Route through Superblock

• - Interrupted Route
IIIIIIII!mI Superblock
•
30-story Lincoln Plaza Tower, 32-story 30 Lincoln Plaza, and 42-story One Lin-
coln Plaza between 61st and 64th Streets. Buildings are close together, creat-
ing a dense urban setting, and many are set back from the street by small urban
plazas, so there is no consistent streetwa11. These tall buildings contrast
with the low buildings fronting on Broadway at the bow-tie intersection and
with the shorter buildings of Lincoln Center itself. Just to the north, close
to 65th and 66th Streets, this area of tall buildings continues, with five more
buildings between 20 and 36 stories in height.
In the Lincoln Square area, Central Park West from 62nd Street north is
lined with mid-rise, pre-war apartment buildings, most between 7 and 15 sto-
ries. These create a solid, consistent streetwa11 along the park. They are
visually related more to the Upper West Side area, described-below·,-than to the
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square subarea.
North of Lincoln Center, Columbus Avenue continues uptown lined by pre-

dominantly low-rise structures. The bulk and mass north of Lincoln Center
shift to Amsterdam Avenue, which is lined with tall new buildings, including
59-story Three Lincoln Center, 30-story Lincoln Center North, 47-story Tower
67, and 42-story One Sherman Square, as well as other towers between 25 and 30
stories tall.
Between Lincoln Center and the project site is the large superblock of
Amsterdam Houses -- a series of identical mid-rise brick buildings set within a
landscaped area between 61st and 64th Streets. The Amsterdam Houses buildings
•
along Amsterdam Avenue are taller than those farther west (13 stories rather
than 6). To their north is the large-scale superblock of Lincoln Towers, be-
tween 66th and 70th Streets west of Amsterdam Avenue. Two of these long, a1-
most identical buildings are sited parallel to the area's avenues -- one west
of Amsterdam Avenue and the other west of West End Avenues. Although set back
from the street, they form massive walls, about two blocks long', that block
views to the west. Between them, but oriented parallel to the area's east-west
streets, are three other similar buildings -- one along 66th Street and two
within the superblock; a fourth is located along 70th Street. The buildings of
Lincoln Towers are set within grassy, landscaped areas.
Natural Features. The only prominent natural features near the Columbus
Circle/Lincoln Square subarea are Central Park and the Hudson River. The Hud-
son River waterfront is not accessible, and is only visible from limited loca-
tions looking across the project site and past the elevated Miller Highway.
Most of this subarea is flat, except between Amsterdam and West End Avenues,
where the land slopes down toward the river. The grade drops off abruptly at
West End Avenue between 63rd and 65th Streets, and at the project site boundary
north of 65th Street. .
Visual Character. As noted above, the overall visual character of the

Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square subarea is of tall, new buildings on many blocks
and large-scale urban superblocks in much of the rest of the area.
The superblocks differ from Manhattan's typical streetwa11, lot line de-
velopment, resulting in an inconsistent streetscape with broken or nonexistent
•
streetwalls. Only along Central Park West and the side streets just to its
west are consistent streetwa11s presented. Much of the rest of the Columbus
II. E- 7
•
Circle/Lincoln Square subarea is marked by plazas and towers set within land-
scaped superblocks without regard to the streetscape. Closest to the project
site, the buildings of Lincoln Towers do create a strong wall, although they
are actually set back some distance from the street.
The superblock developments are internally organized, with few streetwall

buildings or entrances on the street, but rather buildings set on large open
spaces, where entry into the complex or the buildings is not clear. Some, like
Lincoln Center, have periods of activity, and then are vacant the rest of the
day and night. Each of the superblock developments is characterized by coordi-
nated design that gives it a strong visual identity, but, by generally ignoring
surrounding development, contributes little to a visual identity for the entire
area. Further, the superblocks are on a level, often raised surface that ig-
nores changes in the surrounding street grid and creates a perimeter wall that
isolates each project from its surroundings. The major locations where plat-
forms, walls, and buildings with limited or no windows dominate the streetscape
are shown in Figure II.E-2l.
The center of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square subarea -- Lincoln Center

and Fordham University -- and the area to their east are dominated by hard
surfaces, paved plazas, little architectural detail, and few naturalistic ele-
ments (see Figure II.E-22).
The buildings of Lincoln Center have windowless backs facing onto Amster-
dam Avenue, and do not add visual complexity or interest to Amsterdam Avenue or
•
points west of the avenue. Across the avenue are Amsterdam Houses, which do
not present their front facades or main entrances onto Amsterdam Avenue, eith-
er, and to their north, La Guardia and Martin Luther King High Schools -- Mar-
tin Luther King High School is set back from the street. Continuing north,
Amsterdam Avenue forms a temporary canyon between the long facade of one of the
buildings of Lincoln Towers and the tall buildings on the east side of the
street (described above). For most of its length in the subarea, Amsterdam
Avenue is not crossed by side streets, since the west side is lined by super-
blocks. Overall, this part of Amsterdam Avenue does not have a consistent
visual character or unifying design.
The large superblocks of Amsterdam Houses and Lincoln Towers effectively

separate the project site from the rest of the subarea east of Amsterdam
Avenue.
Closest to the project site is West End Avenue. On the west side of the
avenue from 59th to 65th Street are vacant land and parking- areas, all below
the grade of the avenue. On the east side, Amsterdam Houses are set back from
and raised above street level from 61st to 63rd Street. Farther north,between
66th and 70th Streets, West End Avenue passes through the middle of the Lincoln
Towers development.
Amsterdam Houses' 13 identical buildings set within landscaped grounds

between Amsterdam and West End Avenues from 6lst to 64th Street form a visual
unit separate from the surrounding city grid. Use of the adjacent sidewalks
and outdoor spaces for children's play and adult passive recreation add to the
• intimate residential character of these blocks. Figure II.E-23 shows a view of

Amsterdam Houses.
II. E-8
Walls, Platform Edges,
and Buildings Without Windows
• i~ t ':, P
I. _""':..\\\~I
IIi \1',1
Figure II.E-21
\
II.
t'l 1'.\
,I.,
1:1 ,JI~\
I~ I,','
:
I'~
.-.!'~~~ n._
"J'I.
I,
7,'.... .
:!~ ,.,
Ii
ex: ii
o.
lJJ
:::::..
_._._._1.il
~
--ex: i
~:=?)I
,.._._~ I
<: r·_·_ I i
..
- ;
i._._._.:~
0 .-._." ;
CI,) -_.-._. V
I
Q
.i-'~
_.-._ ..
•
'
~
:r::
,
·1
•
I
•
\ ~
\,
•
o I
•
II
'.
ii_a_I-iJ
•
._.-.
I t;
._._. Project Site Boundary DC!====::I:sr'===::=j1'f FEET

SCALE
•
- Wall or Platform Edge
- - Building with Few or No Windows
~ Superblock Development
5092
Lincoln Center
Figure II.E-22
• View southwest from Uncoln Center Plaza near 64th Street and Columbus Avenue
• View west from Broadway and 65th Street; Alice Tully Hall at right
Amsterdam Houses
•
Figure II.E-23
• Superblock development: view northwest of Amsterdam Houses from Amsterdam Avenue
•
•
The two blocks directly north of the Amsterdam Houses between 64th and
66th Streets contrast greatly with the human scale and bustling activity which
characterize the Amsterdam Houses. The large blank walls of the Martin Luther
King High School and the Con Edison substation dominate 66th Street between
West End and Amsterdam Avenues. The lack of continuous pedestrian and vehicu-
lar traffic give these blocks a deserted feeling.
Lincoln Towers, a complex of post-war 28- and 29-story residential apart-

ment buildings, is situated between 66th and 70th Streets, Freedom Place, and
Amsterdam Avenue. The scale, siting, and the number of visually similar build-
ings make this complex a dominant area feature (see Figure II.E-24).
On the south side of Lincoln Towers;· 66th Street·is·marked·on -one side by

a low- to mid-rise wall of buildings, and on the other by the solid wall of one
of the buildings of Lincoln Towers. On the north side, along 70th Street, a
similar wall is created on one side by Lincoln Towers; on the other side is a
uniform streetwall created by mid-rise apartment buildings typical of the
Upper West Side subarea (described below). Adjacent to the project site is
Freedom Place, a wide but sparsely used street. It is lined on the west by the
chain-link boundary and open sky of the project site, which is actually far
below the grade of Freedom Place. On the east, .it is bordere.d by a blank wall
prote~tingLincoln Towers' open areas, with the solid wall created by the long,
tall buildings of that development behind. Because no buildings are close to
the street, Freedom Place is dominated by the amount of sky that is visible
(see Figure II.E-2S).
• Views and View Corridors. Throughout much of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln

Square subarea, wide areas of sky are open, particularly toward the west (south
of Lincoln Towers), where there are few tall buildings .and the grade drops
toward the Hudson River. In this subarea, notable areas that have the sky for
a western backdrop include Lincoln Center and Fordham University (see Figure
II.E-26).
Views of the Hudson River, the New Jersey Palisades, and a large expanse
of unobstructed sky are available west of Amsterdam Avenue along most street
corridors in this subarea. Views of the river are partially obstructed by the
Miller Highway and its supports. However, a number of view corridors are
blocked by buildings, including the 62nd Street corridor, which is obstructed
by one of the Amsterdam Houses buildings, and 67th, 68th, and 69th Streets,
which are blocked by Lincoln Towers. East of Amsterdam Avenue, 63rd Street is
partially blocked by the trees at Amsterdam Houses. Westward views and view
corridors along 6lst through 69th Streets are shown in Figures II.E-27 through
II.E-33.
The Palisades, Hudson River, and elevated Miller Highway are visible to
the west from the streets with westward view corridors toward the project site,
but the overgrown swath of the former railyards is visible only from those
areas directly next to the retaining wall or from buildings overlooking the
site. In addition to these east-west views, the project site and Hudson River
are visible from a number of other points, though the view is partially ob-
structed by the Miller Highway. These locations are described above under
e·
"Project Site."
II. E-9
5-92
View southeast from 70th Street and West End Avenue
View south along West End Avenue from 70th Street (note Con Ed plant smokestack to south)
Lincoln Towers
Figure II.E-24
. ,-.~
Freedom Place
Figure ILE-25
View north to 70th Street
View northwest from 66th Street

5·92
View from Fordham University's plaza
View east of West End Avenue
61 st Street Western View Corridor

Figure II.E-26
62nd Street Western View
Figure II.E-27
View west from Amsterdam Houses at Amsterdam Avenue and 62nd Street
5·92
RIVERSIDE
SOU T H 63rd Street Western View Corridor
Figure II.E-28
View west from Amsterdam Houses near Amsterdam Avenue and 63rd Street
View west from Amsterdam Houses at midblock in line with 63rd Street (between Amsterdam Avenue and West End Avenue)
RIVERSIDE
SOU T H 64th Street Western View Corridor
Figure II.E-29
View west along 64th Street from Amsterdam Avenue
View west from 64th Street and West End Avenue
5·92
---- ------------------------,------------------------------------,-,----------------
RIVERSIDE
SOU T H 65th Street Western View Corridor
Figure II.E-30
View west from 65th Street and West End Avenue
5092 _
RIVERSIDE
SOU T H 66th Street Western Vie-w Corridor
Figure II.E-31
.'
"".
... '...IQ~<-
View west along 66th Street from West End Avenue
5·92
67th and 68th Streets
Figure II.E-32
View west from 67th Street and Amsterdam Avenue

.;..,.
:..,
...
.:;'.. ..~,.;,.;.,.
View west from 68th Street and Amsterdam Avenue

.................. _--_._._-_._----_.-,-"--
69th Street
Figure II.E-33
View west from Amsterdam Avenue
5092
__ • ___ •• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.W".........",.~_ _
Northern Area -- Upper West Side
The area just south of 72nd Street (along 68th Street east of Broadway and
70th Street west of Broadway) marks the southern end of the residential Upper
West Side. For this project, the northern boundary of the study area is 77th
Street between Central Park West and Columbus Avenue and 79th Street west of
Columbus Avenue (see Figure II.E-ll, above).
Urban Form. Unlike the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area to its south,
the Upper West Side maintains the traditional Manhattan street grid, with no
interruptions from superblocks. This grid ends at Riverside Drive, which forms
a curved border to the built environment of the Upper West Side. As in the
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square subarea to its--sbuth, Broadway cuts diagonally
across the grid. Here, however, the result is orderly, since Broadway and the
streets it intersects are defined by consistent walls of buildings. Throughout
the Upper West Side subarea, the avenues (except Riverside Drive) and the wide,
two-way cross streets -- 72nd and 79th Streets -- are more heavily traveled,
while the side streets see lower, but consistent, levels of vehicular and pe-
destrian activity.
Buildings. This area does not include tall towers like those found in the
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area to its south. The dominant development
patterns here are mid-rise residential buildings on Riverside Drive, West End
Avenue, Broadway, Central Park West, and the major crosstown streets, with
smaller buildings on Amsterdam Avenue and row houses along the side streets.
The tallest buildings are the solid walls of mid-rise apartment buildings (gen-
erally between 7 and 20 stories) along Central Park West, Amsterdam Avenue,
Broadway, West End Avenue, Riverside Drive, and West 79th Street (see Figures
II.E-ll through II.E-l4, above). A small concentration of taller buildings are
located on 72nd Street close to Central Park West -- the 30-story Majestic
Apartments as well as a 3l-story and a 36-story building -- and, two blocks to
the north, the 27-story San Remo on Central Park West. Other mid-rise apart-
ment buildings are concentrated along 72nd Street.
Natural Features. The Upper West Side subarea is bordered on both the
east and west by two of Manhattan's largest parks -- Central Park and Riverside
Park. Both are large, landscaped natural areas with trees, grass, winding
paths, and distinctive topographic features -- most notably Riverside Park's
steep slope down toward the Hudson River. The river is visible at the end of
70th, 7lst, and 72nd Streets, but otherwise, Riverside Park is the only area
within the study area where the riverfront is visually and physically access-
ible. The rest o.f the study area does not have any notable topographic
features.
Visual Character. The consistency of the scale and massing of the build-
ings in the Upper West Side subarea, the complementary patterns of building
types, and the consistency with which the pattern is repeated give a character-
istic visual identity to the area.
Most of the buildings on Riverside Drive, West End Avenue, and Central
Park West are pre-war apartment buildings, usually covering most of their lots
and built to the streetwall. Design details often include a limestone base and
setbacks above the cornice line, so that a consistent streetwall is created.
II.E-lO
Along Central Park West such buildings provide a continuity of design that
extends beyond the boundaries of the study area. The visual similarity of
these buildings, several of which feature twin towers or distinctive ornamenta-
tion, is maintained by their consistent scale and massing.
Amsterdam Avenue between 70th and 79th Streets is lined with a mix of such
apartment buildings and five- to seven-story tenements; closest to 70th Street,
mid-rise buildings create a streetwall like those on the other avenues in the
Upper West Side subarea (see Figure II.E-34). The midblock stretches of the
cross streets -- except the major crosstown streets of 72nd and 79th Streets --
are generally lined with row houses (typically three to six stories). These
low buildings are usually set back the same distance from the street line, and
thus present a consistent streetwall .. Building materials. are mostly brownstone
or limestone, with some brick. Repeated setbacks and cornice lines are typi-
cal. Consistency in style and materials has also been fostered by the tendency
of developers to construct groups of town houses rather than single units. The
small scale and fine architectural detailing of the brownstones provide a rich-
ness of visual detail, while maintaining a harmony and visual integrity
throughout these blocks. There is an intimate residential character here due
to the building scale and the intensity of street and sidewalk activity.
Closest to thepr'dject site, the north side of 70th Street is lined with a
row of mid-rise 'apartment buildings and smaller row houses, typical of the
Upper West Side but in marked contrast to Lincoln Towers across 70th Street.
Seventy-first Street is similarly lined with row houses and apartment build-
ings. West of West End Avenue, 7lst Street dead-ends at the project site,
making the block seem a quiet enclave (see Figure II.E-35).
Seventy-second Street is a wide, two-way street and, like the avenues, is

lined with mid-rise apartments buildings of similar character and design (see
Figure II.E-36). Just north of the project site, West 72nd Street has a unique
character where it curves to join the start of Riverside Drive. Riverside
Drive winds north along Riverside Park, with its buildings defining the eastern
edge of the park. The intersection of West 72nd Street and Riverside Drive is
particularly open, with wide views of the sky available to the west and south-
west over the project site (see Figure II.E-37).
Views and View Corridors. View corridors in the Upper West Side subarea
are generally open to Central Park to the east and Riverside Park to the west.
Seventieth Street terminates at the project site, with a wide expanse of sky
over the project site (see Figure II.E-38). Similarly, 7lst Street also ends
at, but high above, the project site, so the sky can be seen (see Figure
II.E-35, above). Seventy-second Street ends at the Henry Hudson Parkway, and
because of the vacant project site to its south and the flat expanse of the
highway to the west, views of the sky and Palisades are available (see Figure
II.E-36, above).
The apartment buildings adjacent to the site between 70th and 72nd Streets
and the taller buildings (including Presidential Towers) located between 70th
and 72nd Streets enjoy views across the river.
II.E-ll
RIVERS[OE
SOU T H Amsterdam Avenue North from 70th Stree1
Figure II.E-34
-----------------------------------------------------~~-----,.~
-71st Street
Figure II.E-35
View west from mid block west of West End Avenue

..., \0
cu rt'\
I
...,f -•
LU
'" ...G.I
-C ::::I
C en
N u...-
"
Views Toward Site at 72nd Street
and·Riverside Park
Figure II.E-37
View southwest from Riverside Park at 72nd Street; Chatsworth Apartments at left, project site at right (below street level)
View southwest from 72nd Street and Riverside Drive; Chatsworth Apartments at left,
project site at right (below street level),Palisades in background
5-92
RIVERS[DE
sou T H 10th Street Western View Corridor
Figure II.E-38
View west along 70th Street from Amsterdam Avenue .
View west along 70th Street from West End Avenue
5-92
Project Site
In 1997, if the proposed project is not constructed, the project site is

expected to remain largely vacant and physically cut off from the rest of the
city. The remaining piers will continue to deteriorate and the shoreline be-
tween 59th and 72nd Streets will remain inaccessible to the public. The ele-
vated Miller Highway will continue to cross the site.
Views from the site will change because of development planned for nearby
sites. The surrounding area will appear taller than it does now, particularly
because of the developments proposed for the Capital Cities/ABC and Manhattan
West sites, adjacent to the project site in an area that is currently vacant.
Changes to the surrounding area are discussed below under "Study Area." Views
of the Hudson River and New Jersey shoreline are expected to remain unchanged,
although some new buildings may be added along the New Jersey riverfront.
Views of the project site'frdmthe surrounding area are also expected to

remain the same. However, wide open views from West End Avenue between 61st
and 65th Streets will be partially blocked by new buildings and new view corri-
dors will be created there. Additional apartments in the proposed new develop-
ments will have views of the project site and across the site to the river (see
discussion under "Study Area," below).
Study Area
As described in section II.B, "Land Use and Zoning," a number of develop-

ments are proposed for the study area in the future. Most of these will be in
the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square subarea, and several large projects are
proposed adjacent or very near to the project site.
Clinton. One new development is proposed in the Clinton subarea by 1997

the West 60th Street rezoning project. This project would replace the low-
rise industrial buildings on West 60th Street just east of West End Avenue with
a 39-story residential tower on West End Avenue and a midb1ock, 16-story ele-
ment. This new development would be very different from the industrial context
of Clinton, but similar to buildings in the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square
subarea just to the east. The rest of the Clinton subarea is expected to re-
main generally unchanged by 1997.
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square. In this subarea, two projects are pro-

posed adjacent to the project site,and a number of other projects are proposed
farther east.
Next to the project site, the Manhattan West and Capital Cities/ABC proj-
ects would change the immediate context of the site. Both would be constructed
west of West End Avenue between 61st and 65th Streets. The Manhattan West
project is proposed for the currently vacant area between 61st and 64th
Streets, West End Avenue, and the Amtrak right-of-way . . As proposed, Manhattan
II. E-12
•••• _•• _•• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~ ~~l::.~
West would extend 63rd and 64th Streets from West End Avenue to the project
site, and would extend a private road in place of 62nd Street. These streets
would connect to a north-south street that would form the western border of the
Manhattan West project site. Between 61st and 63rd Streets, the project would
include one residential building with sections ranging between 28 and 39 sto~
ries tall and some lower elements. (Because this building would be separated
at grade and above by the private drive at 62nd Street, it would appear as two
bUildings.) A new public park is proposed between 63rd and 64th Streets.
Just north of the Manhattan West site, on a site currently occupied by a

parking lot overlooking the former Penn Yards, Capital Cities/ABC proposes to
construct expanded studio and storage space that would serve as a base for
three 45-story residential towers. .... --.-. ........~. '.
Together, these two projects would change the immediate context of the
project site from' largely vacant and industrial to high-rise residential, mak-
ing the area much more like the developed Lincoln Square area farther east.
They would contrast with the predominantly low-rise industrial and residential
buildings along West End Avenue between 59th and 64th Streets and with the Con
Edison power plant at 59th Street. Where wide open views of the project site
and river are currently available, new view corridors would be created and some
vi.ewswouldbe. partially blocked. In both these projects, a n~ber of new
apartments would be added with views of the proposed project site and the river
beyond. These projects would block some views of the river and the project
site from residences within Amsterdam Houses.
In addition, a number of developments are planned east of Amsterdam Ave-

nue, including a 14-story expansion to Roosevelt Hospital at Tenth Avenue and
58th Street; Brodsky East, consisting of two residential towers up to 45 sto-
ries tall on the same block as the hospital expansion, close to Ninth Avenue;
63-story Columbus Center, on the west side of Columbus Circle; a 40-story tower
at 15 West 63rd Street (YMCA); the new 20-story Fordham dormitory, already
under construction at Amsterdam Avenue and 60th Street; 44-story Alfred II, at
Amsterdam Avenue and 62nd Street; and Capital Cities/ABC's West 66th Street
site, on Columbus Avenue. A high-rise mixed-use development is also planned on
the site of the Ansonia Post Office, although specific plans for that site have
not yet been released. These projects would add a number of tall new towers to
the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square subarea, reinforcing the emerging high-rise
residential character of this area. As noted above, three of these projects
would be east of Columbus Avenue, and would add to the already high-rise area
east of Lincoln Center. All but one of the other projects would be along
Tenth/Amsterdam Avenue, continuing the trend toward development of a high-rise
corridor along this formerly low-rise avenue.
Overall, the only change to the urban form in the Columbus Circle/Lincoln
Square subarea expected by 1997 would be the extension of 62nd, 63,rd, and 64th
Streets west of West End Avenue. The prevailing superblocks in this area are
not expected to change. The waterfront will remain inaccessible. None of the
projected future developments in the area will block existing view corridors of
the Hudson River, Miller Highway, and Palisades along streets between 59th
through 72nd Streets.
Upper West Side. No large new developments are proposed in the Upper West
Side subarea by 1997. The urban form, natural areas, overall visual character,
and views and view corridors are expected to remain unchanged.
II. E-13
Project Site
As in 1997, the project site is expected to remain in its current condi-

tion in 2002 if the proposed project is not developed. Views from the site to
the study area will remain as they are in 1997, dominated by the tall new
buildings adjacent to the site south of 66th Street. Views of the site from
the study area will also remain unchanged from 1997.
Study Area
As described in section II.B, several development proposals 'were identi-

fied for the study area between 1997 and 2002, and 12 potential development
sites were identified, all of which are currently developed at less than the
allowable floor area within the underlying zoning.
Clinton. Two development sites were identified in the Clinton subarea

between 1997 and 2002 -- one at Tenth Avenue and 54th Street, and the other,on
West 60th Street between West End and Amsterdam Avenues. The first involves
rehabilitation of existing tenements and construction of additional residential
units. The second would replace low-rfse industrial buildings on 60th Street
with new residences. It is likeiy that, overall, the Clinton subarea will
remain unchanged, but development pressures from the continuing development of
high-rise residential projects near Lincoln Square -- including those adjacent
to or near the project site -- may lead to additional residential projects in
the northern area. These new projects would appear as an extension of the
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area, effectively pushing the Clinton subarea to
the south and removing the industrial uses from the project site.
Columbus Center/Lincoln Square. This subarea may see substantial new

development between 1997 and 2002, particularly along Broadway near 65th
Street. As described in section II.B, eight potential development sites were
identified in the Columbus Center/Lincoln Square subarea. One, between 63rd
and 64th Streets east of West End Avenue, is currently occupied by tenements,
which may be replaced by higher density residential uses in the future. Most
of the others are close to Broadway, where a number of low-rise commercial
buildings may be replaced by high-rise buildings by 2002. In general, the
overall visual character is expected to continue to become more high-rise in
feeling. The overall urban form will not change.
Upper West Side. In the Upper West Side subarea, four potential sites
were identified for development between 1997 and 2002 -- three on Broadway and
one on Central Park West. These sites would most likely be developed with mid-
rise residential buildings similar to the other apartment buildings in the
area. Overall, the generally mid-rise residential context of the Upper West
Side is not expected to change in the future.
The design of the proposed project and its relationship to surrounding

neighborhoods, particularly with respect to existing urban form, access to
II. E-14
natural areas, overall visual character, and views and view corridors is ad-
dressed in this section. The section is organized to analyze conditions for
each project phase -- first for 1997, Phase I of the proposed project, when all
project parcels north of 64th Street are expected to be completed along with
certain waterfront elements of the project's waterfront park; and then for
2002, when the entire project would be completed. A discussion of the shadows
cast by the proposed project is provided here for Phase I and for full Build-
out, and is referenced in other relevant sections of the EIS, including "Open
Space and Recreational Facilities" (section II.G) and "Historic and Archaeo-
I
logical Resources" (section II.H).
As described in Chapter I, "Project Description," the project was designed

with two alternative park plans for two different conditions -- one in which
the Miller Highway is relocated inboard to a location beneath and below the new
Riverside Drive extension, and one in which the existing elevated highway re-
mains in place. The project's buildings and street grid would be identical
under these two alternatives, but the waterfront park would be different. Com-
plete park descriptions without and with the relocation of the highway are pro-
vided in Chapter I, "Project Description." Shadows and view corridors would
also be affected. Since the relocation of the highway would not occur until
after 1997, the Phase I assessment described below assumes that the Miller
Highway would still be in place, while the Phase II assessment analyzes condi-
tions bo'th with the existing highway alignment and with the relocation of the
Miller Highway.
Project Design
As described in detail in Chapter I, "Project Description," the proposed

project has been designed around three major organizing elements -- the cre-
ation of a large waterfront park, the extension of Ri¥erside Drive through the
site, and the extension of the existing city street grid onto the site from the
east. These elements establish the size and shape of the project's development
parcels, the patterns of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and the distri-
bution of uses and bulk on the project site. The arrangement of bulk and mass-
ing on the' development blocks was also intended to relate to the character of
neighboring uses.
Large Scale Special Permit Controls
As also detailed in Chapter I, "Project Description," development of the

project site would be governed by a set of Large Scale Special Permit Controls.
These were established to ensure that the project would embody the features
that give the West Side its unique cha~acter, and are intended to provide long-
term guidance to the project, ensuring compatibility between the project and
the surrounding neighborhoods; and implement an arts program for the project's
development parcels and open spaces, including the waterfront park.
use, groun~ plane, and building mass and form, and would be included as part of
the site's special permit under the New York City Zoning Resolution. The Large
Scale Special Permit Controls establish individual criteria for each develop-
ment parcel with criteria for allowable uses; bulk, including streetwall,
building envelope, and tower controls; design elements; and landscaping; and
specify mandatory streetwall, height, and setback locations for the buildings'
bases, middle areas, and towers; the maximum building envelope on each parcel;
H.E-lS
................... _._. __ .. _. ___ .__________ ._____._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ """""".•=-_
._Ili~_~S«~Il:l~_""tli'm_'
and total square footage for each parcel and for each tower. The building
envelope would define the outer perimeter within which all potential building
mass must be placed; the streetwall and tower controls define the characteris-
tics, composition, and bulk of the building mass within the envelope. Building
heights could be lower than the maximum limits, but this analysis conservative-
ly assumes that development would be built to the maximum permitted.
Large Scale Special Permit Controls Adj acent to Historic Res·ources. For
parcels close to historic resources (Parcels A, B, N, and M -- near the Chats-
worth Apartments, the rowhouses at the corner of 72nd Street and Riverside I
Drive, the West 7lst Street Historic District, and the Consolidated Edison
Power House), more specific Large Scale Special Permit Controls would be man-
dated. This is discussed in more detail below and in section II.H, "Historic
and Archaeological Resources."
Proposed Project
Overall Program. The resulting project, portrayed in Figures II.E-39

II.E-40, and II.E-4l, would transform the currently isolated, inaccessible, and
desolate project site into an active mixed-use community at the western edge of
Lincoln Square. In contrast with existing conditions, the proposed project
would be linked to the surrounding communities in several ways:
o The proposed project would be constructed at grade with the existing

neighborhood to the east;
o The existing Manhattan street grid would be extended onto the project
site;
o Riverside Drive and Riverside Park would be extended south from 72nd
Street through the site to 59th Street; and
o The streetscape, particularly around Freedom Place, would be en.,.

livened, creating an appealing entrance into the project site and its
waterfront park.
The proposed project would have a mix of uses. A waterfront park of ap-
proximately 21.5 acres would extend. the existing Riverside Park southward from
72nd Street to 59th Street. (Without the relocated highway, this park would be
I
.
17.5 acres.) With an assortment of active and passive uses, varied topography
and plantings, and special features, the new waterfront park would establish
public access to a previously inaccessible waterfront location and provide
linkages between the Clinton community to the south and the Upper West Side to
the north (see Chapter I, "Project Description," for a detailed description of
the proposed waterfront park).
Residential buildings would occupy the new extension of Riverside Drive

between 72nd and 59th Streets. The residential buildings would follow the
curve of Riverside Drive and would create a cohesive streetwall of 12 to 14 1
stories (see Figure II.E-39). Towers ranging in height from 23 stories (on
parcel L) to 49 stories (parcel B) would rise from many of the development
parcels along Riverside Drive (see Figure II.E-40). Echoing the distinctive
characteristics of buildings along Central Park West, several development par-
cels would contain two towers rising from their base (parcel E and parcel I).
II. E-16
~ '" ~
...
00
z
c
Id
3
ig. 60th Street 7lat Street
VI
B
::!.
~
61at Street
62nd Street 69th Street
66th Street
-
--.
tb
r.n
,.-
....<:
~ 67th Street
~ .·:~L! ...u:itb
::l .;~J
Q.. Q..
:;:-..!==--~=:::--~ ~"I ('D 66th Street
65th Street
;J;>-
~
<:
....<:
""'l
-...
(D
"'"
,-
('t)
('D
-
~ -
t'%:j
tb
~
65th Street
-
~
<: ~
r-'"
-.o
~
r-'"
::l
o..
::l
Street
62nd Street
."
S.fD Street 61st Street
." ...
1\
\C-
c -"' L._J_ =:.
:0:'" 719L Street 60th Street
.- !
til
J~L~"~
c-
m ~ Id
I
w
\0 ::s P:t'''~.
RIVERSIDE
SOU T H View of the Project from the North, 2002
Figure ILE-40
Three 28-story towers would mark the intersections of Freedom Place South with
6lst and 63rd Streets.
Building heights were established to respond to a number of elements,

including proximity to the project's waterfront park, certain landmark build-
ings, and the Con Edison facility at 59th Street. Lower-rise buildings were
placed: between 64th and 66th Streets, to maximize sunlight and sky at the
widest portion of the waterfront park and to help define the project's north
and south neighborhoods; adjacent to the Chatsworth Apartments on 72nd Street,
to respect the context of that landmark building; and near the Con Edison
stacks at 59th Street to minimize potential stationary source air quality prob-
lems. Consistent with existing patterns on the Upper West Side, lower-rise
buildings, including town house elements, would occupy most side street
locations.
In the southernmost portion of the project site, a studio building would

be created on a superblock bounded by 59th and 6lst Streets between West End
Avenue and the extension of Riverside Drive. The studio building would include
an eight-story complex for television and film production. Two office towers
would rise 22 stories above the studio complex along West End Avenue.
The pedestrian envir~nnieiit-throughout the project site would be enlivened

through -the inclusion of grourid-floor retail and cultural uses as well as spe-
cial landscaping treatments designed by the Riverside South Arts Program. As
described in detail in the "Project Description," the Riverside South Arts Pro-
gram would be established to create an ongoing program to enrich the project's
waterfront park as well as its neighborhoods and streetscapes.
Phasing. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the project would be

developed in two phases. All buildings north of 64th Street as well as an
approximately 8.5- acre portion of the waterfront park would be constructed in
the project's first phase, which is expected to be completed by 1997. The
balance of the project, including all development parcels between 64th and 59th
Streets and the balance of the waterfront park, would be completed by 2002.

During the first phase of the proposed project, al~ of the project north
of 64th Street and an approximately 8.5-acre waterfront portion of the water-
front park are expected to be completed. The Phase I development would change
the visual character and context of the project site and adjacent areas by
replacing a large vacant area situated some 40 feet below the grade of the
surrounding neighborhood with a new, primarily residential, development at
grade with the surrounding community.
Urban Form
The Phase I development would be more in keeping with the urban form of
the Upper West Side portion of the study area than with the Columbus Circle!
Lincoln Square area to the immediate east of the project site. Because of the
distance between the Phase I development and the Clinton subarea, the project
would have no substantive relationship with or effect on the urban form of the
Clinton subarea of the study area.
H.E-17
As discussed above, the proposed project would be constructed at grade
with the existing neighborhood to the east and, consistent with development
patterns on the Upper West Side, would reestablish the street grid, which is
currently discontinuous in the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area. The proj-
ect would not be consistent with the predominant form of the Columbus
Circle/Lincoln Square area, which, as described above under "Existing Condi-
tions," and illustrated in Figure II.E-20 above, is characterized by superblock
developments and awkwardly shaped blocks created by Broadway. The project
would be consistent in form with the Upper West Side subarea, characterized by
a regular street grid and standard block sizes (this is also discussed above
under "Existing Conditions"). The extension of Riverside Drive, like Riverside
prive to the north of 72nd Street, would create a curved border to the project
site much like the built environment of the Upper West Side. By placing resi-
. dential towers across from park space, the project would be similar in form to
the pattern of development along both Riverside Drive and Central Park West.
Buildings
The project's Phase I buildings would have a consistent streetwall of 14 I

stories along Riverside Drive, with slender towers of 32, 49, 46, 40, 33, 27,
and 29 stories, respectively, from north to south (see Figure I-6 in Chapter I,
"Project Description," and Figure II.E-39, above). On the side streets east of
Riverside Drive, and along Freedom Place, the project's buildings would be four
and five stories. While maintaining a consistent streetwall height, many of
the proposed structures would be substantially taller than the majority of
structures in the immediate area. Some of the Phase I buildings would be 7 to
29 stories taller than many existing, pre-war buildings on the Upper West Side,
including Riverside Drive. As described above under "Existing Conditions," the
Upper West Side is characterized by'mid-rise buildings of 7 to 20 stories along
the major avenues and cross streets, with low-rise town houses on the side
streets (see also Figure 1I.E-13, "Building Heights," above). The Phase I
buildings would be more comparable in height with the 28- and 29-story build-
ings of Lincoln Towers, between 70th and 66th Streets, and with the buildings
constructed to the east over the past 20 years, generally between 25 and 50
stories high, with a few taller exceptions (see Figurla II.E-14, above, which
depicts towers in the study area, and Figure 11.E-4l). They would also be
fairly similar in scale to the towers proposed in the future for the Manhattan
West and Capital Cities/ABC projects, between 6lst and 65th Streets adjacent to
the project site, and the tower· proposed for the site along the east side of
West End Avenue between 60th and 6lst Streets. The Manhattan West buildings
would be between 28 and 39 stories; the Capital Cities/ABC towers, 45 stories;
and the tower on West 60th Street, 39 stories (see "The Future Without the
Proj ect," above).
Although taller than many buildings of the Upper West Side, the project
would be similar in character to the Upper West Side. Buildings would present
a consistent streetwall, without breaks, built to the property line. This is
the same pattern established throughout the Upper West Side, but is very dif-
ferent from the pattern of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area (discussed
below). Larger buildings would line the major avenues and cross streets, with
smaller, town house-like structures on the side streets.
II.E-18
The project's Large Scale Special Permit Controls were created to ensure
that the project reflects and reinforces the character of the Upper West Side.
At the north end, the design of the proposed project would defer to the exist-
ing neighborhood to the north, particularly 72nd Street and Riverside Drive.
The project's northernmost building would curve around the corner from West
72nd Street to the new extension of Riverside Drive at the same height as the
Chatsworth Apartments. It would appear as a continuation of the mid-rise
streetwall along both Riverside Drive and 72nd Street (see Figure II.E-40).
This curved streetwall would be continued along the new Riverside Drive, rein-
forced by mandatory setbacks and such other design features as expression lines
and cornices. The project's Large Scale Special Permit Controls would govern
the treatment of corner and tower elements, so that the new Riverside Drive
would reflect the character of the existing avenues on the Upper West Side,
with slender towers set back from the streetwall, and such features as twin
towers.
On the side streets and along Freedom Place, four- to six-story buildings
would be consistent with the Upper West Side's pattern of low-rise town houses
in the midblocks. On 72nd and 70th Streets, which are wider crosstown streets,
and on 64th Street, project buildings would be taller, with a 14-story street- I
wall, which is also consistent with e:K:J.sting patterns on the Upper West Side.
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area, which do not form a cohesive pattern but
tend to be bulky structures without setbacks located in the midst of large-
scale developments or set in urban plazas. As described above under "Existing
Conditions," these buildings do not form a consistent streetwall or create a
coherent streetscape. In contrast, the project buildings would form a consis-
tent streetwall without urban plazas, and would set back to rise in slender
towers. Because it would not include such urban plazas, the project would
create a denser urban environment than is common in the Columbus Circle/Lincoln
Square area.
Natural Features
As described in Chapter I, "Project Description," and section II.G, "Open

Space and Recreation," the project would include public open space, including a
large waterfront park, and would extend Riverside Park southward from 72nd ~
Street to 59th Street . . During Phase I, approximately 8.5 acres of the park
situated along the waterfront would be, created. This would include all ele-
ments of the waterfront park that would'not be disturbed by the subsequent
relocation of the Miller Highway, including the waterfront esplanade, the reha-
bilitated Pier I, and the new pedestrian piers (see Figure 1-9 in the "Project
Description"). With development of Phase Iof the project, public access to
the waterfront between 64th and 72nd Streets would be available for the' first
time since the Upper West Side was built as a residential neighborhood in the
mid-19th century. From the new park, the river and the Palisades would be
visible.
The project's waterfront walkway would extend the publicly accessible

waterfront and natural area in the neighborhood by more than half a mile. This
would be similar to Riverside Park, in the Upper West Side subarea, but very
different from the current Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area and the Clinton
area to the south, which have no publicly accessible waterfront areas and few
natural areas.
II.E-19
Visual Character
The development completed in Phase I would appear as an extension to the

existing urban streetscape, replacing a depressed, largely vacant site with a
new street grid and buildings at grade with the surrounding neighborhoods. The
project would continue Manhattan's street grid onto the site and create a co-
herent streetwall extending along a new extension to Riverside Drive from the
existing buildings on 72nd Street south to 64th Street (and, in Phase II, dis-
cussed below, to 59th Street). With new retail uses, landscaping, small parks,
and a section of the large waterfront park, it would create an active edge to
the city from an area that is now desolate and inaccessible.
As discussed in detail in section II.H, "Historic and Archaeological Re-

sources,"the project would alter the visual setting of the southern end of
Riverside Park and Drive and the Chatsworth Apartments at the western end of
72nd Street by extending the streetscape along 72nd Street with a new 14-story I
building. This building, which would appear as a continuation of the mid-rise
streetwall along 72nd Street, would curve onto the new extension of Riverside
Drive, serving as the gateway to this new avenue. The new extension to River-
side Drive would be similar in character to the existing Riverside Drive to its
north, or to Central Park West. Throughout the project, the design calls for
the est;ablishment of streetwalls between 12 and 14 stories facing the Hudson I
River'that would reinforce the curve and existing built form of Riverside
Drive.
On 7lst Street, a barrier between the existing street and the proposed
extension would maintain the existing cul-de-sac that gives the West 7lst
Street Historic District its unique, secluded character (see section II.H,·
"Historic and Archaeological Resources").
As discussed above, changes proposed for Freedom Place would enliven that
little-used street. The project would tie Freedom Place into the new street
grid, and would change its character by adding new low-rise buildings along its
western side, where a wall currently separates the street from the vacant proj-
ect site below.
In Phase I, the project would extend 7lst, 70th, 69th, 68th, 67th, 66th,
and 65th Streets as either public streets or private drives. All existing view
corridors down those streets would be maintained. The new project buildings to
the west of the existing street grid termination would be visible, generally
extending and framing the existing view corridors. (It should be noted that
views from east of Freedom Place along 69th, 68th, and 67th Streets are cur-
rently blocked by Lincoln Towers, and 65th Street is blocked by the existing
ABC facility.) In locations adjacent to the project site -- most notably,
along Freedom Place -- wide open views of the sky and water that are currently
available (see Figure ILE-lO) would be partly blocked, and view corridors
would be created down the new side streets. Views from some apartments in
Lincoln Towers and other nearby apartment buildings would be similarly
affected.
II.E-20
-_._._._--------
..................._.......
Computer-generated images of view corridors that would be affected by the

Riverside South proJect were prepared by the Environmental Simulation Center at
the New School for Social Research's Graduate School of Management and Urban
Policy. Copies of these images, which illustrate conditions in the future
without the project in comparison to conditions with the project both with the
Miller Highway remaining in place and with a relocated highway, are provided in
Appendix G. (The Phase I analysis will only reference relevant figures for
conditions with the highway remaining in place.) View corridor diagrams are
presented from three locations, generally at the edge of the project site, from
West End Avenue, and from a location 400 feet to the west of Amsterdam Avenue.
A summary diagram displaying the location of computer-simulated view corridors
is presented in Figure G-I.
As illustrated in the graphics, the buildings of Phase I would generally

appear as continuations of existing view corridors on 72nd, 7lst, 70th, and
66th Streets. View cO.rridor graphics are not provided for 69th, 68th, and 67th
Streets since they are already blocked by Lincoln Towers, or along 65th Street,
where views are blocked by the existing ABC facility. The views are taken at
eye level with the viewer standing on the sidewalk. The viewer stands on the
north sidewalk north of 66th Street and the south sidewalk south of 66th
Street. The viewer gaze is qlw~ys ,towards the center line of the view \ .
corridor.
72nd Street. Views from a location along 72ndStreet between Amsterdam

and West End Avenues (see Figure G-2) indicate that, while the view corridor
would be similar between No Build conditions and conditions with the project,
the tower of the project's building at 7lst Street would be visible. The buil-
ding on the north side of 7lst Street would be imperceptible from this loca-
tion. Moving farther west, views westward along 72nd Street would be essen-
tially unaffected from locations at West End Avenue (see Figure G-3) and from
the end of the street (see Figure G-4).
7lst Street. From a location between West End and Amsterdam Avenues, the
project's 14-story building on the southside of 7lst Street at Riverside Drive t
would be visible but would not appreciably change the view west along'7lst
Street or the amount of available sky when compared with conditions that would
exist in the future without the project (see Figure G-5). Moving westward, the
project buildings would narrow the existing view corridor to the river and
would be distinctly visible along the street (see Figures G-6 and G-7). At
West End Avenue, the project's tallest building would be visible on the south
side of the street and would reduce views of the sky (see Figure G-6). The
effect would be more pronounced at the end of the street (see Figure G-7).
70th Street. Similar to 7lst Street, project buildings would narrow the
existing corridor to the river and sky (see Figures G-8 to G-IO). From a loca-
tion between Amsterdam and West End Avenues, the tower on parcel C would be
visible and would reduce the amount of sky visible (see Figure G-8). The ef-
fects would increase moving westward, with the presence of the project's build-
ings becoming stronger, particularly the tower on parcel C, and the amount of
sky blocked increasing. The most dramatic differences would be apparent clos-
est to the project site, where the empty lot facing the river would be replaced
by project buildings, particularly on the south side of West 70th Street (see
Figure G-IO).
II. E-21
66th Street. The view corridor toward the river from a location along
66th Street between West End and Amsterdam Avenues (see Figure G-11) would be
somewhat narrowed and the project buildings would be clearly visible-but would
not overwhelm the existing views. From West End Avenue (see Figure G-12) be-
hind the Capital Cities/ABC buildings and Lincoln Towers, the project buildings
would be visible. The corridor to the river and view of the elevated highway
would be narrowed somewhat. Closest to the project site (see Figure G-13), the
wide open view of the Miller Highway at 66th Street would be reduced with the
development of the project. Instead of looking out at an empty lot and wide
open sky, buildings would extend the 66th Street view corridor.
Shadows
An analysis of the project's Phase I shadows, as determined by the Envi-

ronmental Simulation Center at the New School for Social Research Graduate
School of Management and Urban Policy, is presented below for the two solstices
(June and December 21) and the March 21 equinox. Shadows on the two equinoxes
-- March 21 and September 21 -- are the same, except that because of daylight
savings time, results in the March and September sun positions are shifted by
one hour. March 21 was selected for the shadow diagrams as the governing equi-
nox since direct solar radiation during March can compensate for the colder air
temperature and enhance the utility of public open spaces and parks.
An analysis of shadows cast during the two solstices at various times of

the day -- 9:00 AM, 10:30 AM, 12:00 Noon, 1:30 PM, and 3:00 PM -- frames the
outer edges of shadows cast during the year: the shortest shadows·, cast on
June 21; and the longest shadows, cast on December 21. Shadows cast during the
equinox express the midpoint between the two extremes of the solstices. Thus,
the full range of shadows is presented.
The shadow diagrams are presented in Appendix H for the completed project.
As described earlier in this section, all of the project buildings north of
64th Street would be constructed in Phase I. The waterfront area of ~he park
(west of the Miller Highway) would also be completed during Phase I, but the
rest of the park would not. Therefore, shadows to be considered for Phase I
are those cast by buildings north of 64th Street; with respect to the water-
front park, only the area west of the elevated Miller Highway should be consid-
ered. It should be noted that project shadows would not reach Central Park or
New Jersey at any time of the year. .
Summer. As presented in Figures H-3 through H-17, the year's shortest

shadows are cast on June 21, when the sun is highest in the sky. At 9 AM Day-
light Savings Time (DST), project shadows and those cast by the Miller Highway
would fall westward onto much of the new waterfront section of the park (see
Figure H-3). The walkway at the water's edge between 63rd and 66th Streets
would not be shaded at this time. By 10:30 AM, almost the entire waterfront
section of the park would be in sunlight, except under the existing Miller
Highway (see FigureH-7). Shadows would virtually disappear by 12:00 noon, 1
except under the highway, and would remain very small through the afternoon
(see Figures H-10, H-13, and H-16).
The project would not add incremental shadows to Riverside Park, the park
to be built between 63rd and 64th Streets as part of the Manhattan West proj-
ect, or any other publicly accessible open spaces during the summer solstice.
II. E-22
Spring and Fall. Shadows cast on the spring and fall equinoxes (March 21
and September 21) are basically the same, except that in September, Daylight
Savings Time is observed, so that these shadows would occur one hour later than
in March. For this analysis, March shadows are assessed, since the warm sunny
areas are more appreciated during the colder spring days than during warm fall
days.
posed buildings and the Miller Highway would cover extensive areas of the
waterfront park (see Figure H-19). These shadows would be gone by 10:30, and
the waterfront walkway would remain sunlit the rest of the day (see Figures
H-22, H-25, H-28, and H-3l). In the afternoons, incremental shadows would move
across the southern end of Riverside Park beginning shortly before 1:30 PM and
leaving the park after 3 PM. By 1:30 PM (see Figure H-28), the project's nor-
thernmost tower (the 32-story building on parcel A) would cast a small incre-
mental shadow into the southernmost portion of Riverside Park. A portion of
Riverside Park would already be in shade at 1:30 due to existing buildings on
72nd Street (see Figure H-27). Throughout the afternoon, the project's incre-
mental shadow would sweep across the southern part of the park. As describe.d
in section II.G, "Open Space and Recreation, the southern part of Riverside
II
Park is used for sit,tiI)gon sunny days, particularly by elderly residents of:·
the area. By 3 PM on MaJ:'ch 21, shadows would be cast in a northeastern di.rec-
tion (see Figure H-3l), touching the southeasterly corner of Riverside Park.
Again, this portion of Riverside Park would already be partially shaded in the .~
future without the project (see Figure H-30).
Some additional shadows would be cast by the project at 3 PM on the Lin-

coln Towers open space above Freedom Place. No other open spaces would be
affected. The project would cast new shadows on the western face and roof of
the Chatsworth Apartments at 1:30 and 3 PM on March 21, and on the roofs and
possibly the faces of part of the Yest 7lst Street Historic District at 3 PM.
The street would already be shaded by existing buildings at that time.
Yinter. On December 21, the year's shortest day, the sun would be low in
the sky, creating very long shadows. It is important to note that while Decem-
ber 21st produces the year's longest shadows, they also last for the shortest
duration. Particularly toward the tip of the shadow, the effect would be
fleeting, lasting only minutes .. Morning shadows would cover virtually the
entire waterfront walkway at 9 AM on December 21 (see Figure H-34) and much of
the walkway would remain in shadow at 10:30 AM (see Figure H-37). About half
of the walkway would be in sunlight at 12:00 noon (see Figure H-40) , and all of
it would be sunny from before 1:30 PM (see Figure H-43) through the afternoon
(see Figure H-46).
The project would create certain incremental shadows off-site when comp-
ared with conditions in the future without the project (see Figures H-33, H-36,
H-39, H-42, and H~45 for December 21 shadows in the future without theproj-
ect). At 10:30 AM and 12:00 noon, certain additional shadows would be cast on
the lower waterfront sections of Riverside Park, west of the Henry Hudson Park-
way (compare Figure H-37 with Figure H~36 and Figure H-40 with Figure H-39).
By noon, these shadows would shade parts of this area to 74th Street. These
shadows would be moving quickly, and by 1:30 PM, the incremental shadows would
be to the east of the highway, stretching to 75th Street (compare Figure H-43
with Figure H-42). At 3 PM on December 21, the project would shade only a
narrow incremental strip in the southeastern portion of Riverside Park, also
II.E-23
............................................................__ ._.---_._._._.-_._-------------------------'
.~
stretching to 75th S~reet (compare Figure H-46 with Figure H-45). As described
in section II.G, "Open Space and Recreation," benches in the southern part of
Riverside Park are used for sitting on sunny days, particularly by elderly
residents of the area. No other open spaces would be affected. Shadows would
be cast on the western face and roof of the Chatsworth Apartments and on the
roofs and some of the faces of part of the West 7lst Street Historic District
at that time; the street and courtyards would already be shaded by existing
buildings.

Between 1997 and 2002, the remaining sections of the project are expected
to be completed. This includes all of the development parcels located south of
64th Street and the balance of the waterfront park. Like Phase I, the proposed
project's Phase II would change the visual character and context of the project
site and adjacent areas by replacing a large area used primarily for parking
with a new development.
Urban Form
With the exception of 60th Street, the Phase II development would extend
the existing city street grid onto the project site. The buildings in Phase II
would be built along Riverside Drive and a new street, Freedom Place South,
which would run parallel to West End Avenue between the project and the pro-
posed Manhattan West project (from 64th to 6lst Street). Between 59th and 6lst
Streets, a superblock would be created along West End Avenue to allow for the
proposed commercial/studio building. On the Riverside Drive extension, 60th
Street would be visually represented by a walkway to the new studio building.
Sixty-second Street would be an unmapped pedestrian street.
The extension of Riverside Drive, the placement of residential buildings

fronting along the new park between 59th and 64th Streets, and the location of
low-rise residential buildings on side streets would generally be consistent
with the urban form of the Upper West Side. As described above in the discus-
sion of Phase I, the project's standard-size blocks broken by a regular street
grid would establish a pattern very different from the current urban form of
the surrounding Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square neighborhood, which is charac-
terized by superblocks. On the other hand, the creation of the project's
superblock between 59th and 60th Streets would be similar to the Columbus Cir-
cle/Lincoln Square area nearby, but would contrast with the predominant urban
form of the Upper West Side, to the north, and Clinton, to the south. The
extension of Riverside Drive, like Riverside Drive to the north of 72nd Street,
would create a curved border to the project site much like the built environ-
ment of the Upper West Side. By placing residential towers across from park
space, the project would be similar in form to the pattern of development along
both Riverside Drive and Central Park West.
By extending the street grid west of West End Avenue, the proposed proj-
ect's urban form would promote visual and physical access to the waterfront.
This is discussed below under "Natural Features."
II.E-24
. . .-.-.. . . *--
--.-.---.------;.-,-~.;-,
Buildings
Along the extension to Riverside Drive in the South Neighborhood, the

curving row of residential buildings would continue south. As in Phase I,
these buildings would present a 14-story streetwall, above which towers would
rise. These towers would step down from north to south in response to the
narrowing of the park, with 4l-story double towers between 64th and 63rd
Streets, and single towers of 38 and 33 stories between 63rd and 6lst Streets,
decreasing to 23 stories south of 6lst Street and 18 stories at 59th Street.
East of this row of apartment buildings, buildings on the side streets

between 64th and 6lst Streets would generally be 4, 5, or 14 stories, with two
notable exceptions: on the corners of 63rd and 6lst Streets with Freedom Place
South would be a total of three 28-story towers. Between 6lst and 59th Streets
east of the new Riverside Drive, the project would create a superblock occupied
by a large 8-story studio building with two office towers rising 22 stories
above the studio base along West End Avenue.
The buildings developed in Phase II would be similar in scale to the proj-

ect buildings just to their north, and, like the Phase I buildings, would also
be similar in scale to the buildings proposed as part of the Manhattan West and
Capital Cities/ABC projects to their east, and the tall towers of the Columbus
Circle/Lincoln Square area that have been built over the past 20 years -- gen-
erally between 25 and 50 stories, including the nearby 28- and 29-story Lincoln
Towers buildings. (For more details on the height and bulk of the surrounding
study area, see "Existing Conditions," above; Figure II.E-14, also above, which
depicts towers in the study area; and Figure II.E-41.) The project's towers
would be considerably taller than the low-rise industrial buildings to the
south, which are generally six stories or shorter, although there are some
taller exceptions, and would include some buildings that are considerably tall-
er than many existing pre-war buildings on the Upper West Side. As described
earlier in this section, the Upper West Side is characterized by mid-rise
buildings of 7 to 20 stories along the major avenues and cross streets, with
low-rise town houses on the side streets (see also Figure II.E-13, "Building
Heights," above). On the other hand, the project would also include four- and
five-story buildings along most of its side streets, consistent with the scale
in Clinton and on the side streets of the Upper West Side.
The project's Large Scale Special Permit Controls were created to ensure
that the project would have a similar character to that of the Upper West Side.
Buildings would present a consistent streetwall, without breaks, built to the
property line. This is the same pattern established throughout the Upper West
Side and, generally, in Clinton, but is very different from the pattern of the
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square. area. Larger buildings would line the major
avenues and cross streets, with smaller, town house-like structures on the side
streets, like development on the Upper West Side but completely unlike the
pattern in Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square or in Clinton.
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area, which do not form a cohesive pattern but
tend to be bulky structures without setbacks located in the midst of large-
scale developments or set in urban plazas. As described above under "Existing
Conditions," these buildings do not form a consistent streetwall or create a
coherent streetscape. -In contrast, the project buildings would form a consis-
tent streetwall without urban plazas, and would set back to rise in slender
II.E-25
............................................ _._....... _._._.-._._._._----------------------------
towers. Because it would not include such urban plazas, the project would
create a denser urban environment than is common in the Columbus Circle/Lincoln
Square area.
Natural Features
Phase II of the proposed project would see completion of the 25-acre wa-
terfront park. After completion of Phase II, more than a half a mile of water-
front and a large park would be accessible to the public on the project site.
From the park, eye-level views of the river and Palisades would be available.
The park would be accessible by bridges and paths leading from the new
east-west cross streets, as well as from the north and south. (A complete
description of the park plan is provided in Chapter I, "Project Description.)
Extension of the street grid would invite the pedestrian into the park by mak-
ing the waterfront and natural area visible from some distance away (see also
the discussion of view corridors, below).
The project's park would extend the publicly accessible waterfront and
natural area in the neighborhood by more than half a mile. This would be simi-
lar to Riverside Park, in the Upper ~est Side subarea, but very different from
the current Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area and the Clinton area to the
south, which have no publicly accessible waterfront areas and few natural
areas.
Visual Character
Phase II of the proposed project would tie together the diverse neighbor-
hoods surrounding the project site -- the Upper West Side, which would be con-
tinued into the project site along the extension to Riverside Drive; Columbus
Circle/Lincoln Square, which would relate to the new Freedom Place South; and
Clinton, which would be linked to the project site through the studio building
and low-rise residential buildings at the southern end of the site. With com-
pletion of the project, Manhattan's urban streetscape would be extended.
Phase II of the proposed project would develop all project parcels south
of 64th Street. All existing view corridors down east-west streets except 60th
Street would be maintained. Views down these streets would be narrowed and
framed by the project buildings, and view corridors would be extended with the
addition of project streets. Where wide vistas of sky are currently visible
past existing undeveloped land, the project would add buildings ranging in
heights between 14 and 41 stories. Along West End Avenue,. wide open views of I
the sky and water that are currently available would be partly blocked by the
proposed Manhattan West and Capital Cities/ABC projects and by the project's
studio building between 59th and 6lst Streets, but views would still be avail-
able down the new side streets. Views from apartments along West End Avenue
would be similarly affected.
Panoramic views of the Hudson River and the New Jersey Palisades would be
available from all areas of the waterfront park and from most of the extension'
of Riverside Drive. The available views would be greatest from points near the
shoreline and would extend north and south along the river as well as westward
to New Jersey. From some areas, including the southern end of the site, views
II.E-26
-.-._._._._-------------
.................................
to the southwest would be partially obstructed by the Department of Sanitation

pier at 59th Street.
Computer-generated images of view corridors are presented in Appendix G

and summarized below for each view corridor. Views down 72nd Street, 7lst
Street, 70th Street, and 66th Street are described above in the discussion of
Phase I development; these would not change in Phase II.
64th Street. Views down the 64th Street corridor would be affected in the
future without the project by the development of the Capital Cities/ABC com-
plex, a combine~ studio and residential building with three towers reaching up
to 39 stories, and the development of the Manhattan West open space on the site f
between 63rd and 64th Streets. From a location between West End and Amsterdam
Avenues (see Figure G-14),the project would lengthen and somewhat reduce view
corridors and the amount of sky visible when compared with conditions in the
future without the project. From West End Avenue, the project's buildings,
particularly the 41-story building on Parcel I, would establish a very strong
visual presence down the 64th Street view corridor and would reduce views of
the sky (see Figure G-15). The effects on the view corridor and amount of sky
visible from the location closest to the project site would be more accentu-
ated.: The view corridor would be narrowed and the project's buildings would
establish a very strong visual presence from this location (see Figure G-16).
63rd Street. Similar to 64th Street, the currently open views down 63rd
Street would be affected in the future without the project by the construction
of a large-scale project on the western side of West End Avenue. The Manhattan
West project will add residential towers ranging from 38 to 37 stories and a
l.l-acre park along 63rd Street. From all locations (see Figures G-17 to
G-19), the proposed project would narrow the view corridors, reduce views of
the sky, and its buildings would establish a very strong presence at the end of
the view corridor.
62nd Street.. Because its view corridor is already blocked by the Amster-
dam Houses (see Figure II.E-26), no assessment is made of the project's effects
on 62nd Street.
6lst Street. Two view corridor diagrams are presented for the 6lst Street
corridor -- from a location between West End and Amsterdam Avenues (see Figure
G-20) and from West End Avenue (see Figure G-2l). From between West End and
Amsterdam Avenues, the view corridor west along 6lst Street would be extended
and narrowed and the project buildings would establish a strong visual presence
at the end of the view corridor. The effect from West End Avenue would be more
pronounced. The project would create a view corridor where wide open views are
currently available over the empty site (see Figure G-2l) and its buildings
would establish a commanding presence on this street.
60th Street. Down 60th Street from Amsterdam Avenue, a view corridor is
currently defined by low-rise buildings, terminating in the elevated highway.
With the proposed project, this corridor would end at the project's studio
building (see Figure G-22). No view to the river would be available. The
space between the twin towers on the studio building would define the location
of 60th Street.
59th Street. The proposed project would substantially alter the views
down 59th Street (see Figures G-23 to G-25). From a location between West End
II. E-27
At 9 AM, small incremental shadows would be cast on the historic Con Ed power
house, but these would be gone well before 10:30 AM.
Spring and Fall. Shadows cast on the spring and fall equinoxes (March 21
and September 21) are basically the same, except that in September, Daylight
Savings Time is observed, so that these shadows would occur one hour later than
in March. For this analysis, March shadows are assessed, since the warm sunny
areas are more appreciated during the colder spring days than during warm fall
days.
posed buildings and the Miller Highway would cover extensive areas of the
waterfront park (see Figure H-19). The shadows would shorten as the day pro-
gressed and virtually all of the waterfront park would be bathed in sunshine by
noon, except the area under the highway (see Figures H-22 and H-2S). In the /
afternoons, incremental shadows would move ac;ross the southern end of Riverside
Park beginning shortly before 1:30PM and leaving the park after 3 PM. By
1:30 PM (see Figure H-28), the project's northernmost tower (the 32-story
building on parcel A) would cast a small incremental shadow into the southern-
most portion of Riverside Park. A portion of Riverside Park would already be
in shade at 1:30 due· to existing buildings on 72nd Street (see Figure H-27).
By 3 PM on March 21, shadows would be cast in a northeastern direction (see 1
Figure H-31), touching the southeasterly corner of Riverside Park. Again, this
portion of Riverside Park would already be partially shaded in the future with-
out the project (see Figure H-30). As described in section II.G, "Open Space
and Recreation," the southern part of Riverside Park is used for sitting on
I
sunny days, particularly by elderly residents of the area.
Some additional shadows would be cast by the project at 3 PM on the Man-

hattanWest open space, which would already be extensively in shade without the
proposed project, and on the Lincoln Towers open space above Freedom Place. No
other open spaces would be affected. The project would cast new shadows on the
western face and roof of the Chatsworth Apartments at 1:30 and 3 PM on March
21, and on the roofs and possibly the faces of part of the West 7lst Str~et
Historic District at 3 PM. The street would already be shaded by existing
buildings at that time. .
Winter. On December 21, the year's shortest day, the sun would be low in
the sky, creating very long shadows. It is important to note that while Decem-
ber 21st produces the year's longest shadows, they also last for the shortest
duration. Particularly toward the tip of the shadow, the effect would be
fleeting, lasting only minutes. Morning shadows would cover virtually the
entire waterfront park at 9 AM on December 21 (see Figure H-34) and much of the
park would remain in shadow at 10:30 AM (see Figure H-37). A small portion of
the park would be in sunlight at 12:00 noon (see Figure H-40). Much of the
park would be in sunshine at 1:30 PM (see Figure H-43). At 3 PM, the new park
would be covered in sunshine (see Figure H-46).
The project would create certain incremental shadows off-site when com-
pared with conditions in the future without the project (see Figures H-33,
I
l
H-36, H-39, H-42, and H-45 for December 21 shadows in the future without the
project). At 10:30 AM and 12:00 noon, certain additional shadows would be cast
on the lower waterfront sections of Riverside Park, west of the Henry Hudson
Parkway (compare Figure H-37 with Figure H-36 and Figure H-40 with Figure
H-39). By noon, these shadows would shade part of this area to 74th Street.
II .E-29
These shadows would be moving quickly, and by 1:30 PM, the incremental shadows
would be to the east of the highway, stretching to 75th Street (compare Figure
H-43 with Figure H-42). Throughout the afternoon, the project's incremental
shadow would sweep across the southern part of the park. As described in sec-
tion II.G, "Open Space and Recreation," the southern part of Riverside Park is
used for sitting on sunny days, particularly by elderly residents of the area.
At 3 PM on December 21, the project would shade only a narrow incremental strip
in the southeastern portion of Riverside Park, also stretching to 75th Street
(compare Figure H-46 with Figure H-45).
On December 21, the project would cast an incremental shadow on the small
unshaded portion of the Manhattan West Park at 3 PM. No other open spaces
would be affected. Shadows would be cast on the western face and roof of the
Chatsworth Apartments and on the roofs and some of the faces of part of the
West 7lst Street Historic District at that time; the street and courtyards
would already. be shaded by existing buildings.
Relocation of the Miller Highway
The analysis provided above, including the description of view corridors

and shadows, assumes the continuing presence of the elevated Miller Highway
across the site. However, as n~ted throughout this EIS, as a result of an
action separate and independent from the proposed project, the Miller Highway
may be relocated to the area beneath and adjacent to the proposed extension of
Riverside Drive. Although it cannot be specifically determined what year the
highway may be relocated, a reasonable assumption of a 2002 Build year has been
made.
Effects on the Project Site. From a design point of view, the major
,changes created by the relocation of the highway would be the eventual demoli-
tion of the existing Miller Highway, which provides both' a visual and physical
barrier to the waterfront, and in the design of the waterfront park. As de-
tailed in the "Project Description," relocation of the Miller Highway would
allow fora more cohesive park design, extending uninterrupted from Riverside
Drive to the river. Also, the park with the relocated highway would be 21. 5
acres, 4 acres .larger than with the elevated highway in place.
Relocation of the Miller Highway would change the visual character of the
project site. The proposed project's buildings would be more visually con-
nected to the waterfront and the new park without the elevated highway, and the
park would see more sunlight throughout the day (see discussion below on shad-
ows). The relocation of the highway would not affect the location, bulk, or
massing of the project's buildings; the project's internal street grid, includ-
ing the extension of Riverside Drive south from 72nd Street to 59th Street and
other east-west streets; or the phasing of construction.
Urban Design Relationship to the Surrounding Area.
Urban Form: The relocation of the highway would not affect the conclu-
sions regarding the project's relationship to the urban form of the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Buildings: The buildings on the project site would not be changed as a

result of the relocation of the highway and therefore the project's effects
with or without the relocation of the highway would be the same.
II. E-30
Natural Features: A waterfront park would be developed on the project
site whether or not the Miller Highway is eventually relocated. The relocation
of the highway provides an opportunity for creating a cohesive park with great-
er visual and physical access to the waterfront and would add a greater natural
amenity to the area.
As described in Chapter I, if the highway is relocated, the park would

provide a higher quality experience for park users. The park would have a
markedly different character because the elevated highway would not run across
the site; instead the highway would be hidden in a depression. None of the
park features would be beneath the elevated structure, and the highway would no
longer dominate views from the park. There would be unobstructed views of the
riverfront instead. Park users would no longer sense the presence of traffic,
and would feel removed from the city.
Visual Quality: The relocation of the Miller Highway, the demolition of

the existing highway, and the creation of a waterfront park with unimpeded ac-
cess to the waterfront would enhance the visual quality of the study area when
compared with future conditions with the highway remaining in place.
Views and View Corridors: View corridors with the relocated highway are
provided in Appendix G. Views are provided along 72nd, 71st, 70th, 66th, 64th,
63rd, 61st, 60th, and 59th Streets.
A review of the view corridor diagrams indicates that the effect on view
corridors would be much the same with the relocated highway as it would be with
retaining the Miller Highway in its current location. With the relocated high-
way, view corridors would be created on the same streets as without the relo-
cated highway, which currently have wide open views toward the west, while cer-
tain other view corridors would be narrowed compared with existing conditions
and conditions in the future without the project. The buildings on·the project
site would establish a very strong presence on most east-west streets, particu-
larly from locations closest to the project site.
With the relocation of the highway and the demolition of the eXisting
highway, the elevated highway would no longer be visible at the end of each
street. This change would be most noticeable from locations closest to the
project site and would be nearly imperceptible from locations farther east. In
addition, down several streets in the middle of the site, notably 66th Street
(see Figures G-11 through G-13), views of the river would be partially blocked
by the berm in the proposed park,which would rise as high as 15 feet above the
grade of the new Riverside Drive extension.
Shadows. With the exception of shadows cast by the Miller Highway on the
project's waterfront park, there would be no substantial diff~rence in the·
shadows cast by the project with the highway in place or with the highway re10-·
cated. At all times of the year and at all times of the day, the relocation of
the highway would eliminate shadows cast by the existing Miller Highway on the
new waterfront park. (See Figures H-5, H-8, H-11, H-14, and H-17 for June 21
shadows with the highway relocated; Figures H-20, H-23, H-26, H-29, and H-32
for March 21 shadows with the highway relocated; and Figures H-35, H-38, H-41,
H-44, and H-47 for December 21 shadows with the highway relocated. It should
be noted that in all shadow diagrams with the highway remaining in place, shad-
ows cast by the existing Miller Highway on portions of the park directly be-
neath the highway cannot be graphically displayed.)
I1.E-31
F. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLAN
Introduction
As part of the federal Coastal Zone Management Program, New York State has
adopted a state Coastal Management Program, designed to achieve a balance be-
tween economic development and preservation that will promote waterfront revi-
talization and water-dependent uses while protecting fish and wildlife, open
space and scenic areas, public access to the shoreline, and farmland; and mini-
mizing adverse changes to ecological systems and erosion and flood hazards.
The program encourages coordination among all levels of government to promote
sound waterfront planning and requires government to consider the goals of the
program in making land use decisions.
The state program contains provisions for local governments to develop

their own waterfront revitalization programs. New York City has adopted such a
program (New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program, New York City Depart-
ment of City Planning, September 1982). The program has been approved by the
New York State Department of State, which operates the state's Coastal Manage-
ment Program. A key part of both state and local programs is a set of coastal
policies. The Waterfront Revitalization Program consists of 44 state policies
and 12 policies specifically drafted for and by the City of New York.
The project site is located along the waterfront and is therefore within
the jurisdiction of the city's Coastal Zone Management Program. The coastal
policies pertaining to the proposed development are discussed below. New York
State policies are referenced by number, and New York City policies are refer-
enced by letters.
As described in Chapter I, "Project Description," the proposed project has

been designedwlth two alternative park plans· for two different conditions --
one in which the Miller Highway is relocated inboard to a location beneath and
beside the Riverside Drive extension, and one in which the elevated highway re-
mains in place. These park plans are described in the "Project Description."
Both parks would have similar features generally, and in terms of consistency I
with the Coastal Zone Management Program, would be the same. In those limited
instances where there are any differences, they are specified in the following
text.
Summary of Consistency with the Rew York State Coastal Zone Kanagement Program
The subjects of the Coastal Zone Management Program can generally be

grouped as follows: development, fish and wildlife, public access, recreation
resources, scenic quality, flooding and erosion, energy development, water
resources, air quality, and solid waste disposal.
Development
New York City's waterfront has accommodated a wide range of uses, includ-
ing housing, transportation, commerce, recreation, parks, and manufacturing,
II.F-l
· ..........................._... _._-_.-._------------
and demand for waterfront sites has fluctuated with changing economic and so-
cial conditions. With most of New York City's waterfront already developed,
the demand for waterfront sites is high. The waterfront revitalization plan
calls for effective utilization of the remaining sites and redevelopment of
underutilized sites, with particular emphasis on using sites with adequate
infrastructure in place. Upgrading of waterfront structures, such as piers and
bulkheads, is also recommended as an incentive for new development.
The proposed project conforms with this policy through the ·redevelopment
of a portion of the waterfront along Manhattan's West Side, an area already
served by municipal infrastructure and services. The project site, once occu-
pied by a large rail yard but now predominantly vacant and unused, would be
developed with a mixed-use project, and, when necessary, the bulkhead would be
repaired and replaced.
Public Access
The plan responds to the conflicting waterfront activities, transportation

deficiencies, and inadequate or undeveloped recreational facilities that limit
shore front access in New York City by recognizing that the enjoyment and bene-
fit of the waterfront is a public right. Consistent with this policy, a major
goal of the Riverside South project is to create public access to the water-
front. To this end, the project would include an approximately 2l.S-acre wa-
terfront park, providing public access to more than half a mile of waterfront
that has never been publicly accessible since the Upper West Side was devel- .
oped. Direct access would be provided from Riverside Park's waterfront espla-
nade, which would continue into the new park. In a park with the Miller High-
way relocated, access would also be provided via paths and pedestrian bridges
at all cross streets from 72nd to S9th Street except West 7lst, 67th, and 60th
Streets. All bridges and paths would be accessible to the handicapped, and the
pedestrian bridge at 70th Street would also connect to an elevator leading into
the park. In add1tion, if a Hudson River esplanade is developed south of S9th
Street as part of the Route 9A Reconstruction Project, connections would be
provided to that walkway from the southern end of the project site. Further,
accesS to the park from east of the Riverside South project would be encouraged
and facilitated because the various east-west cross streets would be extended
through the project site to meet the existing city street grid.
With the highway in place, the park would be accessed via pedestrian brid-
ges terminating in stairs and/or ramps from Riverside Drive at 68th, 66th, and
63rd Streets. These ramps would be handicapped-accessible. The park would
also be accessed from Riverside Park, to the north, and from the proposed Route
9A walkway, to the south. No elevator would be provided at 70th Street. This
park scenario would be 4 acres smaller than the park with the highway
relocated.
Recreation Resources
The expansion of water frontage with shore front promenades and sitting,
fishing, boating, and picnic areas is recognized by the plan as a means to
improve recreation opportunities for city residents. Creation of additional
parkland is encouraged, particularly if it provides additional access to under-
utilized areas. The proposed project would provide a 21.S-acre waterfront park
that would increase recreational opportunities for city resident.s in an area
II.F-2
· .................... -- .......... _.-----------------------------
currently relatively short of open spaces. This park would include a water-
front esplanade approximately 20 feet wide connecting the shoreline esplanade
of Riverside Park at the north to the walkwayjbikeway proposed as part of the
Route 9A Reconstruction Project at the south. Recreational biking would be
permitted on the esplanade. The park would also include a variety of features,
both active and passive, providing opportunities for sports and recreation,
strolling, sunbathing, fishing, and picnicking. Ballfields, playgrounds and
tot lots, lawns, community gardens, and fishing piers would be included.
Scenic Quality
The waterfront revitalization plan cites numerous reasons for the deteri-
oration of coas'tal scenic quality in New York City, including water pollution,
poor maintenance, overcrowding, and abandonment of waterfront structures. The
rail yards once on the project site were gradually phased out beginning in the
1950's, and all rail freight activity on the site ceased in the 1970's. Since
then, the waterfront structures on the site have deteriorated, and some have
experienced fires. The proposed project would improve the scenic quality of
New York City's waterfront by redeveloping the abandoned project site and reha-
I
bilitating Pier I at West 70th Street. The transfer bridge at West 69th Street
would be retained and stabilized, and the other deteriorated piers would be
retained and incorporated into the project's Arts Program. of these piers TWo X
would be cut off from the shore to make them inaccessible to the public, and
the other three would have their piles and various pier remnants selectively
removed to form a pattern. Along the waterfront would be a 21.5-acre park
sloping down to the river, providing wide vistas of the water.
If the highway is not relocated, the park would be bisected by the ele-
vated highway and thus would not have the same aesthetic and visual qualities
-- including uninterrupted vistas of the water -- as it would if the highway is
relocated. This park would be 4 acres smaller than the park with the highway
relocated.
Flood1ng and Erosion
The New York City shoreline is a valuable natural resource used for econ-
omic, recreational, and environmental purposes. The continued productive use
of the coastline is endangered because of gaps i~ the planning and management
of coastal areas subject to destructive natural forces. The proposed project
would adhere to all applicable policies of flood control for new construction
and prevention of structural erosion at the project site.
Portions of the site are within the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) designated 100-year floodplain. Construction within the floodplain is
regulated under Local Law 33 of 1988, which requires that all habitable space
be built at an elevation at or above the 100-year flood level. The proposed
project would comply with this law.
Air Quality
All of the state's coastal areas are affected by federal, state, and city
policies to abate and prevent air pollution and thereby protect habitats and
scenic areas. In New York City, attainment and maintenance of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards as detailed in the State Implementation Plan, protection
of areas with clean air, and control of toxic discharges into the air are the
II.F-3
focus of the city's air quality efforts. In terms of mobile source air quali-
ty, relocation of the Miller Highway would produce carbon monoxide levels that
are below standards but exceed de minimis values, and would therefore result in
a significant impact. Without mitigation, this impact would be an unmitigated
adverse impact.
As described in section II.K, the proposed project would have a signifi-

cant air quality impact at the upper intake location of a sealed commercial ~
building at 555 West 57th Street, would have potential significant air quality
impacts at elevated locations of proposed residential buildings KI, K2, K3, and
Jl, and would have significant air quality impacts at elevated locations on the
.proposed Macklowe building, 515 West 59th Street, and 790 Eleventh Avenue.
To mitigate these significant impacts, one boiler currently emitting pol-

lutants through Stack No. 5 would be connected to Stack No. 1 at the Con Edison
West 59th Street facility. Con Edison has agreed that this measure is feasible
and that they would agree to its implementation if it is funded by the appli-
cant. Con Edison will be required, before this measure is implemented, to
apply to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for an
amendment of their air quality permits, a discretionary action. With the im-
plementation of the proposed mitigation measure, any significant air quality
impacts would be fully mitigated. (See section II .K, "Air Quality," and the
discussion of stationary source mitigation in Chapter IV, "Mitigation
Measures.")
Both with and without the relocated Miller Highway, noise levels in the
proposed project's park would exceed the CEPO-CEQR 55 dBA L10 guideline level,
and would therefore result in a significant impact on park users. There is no
feasible mitigation for this impact; it would be an unmitigated adverse impact.
New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program Policies
Policy 1: Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and underused

waterfront areas for commercial, industrial, cultural, recreational, and other
compatible uses.
The project site, once an active rail yard, is underused and characterized
by deteriorated conditions, including abandoned railroad loading platforms,
piles of rubble, and derelict piers; a lack of substantial commercial and in-
dustrial activity; and no recreational amenities. Development of the proposed
project would replace these conditions with full, active use for residential,
commercial, and recreational purposes. As described in Chapter I, "Project
Description," the project's development program calls for a waterfront park of
approximately 21.5 acres; 5,700 dwelling units; up to 102,500 zoning square
feet (zsf) of retail space; up to 163,400 zsf of professional office or commu-
nity facility space; 300,000 zsf of general purpose office space; and up to a
1.8 million-square-foot studio complex for film or television production.
Below grade, the project would contain a 37,OOO-square foot, six screen, 1,800-
seat cineplex; an additional 45,000 square feet of retail space; and 3,500
II.F-4
parking spaces. As part of this development, the city street grid would be
extended onto the site, ending the site's isolation from the surrounding neigh-
borhood -- this would include extensions to 60th through 7lst Streets as well
as to Riverside Drive -- and deteriorated bulkheads would be repaired or
replaced.
Rev York City Policy A: Improve urban shorelines by maintaining, remov-

ing,or recycling waterfront structures (piers, docks, wharves, etc.) in accor-
dance with waterfront development policies and plans. Identify alternative
uses for underutilized waterfront structures.
All the existing waterfront structures -- piers and a transfer bridge --

except Pier I at 70th Street are in ruins and beyond rehabilitation. As de-
scribed in the "Project Description," as part of the project, Pier I would be
rehabilitated as an element of the waterfront park, subject to U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers nationwide approval, and, where necessary, bulkheads along the
project site's waterfront would be repaired or replaced. The West 69th Street
transfer bridge would be stabilized and retained. South of the transfer
bridge, the other piers along the project site's waterfront would be retained.
To ensure pedestrian safety, the two southernmost piers would be severed from
the shoreline so they would be inaccessible to the public. . As 'part of the
project's Arts Program (described in Chapter I, "Project Description"), pilings
and remnants of the other three piers would be selectively cut above the mud-
line to form a pattern in the water. All of the work along the site's shore-
line is described in detail in section II.N, "Natural Resources."
None of these changes would have significant impacts on the hydrology of ~

the river. To assess the impact of the proposed shoreline modifications, a
study was performed of the sedimentation characteristics of the Hudson River
close to the project si~e, and of the proposed waterfront structures' potential
for modifying existing sedimentation patterns and thereby affecting water qual-
ity or aquatic habitat.
The study concluded that, overall, the proposed changes along the site's
shoreline would not affect river conditions. Overall, because there would be
no significant changes in sedimentation, there would·be no significant impacts
to the aquatic resources of this part of the river. There would also be little
change in the available substrate for encrusting benthic life: most of the
existing structures would remain; and removal of piles from the relieving plat-
form and five piers would still leave most of these structures intact.
All of these changes are discussed in more detail in section II.N, "Natu-
ral Resources."
In addition, selective cutting of piles would not create any hazards for
passing vessels because the piles that are to be cut would be surrounded by
remaining, uncut piles.
Policy 2: Facilitate the siting of water-dependent uses and facilities on

or adjacent to coastal waters.
II.F-S
With the exception of Pier I and several small pedestrian piers, no compo-
nent of the proposed project is dependent on a waterfront location, although
the project's 2l.5-acre waterfront park would be enhanced by its riverside set-
ting. As described in Chapter I, "Project Description," this park would in-
clude a variety of features, both active and passive, providing opportunities
for sports and recreation, strolling, sunbathing, fishing, and picnicking.
Ballfields, playgrounds and tot lots, lawns, and community gardens would be
included. Along the entire shoreline of the project site, a waterfront espla-
nade would join the different elements of the park together and connect the
existing esplanade "in Riverside Park to the walkway at 59th Street proposed as
part of the Route 9A Reconstruction Project. At several locations, overlooks
would allow panoramic views of the Hudson and Palisades. At about 70th Street,
Pier I would be rehabilitated and resurfaced to allow strolling, sunbathing,
and fishing. Three small pedestrian piers would extend into the water at about
67th, 60th, and 59th Streets. These could also be used for strolling and
fishing.
Direct access to the park would be provided from Riverside Park's water-
front esplanade, which would continue into the new park. Access would also be
provided via paths and pedestrian bridges at all cross streets from 72nd to
59th Street except West 7lst, 67th, and 60th Streets. All bridges and paths
would be- accessible to the· handicapped, and the pedestrian bridge at 70th
Street would connect to an elevator leading into the park. In addition, if a
Hudson River esplanade is developed south of 59th Street as part of the Route
9A Reconstruction Project, connections would be provided to that walkway from
the southern end of the project site. Further, access to the park from east of
the Riverside South project would be encouraged and facilitated because the
various east-west cross streets would be extended through the project site to
meet the existing city street grid.
If the highway is not relocated, the park would be bisected by the elevat-
ed highway and thus would not have the same aesthetic and visual qualities --
including uninterrupted vistas of the water -- as it would if the highway is
relocated. This park would include the same shoreline elements as the park
with the highway relocated. The balance of the park has been designed to pro-
vide an adequate permanent park in the event that the highway is never relocat-
ed and to provide the basic elements to reconfigure the park as proposed with
the highway relocated, should that occur in the distant future. Consequently,
many of the features of the Interim Park would be similar to those in the pro-
posed waterfront park. They would include paved ballcourts, an open lawn for
'sports activities, playgrounds, and a gradually sloping lawn. The Interim Park
would not utilize the public place preserved for the relocated highway. Conse-
quently, the overall size of the Interim Park would be approximately 4.0 acres
smaller than the park proposed with the relocated highway. Access would be
available via pedestrian bridges leading to ramps and/or stairs into the park
from Riverside Drive at 68th, 66th, and 63rd Streets. All ramps and paths
would be accessible to the handicapped. Access would also be possible from
Riverside Park and from the walkwayjbikeway proposed to the south. There would
be no elevator at 70th Street.
As part of the project's mapping actions, approximately 49.6 acres of

underwater land along with site's shoreline -- 18.5 acres of private land and
31.1 acres of city-owned land -- would be mapped as public parkland.
II. F-6
Future water-dependent uses, such as boat launches or ferry service, would
not be preclud~d by development of the project as proposed. These uses could
be located along the project's shoreline -- such as north of Pier I or along
Pier I itself. Vehicular access to service these facilities would be possible
along the new Riverside Drive extension, which is about 360 feet from the
water's edge at 72nd Street. This is a reasonable walking distance between
transportation modes. If these uses are initiated at a future date, they would
not affect the manner in which the public would access the waterfront.
New York City Policy B: Improve channels as necessary to maintain and

stimulate economic conditions.
Not applicable. The proposed project would have no impact on channels.
Policy 3: Promote the development and use of the state's major ports as
centers of commerce and industry, emphasizing the siting, within port areas, of
land use and development which is necessary to, or in support of, the water-
borne transportation of cargo and people. The state's major ports are the
ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York, Ogdensburg, and Oswego.
Development of the proposed Riverside South project would not have any
effect on New York City's continued use as a major port. Ferries are not an-
ticipated at the site as part of Riverside South. Development of the project
would not preclude their use in the future (see discussion above under Poli-
cy 2).
Policy 4: Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by en-

couraging the development and enhancement of those activities that have pro-
vided such areas with a unique identity.
Not applicable. The proposed project would be located in Manhattan, which

is not a smaller harbor area.
Policy 5: Encourage the location of development in areas where public

services and facilities essential to such development are adequate.
The project site is close to the developed areas of Manhattan's West Side,
and a full range of public services is available in the vicinity of the pro-
posed development, although several may have to be supplemented to accommodate
the proposed development. As noted in section II.D, "Community Facilities and
Services," 'police, fire protection, library, and hospital services in the area
are adequate for the proposed project. Public elementary schools in the proj-
ect area are expected to be overcrowded in the future with or without the proj-
ect, and without actions to add capacity to local elementary schools, the proj-
ect would exacerbate such overcrowding, resulting in a significant impact. As
described in section II.D, to mitigate this impact, the project would provide,
for sale or lease at fair market value to the Board of Education, additional
school space on-site sufficient to accommodate 600 students.
II .F-7
Subway and bus systems that would transport people to and from the site
are already in place, though the numbers of people going to and from the proj-
ect would reduce levels of service on these systems (see section II.J, "Traffic
and Transportation").
The project would not affect the city's ability to supply water reliably.
To serve the water demand of the project, water mains would .be constructed on
the site. With these improvements, the project's demand would not result in
any significant change in water pressure in the neighborhood. (For more de-
tail, see section II.P, "Infrastructure and Solid Waste.")
As described in section II.P, sewage from Riverside South would be treated

at the North River Water Pollution Control Plant. In the future without the
project, this plant is projected to treat an annual average of 161.2 million
gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater in 1997 and 165.8 mgd in 2002. These flows
are lower than the current 1991-1992 flows, reflecting the anticipated
reductions from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection's
(DEP) water conservation program. The addition of project wastewater flows
would result in annual average flows of 161.9 mgd in 1997 and 167.2 mgd by
2002, approximately equal to the current flows to the plant. The plant would
continue to operate within its rated capacity and the limits of its SPDES
permit, and would also continue to remove pollutants from the wastewater effec-
tively. (For a more detailed discussion of the North River Water Pollution ~
Control Plant, see section II.P later in this EIS.)
In addition, several alternatives were examined that would avoid increas- ~

I J
ing wastewater flows to the North River Water Pollution Control Plant, should
such a need arise. These include treatment of sewage on the project site in an
on-site treatment plant or project-sponsored flow reductions in the North River
service area. These are discussed in Chapter III, "Alternatives."
The solid waste generated by the proposed project would not represent a
significant increase over current volumes collected in Sanitation District 7.
The project could be accommodated by reallocation of truck routes using the
existing Sanitation Department collection fleet (see section II.P).
Policy 6: Expedite existing permit procedures in order to facilitate the

siting of development activities at suitable locations.
Any project-related activity on the waterfront would be performed in com-

pliance with applicable permits. As described in Chapter I, "Project Descrip-
tion," the project would require several approvals and other discretionary
actions by city and state agencies.
Policy 7: Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will be pro-

tected and preserved so as to maintain their viability as habitats.
The project is within the Lower Hudson Reach Significant Coastal Fish and
Wildlife Habitat. Consistent with this designation, the project would not
destroy or significantly impair the viability of this habitat.
II. F-8
As described earlier, the proposed project's park would include modifica-
tions to the site's edge to the Hudson River, including repair in kind and in
place of the bulkhead, renovation of the supe.rstructure of Pier I, repair in
kind and in place of the existing crib walland stabilization of the West 69th
Street transfer bridge, cutting away of certain portions of the relieving plat-
form between 69th and 62nd Streets, shaping of the riprap at 62nd Street, and
repair of the riprap south of 62nd Street. The existing piers at 64th and 63rd
Streets would be removed for a distance of 50 feet from the shore to prevent
public access to those piers, and the three piers at 67th, 66th, and 65th
Streets would have some of the interior piles cut to between mean low and high
water to form a pattern as the tides change. In addition, a series of three
pedestrian piers would be constructed along the site's shoreline. One, about
10 feet wide, would be parallel to the shoreline between 68th and 66th Streets.
The other two, also about 10 feet wide, would run at an acute angle to the
shore from 59th Street and at 60th Street, extending 200 and 100 feet into the
river, respectively.
As explained above under Policy 2, none of these chariges are expected to \

have significant impacts on the hydrology of the river. Further, the shoreline
activities proposed as part of the project's park are also not anticipated to ~
cause any significant impacts to the aquatic ecology resources along the site's
shoreline. Repair of Pier I would not significantly change the hydrology of
the s i t e . · .
Repair of the bulkheads would not significantly change the hard surface
area exposed to water. New timber would be quickly colonized, resulting in the
same condition as today. The modification of the relieving platform would
remove piles and facing in the intertidal zone but would open the underside of
the platform to sunlight, allowing for revegetation through exposure to sun- ~
light. The removal of portions of three piers at 67th, 66th, and 65th Streets I
would also eliminate some intertidal substrate for food resources, but most
piles would remain in place.
Reshaping the riprap in the inlet at 62nd Street would not add or subtract
from the aquatic resources on the site, but would simply rearrange the avail-
able substrate. There would be no change in the shape of the inlet or addi-
tional riprap placed within the waters of the Hudson River.
Finally, the three pedestrian piers would add pilings to the site, but in
a widely spaced array that would not affect tidal form. .
Any construction activities in the water would be undertaken so as to

minimize the impact of construction. This could include performing the work
within accepted "safe" windows and/or utilizing equipment that limits turbidi-
ty, such as covered buckets and silt curtains.
\
Pollcy 8: Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from
the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which bioaccumu1ate
in the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effects on
those resources.
The proposed project would not be a point source of contaminants. None of

the uses proposed as part of the project would discharge any pollutants into
II.F-9
Hudson River. As described in section II.P, "Infrastructure and Solid Waste,"
the project would have separate storm water and sanitary sewerage systems.
Storm water from the project site would flow into the Hudson River, and sani-
tary sewage would be treated at the North River WPCP. The storm water system
would have catch basins to prevent floatables in the runoff from flowing to the
river. These basins would contain hoods to prevent floatable material from
discharging into the sewer, and drop sections to collect heavy material before
discharge.
The developer has been implementing groundwater mitigation approved by the

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for petroleum
contamination in the northern part of the project site. This contamination was
caused by past railroad-related activities in that area. The developer has
also agreed to implement additional measures approved by the New York City De-
. partment of Environmental Protection (DEP) in connection with the development
of the proposed project to mitigate other areas of the site (see Chapter IV,
"Mitigation Measures").
During construction, dewatering, or pumping of groundwater, would be re~

quired. Before excavation, point-source testing of the pumped groundwater
would be conducted to meet all specifications of the appropriate regulating
agency .. As explained in section II.M, "Hazardous Materials," all pumped
groundwater that is of the saIne or higher DEC wa·ter classification as the Hud-
son River adjacent to the site would be of sufficient quality to be discharged
into the Hudson River. Such discharge would require the approval of DEC and
would be subject to the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
regulations.
Pumped groundwater that is not of sufficient quality to be discharged into

the Hudson River would be discharged into the New York City sewage treatment
plant system subject to receipt of permits from the DEP's Bureau of Water Pol-
·lution Control and Bureau of Sewers, and from the DEP's Industrial Waste Con-
trol Section. If disposal of this groundwater is not approved for discharge
into the sewage treatment system, the' groundwater would be treated to reduce
chemical constituents to levels acceptable for release into the Hudson River.
A variety of standard methods, such as filtering through activated granular
charcoal to reduce organic constituents and precipitation to reduce metal con-
centrations, are available and would be used as needed to improve the quality
of groundwater before discharge.
Policy 9: Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in

coastal areas 'by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing exist-
ing stocks, and developing new resources.
The project would not supplement or develop new fish and wildlife re-
sources in the area, but it would provide access to a currently unavailable
waterfront location for recreational uses such as fishing. As described under
Policy 2, above, the project would include a large waterfront park with walk-
ways along the water and pedestrian piers that could be used for/fishing (see
also Chapter I, "Project Description").
II.F-lO
Policy 10: Further develop commercial finfish, shellfish, and crustacean
resources in the coastal areas by encouraging the construction or improvement
of existing on-shore commercial fishing facilities, increasing marketing of the
state's seafood products, maintaining adequate stocks and expanding agriculture
facili ties.
Not applicable. The project site has not been identified as suitable for
commercial fisheries and does not include anyon-shore commercial fishing fa-
cilities nor any other activities related to fishing.
Policy 11: Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal
area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives
caused by flooding and erosion.
The proposed project structures would be built along the easternmost edge
of the property, with parkland located between the buildings and the Hudson
River shoreline. All building entrances to residential, commercial, and office
buildings, and all habitable rooms would be above the flood level. Portions of
buildings, primarily areas designated for parking and storage, would be within
a federally designated lOO-year flood hazard area; all construction would be in
compliance with New York City Local Law No. 33 of 1988, which regulates con-
struction within flood hazard areas (see section II.N, "Natural Resources").
The project site is not subject to critical erosion; the project would repair
and replace bulkheads to prevent any erosion on the site.
Nev York City Policy C: Provide shore front protection against coastal
erosion hazards where there is public benefit and public use along nonpublic
shores.
The project site is currently inaccessible to the public. The proposed

project would include a 2l.S-acre public park along the site's shoreline. Re-
construction of the bulkheads would protect the shoreline from erosion.
Nev York City Policy D: Provide technical assistance for the identifica-
tiori and evaluation of erosion problems, as well as the development of erosion
control plans along privately owned eroding shores.
As discussed above", erosion is not a problem on the proj ect site. The
proposed project would repair or replace deteriorated bulkheads along the
site's shoreline, and thus prevent any erosion currently occurring from contin-
uing. After development, the proposed project would include paved areas,
buildings, and landscaped areas, all of which are not vulnerable to erosion.
Nev York City Policy E: Implement public and private structural flood and
erosion control projects only when specific criteria are met that show clear
public benefit above environmental costs.
Not applicable. The proposed project would not require structural flood
and erosion control. Repairing and replacing existing bulkheads along the
site's shoreline would protect against erosion, and the project would comply
II .F-ll
with Local Law No. 33, which mandates that all habitable space be above the
floodplain.
Policy 12: Activities or development in the coastal area will be under-

taken so as to minimize their adverse effects upon natural features which pro-
tect against flooding and erosion.
The project site has no natural features such as beaches, dunes, inland
wetlands, or water bodies that can ,serve to protect against flooding or ero-
sion. The project would not cause an increase in either flooding or erosion on
or off the site (see discussion under Policy 14, below). Littoral zone tidal
wetlands have been mapped by the DEC along the project site's shoreline. The
project does not include any construction in the littoral zone, but because the
existing bulkheads on the site are not continuous, project plans would be sent
to the DEC for review and a determination of whether a wetlands permit would be
required to ensure that shoreline improvements are made in an environmentally
sensitive manner (this is discussed section II.N, "Natural Resources"). There
are no wetlands on the site other than the littoral wetlands.
Policy 13: The'cohstruction or reconstruction of erOS10n protection

structures shall be undertaken only if they have a reasonable probability of
controlling erosion for at least 30 years as demonstrated in design and con-
struction standards and/or assured maintenance or replacement programs.
The reconstructed bulkheads would be constructed to protect against ero-

sion for at least 30 years.
Policy 14: Activities and development, including the construction or

reconstruction of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that
there will be no measurable increase in erosion nor flooding at the site of
such activities nor development at other locations.
The proposed project would improve the site's resistance to erosion by

reconstructing and maintaining the bulkhead, and by developing a barren site
with buildings, paving, and landscaping. During construction, an erosion con-
trol plan would minimize, sedimentation into the river. The project would not
affect flood levels in the Hudson River, and thus would not cause any increase
in flooding on the site or elsewhere. The reconstructed bulkhead and other
project features would not 'induce increased erosion at off-site locations.
Policy 15: Mining, excavation, or dredging in coastal waters shall not

significantly interfere with the natural coastal processes which supply beach
materials to land adjacent to such waters and shall be undertaken in a manner
which will not cause an increase in erosion of such lands.
Not applicable. The proposed project would not involve m1n1ng, excava-
tion, or dredging in coastal waters and the site is not adjacent to any beaches
or other such natural features.
II .F-12
Policy 16: Public funds shall be expended for activities and development,
including the construction or reconstruction of erosion structures, only where
the public benefits clearly outweigh their long-term monetary and other costs
including their adverse effects on natural protective features.
As currently planned, the proposed project would not involve any public
funding for activities and development, and as described above, the project
would not adversely affect any natural protective features on the site.
Policy 17: Non-structural measures to m1n1m1ze damage to natural re-

sources and property from flooding and erosion shall be used whenever possible.
Given the level of development proposed for the project, non-structural

alternatives to reconstruction of the bulkheads are not practical. As de-
scribed above, the proposed project would comply with Local Law No. 33, which
mandates that all habitable space be located above the floodplain.
Policy 18: To safeguard the vital interests of the State of New York and
of its citizens in the waters and other valuable resources of the state's coas-
tal area, all practicable steps shall be taken to ensure that such interests
are accorded full consideration in the deliberations, decisions and actions of
state and federal bodies with authority over those waters and resources.
Coastal considerations are part of the city's ULURP and CEQR review of the
project. The compatibility of the project's program and design with the poli-
cies of the Waterfront Revitalization Program, which reflect the vital inter-
ests of the state and its citizens in this matter, is addressed in this EIS and
will be c·onsideredduring public review and final decision-making.
Policy 19: Protect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access
to public water-related recreation resources.
No public access to the waterfront has ever been available at the project
site since the Upper West Side was developed more than 100 years ago. ~s de-
scribed above, the proposed project would provide a large park along the 0.6-
mile length of its waterfront and would rehabilitate an existing pier at the
end of 70th Street as an element of the park. Access to the park would be
provided from Riverside Park to the north and Twelfth Avenue to the south and
from access points at all cross streets between West 59th and 72nd Streets,
except West 7lst, 67th, and 60th Streets. The park would include a 20-foot-
wide waterfront esplanade connecting the shoreline esplanade of Riverside Park
at the north to the walkwayfbikeway proposed as part of the Route 9A Recon-
struction Project at the south. This path would be wide enough to accommodate
pedestrian and wheeled traffic (bicycles and rollerblades) comfortably. Recre-
ational biking would be permitted in the park. As also described above, if the
Miller Highway remains in place, the park would be accessed at 68th, 66th, and
63rd Streets, as well as from Riverside Park and details on the waterfront park
open space and its access points are presented in Chapter I, "Project Descrip·-
tion,1I and section II.G, IIOpen Space and Recreation,1I and summarized under
Policy 2, above.
II. F-13
The operation of the park, including programming and maintenance, may be
undertaken by a public-private partnership composed of appropriate community,
civic, business, and public members, as well as the developer. The establish-
ment, composition, and operation of this public-private partnership would be
subject to a separate agreement pursuant to standards established by the ULURP
approval. The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) would have oversight
over the operation of this group.
The developer would contribute annually a minimum of 50 percent toward the

reasonable cost of maintaining the park. It is anticipated that the balance of
the funds would come from concession revenue, city contributions, and other
sources.
Policy 20: Access to the publicly owned foreshore or water's edge and to
the publicly owned lands immediately adjacent to these areas shall be provided
and it shall be provided in manner compatible with adjoining uses. To ensure
that such lands remain available for public use, they will be retained in pub-
lic ownership.
As described above, the proposed project would provide direct access to

the waterfront through a 21.5-acre riverfront park; which would be mapped as
public city parkland. As described under Policy 2, above, and in Chapter I,
"Project Description," if the Miller Highway is relocated, access to this pub-
lic park would be provided from the north and south and via paths and pedestri-
an bridges at all cross streets from 72nd to 59th Street except West 7lst,
67th, and 60th Streets. The park would be similar to Riverside Park to its
north, and would not be separated from the inland portion of the project, but
rather would be an integral part of the overall project design. As described
in Policy 2, if the Miller Highway remains in place, access to the park would
be provided from the north and south and via entrances at West 68th, 66th, and
63rd Streets. Because this park would not utilize the public place reserved
for the Miller Highway, this park would be 4.0 acres smaller than the park with
the highway relocated.
The City of New York would own the new waterfront park. The park would be
constructed and given to the city at no cost to the city. Maintenance of the
completed elements of the park, as described above under Policy 19, operation
of the park, including programming and maintenance, may be undertaken by a
public-private partnership. In addition, approximately 49.6 acres of land
underwater would be mapped as parkland along the site's shoreline -- approxi-
mately 18.5 acres of private land and 31.1 acres of city-owned land.
Policy 21: Water-dependent and water-enhanced recreation will be encour-

aged and facilitated, and will be given priority over non-water-re1ated uses
along the coast.
The proposed project is designed to offer the greatest amount of open

space along the shoreline, in conformance with this policy. The project would
use its entire shoreline for recreational 'use to promote fishing, strolling,
viewing, and sitting along the water's edge. Another element of shoreline park
development would be the renovation of an existing pier ,for similar recreation-
al uses, and the creation of three new pedestrian piers. The waterfront park
II.F-14
is best categorized as a water-enhanced, rather than a water-dependent use.
There would be no water-dependent recreation facilities, other than Pier I and
the new pedestrian piers, which could be used for fishing, but development of
the project as proposed would not preclude future water-dependent facilities
north of Pier I (e.g., boat launch piers or other boating facilities). See the
discussion under Policy 2, above.
Policy 22: Development when located adjacent to the shore will provide
for water-related recreation activities whenever such recreational use is ap-
propriate in light of reasonably anticipated demand for such activities and the
primary purpose of the project.
As discussed fully in section II.G, "Open Space and Recreation," there is

ample demand for both active and passive recreation in the study area. Given
the location adjacent to the southern end of Riverside Park and the large
number of projected residents, the provision of waterfront recreation at this
location would be appropriate. The waterfront park would be an integral part
of the proposed project.
Rew York City Policy F: Prio-rity shall be given to the development:Qf

mapped parkland and appropriate open space where the opportunity exists to meet
the recreational needs of immobile use groups and communities without adequate
waterfront park space and/or facilities.
As discussed above under Policy 22, it is anticipated that there will be a

large demand for parkland in the project area. The proposed project would
provide 21.5 acres of open space along the riverfront in an area where no wa-
terfront park space has ever been available, and would create a recreational
resource for residents of Amsterdam Houses and other developments in the south-
west part of the Upper West Side, where there is now comparatively little open
space. All of the open space at the proposed proj ect would be accessible t.o
the handicapped. See the discussion under Policy 2, above.
Rew York City Policy G: Maintain and protect New York City beaches to the
fullest extent possible.
This policy is not applicable .. The project site does not include any
beaches.
Rew York City Policy B: Insure ongoing maintenance of all waterfront

parks and beaches to promote full use of secure, clean areas with fully opera-
ble facilities.
A 21.5-acre public waterfront park would be developed as part of the proj-

ect. This park would be dedicated to the city and mapped as public parkland.
A not-for-profit park corporation would be created to supervise design and
construction of the park. The park would be constructed and given to the city 7:)
at no cost to the city. Maintenance of the completed elements of the park
would be undertaken by a public-private partnership ,as described above. (For
more details, see Chapter I, "Project Description.")
In
II.F-15
The specifics of the maintenance program will be further addressed and
resolved during the ULURP process. Pending resolution of this issue, there may
be a potential inconsistency with this policy.
Policy 23: Protect, enhance, and restore structures, districts, areas, or

sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology, or
culture of the state, its communities, or the nation.
As described in section II.H, "Historic and Archaeological Resources,"

several historic resources are located close to the project site, including one
on the site -- the West 69th Street transfer bridge, which has been found
eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
Other nearby resources include Riverside Park and Drive, which are designated
. New York City Landmarks and listed on the State and National Registers of His-
toric Places; four town houses at the corner of Riverside Drive and West 72nd
Street -- Nos. 309 and 311 West 72nd Street and 1 and 3 Riverside Drive --
which are New York City Landmarks; the Chatsworth Apartments and Annex, also a
New York City Landmark, listed on the State Register of Historic Places, and.
eligible for listing on the National Register; the West 7lst Street Historic
District (a New York City Landmark Historic District); and the Consolidated
Edison Power House, which has been found eligible fo.r·· the State and National
Registers and is being considered for designation as a New York City Landmark.
As described in section II.H, development of the proposed project would

not involve any physical impacts -- i.e., alteration or demolition -- to the
historic resources but would alter their contexts by converting a large predom-
inantly vacant site to part of the urban streetscape. As explained in section
II.H, the project has been designed to be compatible with these historic
resources.
As described in Chapter I, "Project Description," and section II.H, "His-

toric and Archaeological Resources," development of the project site would be
governed by a set of Design Controls and Guidelines, established to ensure that
the project would embody the features that give the West Side its unique char-
acter. For development parcels close to historic resources (Parcels A, B, N,
and M -- near the Chatsworth Apartments, the West 7lst Street Historic Dis-
trict, and the Consolidated Edison Power House), mandated Large Scale Special
Permit Controls would ensure compatibility of project buildings with nearby
historic resources. In addition to controlling the maximum bulk, height, and
building envelope, they would also specify streetwall conditions -- including
characteristics of the base, expression lines, setbacks, and window
characteristics.
The West 69th Street transfer bridge would be stabilized and retained.
The proposed project would cast certain new morning shadows (9 AM) on the tran-
sfer bridge (shadow diagrams are provided in Appendix H).
The northern part of the project's waterfront park would act as an exten-
sion of Riverside Park, and the connection between the two facilities would be
designed to respect the historic integrity of Riverside Park. The proposed
project would cast certain incremental shadows on the southern end of Riverside
Park. These would occur on spring and fall afternoons (moving across the park
beginning shortly before 1:30 PM until after 3:00 PM on March 21; Qne hour
II.F-16
later on September 21), and through much of the day on December 21. Small
incremental shadows would fall west of the Henry Hudson Parkway at 10:30 AM and
would grow longer by noon. These shadows would be moving quickly, with the
increment east of the highway by 1:30 PM. By 3:00 PM, the project would shade
only a narrow incremental strip of the park. Because of the limited geographic
extent of the shadows, they would not significantly impact the integrity of
Riverside Park or affect the qualities that give the park Landmark status (de-
tails on the connection and on shadows are presented in section II.G, "Open
Space and Recreation," and in section II.H, "Historic and Archaeological Re-
sources).
On the project's northernmost block, a 14-story building would curve from

West 72nd Street (adjacent to the Chatsworth) onto the new extension of
Riverside Drive at the same height as the Chatsworth. As explained in section
II.H, the project's Large Scale Special Permit Controls would ensure that it
would be compatible with the 13-story Chatsworth Apartments and the mid-rise
curving streetwa1l along Riverside Drive. Adjacent to the West 71st Street
Historic District, project buildings would be four stories, reflecting the
four-story midb10ck town houses in the district. At the corner of the new
Riverside Drive would be taller buildings, similar to the development pattern
throughout the Upper West Side. A barrier on 7lst Street between the existing
and new street would prevent through traffic along 71st Str.eet and ensuret):la.t
the historic district maintains its special character enhanced by its quiet
dead-end street.
The project would cast additional shadows on the western face and roof of
the Chatsworth Apartments at 1:30 and 3:00 PM on March 21 and at 3:00 PM on
December 21, and on the roofs and possibly the faces of part of the West 71st
Street Historic District at 3:00 PM on March and December 21. These would not
be significant.
southern end of the proposed project would be compatible with the Con Ed Power
House. Buildings at this .end of the project would not be taller than the power
house's imposing stacks.
Archaeological studies have indicated that there may be prehistoric ar-

chaeological resources in two locations on the site. As indicated in Chap-
ter IV, before construction of the proposed project, archaeological testing
would be performed in these areas. All archaeological work would be carried
out only after review and approval from the New York City Landmarks Preserva-
tion Commission.
Policy 24: Prevent impairment of scenic resources of statewide

significance.
The project site is not considered a scenic resource of statewide signif-

icance, nor is it located within a Special Natural Area District or Special
Scenic View District per the city's Zoning Resolution. However, Riverside
Park, which is adjacent to the northern end of the project site, is a New York
City Scenic Landmark. As discussed above under Policy 23 and in section II.H,
the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with Riverside Park.
,ILF-17
Policy 25: Protect, restore, and enhance the natural and man-made re-
sources that. are not identified as being of statewide significance, but which
contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area.
Because the project site is not currently accessible to the public, the
Hudson River can only be seen by looking under or over the elevated Miller
Highway from areas close to the project site, such as Freedom Place and West
End Avenue south of 66th Street, and from certain view corridors down east-west
streets in the area (see section II.E, "Urban Design and Visual Quality"). The
project has been designed to reflect and extend the existing street grid and
therefore to preserve public views of the river. The project's buildings would
partially block some views of the river that are currently available from many
apartments around the project site. They would frame existing view corridors
down east-west streets with new buildings. The project would maintain existing
view corridors on all cross streets except 60th Street. The project's studio
building would block views down 60th Street. The waterfront park would provide ~
a publicly accessible, scenic water-level v~sta of the river and the New Jersey
shoreline for the project's entire length. This view has never been available
during the site's use as a rail freight yard.
Policy 26: Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the state's coastal
area.
Not applicable. The project site does not include any agricultural lands.
Policy 27: Decisions on the siting and construction of major energy fa-
cilities in the coastal area will be based on public energy needs, compatibil-
ity of such facilities with the environment and the facility's need for a
shore front location.
Not applicable. The proposed project does not include construction of any
major energy facilities.
New York City Policy I: Siting of liquified and substitute natural gas
facilities, including those associated with the tankering of such gas, shall
take into consideration state and national energy needs, public safety concerns
and the necessity for shore front locations.
Not applicable. The proposed project does not involve siting of liquified
and substitute natural gas facilities.
Policy 28: Ice management practices shall not damage significant fish and
wildlife and their habitats, increase shoreline erosion or flooding or inter-
fere with the production of hydroelectric power.
Not applicable. The proposed project does not involve ice management.
Policy 29: Encourage the development of energy resources on the outer

continental shelf (DCS) and in other water bodies and ensure the environmental
safety of such activities.
II.F-l8
Not applicable.
Policy 30: Municipal, industrial and commercial discharge of pollutants,

including, but not limited to, toxic and hazardous substances, into coastal
waters will conform to state water quality standards.
None of the uses proposed as part of the project would directly discharge
any pollutants into the Hudson River. As described in section II.P, "Infra-
structure and Solid Waste," the project would have separate storm water and
sanitary sewerage systems. Storm water from the project site would flow into
the Hudson River, and sanitary sewage would be treated at the North River WPCP.
All inlets to the storm water collection system would contain catch basins to
prevent floatables in the runoff from flowing to the river. These basins would
It;)
contain hoods to prevent floatable material from discharging into the sewer.
They would also contain drop sections to collect heavy material prior to dis-
charge.
All sanitary sewage from the proposed project would be treated in the
North River WPCP, which provides secondary treatment for sewage and then dis-
charges into the Hudson River. A discussion of the North River WPCP can be
found under Policy 5, above, and in section II.P.
As explained above under Policy 8, dewatering would be necessary during

construction. Subject to approval by the appropriate regulating agencies,
groundwater would be discharged into the Hudson River or the New York City
water pollution control plant system, depending on its quality. Groundwater
not of sufficient quality for discharge into the river or sewage system would
be treated to reduce chemical constituents to levels acceptable for release
into the Hudson. River.
Policy 31: State coastal area policies and management objectives of ap-
proved local waterfront revitalization programs will be considered while re-
viewing coastal water classifications and while modifying water quality stan-
dards; however, those waters already overburdened with contaminants will be
recognized as being a development constraint.
The waters of the Hudson River are designated as Class I, which allows for
secondary contact recreation, such as fishing (see section II.N, "Natural Re-
sources"). This would not be a development constraint, and uses other than
secondary contact recreation would not occur as part of the project.
Policy 32: Encourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste

systems in smaller communities where the costs of conventional facilities are
unreasonably high, given the size of the existing tax base of these
communities.
This policy is not applicable in Manhattan, where a dense population re-

quires large municipal water pollution control plants. Four alternatives were Irr
examined to provide for disposal of the project's sewage: a standard on-site
secondary sewage treatment plant constructed on-site with discharge to a city
outfall or direct discharge to the Hudson River; a natural ecological system
II.F-19
utilizing a mixed ecology of bacteria, plants, and animals to cleanse the sew-
age before discharge; an anaerobic treatment system that converts the sewage to
methane gas; and a no net flow increase alternative that would reduce the flows
to the WPCP by retrofitting existing high-water use plumbing fixtures in off-
site areas to provide the needed flow capacity. (For more details, see Chapter
III, "Alternatives.")
Policy 33: Best management practices will be used to ensure the control
of storm water runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal
waters.
Following best management practices, the proposed project would have a

separate sanitary and storm water collection system, rather than a combined
system as is common in Manhattan. Storm water would be discharged directly
into the Hudson River, primarily via an existing outfall at 72nd Street. The
project's new sanitary sewer system would convey wastewater to the North River
WPCP. The proposed storm and sanitary sewers are illustrated in Figure II.P-5
in section I1.P,. "Infrastructure and Solid Waste." This plan would be con-
structed in stages as construction of the project progresses. All inlets to
the storm water collection system would contain catch basins to prevent pollut-
ants in the runoff from flowing to the river. These basins would containhooas '-
to prevent floatable material from discharging into the sewer. They would also )'~
contain drop sections to collect heavy material prior to discharge. )'
Policy 34: Discharge of waste material into coastal waters from vessels
under the state's jurisdiction will be limited so as to protect significant
fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and water supply areas.
Not applicable. The project would not involve discharge of waste material
into coastal waters from vessels.
Policy 35: Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal waters will be
undertaken in a manner that meets existing state dredging permit requirements
and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, aesthetic resources, natu-
ral protective features, important agricultural lands and wetlands.
Not applicable. The proposed project would not involve dredging.
Policy 36: Activities related to the shipment and storage of petroleum

and other hazardous materials will be conducted in a manner that will prevent
or at least minimize spills into coastal waters; all practicable efforts will
be undertaken to expedite the cleanup of such discharges; and restitution for
damages will be required when these spills occur.
The uses proposed as part of the project are not expected to involve any
hazardous materials. The developer has been implementing groundwater remedia-
tion approved by the DEC for petroleum contamination in the northern part of
the project site. This contamination was caused by past railroad-related ac-
tivities in that area.
II. F-20
Policy 37: Best management practices will be utilized to m1n1m1ze the
non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils into coastal
waters.
During construction, particularly during reconstruction of the bulkheads,

standard erosion-control measures would be used where appropriate to minimize
sedimentation into the Hudson River~ When construction is completed, the areas
closest to the river would not be subject to erosion.
,rolicy 38: The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater
. supplies will be conserved and protected particularly where such waters cons-
titute the primary or sole source of water supply.
Neither the surface water nor groundwater on or near the project site is
used to supply drinking water. The DEP has determined that the proposed proj-
ect would have no significant water quality impacts.
As described above, the developer has been implementing groundwater miti-

gation approved by DEC for petroleum contam!nation in the northern part of the
site. This mitigation will prevent petroleum in the groundwater from contami-
nating the surface water adjacent to the site.
Policy 39: The transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid

wastes, particularly hazardous wastes, within coastal areas will be conducted
in such a manner so as to protect groundwater and surface water supplies, sig-
nificant fish and wi1d1if~ habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural
lands and scenic resources.
Commercial solid waste would be removed from the project site by a li-
censed contractor and disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and
regulations. Residential wastes would be removed by the New York City Depart-
ment of Sanitation (see section II.P, "Infrastructure and Solid Waste"). Prior
to construction, any remaining debris currently found on the project site would
be removed. Any hazardous materials that are found would be transported and
disposed of in accordance with applicable requirements.
Be.., York City Policy J: Adopt end-use plans for landfill areas with spe-
cific plans for control of erosion, leachate and gaseous pollutants, revegeta-
tion, and interim review.
Not applicable. The project site does not include any landfill areas.
Be.., York City Policy K: Curtail illegal dumping throughout the coastal
zone and restore areas scarred by this practice.
Development of the proposed project would remove the remaining debris on

the project site and preclude any future dumping.
II.F-21
New York City Policy L: Encourage energy development from waste and waste
landfills.
Not applicable.
Policy 40: Effluent discharged from major steam electric generating and
industrial facilities into coastal waters will not be unduly injurious to fish
and wildlife and will conform to state water quality standards.
Not applicable. The proposed project would not include any steam electric
generating or industrial facilities and would not discharge effluent into
·coastal waters.
Policy 41: Land use or development in the coastal area will not cause
national or state air quality standards to be violated.
As described in section II.K, the proposed project would have a signifi-

cant air quality impact at the upper intake location of a sealed commercial
building at 555 West 57th Street, would have potential significant air quality
impacts at elevated locations of proposed residential buildings }{1,.K2, K3, and
Jl, and would have significant air quality impacts at elevated locations on the
proposed Macklowe building, 515 West 59th Street, and 790 Eleventh Avenue.
To mitigate these significant impacts, one boiler currently emitting pol-

lutants through Stack No. 5 would be connected to Stack No. 1 at the Con Edison
West 59th Street facility. Con Edison has agreed that this measure is feasible
and that they would agree to its implementation if it is funded by the appli-
cant. Con Edison will be required, before this measure is implemented, to
apply to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for an
amendment of their air quality permits, a discretionary action. With the im-
plementation of the proposed mitigation measure, significant air quality im-
pacts would be fully mitigated. (See section II.K, "Air Quality," and the
discussion of stationary source mitigation in Chapter IV, "Mitigation
Measures.")
Policy 42: Coastal management policies will be considered if the state

reclassifies land areas pursuant to the prevention of significant deterioration
regulations of the federal Clean Air Act.
Not applicable.
Policy 43: Land use or development in the coastal area must not cause the
generation of significant amounts of the acid rain precursors: nitrates and
sulfates.
The project would not result in the generation of significant amounts of

sulfates, a precursor of acid rain.
II. F-22
Policy 44: Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and pre-
serve the benefits derived from these areas.
Littoral zone tidal wetlands have been mapped by the DEC along the project
site's shoreline. The project does not include any construction in the litto-
ral zone, but because the existing bulkheads on the site are not continuous,
project plans would be sent to the DEC for review and a determination of
whether a wetlands permit would be required to ensure that shoreline improve-
ments are made in an environmentally sensitive manner (this is discussed sec-
tion II.N, "Natural Resources"). There are no wetlands on the site other than
the littoral wetlands.
II. F-23
G. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Introduction
Methodology
The purpose of this section is to determine how development of the pro-

posed project would affect demands on publicly accessible open spaces and, most
notably, neighborhood parks and recreational facilities. This analysis has
been prepared using the Department of City Planning's (DCP) methodology for
assessing open space adequacy and impacts. This methodology.has five
components.
Defining a Study Area
For residential projects, the open space analysis focuses on open space
conditions within a one-half-mile radius of a project site. The assumption for
establishing this boundary is that the average resident would walk about 10
minutes, covering a distance of a half mile to reach a neighborhood park or
playground. For commercial projects, the open space study area extends for a
distance of within a quarter-mile of the site, or the distance that could be
covered by a worker during a lunch hour or similar break. For mixed-use proj-
ects, such as Riverside South, both study areas are utilized to assess the
adequacy of open space resources.
Inventory of Facilities
All publicly accessible facilities within the appropriate study area are
inventoried to determine the amount, character, and condition of existing fa-
cilities. The DCP methodology differentiates between active and passive recre-
ational facilities. Active facilities are planned open spaces that encourage
vigorous activities, such as jogging, engaging in such sports as baseball,
football, soccer, basketball, swimming, and tennis, and such children-related
activities as those typically found in playgrounds. Passive facilities encour-
age such activities as strolling, picnicking, sunbathing, reading, people
watching, etc. Often, certain passive spaces, such as lawns, can be used for
active recreation (e.g., touch football, soccer, etc.) as well.
The inventory of facilities also describes any changes planned for these
facilities in the future that would affect their utility and whether new spaces
can be expected to be added to the inventory, including those that may be added
by a given project. Where private recreational facilities are available, they
are identified as well.
Identification of Demand
The demand for local open space and recreational facilities is primarily a
function of the population of residents, workers, and visitors within the study
area. The number of residents is compiled from 1990 Census data. The number
of employees is also derived from the census (based on reverse journey-to-work
data) supplemented by information on development projects that have been com-
pleted since the most recent census was completed. The number of visitors is
II.G-I
relevant when there are facilities, such as schools or major tourist attrac-
tions, in an area. The data on these are generally derived directly from the
appropriate source.
Because the character of the population also influences demand, the number
of residents is supplemented with data on age (younger children and elderly
residents are typically more dependent on local resources), income (lower-in-
come residents tend to have fewer recreational options beyond the local study
area than more affluent residents), and auto ownership (people with ready
access to autos tend to have more recreational choices). The composition of
the local job base is also considered since office workers tend to create
greater demand for local resources than other types of workers.
Assessment of Adequacy
In assessing the adequacy of publicly accessible open space and recre-

ational facilities, both quantitative and qualitative factors are considered.
The quantitative assessment is based on a numerical ratio of passive and active
open space acreage compared with the number. of users. For a residential open
space study, conditions of adequacy are met when there are 2.5 acres of total
open space pe~ 1,000 residents -- 2.0 acres of active space and O.S acres of
passive space. There should also,be,O.lS acres of passive open space per 1,000
workers. For a commercial open space study, the DCPdefines a need for· 0.15
acres of passive open space per 1,000 daytime persons and 0.50 acres per 1,000
residents. These numbers are calculated for existing conditions and for future
conditions with and without the project.
Since it is rare that the numerical conditions of adequacy are reached in

New York City, particularly in Manhattan, the DCP methodology also considers
qualitative factors in assessing open space adequacy. These include the appro-
priateness of open space facilities based on demographic characteristics of the
users, and proximity and accessibility of more regional resources to residents
of the study area.
Assessment of Project Impacts
The definition of what constitutes a significant open space impact is not.

specifically called out in the DCP methodology. However, over time, means for
identifying potential significant impacts have evolved. Generally, projects
that can meet their own open space needs on-site do not have a significant open
space impact regardless of underlying neighborhood conditions because all newly
generated needs are satisifed on-site. Determining whether a project meets its
need on-site is a function of the amount and type of recreational facilities
provided (including private space) and the number and characteristics of its
added population. In neighborhoods that meet or exceed the DCP guidelines for
adequacy, a project would not have a significant impact unless it reduced the
ratios below the guidelines. In neighborhoods that are below the DCP guide-
lines, a project that improved or maintained the open space ratios would not be
considered to have a significant open space impact, even where the ratios still
remained below the DCP guidelines for adequacy. A reduction in the open space
ratios would result in a determination of a significant impact unless certain
qualitative factors reduced the potential for a significant impact.
II.G-2
Study Area for Residential Analysis
As described above, the residential open space study area is preliminarily

defined as that area within a half-mile radius of the project perimeter. This
boundary was adjusted to conform to census divisions, including all census
tracts totally within a half-mile radius of the project site and, for census
tracts only partly within the half-mile radius, those census blocks partly or
totally within the half-mile radius.
For the proposed project, this area covers 750 acres, stretching as far
south as 49th Street, north as 82nd Street, and east as Central Park West (see
Figure H.G-l).
Study Area for Commercial Analysis
For the commercial analysis, the open space study area is preliminarily
defined as the area lying within a quarter-mile of the project perimeter. The
boundaries of the study area were adjusted to conform to census tract bound-
aries and includes all census tracts with more than 50 percent of their area
within the quarter-mile radius. For boundaries grossly different from the
quarter-mile radius, the study area includes all blocks with more than half
their area within the quarter-mile radius. The boundaries _for the commercial
study area, shown in Figure II.G-l, generally extend as far south as 55th
Street, north as 76th Street, and east as Amsterdam Avenue.
Existing Conditions
Inventory of Open Space and Recreation Facilities
Residential Study Area
An inventory and utilization survey of publicly accessible open space in

the open space study area was conducted on a warm, sunny Wednesday in August
1991. An additional field visit was undertaken in September 1992. A map of
the open space and public recreation facilities in and adjacent to the study
area is presented in Figure II.G-2. A list that shows the acreage, type of use
(active or passive), jurisdictional agency, notable features, restrictions on
use, level of use, and condition for each facility in the study area is pre-
sented in Table II.G-l.
The inventory identified a total of 77.5 acres of publicly accessible open

space in the residential impact area, of which 19.1 is primarily dedicated to
active recreation -- such as basketball courts, bicycling paths, and play-
grounds -- and 58.4 is primarily dedicated to passive recreation, such as sit-
ting, walking, or people-watching. Where a facility has both active and pas-
sive space, an estimate was made of the acreage suitable for each type of rec-
reation. Facilities devoted almost exclusively to one type of recreation but
having certain facilities suitable for other types (e.g., a playground with
benches) were classified according to the dominant use. The publicly access-
ible facilities include those facilities that are open to the public at all
times and those that are open to the public but with restricted hours.
II .G-3
!!!m'.fZ.'=-------'----
Open Space Study Area-
Residential and Commercial Study Areas
Figure II.G-l
Project Site
o --.-..;;;;,
:...,
1000 FEET
SCALE
~ 1/2-MiJe Perimeter
~ 1/4-Mile Perimeter •••••••• Commercial Study Area Boundary 135 Census Tract Number
- _ . Residential Study Area Boundary - - Census Tract Boundary 103 Census Block Number
12-91
RIVERSIDE
SOU T H Open Space and Recreational Facilities
Figure II.G-2
1/2-Mlle Perfmeter i-I.or-
AMERICAN
MUSEUM
OF
NATUIW..
HISTORY
1/4-Mlle Perfmeter
-
0::
~
o
(f)
o
::>
::r:
I I
o
- - - - Project Site Boundary I
SCALE
~ 1/2-Mile Perimeter
~ 1/4-Mile Perimeter
- - - Residential Study Area Boundary
12.91 _ _ _ ___
•••••••• ___
Commercial __
Study Area_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Boundary
,
1 Table II.G-l
,
;
OPEN SPACE .ABD PUBLIC RECREATION RESOURCES IN STUDY .AllEA
A. UNRESTRICTED ACCESS AT AU. llMES
Aoreage Jurlsdie- Level

ODen Space !..Y!!! !!2!!!! Features Restrictions ~ CondHion
1. Riverside 8.0 A NYC/CPR Tree.., lawns, Use of ball High .Poor-Good\

Park (por- 4O.0P walking paths, fields by per- Faclllti.. vary
lion south benches, play- mit & nominal greatly
of 82nd St.) grounds, basket- f.. April-Dec.
ball and hand-
ball courts,
ball fields,
Irack, Jogging &
blGycling routes
2. DeWitt Clln- ••7 A NYC/CPR Ughted ball Use of ball High Falr/Playground
ton Park 1.2 P . fleldawlth flelde by per- In poor condition,
bleachers;bae- mit & nominal
ball and lawn fee April-Dec.
bowling/bocce
courts; benches;
H plantings
.
I-f
,
C'l 3. Uncoln 3.8 P NYC/OPR Seating, Unrestricted High Good!
.J:- Center Plaza fountain
•• Fordham
Unlverally
3.0 P Fordham
University
Seating,
plantings
Unrestricted Low Falr/Hldden, acce..
via ataIrs
Plaza
,
5. Damrosch 2.4 P NYC/DPR Bandshell, Unrestricted High Good,
Park plantings,
eeatlng
8. Broadway 0.3 P NYC/CPR Seating, p.... Only 0.3 acr.. High Poor-GoodtTraffic
MedIan StrIp (1.7) I Ings acceaeible;
(portion 1.7 acr.. ln-
aoulh of acc..slble
81st Street) .
7. Amsterdam 0.5 A NYC/CPR Playground, baa- Unrestricted High Good/Appears part

Houtee Play- - 0.2 P ketball courts, of Amsterdam Hou...
ground plantings, ..at-
Ing
• A - active, P - paealv., I - paeelv., but lnacce..lbl•

•• NYC/DPR .. NYC Department of Parke end Recreation; NYC/BE .. NYC:eoard of Education; NYC/HA = NYC Housing
Authority; NYC/HPD .. NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development
••• Len than 0.05 acre. Spaces greater than 0.05 acre but I..s than 0.1 acre are rounded to 0.1 acre.
Table II.G-l(Contfnued)
ORR SPACE AND PUBLIC RECUATIOR RESOURCES IN STUDY AREA
Acreage Jurl,dlc- Level

AU..* 1Ion** Feature' Restriction, Q!..Y!.! CondHion
OIMnSg&Ce
0.4 P Uncoln Seating, plant- Unrestricted Medium Good/Hldden
8. 30 Uncoln
Plaza Plaza Ings
Auoclate"
Bradley
Auoclat..
Southcroft Seating, plant- Unreatrlcted MedIum PoorlDerelicta

8. Parc Vendomel 0.4 P
SheIIIeIcl O.t A Company Ings
PIIIZaa ~
350W.571h
~
555W.57th Seating, plant- Unreetricted Medium Good/Above aide-
to. Ford Bldg. 0.5 P
St. Auo-. Inga walk ~eI
Plaza (555
W.57th dat..
Street)
11. t4S Amlt.,· 0.3 P Amtterco Planlinga Unreltrlcted LO\'V Felr/MoatIy lan~
demAv•. eoapIng, Umlted
H recreation opportunities
.
H
C') 12- Columbus 0.2 P NYCIDPR Statue, fountain Unreatrlcted Low FairlTralflo ace...
I
VI Clr. requlr.. OIoaalng
dangerous lnt_cOon
13. tOW. 66th 0.2 P 10 W. 66th Plantings Unretlricled Low GoodIMoatIy land-
St. (lincoln SL Corp. leaping. limited ,e-
Parte Towers) creation opportunltlea
14. 8t Central 0.2 P Clarendon PlantIngs Unreatrlctad Low GoodiMoetty land-

Park Welt Management acaping, limited re-
creation opportunHl..
15. 44 W. 62nd 0.2 P Uncoln Plantings Unreatrlcted Low Fair/Above sidewalk

Slreet Plaz. level
Greenfield
Organization
* A - active. P .. paulY., 1- paulve, but in80ceulble

•• NYC/DPR - NYC Department of Parks and Recreation; NYCIBE - NYC Board of Education; NYCIHA = NYC Housing
Authority: NYC/HPD - NYC Department of HouSing Preservation and Development
*** Le.. than 0.05 acre. Spaces gre.ter than 0.05 acre but .... than 0.1 acre are rounded to 0.1 acre.
Table II.C-I (Continued)
OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC UCllEATION RESOURCES IN STUDY AJlEA

Acreage Jurlsdic- . level
Open Space &Use* lIon** Features Reatrlctions 2!..Y!! Condition
16. 30 W. 61at 0.2 P Carlos E. Seating. plant· Unrestricted Medium Good/Hldden. fence
Streat Diu Flores Ings. tables
(Beaumont)
17. 15 CoIumbua 0.2 P GSL Enter· Plantings Unrestricted Low Good/Above 8Ide-
Clrc~
(Gulf prIH. walk level.
+ We.rn)
Ii. 145 W. 67th 0.4 P Amsterco Planting•• Unreatrlcted Medium Good/Fence
Street Hiding.
(Tower 67) fountain
18. Verdi Square 0.1 P NYC/DPR Seating. plant- Unrea1rlcted High Poor/Trafflc. der.
tnga, atatue Ilcta. interior lawn
barren. uae limited
to perimeter
20. Dante Park 0.2 P NYC/DPR SeatIng. plant- Unreatrlcted High GoodITrafflc. uae
lng, atatue limited to perimeter
H 21. Richard 0.1 P NYC/DPR Seating, plant- Unreatrlcted High Felr/Trafflc, der.
.H
C')
Tucker Park Inga 1Jcta,
I
0- 22- 201 W.7Oth 0.1 P 1 Sherman PlantIng. Unreatrlcted Low FeirlFence. moatly
St. Square landaceplng. Umlted
Aaaoclate. reereatlon opportunlUea
23. 380 Amster- 0.1 P Seymour None Unreatrlcted Low GoodIMoatIy land-
clam Avenue Schelderman. acaplng.llmlted reere.
Cohen Bro•. lion opportunltiu
Realty
24. 1 Uncoln 0.1 P John Amodeo Planting•• Unreatricted Low Good/Arcade appear.
Plaza arcade pert of commercial
(between u.... limited reer.
83rd l64th atIon opportunltl..
SIr....)
25. 201 Amster· 0.1 P Odin Aaaoo- Plantings Unreatricted Low GoodIMoatIy landsca~
dam Avenue lat.. Ing. limited reere.
(betw. .n lion opportunltl..
69th .. 70th
Streets)
* A- active. P - passive. I - paaaive. but ineece88ible

** NYC/DPR - NYC Department of Park. and Recr.ation; NYCIBE - NYC Board of Education; NYC/HA .. NYC Housing
Authority; NYC/HPD - NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development
*.* Len than 0.05 acre. Space. greater than 0.05 acre but Ie.. than 0.1· acre are rounded to 0.1 acre.
~·I
Table II.C-l (Continued)
OPER SPACE AND PUBLIC RECREATION RESOURCES IN STUDY AREA

Acreage Jurlsdle- Level
OPen Space & Use- IIon-- Featur.. Restrictions 2f...Y!! Condition
28. 2 UnooIn 0.1 P Church of Plantings, Unrestricted low Good

Square. Jesus arcade
(between Chrlat of
85th & 66th Latter-Oay
Streett) Saints
27. 1885 Broad- 0.1 P American None Unreatrlcted Low Good

WfI/ (at Bible
61. St.) Society
21. 124 W. 80th 0.1 P Park South PlantIng. Unrettricted low GoodJMoltIy lanclecapo
S1re. Tower lng, limited reer.
(park South Aeeoolat.. lion opportunlliee
Towel)
28. Sherman
Square --- P NYCIDPR Planting. Unrettricted Low Poortrralflc, fence
30. 347W.57th
Street --- P ElOrby 57th
at Corp.
None Unreatrlcted Low GooctIMoeIiy landacap-
lng, limited reer.
(Colonnade atIon opfIOItUnltlea
H
.
H 57)
Cl
•
......
31. 130W.67th
Street --- P Toulalne
Owne,. Corp.
PlantIngs Unreatrlcted low Falr/Moetly Iandacap-
lng, Umlted reer.
Alfred Kohn atIon opportunltiee
Realty
32- 424 We. End

Avenue --- P 81 Weat
RlverCo.
Indoor planting. Unreetrlcted Low GooctIAppeare part of
building lobby
(Between
80th & 81.
S1reeta)
33. 32 Weet 66th P Handman Plaza Unreetrlcted low Good

S1reet --- Enterprlee.
(Handman)
- A - active, P - paulYe, I - paulYe, but Inacces.lble .

NYCIDPR - NYC Depamnant of Parks and Recreation; NYCIBE - NYC Board of Education; NYC/HA - NYC Hou.lng
-- Authority; NYCJHPD - NYC Deplltment· of Housing Preaervatlon and Development
--- leee than 0.05 acre. Spaces greater than 0.05 acre but Ie•• than 0.1 acre are rounded to O. t acre.
Table II.C-l (Continued)
OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC IlECBEATIOR DSOUH.C.ES IN STUDY AREA

Acreage Jurisdic- Level
Open SDace & Use· tlon·· Features Restrictions slY!! 2!!!!ditlon
34. American Red 0.2 P American Reel None Unrestricted Low . Fair
CrOl8 Plaza Cross
Subtotal 55.4 p
13.3 A
Total Unrestricted 68.7 acres
B. OPEN TO PlBJC. sur RES11ICIm HOURS

35. P.S.199 0.5 A 'NYC/DPR Playground, baa- Reserved for Medium Falr/Fence
Playground 0.2 P ketball courts atudanls
during school
hours
31. P.S.111 0.8 A NYC/BE Playground, be.
. Plavground
Reserved for Low Poor/Fence
ketball courts, stude""
H
paved ball during school
1-1 field hours
n 37. W. 59th St.
•
co Reoreation
1.2 A NYCIDPR Indoor & out· Open late Low PoorJlocatlon In Indue-
door poola, afternoon &
Center trt.I .,..,' deterJo..
muJII.use gym, evenings on reted faclllll..
playground weekdays; open
afternoons on
Saturdays
38. P.S.87 0.7 A NYCIDPR Playground, Reserved for High Oood/Fence
Playground paved ball studenla
field. basket· during school
ball courts,· hours
plantings
39. I.S.44 0.5 A NYC/BE Paved sports Re..rved for Medium. Falr/Fence
Playground courll . atudenla
during school
hours
• A - active, P - paMlve, I - passive, but Ineceesalble ..

*. NYCIDPR - NYC Department of Parks and Recreation; NYC/BE .. NYC Board of Education; NYCIHA = NYC Housing
••• Lesa than 0.05 acre. Speces greater than 0.05 acre but less than 0.1 acre are rounded to 0.1 acre.
Table 11.0-1 (Continued)
OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC BECREATION BESOURCES IN STUDY AREA
Acreage Jurisdlc- Level

Open Space au..- tlon-· feature. Restrictions of Use Condition
40. 61 W.62nd 0.2 P Harlme.. Indoor .eatlng Open 10am- Medium Good/Ap~ar.part of
Street Co., Griffin midnight building lobby
(Harknesa Broe.
Plaza)
41. 45 W. 60th 0.2 P leonard Seating, plant- Open 10am-8pm Low Falr/F.nce
St. (Regent) llIwln Inge or dark
42- Martin 0.4 A NYC/BE Multl-uee gym Available High Good

luther King 1.3 P after IChool
High School a weekende;
Gymnaelum closed July a
Aug; u.. by
permit; fee
43.· laGuardia 0.2 A NYC/BE Multi-use gym Available Low Fair

High School 0.4 P after Ichool
Gymnaelum a weekends;
us. by permit; tea
t-I
t-I 44. 1991 Broadway 0.3 P Bel Canto Seating, planting Open 8arn- Medium GoocMppears part of
,
Cl (Bel Canto) Condominium (indoor plaza) midnight building lobby
10 Asloclate,
45. Amsterdam School 0.8 A NYC/BE Planting, seating, Raeerved for low Very poor
paved coulta, gym .tudents
during school
hours
<18. W. 70th Street 0.9 A NYC/DPR Paved playground, Open In early Medium Fair
Playground 0.4 P game coulta momlng; clo.e
by8pm
Subtotal 3.0 P
5.8 It.
Total Public but Restricted 8.8 acres
• A - active, P III paealve, I - paselve, but inaccessible

•• NVCJDPR - NYC Department of Parks and Recreation; NYCIBE =0 NYC Board of Education; NYC/HA = NYC Housing
Authority; NVC/HPD - NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development
••• less than 0.05 acre. Spaces greater than O.OS acre but less than 0.1 acre are rounded to 0.1 acre•
Table 11.0-1 (Coat1aued)
OPEII SPACE AlID PUBLIC IlECUATIOR USOUJl.CES D STUDY AJlEA
Acreage Jurisdlc- Level

O~n Space !..Y!!!.. tlon" Features Restrictions gt.Y!! Condition
C. RESmICfED TO CERTAIN USERS
47. Uncoln 5.0 P Mendlk & Seating, plant- Reserved for Medium Falr-Good/Partly
Towe,. RaIne Ings, young tenants hidden, partly
Open Space children's fenced, above
(exclusive playground, sidewalk level
of parking lawns, basket-
Jots) ball court
41. Amsterdam 2.5 P NYC/HA Seating, plant- Reserved for High Fair
Hou... Open Inga, young tenants
Space children's
playground
49. HarbOfYlew 0.2 A NYC/HA Plantings, seat- Reserved for Medium Fair/Fence
Terrace 0.6 P lng, young tenants
Plazae children's play-
ground, paved
sports courts
H
I-f 50. Jam.. Felt 0.2 P NvCJHA Seating, plant- Reserved for Low Good/Fence
C) Plua Ings, young tenants
I
(Amsterdam children'.
t-'
0 Hous.. playground
.
Addition)
51. Roosevelt 0.3 P Roosevelt' Plantings Reserved for Low Fair

Hospital Hospital tenants
Staff Real-
.dence Plua
S2. Uncoln- 0.3 P NYCJHPD Sealing, plant- Reserved for Low Good
Amsterdam 1 Ings tenants
Plaza
53. Clinton 0.3 P NYClHPD Sealing, plant- Reserved for low Fair
Towe,. Plu.. Ings tenants
54. Hudsonvlew 0.3 P NYC/HPD Seating Reserved for Medium Fair/Above .Idewalk
Terrace Plua tenants level
* A iii! active, P - passive, I - pusive, but Inacce88ible

** NYC/DPR - NYC Department of Parks and Recreation; NYC/BE = NYC Board of Education; NYC/HA = NYC Housing
••• Leu than 0.05 acre. Spaces greater than 0.05 acre but less than 0.1 acre are rounded to 0.1 acre.
OPEN SPACE AND PUStIC RECREATION RESOURCES IN STUDY AREA

Acreage Jurlsdlc· , Level
Open Space !..Y!!!.. tlon" Features Restrictlona 21.Y!! Condition
55. Oasla Community 0.1 P Housing Conservation Garden, Hating Reaerved for tenanta low Falr/Poor acce..lbility
Garden Coordlnato,. Open to public
during growing se..on
56. Clirlat & Saint -0.1 P Christ & Saint lawn ReHrved for
Stephen'. Church Stephen'. Church church activity
(124 W. 69th St.)
57. Coliseum Park Apt.. 1.3 P Collaeum Park Apt.. Fountain, plantings, ReHrved for Medium Very Good
eeatlng tenants
68. Dorcheater 0.1 P Milford Mgmt Fountain, plantings Reaerved for low Good
Towe,. tenants
(155 W. 68th St.)
Subtotal 11.1 A
0.2 A
1-1 Total Restricted 11.3 acres

1-1
en
•
I-'
D. NO AOCESS. VISUAl. AMENI1Y ONLY
I-'
e. Broadway 1.7 I NYC/DPR Plantings i.7 acres I... Poor-Good
Median Strip (0.3)P acceulble;
only 0.3 acres
E. SUMfMRY aCC8lllble
- ' - - L - L I2W.
Unrestricted Access 13.3 55.4 68.7
Partially Restricted Access 5.8 3.0 8.8
Total Included in both Quantitative
and Qualitative Analyses 19.1 58.4 17.5
Restricted Access 0.2 11.1 11.3
Visual. Amenity Only 1.7 1.7
Total Included in Qualitative
Analysis Only 0.2 11.1 1.7 13.0
TOTAL ACREAGB 19.3 69.5 1.7 90.5
* A 0: active, P =< passive, I 0= passive, but Inaccessible
** NYC/DPR - NYC Department of Park. and RecreaUon; NYC/BE = NYC Board 01 Education; NYC/HA co NYC Housing
.*. Authority; NYClHPD - NYC Oepartment of Hou.lng Preservation and Development

l ... than 0.05 acre. Spaces greater than 0.05 acre but I... than 0.1 acre are rounded to 0,.1 acre.
Source.: Aqreage & u'e, Jurisdiction - NYC/DPR and NYC/OCP Flies, measurements made from Sanborn, NYC/HA, and NYC/HPD maps; Features - NYC/OCP Files. field observations; AC5trictioO!.
• JurisdiCtional agencl.. and field observation; level of U.e, Condition - NVC/DCP and field observation; Improvements •• jurisdictional agencies.
An additional 0.2 acres of active space and 11.1 acres of passive space is
available in the study area but restricted only to tenants. although there are
usually no physical barriers that impede public access. Open space totaling
1.7 acres is considered a visual amenity only and is inaccessible for either
active or passive use. These 13 acres of restricted and/or inaccessible open
space are described below but are not counted as part of the 77.5 acres consid-
ered in the quantitative assessment of open space adequacy.
Two facilities (Riverside Park and the Broadway median strip) extend well
beyond the half-mile radius. In addition. two major facilities (Central Park
and the space surrounding the American Museum of Natural History, known as
Theodore Roosevelt Park and Margaret Mead Green) are just outside the half-mile
radius.
Field inspection of all facilities within one-half mile of the project

site shows use and condition to vary. While some facilities, notably the play-
grounds and open space at Amsterdam Houses and Lincoln Towers, are well used,
others, particularly many of the plazas and arcades associated with apartment
and office buildings, receive little use. While most facilities are well main-
tained, certain facilities, such as Verdi Sq?are; are in poor condition.
Further information on the use and condition of the most notable facili-
ties in the study area is presented below.
o Riverside Park (1): Covering 293 upland acres and 23 acres of recre-
ational area in the Hudson River, Riverside Park, which extends along
the Hudson River from 72nd Street to 155th Street, is the second
largest park in Manhattan. The Henry Hudson Parkway runs through the
park, and an Amtrak line runs underneath it.
About 48 acres in the southern part of Riverside Park (south of 82nd

Street) is located in the study area -- approximately 62 percent of
the total publicly accessible open space in the study area. That
part of the park contains lawns, wooded areas, walking paths (includ-
ing a waterfront promenade from 72nd Street to 83rd Street). and
benches for passive recreation. Active recreation facilities in the
study area include three playgrounds (in good condition); three ball.
fields (two at 77th Street in fair condi~ion, the small one at 72nd
Street in poor condition and underused -- the New York City Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation (DPR) does not issue permits for this
field, and it has been used for storage of construction material);
three basketball courts (in fair condition); four handball courts (in
poor condition -- settlement of the fill behind the seawall adjacent
to the courts has made them unplayable); a 220-yard track (in fair
condition), and routes for jogging and bicycling. The Hudson Harbor
79th Street Boat Basin (in poor condition), a marina owned by DPR but
operated by a private concessionaire, is next to the park.
Immediately next to the project site, between Riverside Drive and the
Henry Hudson Parkway, is Riverside Park's "South Lawn," which extends
from 72nd Street to 76th Street. It is the park's largest sunbathing
lawn. It is also frequently used for informal active recreation
(e. g., pick-up games of football, soccer, etc.). Also next to the
proposed project site, between the parkway and the Hudson River, are
II.G-12
the four handball courts and one of the park's ball fields (the small
one in poor condition).
Warm-weather use of the facilities in the part of the park within the
study area varies. The playgrounds at 76th and 82nd Streets are used
to capacity, but the playground at 75th Street is underused. The two
ballfields at 77th Street are typically fully booked through the DPR
permit system. The basketball courts and the track are also fre-
quently used to capacity. The South Lawn is heavily used for both
passive and active recreation.
In winter, the most heavily used parts of the park are the areas be-
tween the Henry Hudson Parkway and Riverside Drive -- an area popular
for sitting on sunny days, particularly among e14erly residents of
the area -- and the playgrounds at 76th and 82nd Streets. There is
little use of the 75th Street playground and there is limited use of
the bal1 fields.
A 1992 survey, "The Users of Riverside Park," (Ukeles Associates

Inc.) noted that approximately 2.8 mil1ion people visit the park
annually. In the southern portion of the park, near the project
site, this survey found that nearly 90 percent of the use~s came from
the immediately adjacent neighborhood. Users of the park were sur-
veyed for their general likes and dislikes in relation to the park,
and rated the park's trees, greenery, and natural setting as its
strongest assets and homeless people, crime and drugs, trash, and
inadequate maintenance as its greatest problems. Queried specifical-
ly about the potential for extending the park south of 72nd Street,
including the riverside portion of the project site in Riverside
Park, nearly 40 percent of respondents thought that this was a great
idea, and a nearly equal proportion felt that it was an okay or bad
idea.
o DeWitt Clinton Park (2): This park occupies a two-block site between
52nd and 54th Streets from Eleventh Avenue to Twelfth Avenue in a
largely industrial area of Clinton. Although it has benches and
plantings that make it suitable for passive recreation, most of the
5.9-acre park is occupied by facilities for active recreation, in-
cluding ball fields (from April to December, available by permit),
basketball courts, handball courts, and a playground. The ball
fields, which have lights and bleachers, are the most heavily used
facilities.
Although maintenance has been minimal in recent years, the park is in

fair condition. The playground, however, needs renovation. Redevel-
opment of the field house for a combination community room and DPR
district headquarters was planned until recently, but the proposal
has been suspended pending identification of suitable space for a
garage. Other improvements are being studied (including work on the
landscaping, ball fields, and playground), but DPR has not yet allo-
cated any funds for work other than design.
o· Lincoln Center Plaza and Damrosch Park (3. 5 ): The plaza between the
major theaters at Lincoln Center has a fountain, a reflecting pool
with sculpture, and ledges for sitting. It is a popular spot for
II .G-13
people-watching. In summer, it is occasionally programmed with out-
door music performances. The part of the plaza between Avery Fisher
Hall and the Vivian Beaumont and Mitzi Newhouse theaters is hidden
from the street and is not as heavily used as the main part of the
plaza.
Damrosch Park, next to the Lincoln Center plaza and south of the Met-
ropolitan Opera House, has trees, plantings, benches, and a band-
shell, but no lawns. It is popular area for passive recreation and
in summer is heavily programmed with outdoor music performances.
Although both areas are owned by DPR, they are maintained by Lincoln
Center. Both are in good condition. Combined, they offer 6.2 acres
of passive recreational space.
o West 59th Street Recreation Center (37): This facility, in a largely

industrial area on 59th Street between Amsterdam and West End Ave-
nues, has a multiuse gymnasium, indoor sports courts, an indoor pool,
an outdoor pool, and a playground.
It is open during the late afternoon and evening on weekdays and all
afternoon on Saturday. It is closed on Sundays. Use of this recre-
ation center 'is not as heavy as it is at similar facilities run by
DPR elsewhere in the city.
The facility is 50 years old and needs renovation. DPR" recently

replaced the boilers. A new filter system for the pools and a new
ceiling ventilation system are in design stages, but no construction
funds have yet been allocated.
o Broadway Median Strip (6): The center strip of Broadway from 60th
Street to l22nd Street is planted with trees, shrubs, grass, and
flowers. Benches are located on small plots at the cross streets.
Despite its location in the middle of traffic, it is a popular spot
for chatting and people-watching, particularly among elderly resi-
dents of the area.
The entire strip covers 7.3 acres, of which approximately 2.0 acres
are in the study area south of 8lst Street. Because of extensive
landscaping on much of the strip, only the plots with benches are
accessible. These plots cover approximately 0.3 acres of the 2.0
acres in the study area. The function of most of the strip is to
provide Broadway with greenery. DPR recently reconstructed and im-
proved these median areas.
o Verdi Square (19): Use of Verdi Square, the triangle formed by

Broadway, Amsterdam Avenue, and 73rd Street, is generally restricted
to the benches on the park's perimeter. The benches are in good
condition and are a popular spot for people-watching, particularly
with elderly residents of the area in the warmer months. The park is
also heavily used by street people and drug deale~s. The interior of
the park needs horticultural work, as the heavy tree canopy prevents
the lawn from growing. Improvements to the fence and sidewalk areas
around this park, as well as some upgrading of portions of the park's
interior, were recently completed by DPR.
II .G-14
o Dante Park (20): As at Verdi Square, use of Dante Park, on the tri-
angle formed by Broadway, Columbus Avenue, and 63rd Street, is for
the most part limited to the benches on the perimeter. They are a
popular spot for people-watching. The interior part of the park is
in good condition. DPR has recently put in a major flower planting.
o Richard Tucker Park (21): This park, on the triangle formed by

Broadway, Columbus Avenue, and 67th Street, is heavily used by street
people and drug dealers. Nearly all of the park is paved or laid
with brick. The design, with its concrete barriers and non-tradi-
tional benches, is unattractive and dysfunctional, and DPR finds the
park impossible to keep clean. The facilities are relatively new,
however, and DPR has no plans for any capital improvements.
o Amsterdam Houses (7.48): Amsterdam Houses has both facilities that

are open to the public and those that are for tenant use only. The
0.7-acre Amsterdam Houses playground contains a variety of active and
passive spaces, is in good condition and is heavily used. Although
operated by DPR and open to the public, is used primarily by proj~ct
residents. The project has an additional 2.5 acres of open space,
including attractively landscaped walkways and a separate young chil-
dren's playground that is reserved for tenants. There are, however,
no barriers to prevent use by non-tenants.
o Public Schools: There are six public schools with playgrounds and
other recreational facilities in the open space study area -- P.S.
199 (35), P.S. 111 (36), P.S. 87 (38), I.S. 144 (39), Martin Luther
King, Jr., High School (42) and La Guardia High School (43). The
school playgrounds at P.S. 199, P.S. 111, P.S. 87, and I.S. 144 con-
tain a total of 2.7 acres of recreational space (almost all active).
Jointly operated by DPR and the Board of Education, they are general-
ly open to the public, . but restricted for use by schoolchildren dur-
ing certain hours. The condition of these facilities varies from
poor to good.
o Lincoln Towers (47): Lincoln Towers has 5.0 acres of landscaped open
space between its buildings, including lawns, several small play
areas for young children, basketball courts, and well-used benches.
While the space is reserved for tenant use, there are no barriers· to
prevent use by non-tenants. A large part of the space is located
above Freedom Place, just east of the proposed project site. The
open spaces at Lincoln Towers are well maintained and moderately
utilized. Lincoln Towers also has extensive open areas devoted to
parking lots.
o Plazas and Arcades. Many of the study area's open spaces are in
plazas and arcades, usually next to apartment or office buildings,
and were created to allow the buildings associated with them extra
bulk under the city's zoning regulations. Although most are under
private jurisdiction, they are open to the public and cumulatively
provide about 5.0 acres of open space. The condition of these spaces
vary, but they are consistently lightly used.
o Open Space at Public and Publicly Supported Housing (48 to 54): The
open spaces at James Felt Plaza (at the Amsterdam Houses addition),
!I.G-15
Clinton Towers, Hudsonview Terrace, Harborview Terrace, and the Roo-
sevelt Hospital staff residence have benches and a few plantings, but
are largely barren and uninviting. James Felt Plaza also has a play
area for young children. Harborview Terrace also has paved sports
courts and a play area for young children.
Commercial Study Area
In the commercial analysis study area, publicly accessible passive open

space resources are located in Riverside Park, American Red Cross Plaza, the
plaza at the Ford Building, and other areas of combined active/passive use.
The part of Riverside Park within a quarter mile of the proposed project site
(I.e., the part south of 76th Street) covers 17.0 acres, of which 15.0 are
primarily for passive recreation. The other facilities cover a total of 3.2
acres. Thus, the total amount of publicly accessible passive open space in the
smaller commercial study area is 18.2 acres.
Open Space User Populations
The following sections discuss the demographic characteristics of the

residential and commercial open space study areas and how they influence open
space needs. With limited data currently available from the 1990 census, the
discussion of residential population combines a mix of data from the 1990 Cen-
sus (for total population) and the 1980 Census (for age, income, and auto
ownership).
Total Population. Population statistics for the study area for the years
1980 and 1990 are presented in Table II.G-2. In 1980,' the residential popula-
tion of the study area was 87,840. Between 1980 and 1990, the area's residen-
tial population increased by 3.9 percent, to 91,250. Population growth was
concentrated in the eastern and nor,thern portions of the open space study area
and generally decreased in areas closest to the project site.
Age Cohorts. In 1980, the study area had a higher percentage of residents
in age groups over 65 and a far lower percentage of children than did Manhattan
or the city as a whole. Members of these age groups are considered to have '
more of a need for immediately available open space than those between the ages
of 25 and 64, who tend to be more mobile. This latter category was more heavi-
ly represented in the study area than in Manhattan or New York City.
Income. Census statistics on income, shown in Table II.G-4, show that in

1980, families and unrelated individuals in most tracts in the study area, with
the exception of Tracts 133, l35~ and 151, had incomes that were substantially
higher than those in Manhattan or the city as a whole. This would indicate the
greater ability of the study area population to use private, fee-charging rec-
reational facilities or f~cilities outside of the study area in addition to
nearby publicly accessible open space. Lower-income residents were living in
Tracts 133 and 135 in Clinton and in Tract 151, which contains the Amsterdam
Houses.
Car Ownership. The percentage of households in the study area that own
cars is slightly less than it is in Manhattan as a whole, but significantly
less than it is in the city as a whole. In no tract did the auto ownership
II .G:-16
Table II.G-2
JlESIDER'lIAL POP1JIA.TIOR 01' TIlE llESIDER'lIAL OPEN SPACE STUDY ABU:

1980. 1990
1980-1990 Change
Total 1980 Total 1990
Jle$identia1 Jleaidentia1
Tract Pouulation Pgpulation Number Percent
129* 675 770 +95 +14.1
133* 2,722 3,673 +951 +34.9
135 3,661 3,837 +176 +4.8
139 9,904 9,943 +39 +0.4
145 1,328 3,267 +1,939 +146.0
147 787 869 +82 +10.4
149 5,345 5,031 -314 -5.9
151 4,913 4,411 -502 -10.2
153 7,865 8,517 +652 +8.3
155 7,128 6,940 -188 -2.6
157 11,916 11,255 -661 -5.5
159 9,618 9,348 -270 -2.8
161* 5,041 4,809 -232 -4.6
163 8,184 7,684 -500 -6.1
165* 2,876 3,520 +644 +22.4
167 5.877 7.376 +1,499 +25.5
Total Area 87,840 91,250 +3,410 +3.9
* Only those census blocks more than 50 percent within the ha1f-
mile radius of the project site.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census

of Populaeion and Housing, 1980, 1990.
II~G-17
Table II.G-3
AGE CBABACTElUSTICS OF THE RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE STUDY AREA POPULATION:

1980
Qpen Space Study Area Hanhattan New York City
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Under 5 2,257 2.6 69,152 4.8% 470,693 6.7%

5-14 4,640 5.3 134,746 9.4 953,585 13.5
15-24 9,868 11.2 212,133 14.8 1,167,379 16.5
25-64 55,349 63.0 807,817 56.5 3,528,167 49.9
65+ 15,726 17.9 204,437 14.4 951,723 ·13.4
Total 87,840 100.0% 1,428,285 100.0% 7,071,547 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of

Population and Housing, 1980.
II.G-18
Table II.G-4
1979 INCOHE CHARACTERISTICS IN THE RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPAck STUDY AREA
Number of Hedian Income

Number of Hedian·Income Unrelated of Unrelated
Tract Families of Families Individuals Individuals
133 808 $11,875 2,145 $6,223
135 815 13,490 830 6,200
139 1,601 19,788 6,162 11,710
145 236 28,500 775 11,106
147 152 25,714 437 13,117
149 1,200 45,586 2,545 16,367
151 1;211 9,947 598 4,738
153 1,400 37,087 4,606 13,666
155 1,547 34,089 3,381 15,559
157 1,793 29,544 7,429 11,013
159 1,730 30,517 5,445 12,143
161 1,173 34,096 4,310 14,399
163 1,261 25,760 4,938 10,153
167 1,441 33,411 3,226 10,179
Manhattan 298,452 16,326 527,557 9,480
New York City 1,770,999 16,818 1,277.,805 7,773
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau.of the Census, Census.of

II .G-19
figure exceed 30 percent (see Table II.G-5). Although low auto ownership fig-
ures tend to show a greater dependence on local open space resources, this is
not always the case in higher-income areas of Manhattan since people often have
access to rental cars or other means of access to recreational facilities.
Daytime Population for the Residential Open Space Study Area. In addition
to its resident population, the study area has a daytime population made up of
workers, college students, and students in local private and public schools.
(For this analysis, only public high school students are considered part of the
daytime population; public elementary and intermediate school students are
assumed to use on-site playgrounds during the school day and are counted as
part of the local residential study area population.)
The 1980 census figures supplied by the DCP indicate an estimated 60,578
people worked within the census tracts that fall substantially within a half-
mile radius of the project site. Since 1980, new office development in the
residential study area has been fairly substantial, totaling more than 1 mil-
lion square feet of space (see Table II.G-6). At a standard of 250 square feet
of office space and 500 square feet of studio space per employee, an estimated
4,020 workers were added to the study area worker population since 1980, bring-
ing the 1990 total to 64,598.
The daytime population of the study area also includes approximately 9,500
college students and 5,000 visitors to Lincoln Center, for a total residential
study area daytime population of 79,098. Table II.G-7 shows a summary of esti-
mated daytime population in the residential study area.
In 1990, the tracts that make up the smaller, commercial analysis study
area (Tracts 135, 147, lSI, ISS, and 159) had a daytime population estimated at
18,453 workers; there are no college student or tourist populations in the
area. They also had 22,527 residents. Statistics on the residential and day-
time population of each census tract in the commercial analysis study area are
presented in Table II.G-8.
Assessment of Adequacy of Existing Open Space Resources
Residential Open Space AnalysiS
In assessing the adequacy of open space resources, the residential analy-

sis focuses on both active and passive spaces within a half-mile radius of the
project site. For assessing the adequacy of active spaces, the analysis con-
siders the residential population only, but for the analysis of the adequacy of
passive space, the assessment considers the daytime population as well.
Quantitative Assessment for Residential Analysis. With an existing inven-

tory of 77.5 acres of publicly accessible open space and a 1990 residential
population of 91,250, the ratio per 1,000 residents is 0.85, far below the city
suggested guideline of 2.50 acres per 1,000 residents. With 19.1 acres for
active recreation, the active open space ratio is 0.21 acres per 1,000 resi-
dents, again substantially below the DCP guideline of 2.0 acres per 1,000 resi-
dents. With 58.4 acres of passive recreation, there is adequate passive open
space to meet the DCP guideline of 0.50 acres per 1,000 residents. After
II.G-20
Table II.G-S
HOUSEHOLDS WITH ACCESS TO AT LEAST ONE VEHICLE: 1980
Total Households with

at Least One Vehicle
Census Tract Total Households Humber Percent
133 2,577 224 8.7%
135 1,506 183 12.2

139 6,841 752 11.0
145 846 105 12.4
147 530 110 20.8
149 3,436 798 23.2
151 1,728 194 11.2
153 5,201 827 15.9
155 4,634 1,301 28.1
157 7,953 1,217 15.3
159 6,119 1,188 19.4
161 4,693 817 17.4
163 5,109 882 17 .3
167 3,906 913 23.4
Total 55,079 9,511 17 .3
Manhattan 704,502 138,679 19.7
New York City 2,788,530 1,151,542 41.3
Source: u.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of

II.G-21
Table II.G-6
NEW COHHERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE OPEN SPACE STUDY AREA:

1980-1990
(Office Use, Unless Otherwise Indicated)
Name/Address Square Feet
Capital Cities/ABC-TV 250,000

125 West End Avenue
Capital Cities/ABC-TV 70,000

320 West 66th Street studio
Sofia Brothers Warehouse 65,000

47 Columbus Avenue
South Park Tower 100,000

Four Columbus Circle 100,000

Capital CitieS/ABC Headquarters 397,000
Total 1,040,000
Estimated number of workers . 4,020*
* Based on an assumed average of 250 square feet per .

office worker and 500 square feet per studio
worker,
II,G-22
Table II. G- 7
DAYTIME POPUlATION IN THE OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL STUDY .AREA
Tract Working Population*

133 4,936
135 10,524
139 5,791
145 16,628
147 778
149 5,239
151 974
153 1,603
155 2,220
157 3,558
159 2,817
161 1,368
163 2,119
165 2,023
Total 60,578
Estimated additional workers 4;020
since 1980 (see Table Ir.G-6)
College students*· 9,500
Lincoln Center daily visitors 5,000
Total Daytime Population 79,098
Notes:
• Based on journey-to-work data developed.by the New York
City Department of City Planning from the 1980 Census
of Populacion and Housing
** Approximate daytime enrollment at John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, Fordham University's Manhattan
Campus, New York Institute of Technology's Manhattan
Campus, and Juilliard School of Music.
II.G-23
Table II.G-8
DAYTDIE AND RESIDENTIAL POPULATIONS

IN ,THE COHHERCIAI. OPEN SPACE STUDY AREA
1980 Worker 17,313*

Estimated additional workers since 1980 1,140**
College students o
Total Daytime Population 18,453
Tract 135 959

Tract 147 869
Tract 151 4,411
Tract 155 6,940
Tract 159 9,348
Total Residential Population 22,527
Notes:
* Based on journey-to-work data developed by the New York City

Department of City Planning from the 1980 Census of
Population and Housing,
** Based on one employee per 250 square feet of office

space and 500 square feet of studio space for the
following developments:
Capital Cities/ 125 West End 250,000 square feet

ABC Avenue office
Capital Cities/ 320 West 66th Street 70,000 square feet
ABC studio
II,G-24
meeting the needs of the residential population, 12.78 acres of passive space
remain to meet the daytime population's demand, yielding an open space ratio of
0.16, which meets the DCP guideline. Thus, the active recreational needs of
the residential population are not being met. The passive recreational needs
of both the residential and daytime population are currently being met as mea-
sured by open space ratios set forth in city guidelines. A summary of open
space ratios for the residential open space study area is presented in Table
II.G-9.
Qualitative Assessment for Residential Analysis. The assessment of the

adequacy of both passive and active open space conditions improves when other
factors are considered. The passive open space analysis described above does
not include 11.1 acres of passive recreational facilities that serve study area
residents and workers (who are included in the assessment of adequacy), but
that are not strictly publicly accessible. This includes 5.0 acres at Lincoln
Towers, 2.5 acres at the Amsterdam Houses, and 1.3 acres at the Coliseum Park
Apartments. Inclusion'of this space in the analysis would improve the open
space ratios described above. In addition, both workers and residents, partic-
ularly in the eastern portion of the study area, have very convenient access to
the passive recreational amenities of Central Park, which is just beyond the
boundaries of the study area. Qn the other hand, the condition of some of the
area's passive spaces, including poor maintenance, the presence ·of drug dealers
and derelicts, and inaccessible design and the lack of amenities, discourages
use of certain facilities that would tend to reduce conditions of adequacy.
The deficiency of active open space resources is also overstated because

of the convenient access that much of the study area population has to the
active recreational resources of Central Park -- about 36 percent of the study
area population resides in census tracts adjacent to Central Park and are more
likely to use its vast resources rather than the limited active open space
resources in the study area. Virtually all study area residents live within
one-half mile of Central Park. .
The extent of the existing active open space deficiency is further dimin-
ished by the nature of the study area's population. First, the study area
population is generally wealthy and therefore likely to have access to private,
fee-charging facilities and active recreational facilities beyond the study
area. Second, the distribution of active facilities, particularly playgrounds,
is heavily concentrated in the western half of the study area where the bulk of
the population most dependent on local active open space resources (children
and young teenagers) resides (particularly in Tract 151 which contains the
Amsterdam Houses).
In contrast, the need for permits for certain outdoor facilities, includ-
ing the ballfields in Riverside and DeWitt Clinton Parks, the heavy use and
general unavailability of those facilities in peak season, the need for advance
reservations for the use of gymnasiums at Martin Luther King and La Guardia
High Schools, and the unavailability of school playgrounds during school hours
tend to worsen active open space conditions in the study area.
Commercial Open Space Analysis
The commercial analysis focuses on the adequacy of publicly accessible

passive open space resources to serve both the daytime and residential
population.
II.G-25
Table II.G-9
GUIDELDES I'Oll OPBB SPACE BEDS: EXISTIBG CONDITIORS

IR TIlE llESIDERTIAL OPEll SPACE STUDY ABEA
Ezistfns
Population
Residents 91,950
Daytime 79,098
Open Space Standards
Active -- Residents 2.00 Acres/1,OOO Residents
Passive -- Residents 0.50 Acres/1,OOO Residents
Passive -- Daytime 0.15 Acres/1,OOO Daytime
Required Open Space
Active -- Residents 183.90
Passive -- Residents 45.98
Passive -- Daytime 11.86
Passive -- Combined Residents 57.84
and Daytime
Total 241.74
Existing Open Space
Active 19.10
Adequacy for Residents No
Passive 58.40
Adequacy for Residents and Daytime Yes
Total 77 .50
Open Space Ratios (Acres/1,OOO Persons)
Residents
Active Ratio 0.21
Adequacy No
Passive Ratio 0.64
Adequacy Yes
Daytime Population Ratio 0.16
Acreage Available· 12.42
Adequacy Yes
• Derived by subtracting acreage needed to meet the DCP guideline

for residents (45.98) from total inventory of passive open
space.
II .G-26
Quantitative Assessment for Commercial Analysis. The analysis of the
adequacy of open space resources for a commercial study area is based on a
ratio of potential users to the amount of passive open space resources. DCP
has determined that an area is adequately served if open space exists in areas
at the following ratios: 0.15 acres of passive open space per 1,000 daytime
persons plus 0.50 acres of passive open space per 1,000 residents. With a
residential population of 22,527, 11.26 acres of passive open space would be
required to meet DCP guidelines for adequacy. With 18.2 acres available, the
ratio is 0.81 per 1,000 residents, far greater than the DCP guideline for ade-
quacy (see Table II.G-10). After meeting the needs of the residential popula-
tion, 6.94 acres remain to satisfy the daytime population's (18,453 persons)
need for passive open space in the commercial open space study area, yielding
an open space ratio of 0.37, which is above DCP's guideline of 0.15 acres per
1,000 daytime persons. Therefore, the supply of passive open space in the
commercial study area is adequate for both the daytime and residential
populations.
Table II.G-IO
GUIDELINES FOR OPEN SPACE NEEDS: EXISTING CONDITIONS

IN THE COMMERCIAL O~EN SPACE STUDY AREA
PopUlation
Residential 22,527
Daytime 18,453
Passive Open Space (Residents)
Passive Open Space Inventory (in acres) 18.2
Ratio/1,000 Residents 0.81
Guideline for Adequacy 0.50
Adequacy Yes
Passive Open Space (Daytime Population)
Acreage Available· 6.9
Ratio/1,000 Daytime Population 0.37
Guideline for Adequacy 0.15
Adequacy Yes
Combined Residents and Daytime Population
Required Acres for Residents 11.3
Required Acres for Daytime 2.8
Total Passive Acres Required 14.1
Adequacy Yes
• Derived by subtracting acreage needed to meet the

guideline for residents (11.3) from total inventory
of passive open space.
This section examines conditions that are likely to exist in the study
area in 1997 and 2002, the years the two phases of the proposed project are
expected to be completed, under the assumption that the proposed project is not
developed.
II .G-27
Proposed Development in the Study Areas
As described in Table II.B-4, 29 projects have recently been completed,

are proposed, or are considered potential development in the study area by 1997
or 2002. These projects would introduce a substantial number of new residents
and workers into the area. Several of these projects would also include public
and private open space or recreational resources.
Inventory of Open Space and Recreational Facilities
1997.
New Open Space: Three projects in the residential study area would in-
clude the development of public open space: the Concerto would include 0.15
acres of passive space; Roosevelt Hospital would include 0.43 acres of passive
space and a 0.03-acre active tot-lot; and Manhattan West would include 1.17
acres of open space, of which 0.03 acres would be for active use (a tot lot).
The Route 9A Reconstruction project would also include a bikeway/walkway along
its entire length, proposed for completion by 1995. The half-mile stretch of
this l2-foot-wide bikeway/walkway between 49th and 59th Streets would add a
total of 0.73 acres of opert'space to the study area. It is assumed that the
bikeway/walkway would be used for a variety of recreational pursuits and it
. would be equally divided between active and passive open space. Thus, in 1997,
the inventory of public open space in the residential study area would total
19.50 active acres and 60.51 passive acres.
Several projects would also include accessory open space for use by build-
ing residents: the Concerto with 0.16 acres of passive space; Manhattan West
with 0.23 acres of passive space; 15 West 63rd Street (YMCA) with a small
children's playground; West End Avenue/64th Street (Capital Cities/ABC) with
0.35 acres of passive space; and the Macklowe West 60th Street soft site which
is projected to include 0.17 acres of passive space. Other projects are pro-
grammed to ·include accessory or private health clubs, including the Concerto,
Manhattan West, and Brodsky West: Accessory open space or recreational analy-
sis is not included in the quantitative analysis of open space resources.
For many of the other proposed or potential development projects in the

study area, development programs have not yet been defined. It is likely that
some of these projects would also include public or accessory open space, or
health clubs. Thus, this analysis is conservative in assuming that none of
these projects would add open space or recreational facilities.
Renovation of EXisting Space: In addition to the development of new open

space, the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has plans for renovation of
some of the open space resources in the study area:
o Riverside Rotunda Theater -- installation of new electrical lines to

the theater, budgeted for $1.3 million, expected completion in 1992.
a I.S. 44 Playground -- renovation of the playground, including resur-

facing and new equipment, budgeted for $33,000, expected completion
in 1992.
II.G-28
o Riverside Pier A -- renovation of pier in the 79th Street Boat Basin,
budgeted for $300,000, expected completion in 1992.
o Riverside Park Soccer/Football Field -- resurfacing of playing field,

budgeted for $32,000, expected completion in 1992.
o DeWitt Clinton Park -- resurfacing of grass and paved areas, realign-

ment of paths, reconstruction of retaining wall on park's western
side, and replacement of play equipment, fencing, and benches, bud-
geted for $2.1 million, expected completion in 1993.
o 59th Street Recreation Center -- replacement of building's boiler and

pool filtration system, budgeted for $2.3 million, expected comple-
tion 1993.
o Riverside Park South Lawn -- realignment of paths, development of new

playgrounds, removal of abandoned southbound West Side Drive entrance
ramp, and installation of statue, budgeted for $3.1 million, expected
completion in 1996.
o Riverside Rotunda -- refurbishment of existing structure, budgeted

for $153,000, expected cpmpletion in 1996.
2002.
New Open Space: As currently defined, none of the proposed or potential

projects expected to be completed after 1997 and by 2002 would explicitly in-
clude the development of any open space. Thus, in 2002, the inventory of open
space would be unchanged relative to conditions in 1997, with 19.53 acres of
active space and 60.48 acres of passive space. However, as noted above, as
plans for potential projects evolves, it is likely that some of them will in-
clude the development of public or accessory open space or recreational
facilities.
Renova~ion of Exis~in~ Space: No specific plans have been developed by

DPR for renovation of residential study area parks for the years after 1996.
One potential plan being considered by DPR is the development of new outdoor
play area at the 59th Street Recreation Center. However, no funds have been
allocated for that project at this time. It is likely that other DPR projects
will be identified and funded in the future and by 2002, additional renovation
projects will likely have occurred.
1997.
New Open Space: All of the new public open space described above, except
half of the Route 9A bikeway/walkway, would be developed within the commercial
study area. Thus, the inventory of passive open space in the commercial study
area would increase to 20.31 passive acres.
Renovation of Existin~ Space: Of the DPR projects described above for the
residential study area, the 59th Street Recreation Center and the Riverside
Park Rotunda Theater, Rotunda, Soccer Field, and South Lawn are located in the
commercial study area.
II.G-29
2002.
New Open Space: No additional open· space is proposed for the commercial
study area by 2002. Thus, the inventory of open space in the commercial study
area would remain unchanged relative to conditions in 1997, with a total 20.31
passive acres. However, as noted previously, as planning for some of the po-
tential projects evolves, they may include open space or recreational
facili ties.
Renovation of Existing Space: No other DPR projects have been identified

for the commercial study area after 1996. However, it is likely that other DPR
projects will be identified and funded in the future and by 2002, additional
renovation projects will likely have occurred.
Open Space User Populations.
The growth in residential and daytime population attributed to proposed

and potential development in the study area was devised using several factors.
The growth in residential population is based on an average household size of
1.60, which was the average household size for the study area in 1990. Unlike
typical dwelling units, dormitory units were assumed to house one student. In
terms of daytime population, the following factors were used: four.workers per
1,000 square feet of commercial space; two workers per 1,000 square feet of re-
tailor studio space; one worker per 1,000 square feet of school or community
facility space; and one worker per 10 dwelling units. Furthermore, the St.
Luke's/Rooseve1t Hospital EIS noted that 288 new health care workers would be
added with the expansion of the hospital.
1997. Fifteen projects with 5,443 dwelling units, 1,325 dormitory units,
more than 2.1 million square feet of commercial space, 621,500 square feet of
retail space, nearly 600,000 square feet of hospital space, 280,000 square feet
of television studio space, and 36,000 square feet of community facility space
are proposed for the residential study area with possible completion dates by
1997. Combined, these projects would add 9,980 new residents and 10,730 new
workers to the study area, bringing the residential and worker populations to
approximately 101,930 and 89,830, respectively. (This analysis conservatively
assumes that all workers and residents would be new to the study area.)
2002. An additional 14 projects with 3,104 dwelling units, 523,000 square

feet of commercial space, 237,000 square feet of retail space, and 300,000
square feet of school space are proposed for the residential study area by
2002. These projects would add 4,935 new residents and 3,180 new workers,
bringing the residential and worker populations to approximately 106,865 and
93,010, respectively.
1997. Eight projects with 3,035 dwelling units, 1,000 dormitory units,
461,250 square feet of commercial space, 41,500 square feet of retail space,
nearly 600,000 square feet of hospital space, 280,000 square feet of television
studio space, and 8,000 square feet of community facility space are proposed
for the commercial study area with possible completion dates by 1997. Com-
bined, these projects would add 5,825 new. residents and 3,180 new workers to
II.G-30
the study area, bringing the residential and worker populations to approximate-
ly 28,355 and 21,630, respectively.
2002. Two additional projects, with a total of 432 dwelling units, are
proposed for the commercial study area by 2002. These project would add 690
new residents and 45 new workers, bringing the residential and worker popula-
tions to approximately 29,040 and 21,675, respectively.
Assessment of Adequacy of Open Space Resource
Quantitative Analysis.
1997: As shown in Table II.G-ll, in 1997, the residential study area

would have 19.53 acres of active open space, 60.48 acres of pass i ve open spa·ce,
101,930 residents, and 89,830 workers and students. In terms of total acreage,
with 80.01 acres of space, the ratio per 1,000 residents would be 0.78 compared
with 0.85 under existing conditions, and the city-suggested guideline of 2.50
acres per 1,000 residents. With 19.53 acres of active space, the active open
space ratio would be 0.19 acres per 1,000 residents compared with 0.21 under
eXisting conditions and the city-guideline of 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
With 60.48 acres of passive space, there would be adequate space to meet DCP's
gUideline of 0.50 passive acres per 1,000 residents. After meeting the resi-
dential demand for 50.97 acres of passive space, 9.51 acres would remain to
meet the daytime population's demand, yielding a ratio of 0.11 acres per 1,000
daytime persons. The daytime population would be inadequately served, accord-
ing to DCP's guideline, unlike eXisting conditions when both daytime and resi-
dential demand are adequately met.
2002: In 2002, the residential study area would have 19.53 acres of ac-
tive open space, 60.48 acres of passive open space, 106,865 residents, and
93,010 workers and students. In terms of total acreage, with 80.01 acres of
space, the ratio per 1,000 residents would be 0.75, compared with existing
(0.85) or 1997 No Build (0.78) conditions, and the city-suggested guideline of
2.50 acres per 1,000 residents. With 19.53 acres of active space, the active
open space ratio would be 0.18 acres per 1,000 residents, a reduction from
existing and 1997 No Build conditions and below the city guideline of 2.0 acres
per. 1,000 residents. With 60.48 acres of passive space, there is adequate
space to meet DCP's guideline of 0.50 passive acres per 1,000 residents. After
meeting the residential demand for 53.43 acres of passive space, 7.05 acres
would remain to meet the daytime population's demand, yielding a ratio of 0.08
acres per 1,000 daytime persons. The daytime population would be inadequately
served, according to DCP's guideline, unlike existing conditions when both
daytime and residential demand are adequately met.
Qualitative Analysis·. The deficiency of active space and passive space

for the daytime population would be ameliorated to some degree by a variety of
factors described under existing conditions:
o The area contains 11.1 acres of passive space that is generally ac-
cessory open space to residential buildings and thus is not strictly
publicly accessible. However, that space does serve some of the
area's population, thereby reducing the demand on publicly accessible
space.
II.G-31
Table II.G-ll
ABALYSIS OF THE ADEQUACY OF OPER SPACE BESOUJl.CES IR TIlE -

IlESmERTIAL STUDY AJlEA. - - 110 BUILD cotmITIOIIS

Esistlng 1997 2002
Population
Residents 91,950 101,930 106,865
Daytime 79,098 89,830 93,010
Active -- Residents 2.00 Acres/1,OOO Residents
Passive -- Residents 0.50 Acres/1,OOO Residents
Passive -- Daytime 0.15 Acres/1,OOO Daytime
Required Open Space
Active -- Residents 183.90 203.86 213.73
Passive -- Residents 45.98 50.97 53.43
Pas~ive -- Daytime 11.86 13.47 13.95
Passive -- Combined 57.84 64.44 67.38
Residents and Daytime
Total 241.74 268.30 281.11
Existing Open Space
Active 19.10 19.53 19.53
Adequacy for Residents No No No
Passive 58.40 60.48 60.48
Adequacy for Residents and Yes No No
Daytime
Total 77.50 80.01 80.01
Open Space Ratios (Acres/1,OOO Persons)
Residents
Active Ratio 0.21 0.19 0.18
Adequacy No No No
Passive Ratio 0.64 0.59 0.57
Adequacy Yes Yes Yes
Daytime Population 0.16 0.11 0.08
Ratio
Acreage Available· 12.42 9.51 7.05
Adequacy Yes No No
• Derived by subtracting acreage needed to meet the DCP guideline

for residents from total inventory of passive open space.
II.G-32
o Proximity of much of the study area to Central Park enables'residents
and workers to use the vast open space resources of that park.
o The relatively high incomes of area residents affords much of the

population the ability to use private fee charging facilities, such
as health clubs, or to travel to more distant facilities.
o The bulk of the area's active resources are concentrated in the west-
ern portion of the study area where the proportion of children and
young teenagers -- the age groups most dependent on nearby active
space -- is disproportionately high relative to the remainder of the
study area.
o Additional private space, including health clubs, are being developed

as part of some of the new development projects, which would handle
some of the increased demand for active space.
Furthermore, some of the parks in the area which currently are in fair or
poor condition, in particular portions of Riverside Park or DeWitt Clinton
Park, are slated for renovation by DPR. Thus, in the future without the proj-
ect, some of the area's larger parks will be qualitatively improved.
Despite the qualitative factors that ameliorate the deficiency of open

space in the area, the area would still be underserved according to DCP's
guidelines.
Quantitative Analysis.
1997: As shown in Table II.G-12, in 1997, the commercial study area would
have 20.2'8 acres of passive open space, 28,355 residents, and 21,630 workers
and students. There would be adequate space to meet DCP's guideline of 0.50
passive acres per 1,000 residents. After meeting the residential demand for
14.18 acres of passive space, 6.10 acres would remain to meet the daytime popu-
lation's demand, yielding a ratio of 0.28 acres per 1,000 daytime persons.
Thus, both the residential and daytime populations would be adequately served,
according to Dep's guideline, as they are under existing conditions.
2002: In 2002, the commercial study area would have 20.28 acres of pas-
sive open space, 29,040 residents, and 21,675 workers and students. There
would be adequate space to meet DCP's guideline of 0.50 passive acres per 1,000
residents. After meeting the residential demand for 14.52 acres of passive
space, 5.76 acres would remain to meet the daytime population's demand, yield-
ing a ratio of 0.27 acres per 1,000 daytime persons. Thus, both the residen-
tial and daytime populations would be adequately served, according' to DCP's
guideline, as they would be under 1997 No Build and existing conditions.
II.G-33
Table II.G-12
ARALYSIS OF THE ADEQUACY OF OPEII SPACE USOOB.CES III THE

COJIIIEllCIAL STUDY AREA - - RO BUILD CORDITIONS
No Build Conditions
histin! 1997 2002
Population
Residents 22,527 28,353 29,040
Daytime 18,453 21,632 21,675
Passive Residents 0.50 Acres/l,OOO Residents
Passive Daytime 0.15 Acres/l,OOO Daytime
Required Open Space
Passive Residents 11.26 14.18 14.52
Passive Daytime 2.77 3.24 3.25
Combined Residents 14.03 17.42 17.77
and Daytime
Total 14.03 17.42 . 17.77
Existing Open Space
Passive 18.20 20.28 20.28
Open Space Ratios
Residents 0.81 0.72 0.70
Daytime
Acreage Available· 6.94 6.1 5.76
Ratio 0.38 0.28 0.27
• Derived by subtracting acreage needed to meet the guideline

for residents from total inventory of passive open space.
II.G-34
This section analyzes the effects of the project on publicly accessible

open space resources in the open space study areas. The analysis considers
both the added demand on publicly accessible facilities generated by the proj-
ect's residents and workers, and the added supply of publicly accessible space.
Conditions are assessed for two analysis years, 1997 and 2002, which correspond
to the expected completion date of the two phases of the proposed project.
Project Open Space Plan
As described in detail in Chapter I, the proposed project would develop

approximately 25 acres of publicly accessible open space, a nearly 32 percent
increase in the open space inventory of the residential study area in the fu-
ture without the project and an approximately 135 percent increase in the fu-
ture open space inventory in the commercial open space study area. (Of these
25 acres, approximately 21.5 acres would be mapped parkland.) Virtually all of
the new park space would be included in a new waterfront park that would extend
Riverside Park south to 59th Street. The park plan would provide a variety of
active and passive facilities for persons of all ages, open up access to nearly
0.7 miles of waterfront to which the public has never had any access, and cre-
ate an opportunity to provide a link between an open space network extending
from Battery Park City through northern Manhattan and beyond.
,As described in Chapter I, "Project Description," the project has been

designed with two alternative park plans for two different conditions -- one in
which the Miller Highway, which runs along a viaduct near the western edge of
the project site, would be relocated in-board to a location below and beside
the new extension of Riverside Drive, and one in which the existing elevated
highway remains in place. Relocation of the highway, which requires separate
and independent approvals from the proposed project, would create an opportuni-
ty to develop a cohesive park that maximizes both physical and visual access to
the waterfront, a condition not possible with the highway remaining in its
current location. Both scenarios -- with and without relocation of the Miller
Highway -- are described below.
Waterfront Park with Relocated Miller Highway
Elements of Park Plan. Among the prominent features of the proposed park
are (see Figure 1-9 in Chapter I):
o A ballfield of approximately 1.5 acres located between 70th and 72nd

Streets, adjacent to the waterfront esplanade. This field could ac-
commodate activities, such as soccer and football.
o Ballcourts for handball, volleyball, and basketball located in the

northern and southern portions of the park. The ballcourts would
occupy approximately 0.65 acres of active open space.
o Two playgrounds, totaling nearly 0.7 acres, one in the northern and
one in the southern portions of the project site. The northern play-
ground would be located on a platform extending from Riverside Drive
between 70th and 69th Streets and would include a broad range of
facilities for toddlers to pre-teens. The playground in the south
II.G-35
would be smaller and would contain facilities for toddlers and small
children.
o In the central part of the park, a large lawn of approximately 11.0

acres, sloping down from Riverside Drive to the Hudson River. The
portion of the lawn closest to the water would be a natural area of
approximately 2 acres, formed by sculpting away the existing reliev-
ing platform and planting appropriate grasses, shrubs, and perennial.
This large portion of the park would primarily serve passive func-
tions, enabling park users to meander to the riverfront, sunbathe,
picnic, and possibly engage in such unprogrammed active recreational
activities as touch football, frisbee, etc.
o A waterfront esplanade, approximately 20 feet wide, running the en-

tire length of the park.
o The rehabilitation and resurfacing of Pier I for unprogrammed pedes-

trian activities, including sunbathing, fishing, and strolling.
o An amphitheater and civic lawn located between 67th and 70th Streets
that would allow for special events, such as concerts, as well as
passive recreational use, and a variety of informal active recre-
ational uses, such as softball and volleyball.
o Three pedestrian piers for strolling and fishing.
o A boat pond for model boating activities, and possibly for use for I
ice skating in the winter, surrounded by a wooded slope and spring
gardens.
o A community garden and nursery.
Access. Pedestrian access to the new park would also be provided at all
cross streets except West 60th, 67th, and 71st Streets. At 72nd Street, the
park would connect to the existing Riverside Park to the north. Direct access
would be provided from Riverside Park's waterfront esplanade, which would con-
tinue into the new park. At 70th and 69th Streets, access would be provided
via a series of stairways and ramps leading from the northern playground into
the park. Connections would also be available to an elevator at 70th Street.
Pedestrian bridges over the highway would be provided at 68th, 64th, and 63rd
Streets. At 66th and 65th Streets, a large opening, with benches and other
seating areas, would be created through the berm and would connect directly
into the park's pathway system. At 61st and 62nd Streets, the existing street
grid would be extended directly into the park and would connect with a series
of walkways into the park. At 59th Street, an at-grade connection would be
made with the proposed Route 9A walkway. To separate pedestrians from the
vehicular traffic on 59th Street associated with the Marine Transfer Station,
the project is examining the feasibility of constructing a bridge over 59th
Street. This construction would depend on the Route 9A project committing to a
similar bridge from the south. The pedestrian bridges would be designed as
part of the project's Arts Program, described above in the Project Description.
All of these paths would be accessible to the disabled; all paths and ramps in
the park would have a maximum grade of 5 percent to facilitate access by dis-
abled park users.
II.G-36
Waterfront Park With Miller Highway In Place
As discussed in Chapter I, "Project Description," the relocation of the

highway requires discretionary approvals that are separate from the actions re-
quired to develop Riverside South. If the required approvals are not granted ,
and/or if funding is not allocated, the entity responsible for design and con-
struction of the park would construct the Interim Park. Although it is ex-
pected that the Interim Park would be provided by the year 2002, construction
I
r
of the Interim P~rk may occur as late as 2002.
This Interim Park would contain all of the waterfront elements included
under conditions with the relocation of the highway (see discussion below under
"Park Phasing"). The balance of the park has been designed to retain many of
the basic features of the park plan with the relocation of the highway. The
major differences between the two plans i n c l u d e : ;
o The elimination of the amphitheater;
o The elimination of the community gardens; and
o A reduction in the overall size of the waterfront park by approxi-

mately 4.0 acres due to the elimination of park space above the pub-
lie place reserved for the relocated highway.
Access. The park would be accessed via pedestrian entrances from River-
side Drive at 68th, 66th, and 63rd Streets. Each access point would consist of
a level bridge extending across the future highway easement, terminating in
stairs leading down to the park. Ramps would also be constructed from the
bridges to provide handicapped access to the park. The bridges and ramps would
be temporary structures to be removed upon construction of the relocated high-
way at a later date. The park would also be accessed from Riverside Park, to
the north, and from the proposed Route 9A walkway, to the south. No access
would be available between 68th and 72nd Streets and 59th and 63rd Streets, and
no elevator would be provided at 70th Street.
Park Character. The Interim Park would differ markedly from the park with
the relocated highway. The primary difference would be the continuing presence
of the elevated Miller Highway structure, which would obstruct visual access to
the waterfront.
First, many of the park's features would be crossed by the elevated high
structure, including about a third of the lawn area. This area beneath the
highway would be dark and divided by columns, unlike the open grassy area in
the park with the relocated highway. This park would also have less sunlight
than the park with the relocated highway. Waterfront areas adjacent to the
highway would be in shadow in the morning, and the grassy field adjacent to the
highway would be shaded in the afternoon.
The highway's presence would be most pronounced in the south, where it is

wider and lower in elevation. Except when standing on the waterfront and fac-
ing west, the highway structure would always dominate views. There would not
be an unobstructed vista of the riverfront as there would with the relocated
II.G-37
highway scenario. Park users would always be aware of being close to a high-
way, and would be able to see and hear the traffic. In contrast, the park with
the highway relocated would provide an escape from the city by hiding the high-
way in a partly covered depression. In that park scenario, the river would
dominate views.
Finally, if the highway is not relocated, the park would be noisier as

well. Most locations would be close to the highway, unlike the relocation
scenario, where the highway would be moved to one side of the park. Further,
the elevated highway would not have any barriers to block noise from reaching
the park. this is unlike the relocated highway scenario, in which the highway
would be depressed and separated from the park by a barrier, and often by a
berm of earth. Noise levels in different areas of the park are described in
section II.L, "Noise." As described in that section, LlOel ) noise levels in the
park would be in the mid-60s to low 70s dBA range, generated by vehicular traf-
fic on the elevated Miller Highway and Riverside Drive, aircraft flyovers, and
background noise from the urban activity in the area. These noise levels wouid
be higher than those generally recommended for outdoor activities, but would be
comparable to levels in existing parks in New York City.
In contrast, if the highway is relocated, LlOel ) noise levels in the park

would be as much as 10 dBA lower, since traffic on the Miller Highway is the
dominant noise source in its current configuration. As with the highway in
place, these levels would continue to exceed those generally recommended for
outdoor activities, but would be comparable to levels in existing parks in New
York City.
Park PhasIng
Within the limitations created by the ongoing reconstruction of the Miller

Highway, prior to the completion of the Phase I park, a temporary open space
would be created for public use, whether or not the highway is relocated. Safe
public access to this area would have to be available. This space would likely
consist of some temporary paved area for basketball or similar court sports and
some lawn area for unscheduled recreation. The exact size and shape or loca-
tion of this temporary space is not yet fully developed. The developer and the
Riverside South Planning Corporation would consult with the Manhattan Borough
President, the Department of Parks and Recreation, city agencies, and community
representatives, including representatives of Community Boards 4 and 7, as to
the design and location of the temporary open space and aCcess to it. It is
anticipated that the area would initially be at the north end of the site to
provide access from Riverside Park.
For purposes of this EIS analysis, it is assumed that by the end of 1997,
all of the elements of the waterfront park that would not be disturbed by sub-
sequent relocation of the Miller Highway would be completed. This would con-
sist of the natural area, the waterfront esplanade, the ballfields, the reha-
bilitated Pier I and neighboring transfer bridge pier, the boat pond, and the
pedestrian piers. The design of this portion of the park would not depend on
the relocation of the highway and would be the same if the highway is relocated
or if it remains in place. In total., about 8.5 acres of open space would be
developed by 1997. This space would be available for a mix of passive and
active recreation, such as strolling, fishing, soccer, and volleyball. (For
II.G-38
more details, see the discussion of phasing under "Open Space and Landscaping
Plan," in Chapter I, "Project Description.")
It is anticipated that the entire waterfront park would be completed after

the construction of the relocated highway is completed. Although it cannot be
specifically determined what year the highway may be relocated, a reasonable
assumption of a 2002 Build year has been made. If the required approvals are
not granted and/or if funding is not allocated 10 years after the City's ap-
proval of the Riverside South project, the entity responsible for the design
and construction of the park would construct the Interim Park. The Interim
Park would become permanent if the Miller Highway is not relocated. Although
it is expected that the Interim Park would be provided by the year 2002, the
applicant may begin, in accordance with the ULURP proposal, construction of the
Interim Park as late as 2002.
In addition to the waterfront park, the project's street system would en-
courage maximum pedestrian use and enhance east-west access to the waterfroI),t
park. Approximately 0.5 acres of additional passive recreational space would
be provided, primarily along the extension of Riverside Drive and in Freedom
Place South. Additional open space, accessible to residents of the proposed
project, would also be provided within individual parcels.
Project-Generated Demand
Based on the DCP methodology, demand for local publicly accessible parks
and recreational facilities is a function of the new residents and workers
generated by the proposed project.
By 1997, approximately 55 percent of the project's residential units are

projected to be completed (3,129 units). This would add approximately 6,200
new residents to the open space impact area. Since Phase I is primarily resi-
dential, only 11 percent of the project's work force, or 765 new workers, would
be added to the open space study area.
At full build-out in 2002, the project would add a total of approximately

11,350 new residents and 6,8l5·new workers. As shown in section II.C, "Demo-
graphics," and section II.D, "Community Facilities," the projected age break-
down of residents of the proposed project would be approximately 4.0 percent
under age 5 (425 children), 11 percent school age (approximately 1,250 children
and teenagers), 65 percent working age (approximately 7;500 adults), and 16
percent over age 65 (about 1,800 senior citizens). The new residents would
reflect a mix of high, middle, moderate, and low incomes.
Assessment of Project Impacts
As noted in the introduction to this section, several measures are avail-

able to determine whether or not a given project has a significant impact on
publicly accessible open space and recreational space (see page II.G-2). The
first consideration is whether or not the proposed project meets the needs of
its new residents and workers on-site. If it can be shown that the project is
providing sufficient open space to meet the DCP guidelines on-site, it can be
II.G-39
concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on publicly ac-
cessible parks and recreational facilities. If it cannot b~ shown that the
project can meet its needs on-site, the second consideration is how the project
affects open space ratios that would exist in the neighborhood in the future
without the project. Conclusions about significant impacts then are a function
of whether the proposed project improves, maintains, or decreases those ratios
compared with conditions in the future without the project.
Also considered is the appropriateness of the open space facilities for

the various age groups being served. The proposed waterfront park offers a
variety of active and passive recreational facilities geared to the project's
different user groups. Toddlers and school-age children particularly would be
served by the two children's play areas being provided. Senior citizens are 7-
considered to have the greatest need for passive open space facilities. With
less mobility than other user groups, those over 65 require a variety of pas-
sive open space resources within walking distance of their homes. The ~lderly 11
would be served by the range of passive recreation facilities being provided in
the proposed waterfront park, including lawns, walkways, a community garden and
nursery, and other sitting areas, including new spaces along Riverside Drive.
It is assumed that the majority of project-generated residents would be

adults of working age (25-64). This user group is most likely to use both
privatereci:·eational facilities and more distant regional facilities like Cen-
tral Park. This user group is estimated to be 65 percent of the project's
residential population, compared with 68 percent of the study area and 60.0
percent of Manhattan.
On-Site Assessment
1997. By 1997, the project would add approximately 6,200 new residents
and 765 new workers to the project site. To meet the city guidelines for open
space adequacy, these residents and workers would require a total of 15.6 acres
of publicly accessible open space -- 12.4 acres of active open space to meet
the needs of the project residents, 3.1 acres of passive open space to meet the
needs of project residents, and 0.1 acres of passive open space to meet the
needs of project workers (see Table II.G-13). Whether or not the highway is
relocated, the project would be providing approximately 8.5 acres of· open space
during Phase I -- 1.7 acres of active space (the northern ballfields and the
boat pond), and 6.8 acres of passive open space. As a result, the demand cre-
ated by the project's residents and workers for passive activities would be
adequately met. There would be a shortfall of 10.7 acres of active open space
and therefore an assessment of the project's effects on active open space ra-
tios would be required.
2002. By 2002, the project would add approximately 11,350 new residents
and 6,800 new workers to the project site. This would require a total of 29.40
acres of open space to meet DCP guidelines, including 22.7 acres of active open
space and 5.7 acres of passive open space to meet the needs of project resi-
dents and 1.00 acre of passive open space to meet the needs of project workers.
The park program with the relocated highway includes approximately 25.0 acres 7..1)
of space, including 3.0 acres of active open space, more than adequate space to
meet the added demands created on passive recreational uses for both its new
residents and workers, but not adequate to meet the active open space needs of
II .G-40
Table II.G-13
ANALYSIS OF ON-SITE OPEN SPACE CONDITIONS

WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1997. 2002
1997 2002
Population
Residents 6,200 11,350
Workers 765 6,815
Required Open Space
Residents
Total Acres 15.5 28.40
Active 12.4 22.70
Passive 3.1 5.70
Workers
Passive 0.1 1.0
Open Space Provided (Relocated Highway)
Active 1.7 3.0
Passive 6.8 22.0
Open Space Provided (Interim Park)
Active 1.7 3.0
Passive 6.8 18.0
its residents on-site. The total shortfall in active open s.pace provided would
be 19.7 acres. The total acreage of the park with the highway remaining in
place would be reduced by approximately 4.0 acres compared with the park with a
relocated highway. The total amount of active space would be approximately the
same while the amount of passive space would be reduced by 4.0 acres. Despite
the overall reduction, the passive space provided under the interim park would
be sufficient to meet the needs of project residents and workers while, similar
to the park with the relocated highway, there would be a shortfall in active
open space.
Since the passive needs of both residents and workers are met with the
proposed and interim parks, no further analysis is required. The deficiency in
active space under both conditions requires an assessment of the project's ef-
fects on active open space ratios.
Project's Effects on Open Space Ratios
Since the project would not meet either of its active open space require-
ments on-site in both 1997 and 2002, an analysis of the project's effects on
study area active open space ratios is required. Since the amount of active
open space would be the same with or without the relocation of the highway, the
II. G-4l
analysis would apply to both conditions. No analysis is necessary to assess
project effects on passive open space ratios in either 1997 or 2002 since the
project would meet its needs on-site.
?:
1997 Residential Open Space Study Area. By adding approximately 6,200 new
residents and 1.7 acres of additional active open space, the proposed project
would result in an increase in the active open space ratio in the residential
study area from 0.19 in the future without the project to 0.20 with the project
(see Table II.G-14). l
Table II.G-14
ANALYSIS OF THE ADEQUACY OF ACTIVE OPEN SPACE RESOURCES

IN THE BESIDENTIAL STUDY AREA WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1997
1997
Existing No Build With Project
Population
Residents 91,950 101,930< 108,130
Active -- Residents 2.00 Acres/l,OOO Residents
Required Open Space
Open Space Inventory
Active 19.10 19.50 21.20
Open Space Ratios (Acres/l,OOO Persons)
The project would not meet the open space guideline of 12.4 acres of ac-
tive open space for the 6,200 new residents projected in 1997. However, be-
cause of the existing high population density in the study area, the provision
of 12.4 acres would be substantially greater than the existing open space ra-
tio. The project in 1997 would raise the existing active open space ratio by
0.1.
2002 Residential Open Space Study Area. At full build-out in 2002, the
project would add approximately 11,350 new residents to the project site. It
is conservatively assumed that all of the new residents and workers would rep-
resent a net addition to the open space study area and that all project build-
ings would be fully occupied by the end of 2002.
By 2002, the project would be providing approximately 3.00 acres of ac-

tive open space -- 1.4 acres in the ballfield at the northern end of the proj-
ect; approximately 0.70 acres provided in two children's play areas, one in the
southern and one in the northern portion of the site; 0.6 acres of court space
in the northern and southern parts of the park; and a 0.3-acre boat pond. As a
result, the inventory of active open space in the study area would increase by
15 percent over future conditions without the project compared with a conserva-
tive 10 percent increase in residents. The active open space ratio would im-
prove from 0.18 acres to 0.19 acres per thousand residents.
II.G-42
Impacts Without Corps Permits
As noted in Chapter I, certain waterfront elements of the park would re-

quire authorizations from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). These
elements -- including Pier I, the transfer bridge pier, and several new pedes-
trian piers -- would be developed during Phase I and would provide approximate-
ly 1.7 acres of passive recreational use. In the event the required Corps
authorizations are not granted, the park would be constructed without these
elements and the overall park would be reduced in size by about 1.7 acres. The
reduction in this space would have no effect on the amount of active open space
or the previous conclusions with respect to active open space.
Table II.G-15
AHALYSIS OF TIlE ADEQUACY OF OPEII SPACK RESOURCES IR TIlE

RESmER"lIAL STUDY AJlEA VITH TIlE PllOPOSED PllOJECT
2002
2002
Ezisting No Build With Pr01ect
Population
Residents 91,950 106,865 118,215
Active -- Residents .2.00 Acres/l,OOO Residents
Required Open Space
Active-- Residents 183.90 213.73 236.4
Open Space Inventory
Active 19.10 19.53 22.53
Open Space Ratios (Acres/l,OOO Persons)
A reduction of 1.7 acres of passive recreational space in Phase I would

reduce the amount of passive space provided in Phase I from 6.8 acres with the
Corps authorization to 5.1 .acres. This would be adequate to meet the 3.2 acres
of passive space required by the project's Phase I residents and workers, ac-
cording to DCP guidelines (see Table II.G-13). In 2002, the amount of passive
space provided on project completion (20.3 acres) would be more than adequate
to meet the on-site project-generated demand (6.70 acres).
In 1997, the passive open space ratios for the residential and daytime
populations in both the residential and commercial study areas would all in-
crease from the No Build ratios (see Table II.G-16). The ratio for the daytime
population in the residential open space area would, however, remain below the
city guideline. In 2002, all passive open space ratios would increase from the
No Build ratios and all ratios ·would exceed city guidelines.
The developer is proposing to contribute 50 percent of the maintenance

costs associated with the proposed waterfront.park. At this time, there is no
formal agreement with the Parks Department or any other entity to provide the
II.G-43
funding for the remaining 50 percent of the maintenance costs. If no commit-
ment is made, there would be an adverse open space effect.
II.G-44
Table II.G-16
ARALYSIS 01' THE ADEQUACY 01' PASSIVE OPEN SPACE 1lES0tD.CES

vrmOUT CORPS AUTHOllIZATI05
(1997)
Build Without
Exi st ina 50 Build Corps Authorization
Population
Residents 91,950 101,930 108,130
Daytime Population 79,098 89,830 90,595
Passive Open Space (Acres) 58.40 60.48 65.58
Open Space Ratio
Residential 0.64 0.59 0.61
Daytime· 0.16 0.11 0.13
Population
Residents 22,527 28,353 34,553
Open Space Ratio
Daytime· 0.38 0.28 0.36
(2002)
Build Without
Existins 50 Build Corps Authorization
Population
Residents 91,950 106,365 118,215
Open Space Ratio
Daytime· 0.16 0.08 0.22
Population
Residents 22,527 29,040 40,390
Open Space Ratio
Daytime· 0.38 0.27 0.72
• After residential open space ratio of 0.50 has been fulfilled.
II.G-45
H. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Background History
Historic Period up to the Mid-19th Century
Manhattan's Upper West Side was originally part of the region north of the
city proper, stretching from 14th to l25th Street, which the Dutch called
Bloomingdale (vale of flowers) -- a region of farmland that provided produce to
the city's residents downtown. The region's main thoroughfare was Bloomingdale
Road, which cut diagonally across Manhattan from 23rd to l14th Street.
After the English victory over Dutch New Amsterdam in 1664, the new pro-
vincial governor Nicolls granted a l,OOO-acre tract of land -- stretching from
approximately modern-day 42nd Street to 90th Street, west of present-day Cen-
tral Park -- to four Dutchmen and one Englishman: Johannes Van Brugh, Thomas
'Hall, Jan Vigne, Egbert Wouters, and Jacob Leendersen. The patentees subse-
quently divided the property into 10 lots of approximately 100 acres each. The
two lots stretching from 59th to 66th Street became the property of Thomas
Hall, while the two lots from 66th to 70th Street and from 70th to 74th Street
became the property of Johannes Van Brugh.
The land between 70th and 74th Streets was sold in 1701 by the heirs of
the original patentee, Johannes Van Brugh, to Rebecca Van Schaike, who sold it
in that same year to Cornelius Dykeman. Upon Dykeman's death during the
1730's, the land passed to 'his wife and children. The southern segment, from
70th to 72nd Street, was owned by Nicholas Dykeman until his death in 1758,
when it passed into the hands of Jacob Harsen. This farm remained in the hands
of the Harsen family through the middle of the 19th century. The Harsen family
held title to.their property (from 70th to 74th Street) until the death of
Jacob Harsen in the 1870's.
The land from 59th to 70th Street was transferred in 1696 to Theunis C.
Stille, and ca. l729,passed to Stephen Delancey. It remained in the Delancey
family through the remainder 'of the Colonial period.
The Delancey family is prominent in New York history. Stephen Delancey

(1663-1741) was a leading New York City merchant and property holder, and a
member of the Provincial Assembly from 1705 to 1737. After Delancey died, in
1747, the property was consolidated in the hands of one son, James Delancey.
James Delancey (1703-1760) also had an illustrious public career, as a member
of the governor's council, as Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, and
as acting provincial governor from 1753 until his death in 1760.
James Delancey (1732-1800), the son of the elder James, inherited the
estate from his father in 1760. Delancey was a member of the Provincial Assem-
bly from 1768 to 1776 and an ardent supporter of the Sons of Liberty during the
earlier part of his career. During the years before the Revolution, however,
his loyalties shifted to the crown. After the war, his estates, like those of
other Loyalists, were confiscated under the Laws of Forfeiture. The property
was sold to John Somerindyck in 1785.
II.H-l
John Somerindyck died in 1800, and the property passed to his wife, and
from her to their children in 1809. By 1815, the Somerindyck property was
divided into six parcels: William Cock and his wife Abigail, daughter of John
Somerindyck, held the property between 59th and 6lst Streets; the land between
6lst and 63rd Streets was owned by William Hardenbrook and his wife Margaret,
another daughter of Somerindyck; George W. Somerindyck owned the parcel between
63rd and 65th Streets; Hyder Somerindyck owned the parcel from 65th to 67th
Streets; Sarah Tallman, another daughter of John Somerindyck, and her husband
John Tallman held title to the land between 67th and 69th Streets; and a Quaker
banker, Jacob Barker, owned the land between 69th and 70th Streets.
Maps and historic documentation indicate that the closest farmhouses and
outbuildings were east of the project site, between what became Tenth (Amster-
dam) and Eleventh (West End) Avenues. Until filling in the 1870's created
acres of new land west of the original shoreline, most of the project site was
underwater: the Hudson River shoreline ran along the site's eastern boundary.
Along this shore were three coves, each fed by small streams; close to these
coves were small promontories of land that fell within project site boundaries.
It does not appear that the land fronting the river on the project site was
extensively used before the construction of the railroad in the 1840's (dis-
cussed below). The original shoreline is discussed below under "Archaeological
Resources."
After 1850
Four developments in the mid-19th century triggered the Upper West Side's
rapid. transition from rural to urban environment: the completion of the Hudson
River Railroad ca. 1850, acquisition of land for the construction of Central
Park in 1856, the extension of the Ninth Avenue "El" into the area during the
1870's, and the opening of Western Boulevard in 1869 (following the route of
the Bloomingdale Road north of 59th Street, and renamed aroadway for its entire
length in 1899). As is described below, because of the large railroad yard on
the project site, the West Side developed in two distinct types of neighbor-
hoods: an industrial neighborhood with poor residents, and the more affluent
residential Upper West Side.
Before landfilling on the project site in the 1870's, an area of original

land existed between present-day 59th and 60th Streets, west of Eleventh Ave-
nue. In the 1840's, Lebbeus Ward purchased this property and established a
foundry, known as the Hamersley Forge .. This foundry was the first in the coun-
try fitted with furnaces and steam hammers big enough to manufacture shafts and
cranks for use on steamliners. The HamersleyForge forged the "Peacemaker," a
large gun mounted on the naval warship U.S.S. Princet:on. The "Peacemaker"
later became famous when, during its initial trial on the Potomac River in
1844, it exploded, killing two members of President Tyler's cabinet. (For more
details on the Hamersley Forge, see "Archaeological Resources," below.)
The Hudson River Railroad Company, established in 1832, in 1849 completed

its rail line running from the tip of Manhattan north to Albany along the West
Side. With the exception of the block bounded by 59th and 60th Streets, West
End (Eleventh) Avenue, and the Hudson River, the project site had become the
right-of-way for the Hudson River Railroad by 1849. Most of the site west of
the railroad right-of-way had not yet been filled, and remained under water.
II.H-2
By 1862, the Hamers1ey Forge had been replaced by an larger complex of build-
ings used as a bone black manufactory. Bone factories used animal bones,
brought from slaughterhouses and other sources by rail, to create charcoal and
several byproducts. The charcoal was then sold for use as a filter for the
purification of liquor, drinking water, and edible oils, in sugar refining, and
in the manufacture of paints and varnishes. (For more details on this factory,
see "Archaeological Resources," below.)
In the 1870's, the Hudson River Railroad merged with the New York Central,
becoming the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad. Ward sold the land
between 59th and 60th Streets in 1874 to William H. ·Vanderbilt, one of the
owners of the consolidated New York Central and Hudson River Railroad. Around
the same time, the area next to the railroad north of 60th Street was developed
with freight and stock yards.
The land between the railroad yard at 60th Street and another large yard
at 30th Street quickly attracted such industries as lumberyards, slaughterhous-
es, lime kilns, stables, distilleries, and warehouses. The industries in turn
brought unskilled laborers who lived in wooden shanties nearby. During the
1860's and 1870's, as the industry pushed northward to 59th Street, tenements
for the workers were constructed. The Ninth Avenue El encouraged further spec-
ulative development of tenements when it was extended northward to 64th Street;
Shortly after the Civil War, the emerging neighborhood in the southern part of
the study area (and extending farther south) acquired the reputation as one of
the toughest areas in the city and the name "Hell's Kitchen" (this area is now
known as Clinton). A large black community, known eventually as "San Juan
Hill" for the blacks who fought with Teddy Roosevelt in Cuba, grew in the block
near 57th Street and Ninth Avenue.
By about 1880, the shoreline to Twelfth Avenue on the project site was
filled in, and the current shoreline, bulkhead, and pier lines were estab-
lished. The newly created land on the project site was used as a stock yard
and extensive rail yard; slaughterhouses and other industries were located
nearby. By the turn of the century the rail yard included six piers, a trans-
fer bridge, a grain elevator, and a "roundhouse" or turntable; a large area
between the tracks from West 60th to 64th Street and much of the block between
West 59th and 60th Streets were occupied by the Union Stock Yards.
During the 1880's, extension of the Ninth Avenue Elevated Railroad and
Tenth Avenue horsecar line and the creation of Central Park and Riverside Park
and Drive provided the biggest boosts to the residential development of the
Upper West Side north of Clinton. The area's emerging neighborhoods were care-
ful to distinguish themselves from the poorer area to the south: the major
arteries were renamed, from Eighth Avenue to Central Park West in 1876, Elev-
enthAvenue to West End Avenue in 1880, Twelfth Avenue to Riverside Drive in
1885, and Ninth and Tenth Avenues to Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues in 1890.
Residential development of much of the Upper West Side occurred over a 50-year
period, beginning in the 1880's with construction of the Dakota Apartments.
During this time, luxury apartment hotels were built along Broadway, and lower-
rise tenements along Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues. The side streets were
developed with rows of speculative townhouses for the middle and upper classes.
Farther west, Riverside Park and Drive were created beginning in the 1870's to
encourage luxury real estate development. Landscape architect Frederick Law
II.H-3
Olmsted designed the park and drive to wind around topographic features, yet
still give easy access to real estate bordering it on the east. West 72nd
Street, with a generous width and proximity to the entrances of both Riverside
Park and Central Park, was also a spur to luxury development. By the turn of
the century, the Riverside Drive area north of the project site had become one
of New York City's most desirable neighborhoods.
Riverside Park was completed in 1910. In the 1930's, using Federal Works
Progress Administration (WPA) funds, the Henry Hudson Parkway Authority added a
highway to the park area, covering the freight line.
On the project site, the railyards and stockyards on the site were in
active use into the mid-20th century. An elevated highway was completed across
the railyards in 1932, part of the city's new West Side Highway. which was
created to connect the Holland Tunnel (completed in 1927) with Riverside Drive
at 72nd Street. The highway was later renamed for the Manhattan Borough Presi-
dent, Julius Miller, who originally supported the roadway proposal.
After World War II, changes in the city's economy and the steadily de-
creasing role of rail freight in Manhattan led to the phasing out of rail uses
on the site. At the same time, the tenement-filled blocks east and southeast
of the project site had become very rundown. In 1949, an early urban r~newal
project cleared several blocks of tenements, factories, and stores between 6lst
and 64th Streets for the construction of a l4-building complex of public hous-
ing between Amsterdam and West End Avenues (Amsterdam Houses). Twelve more
blocks west of Broadway between 58th and 66th Streets were cleared for several
urban renewal projects in the 1950's and early 1960's, including the Coliseum
at Columbus Circle; Fordham University, between 60th and 62nd Streets and Co-
lumbus and Amsterdam Avenues (1962); and Lincoln Center for the Performing
Arts, between 62nd and 66th Streets from Columbus to Amsterdam Avenue,
constructed from 1962 to 1969. In all, these urban renewal projects displaced
several thousand low-income families and several hundred small businesses and
dramatically changed the character of a large portion of the study area to the
southeast and east of the project site.
In 1968, the financially ailing New York Central and Pennsylvania Rail-
roads merged to form Penn Central. The center of the new company's freight
operations for Manhattan, the Bronx, and Westchester County was the 60th Street
yards on the project site. However, soon after, the company relocated its
activities to New Jersey, and yards in Croton, Yonkers, and the Bronx. During
the mid-1970's, Penn Central shut down the 60th Street Yards entirely.
In 1969, a section of Clinton bordered by West 50th and 56th Streets and
Tenth and Eleventh Avenues was designated an urban renewal area .. Since then,
several high-rise residential buildings have been built.
The more recent history of the project site is discussed in Chapter I,

"Project Description." More details about recent development in the study area
are provided in section II.B, "Land Use and Zoning."
II .H-4
Existing Conditions
Historic Resources
Project Site
Currently, most of the project site is vacant with the excep,tion of dere-
lict piers, parking lots, two brick buildings along 59th Street -- one built
during the 19th century and the other during the 20th -- the Amtrak railroad
right-of-way, and the elevated Miller Highway (for more details on current
conditions of the site, see section II.B, "Land Use and Zoning"). Analysis has
shown that there is one structure of potential historic importance on the proj-
ect site -- a transfer bridge (also known as a car float gantry), the remains
of which are located on pier H in line with 69th Street. This transfer bridge
is discussed below. In addition, the 19th century brick industrial structure
on the site, which was found not to be important, is briefly described.
Transfer Bridge. This structure, which was put into service in March
1911, transferred freight cars between barges and railroad tracks in the rail-
yard. This transfer bridge represents the first example of what proved to be a
more efficient and safer type of transfer bridge than those previously used in
New York Harbor.
Up until the late 1920's, a large portion of all rail freight traveling
from Manhattan was carried over one of the surrounding river-s on carfloats
(long, flat barges with tracks on them). During the late 19th century, an
increasing need to transport rail cars across water in the Port of New York
required efforts to improve freight-moving facilities and structures, such as
the transfer bridge, and by World War I, the port's inefficiency and congestion
had become the focus of both public and government concern.
The West 69th Street transfer bridge, built in 1911, formed part of the
float-bridge equipment of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Com-
pany's 60th Street receiving yard. It was designed by the Engineering Depart-
ment of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company with the assis-
tance of James B. French, a consulting bridge engineer and former engineer with
the Long Island Railroad Company. French's bridge introduced a new method of
adjusting the bridge elevation to the torsional forces caused by the listing of
carfloats during loading and unloading. This bridge was faster and easier to
operate than the earlier suspended bridge, was less likely to cause the ,uncou-
pling of cars, and was less expensive to build.
Portions of the West 69th Street transfer bridge have deteriorated and a
number of original features are missing. The ground-level changing and washing
shed has been destroyed by fire. The bridge's railroad tracks have been re-
moved, and the timbers of the bridge's main floor have suffered varying degrees
of deterioration, some resulting in unsafe conditions. Evidence of vandalism
is visible,particularly in the operator's house, which once contained control-
lers for all the electric motors. The operator's house is now empty and dam-
aged by fire. The machinery house, located above ground level and supported on
an overhead platform, appears to be intact.
II.H-5
~~--~-------------'-'-- .. --'-' ..- .... ''' .. ' ............. ..

There are other transfer bridges ·of this type in the region including a
pair in Long Island City, one in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and two suspended-type
transfer bridges in Jersey City, N.J., which were originally built in 1905
using a design predating that of J.B. French. The Jersey City transfer bridges
are still in use.
An application for the nomination of the transfer bridge on the project

site was submitted to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and His-
toric Preservation (OPRHP) by a New Jersey Chapter of the Society for Industri-
al Archaeology (SIA). Based on this information, the OPRHP's State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) found the transfer bridge eligible for listing on
the State and National Registers of Historic Places (Source: telephone conver-
sation with Ms. Merrill Hesch, New York City Regional Headquarters, OPRHP,
October 1991).
The OPRHP also conveyed to the sponsor a list of information needed to

complete the nomination in March 1989. According to Mr. Thomas Flagg, a repre-
sentative of the New Jersey Chapter of the SIA, the chapter intends to nominate
the transfer bridge for listing on the Registers some time in the future
(Source: telephone conversation with Mr. Flagg, October 1991).
641 West 59th Street. The building at 641 West 59th Street is a three-
story, multiple-bay, rectangular-plan, brick-bearing struct1,.lre of mid-19th
century construction with a later addition to the east. The south facade (59th
Street) is the primary facade of the structure and contains the public en-
trance. The l2-bay, three-story brick facade is laid in common bond, stuccoed
and painted light brown. Attached to it, at its eastern end, is a six-bay,
two-story later addition.
In its present state, the building possesses little architectural signifi-

cance because of its comprised integrity. Its limited ornamental features are
characteristic of the Italianate influence on architecture prevalent in the
United States between 1840 and 1885. The interior support system is of inter-
est and does not appear to have been altered. The structure has undergone a
succession of building expansions and alterations. The eastern addition ap-
pears to be ca. 1925, while the basement level of this same section appears to
be contemporaneous with the remainder of the building. There also seems to be
a large section of the structure missing to the east.
Field surveys and limited archaeological testing at this building were

conducted during 1987. These are detailed below under "Archaeological
Resources."
Study Area
The study area' for historic resources extends from 52nd to 79th Street
between Eighth Avenue/Central Park West and the Hudson River. This study area
is divided into a primary and a secondary study area. The primary study area
-- bounded generally by 57th Street on the south, Tenth/Amsterdam Avenue on the
east, and 73rd Street on the north -- is the area closest to the project site,
where any historic resources have the most potential to be affected by develop-
ment on the project site. Therefore, the resources in the primary study area
are analyzed in more detail than those in the secondary study area. Figure
II.H-l provides a map of both study areas, with historic resources highlighted,
arid Table II.H-1lists each of the historic resources in the study areas.
II .H-6
Historic Resources
Figure II.H-l
V
-==
LINCOLN
CENTER
o
PlAZA
•
'----=~~IC"'Ijl \' .
~e==~I~,--1 ~I:'T'\"===:=:::::I~l
r-- '< W. 58TH ST.
,ir"·~~D··<t
:======:: W.59THST.~.
4(~
\\ b {\ Ir
L--
c:
CENTRALPARKSOUTH
r=-::-==::-=l_lluL------lI~~\\
~I ••••••••••
I~! W.57THST.
e ...............
I~! Z
I~n
4( \. 4 (·I~r-
L-
l Iw \\\ I [~ el~D CJ~c
& I \\\ I C·58THST.-=oJ . IW§DtllC
II II! I \\\ I C· 55THST.-=oJ
W.54THST.
l O rL-
-
I[ I 0 l O rL-
rR
DE WIlT \\\
'NTON W.53RDST.---.-J . -
I[ II 0 r-
=---_~
c;;.,:;:;;::..:::::::..:::=.-==m
PARK
r - -liT' n\\\ -=oJ

W.52ND ST. - 'j
0
r - - - Ii \1 n r==
..........., fc ====C===':::J~ FEET
- - - - Project Site Boundary t .........: Upper West Side/Central Park West SCALE
•••••• Primary Study Area Boundary Historic District (NYCl) (36)
----,
L ___ J Central Park West Historic District (S/NR) (37)
_ Other Historic District
Individual Historic Resource
11.91 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~---------------~N~o:t:e:~s:e:.eT~a~b:'e~II.~H~-l.!fo:r~re:fe~re:n~ce
Table II.B-1
HISTORIC RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA

(Refer to Figure II.B-1)*
(1) Former Eleventh Judicial District Courthouse (NYCL)
(2) Hearst International Magazine Building (NYCL)
(3) IRT Power House (S/NR Eligible, NYCL Pending)
(4) William J. Syms Operating Theatre (NYCL)
(5) IRT Subway Station Interior at 59th Street and Coiumbus Circle (NYCL)
(6) Sofia Brothers Warehouse (NYCL, S/NR)
(7) Century Apartments (NYCL)
(8) New York Society for Ethical Culture (NYCL)
(9) First Battery Armory, now 102nd Medical Battalion Armory (NYCL)
(10) Congregation Shearith Israel (NYCL)
(11) Majestic Apartments (NYCL)
(12) The Dorilton (NYCL, S/NR)
(13) West 69th Street Transfer Bridge (S/NR Eligible)
(14) Chatsworth Apartments (NYCL, SR, NR Eligible)
(15) Diller Residence (NYCL)
(16) Sutphen Residence (NYCL)
(17) Prentiss Residence (NYCL)
(18) Kleeberg Residence (NYCL)
(19) Riverside Drive (NYCL, S/NR)
(20) Riverside Park (NYCL, S/NR)
(21) IRT 72nd Street Subway Kiosk and Station Interior (NYCL, S/NR)
(22) The Dakota Apartments (NYCL; S/NR, NHL)
• NYCL - Designated New York City Landmark or Historic District

S/NR - Listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places
NHL - National Historic Landmark
ILH-7
Table II.H-l (Continued)
HISTORIC RESOURCES ·IN THE STUDY AREA

(Refer to Figure II.H-l)
(23) Verdi Square (NYCL, S/NR)
(24) Level Club (S/NR)
(25) Ansonia Hotel (NYCL, S/NR)
(26) Central Savings Bank (NYCL, S/NR, Interior Pending NYCL)
(27) Beacon Theatre (NR) and interior (NYCL)
(28) San Remo Apartments (NYCL)
(29) New-York Historical Society (NYCL)
(30) Studio Apartments (S/NR)
(31) American Museum of Natural History (NYCL, S/NR)
(32) Hotel Be11eclaire (NYCL)
(33) West End Collegiate Church and Collegiate School (NYCL, S/NR)
(34) The Apthorp Apartments (NYCL, S/NR)
(35) Central Park (NYCL, S/NR, NHL)
(36) Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District (NYCL)
(37) Central Park West Historic District (S/NR)
(38) West 67th Street Artist's Colony Historic District (S/NR)
(39) West 73rd-74th Street Historic District (NYCL, S/NR)
(40) Central Park West-76th Street Historic District (NYCL, S/NR)
(41) West End-Collegiate Historic District (NYCL)
(42) West 7lst Street Historic District (NYCL)
(A) St. Benedict the Moor Roman Catholic Church (Former Second Church of the
Evangelical Association of North America)
(B) Windemere Apartments
(C) Catholic Apostolic Church
(D) Hotel Churchill
II.H-8
Primary Study Area. As described above and shown in Figure II.H-l, the
primary study area is the area immediately surrounding the project site. His-
toric resources in the primary study area include Riverside Park and Drive,
four row houses at the corner of West 72nd Street and Riverside Drive, the
Chatsworth Apartments and Annex, the West 7lst Street Historic District, and
the former IRT Power House on West 59th Street.
Riverside Park and Drive (Nos. 19 and 20 on Figure II.H-l): Immediately

to the north of the project site are Riverside Park and Drive, designated New
York City Landmarks and listed on the State and National Registers of Historic
Places. Designed in the 1870's by Frederick Law Olmsted in association with
Calvert Vaux, Riverside Park was enlarged and modified under the tenure of
Parks Commissioner Robert Moses during the 1930's. These modifications includ-
ed expanding the park by covering the railroad tracks that then formed the
park's western boundary.
Riverside Park is generally organized on four levels, beginning with the

drive, defined by a curving wall of buildings and a wide promenade. From the
drive, the park steps down to a grassy slope, and below" this slope is a plateau
-- the roof above the enclosed railroad tracks. Below the plateau, at railroad
level, the parapet wall of the railroad is broken by large arches. The park
extends to the river and the Henry Hudson Parkway, which runs'alongside the
shore. Within the study area (between 72nd and 79th Streets), the parkway
serves as the roof for the railroad line, dividing the park in two. Park path-
ways just north of 72nd Street pass under great arches supporting the highway
and lead to an elevated area with a view of the river and to other recreational
areas below.
Riverside Park and Drive begin just north of the project site, where West
72nd Street gently curves northward into Riverside Drive, creating an inviting
gateway to the park and drive (see Figure II.H-2). The building lots at this
intersection were reconfigured in 1891-1896 so that lot frontages could follow
the curve of the corner, thus providing an additional air of distinction.
Row Houses at West 72nd Street and Riverside Drive (Nos. 15-18): On the
northeastern corner of West 72nd Street and Riverside Drive are the Diller,
Sutphen, Prentiss, and Kleeberg Residences (Nos. 309 and 311 West 72nd Street
and 1 and 3 Riverside Drive, respectively -- see Figure II.H-3). The four
townhouses were built circa 1901, signalling the beginning of Riverside Drive's
residential development, and together form one of the last surviving groups of
townhouses that originally characterized Riverside Drive. All four houses are
designated New York City Landmarks.
The Diller Residence at 309 West 72nd Street was designed for William E.
Diller by architect Gilbert A. Schellenger. The five-story neo-Renaissance-
style brick and limestone house has a columned doorway, bowed front, and arched
windows on the fifth floor topped by a cornice.
The five-story Beaux-Arts-style house at 311 West 72nd Street was designed
by well-known architect C.P.H. Gilbert for Mary Tier Sutphen. It features a
mansard roof and classical details. This house is the last building on West
72nd Street before Riverside Drive; the curve of Riverside Drive creates an
irregular house lot that, like a corner lot, exposes much of the side of the
Sutphen house.
II.H-9
10·91
Riverside Park at West 72nd Street, looking Northeast to Riverside Drive
Riverside Drive looking North from West 72nd Street
Riverside Park and Drive

Figure II.H-2
10·91
No.1 Riverside Drive and 311 and 309 West 72nd Street, looking northeast across West 72nd Street
at Riverside Drive
. .
No.3 Riverside Drive, looking northeast across West 72nd Street at Riverside Drive
Rowhouses at West 72nd Street and Riverside Drive

Figure II.H-3
The Prentiss Residence at 1 Riverside Drive, a five-story Beaux-Arts lime-
stone townhouse designed by C.P.H. Gilbert for Lydia Prentiss, sits on a simi-
lar lot to that of the neighboring Sutphen Residence. The unusual configura-
tion of these two lots creates a triangular courtyard between the two houses
and the houses are connected in the rear, making them appear almost as one
structure. This house'S bowed front is topped by a mansard roof.
The five-story marble and brick house built at 3 Riverside Drive for Phil-
ip Kleeberg was also designed by C.P.H. Gilbert, in the French Renaissance
style. It is characterized by a steep roof with dormer windows, and intricate
ornamentation.
Chatsworth Apartments (No. 14): On the south side of 72nd Street where
Riverside Drive begins are the Chatsworth Apartments and Annex (340-344 West
72nd Street), designed by John,E. Scharsmith in the Beaux-Arts style. The 13-
story Chatsworth Apartments building, constructed in 1902-1904, has a russet-
colored brick exterior with limestone trim above a 3-story rusticated limestone
base (see Figure II.H-4). The smaller 8-story Annex just to its east, con-
structed in 1905-1906, is built completely of limestone, also with a rusticated
base. The Chatsworth was one of a number of luxury apartment buildings com-
pleted around the turn of the century on the Upper West Side, and featured such
modern conveniences- as central he~.ting, elevators, and building servicesfn- .
cluding a barbershop and valet. The conspicuous siting of the exuberantly
designed and detailed Chatsworth Apartments and Annex at the foot of Riverside
Park provides an appealing and arresting visual terminus from the park and
drive. The western side of the Chatsworth Apartments abuts the project site
from 71st to 72nd Street. The Chatsworth Apartments and Annex are New York
City Landmarks, listed on the State Register of Historic Places, and eligible
for listing on the National Register.
West 71st Street Historic District (No. 42): This historic district, on
both sides of West 71st Street west of West End Avenue, was largely developed
from 1893-1896. It includes 33 row houses (Nos. 305-351 and 310-340) built in
six groups designed by four architectural firms, all in variations of the Re-
naissance Revival style; one individually designed townhouse (1903-1904); and
one small apartment building (1924). The district reflects the late 19th cen-
tury development patterns of the Upper West Side, where the initial construc-
tion was speculatively built groups of three- and four-story single-family row
houses and townhouses (see Figure II.H-5).
Each group was designed as a harmonious unit, but individual houses vary
in their details. Since four of the groups were designed by two architectural
firms, even further unity is created. Within each group, the houses are
paired, or a larger rhythm is created through the window placement and configu-
ration, use of bowed and flat facades, and variations in stoops and porticoes.
The slightly later townhouse from 1903-1904 at No. 305 is compatible with the
rows in style, form, and details. The six-story brick apartment building at
No. 319-325 was built in 1924 on a lot that was still vacant.
The historic district is distinguished by use of harmonious facade materi-

als (brownstone on the south side; brick, stone, and terra cotta on the north
side), classically inspired details, uniform cornice heights, and the use of
such elements as stoops, bows, and oriels, which create a sense of depth on the
facades. Alterations to the exteriors of the houses have been minimal.
II .H-lO
10·91
looking Southeast from Riverside Park to 72nd Street;

the Chatsworth Apartments and Annex are on right
looking Southwest
Chatsworth Apartments and Annex

Figure II.H-4
10·91
South side of 71 st Street, looking Southeast
South side of 71 st Street, looking West ~I .\
West 71 st Street Historic District

Figure II.H-5
Stylistically, the houses all reflect the character and influence of the
Beaux-Arts movement in architecture. The houses display the free and eclectic
use of Renaissance-inspired forms and details, mixed with other elements, with
adaptation to the row house structure, as found often on houses built in the
1890's.
This small, nearly block-long district achieves its special quality not
only from the integrity and harmony of its historic architectural details, but
also because it is a secluded enclave on the Upper West Side, set apart from
the pattern of through-streets by its unique development history. The street
has always been a cul-de-sac: the railroad yard, shielded by a wall, occupy
the land immediately to the west.
Consolidated Edison Power House (former IRT Power House) (No.3): The Con
Edison power house, immediately south of the project site, is currently being
considered for designation as a New York City Landmark, and has been found
eligible for the State and National Registers. This enormous neo-Renaissance
brick and terra cotta building was constructed in 1900-1904 to generate all the
power needed for New York City's first subway system. McKim, Mead & White, one
of New York's most prominent architectural firms at the time, designed the
exterior shell of the building, while IRT engineers designed the interior. The
building has a high base of pink granite and an upper portion of buff-colored
Roman brick with matching terra cotta (see Figure II.H-6). The central bays,
each with a tall round arch with an ornate terra-cotta frame, are separated by
brick pilasters with terra-cotta capitals, bases, and banding. Originally, six
chimneys rose through the roof; these were replaced by a single chimney ca.
1959. The building's western portion is a 1959 addition.
Secondary Study Area. As shown in Figure II.H-l, the secondary study area
begins generally 500 to 1,000 feet from the project site -- an area where his-
toric resources are not likely to be affected by activities on the project
site. The secondary study area includes many other New York City Landmarks
(NYCL) and historic districts, and structures and districts listed on the State
and National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR) , as well as several National
Historic Landmarks (NHL). These are briefly described below -- first the indi-
vidual resources, then the districts -- generally from south to north, accord-
ing to their map reference numbers, as shown in Figure II.H-l, above. The
resources are also listed in Table II.H-l.
(1) Former Eleventh Judicial District Courthouse (NYCL) -- 314 West 54th
Street. This courthouse, designed by John H. Duncan and built in
1894-1896, is one of four remaining 19th century public buildings in
western Midtown Manhattan, and one of only three district courthouses
extant in Manhattan.
(2) Hearst International Magazine Building (NYCL) - 959 Eighth Avenue.

between 56th and 57th Streets. Constructed in 1927-1928, this six-
story Art Deco-style limestone building was designed by Joseph Urban
in association with George B. Post & Sons as the base of an office
tower that was to serve as the headquarters for William Randolph
Hearst's publishing empire.
(3) IRT Power House, within the primary study area, discussed above.
II.H-ll
cu\O
-
::s::r::
'" I
:c -a..cu
e
J. :::s
cu
~ u.
.-
tn
e
D.
--
cu
f!:!
vt
-~
J.
-5 cu
CIO
.." E
"c:
co
III
::2
c:
...
J.
e
cu
~
-
.=
c:
III
&j
i:iJ
(4) William J. Syms Operating Theatre (NYCL) - 400 West 59th Street.
between Ninth and Tenth Avenues. Built in 1890-1892 as a collabora-
tion of architect William Wheeler Smith and prominent surgeon Charles
McBurney, thi~ was the most advanced operating theater in the world
when it opened. It was the fourth of several major pavilions in
Roosevelt Hospital's innovative pavilion plan.
(5) IRT Subway Station Interior at 59th Street and Columbus Circle
(NYCL). This station is one of the 12 original underground IRT sub-
way stations that are designated as interior Landmarks. The IRT
system engineer planned each station, and architects Heins & La Farge
were responsible for their design.
(6) Sofia Brothers Warehouse (NYCL. S/NR) - 35-43 West 6Ist Street. This
Art Deco building, originally designed by Jardine, Hill & Murdock,
was constructed in 1930 as one of the early elevatored garages.
Windows were added in 1985, when the building was converted to apart-
ments.
(7) Centuty Apartments (NYCLl - 25 Central Park West. between 62nd and
63rd Streets. This Art Deco building, constructed in 1931, was named
for the Century-theater previously located on the site. The building
was designed by the office of Irwin Chanin, Jacques Delamarre, archi-
tectural director.
(8) New York Society for Ethical Culture (NYCL) - 2 West 64th Street.
This Art Nouveau-style building, constructed in 1910, was designed by
Robert D. Kohn, with sculptures by Estelle Rumbold Kohn.
(9) First Battery Armoty. now 102nd Medical Battalion Armory (NYCL) - 56
West 66th Street. Designed by the firm of Horgan & Slattery and
constructed in 1900-1903, this former armory was the seventh of the
10 armories built by the city's Armory Board.
(10) Congregation Shearith Israel (NYCL) - 99 Central Park West at 70th

Street. This synagogue was designed by Bruner and Tryon and built in
1897 for New York's oldest Jewish congregation, founded in 1655.
(11) Majestic Apartments (NYCL) - 115 Central Park West between 71st and
72nd Streets. This twin-towered Art Deco building, constructed in
1930, was designed by the firm of Irwin Chanin, Jacques Delamarre,
architectural director. It features brickwork patterns designed by
sculptor Rene Chambellan.
(12) The Dorilton (NYCL. S/NR) - 171 West 7lst Street. This French Beaux-
Arts style building with a steep mansard roof was constructed in
1900-1902, designed by Janes & Leo. It is marked on 7lst Street by
an immense gateway, topped by a nine-story arch, that leads to a deep
entrance courtyard, which once included a U-shaped carriage access
drive.
(13) West 69th Street Transfer Bridge, discussed above under "Primary
Study Area."
II.H-12
(14) Chatsworth Apartments, discussed above.
(15) Diller Residence, discussed above.
(16) Sutphen Residence, discussed above.
(17) Prentiss Residence, discussed above.
(18) Kleeberg Residence, discussed above.
(19) Riverside Drive, discussed above.
(20) Riverside Park, discussed above.
(21) IRT 72nd Street Subway Kiosk and Station Interior (NYCL, S/NR) -
Broadway and 72nd Street. Designed by Heins and La Farge in 1904 as
part of the city's first subway line, the neo-Dutch colonial control
house is the only one of three similar kiosks to survive. The kiosk
is characterized by Baroque trim and Dutch gables. Other notable
features of the structure are the granite wainscoting, buff-colored
Roman brick with limestone and terra cotta trim, and a multicolored
, terra cotta station name plate in the shape of a Greek cross. The
" interior, like the Columbus Circle station discussed above, is one of
the 12 original stations that are designated interior Landmarks.
(22) The Dakota Apartments (NYCL. S/NR. NHL) - Central Park West and West
72nd Street. The Dakota was designed by architect Henry J,
Hardenbergh for Edward S. Clark, president of the Singer Sewing Ma-
chine Co. One of New York City's first luxury apartment houses, its
construction in 1880-1884 on the largely undeveloped Upper West Side
helped create a building boom.
(23) Verdi Square (NYCL. S/NR) - 72nd to 73rd Street between Broadway and
Amsterdam Avenue. This small triangular park, noted for its marble
statue of Giuseppe Verdi by sculptor Pasquale Civiletti, serves as an
outdoor meeting place for neighborhood residents and provides an open
setting for the Central Savings Bank (listed below).
(24) Level Club (S/NR) - 253 West 73rd Street. Constructed in 1926, this
neo-Romanesque building was designed by Clinton & Russell for the
Masonic order.
(25) Ansonia Hotel (NYCL. S/NR) - 2109 Broadway between 73rd and 74th
Streets. Built in 1904 to the designs of Graves & Duboy, the Ansonia
is a prime example of Beaux-Arts architecture. It is marked by
rounded corner towers and elaborate ornamentation.
(26) Central Savings Bank (NYCL. S/NR. Interior Pending NYCL)- 2100
Broadway between 73rd and 74th Streets. This Italian Renaissance
palazzo-style building was constructed between 1926 and 1928 to the
designs of the architectural firm York & Sawyer, with decorative
ironwork by Samuel Yellin. The building's interior is being consid-
ered for NYCL designation.
II.H-13
(27) Beacon Theatre (NR) and interior (NYCL) - 2124 Broadway between 74th
and 75th Streets. The elaborate interior of this theater, as well as
the exterior, were designed by Water Ahlschlagerand const:ructed in
1928.
(28) San Remo Apartments (NYCL) - 145 Central Park West between 74th and
75th Streets. Designed by Emery Roth and completed in 1930, this was
the first of the twin-towered apartment overlooking Central Park.
(29) New-York Historical Society (NYCL) - 170 Central Park West. between
76th and 77th Streets. The central portion of this building was
designed by York & Sawyer and constructed in 1908; the north and
south wings by Walker & Gillette were added in 1938.
(30) Studio Apartments (S/NR)- 44 West 77th Street.. This neo-Gothic-

style building was designed by architects Harde & Short and completed
in 1909.
(31) American Museum of Natural History (NYCL. S/NR) - between 77th and
8lst Streets. Central Park West. and Columbus Avenue. The original
Victorian gothic structure (1874-1877) designed by Vaux & Mould is
nowhidclen behind the. facade of the 77th Street building-, orteof the
city's best examples of Romanesque Revival style, designed by Cady,
Berg & See in 1891. In the 1920's and 30's, under Trowbridge &
Livingston, the East Wing (1922-1924) on Central Park West and the
Planetarium and Copernican Hall were built (1935). The "interior of
Memorial Hall, the main entrance to the museum, is among the city's
grandest and most monumental interior spaces, with barrel-vaulted
ceilings, giant columns with Corinthian capitals, and marble walls
and floors. William A. Mackay's murals depict important events in
Theodore Roosevelt's life.
(32) Hotel Belleclaire (NYCL) - 2171-2177 Broadway. 250 West 77th Street.
Designed by Emery Roth and constructed between 1901 and 1903, the
Hotel Belleclaire is a 10-story red brick building with limestone and
terra-cotta ornamentation. The style is based on the Art Nouveau and
Sessionist movements in Europe.
(33) West End Collegiate Church and Collegiate School (NYCL. SINR) - West
End Avenue at 77th Street. Designed by Robert W. Gibson with Dutch
and Flemish features, this Dutch Reformed Church was erected in 1892-
1893. The Dutch Reformed Church was organized in Nieuw Amsterdam in
1628; the school is the oldest private secondary school in the
country.
(34) The Apthorp Apartments (NYCL. S/NR) - 2201-2219 Broadway. between

78th and 79th Streets. Broadway. and West End Avenue; This apartment
house, covering a city block, was built in 1906-1908 for the Astor
Estate. Based on an adaption of the 16th century Italian palazzo
style by architects Clinton & Russell, it was one of the first build-
ings to be built around a large, drive-in central courtyard.
II .H-14
(35) Central Park (NYCL. S/NR. NHL). Designed by Frederick Law Olmsted
and Calvert Vaux in 1857, Central Park was the country's first large-
scale planned public park and one of the first naturally landscaped
parks. Construction of the 840-acre park, which occurred over a 20-
year period, involved moving tons of stone, earth, and topsoil to
create lawns, lakes, and woods crossed by separate footpaths, bridle
paths, and carriage drives, with four sunken transverse roads for
crosstown traffic.
(36) Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District (NYCL). This
large district's' eastern boundary is Central Park West from 62nd
Street to 96th Street. As illustrated in Figure II.H-l, much of the
western boundary is irregular and at its westernmost point extends to
the block between Amsterdam Avenue and Broadway. Most of this dis-
trict was developed between 1885 and 1935, following the completion
of the American Museum of Natural History in the 1870's and the Dako-
. ta in 1880. It is characterized by large Beaux Arts, neo-classical
and neo,..Renaissance apartment buildings along Central Park West,
including the twin-towered buildings prominent when viewed from Cen-
tral Park; tenements along Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues; luxury
apartment buildings and apartment hotels along Broadway; and long
side street blocks lined with rows of four- and five-story townhouses
of many styles.
This historic district encompasses all of the other districts dis-

cussed below except the West 7lst Street and West-End Collegiate
districts.
(37) Central Park West Historic District (S/NR). This district, along
Central Park West from 6lstto 97th Street, includes many fine struc-
tures including many individual Landmarks. This district also over-
laps with the LandmarkedCentral Park West-West 76th Street district,
discussed below, and except for its southernmost block, is entirely
included within the Upper West Side district discussed above.
(38) .West 67th Street Artist's Colony Historic District (S/NR). This
district, on both sides of West 67th Street midway between Central
Park West and Columbus Avenue, includes nine large buildings con-
structed as artists' studios. Two of these are the Hotel des Art-
istes apartments, constructed in 1918 by G.M. Pollard, and the Art
studios built in 1907 by Pollard and Steinam.
(39) West 73rd-74th Street Historic District (NYCL. S/NR). Occupying the
block between 73rd and 74th Streets, Central Park West and Columbus
Avenue, this district was essentially created by Edward Clark, presi-
dent of the Singer Sewing Machine Co., and his heirs (Clark was also
responsible for the Dakota, one block to the south). Development was
controlled by restrictive covenants governing height and setbacks.
Noteworthy late 19th century and early 20th century buildings in this
district include the Clark Estate Houses· and the Langham.
(40) Central Park West-76th Street Historic District (NYCL. S/NR). This
district includes dignified row houses, fine apartment houses. and
II.H-15
impressive public buildings including the New-York Historical Soci-
ety, all erected between 1887 and 1907. The NYCL and S/NR districts
have similar, but not identical, boundaries.
(41) West End-Collegiate Historic District (NYCL). This district is gen-

erally bounded by 75th and 77th Streets, Riverside Drive, and Broad-
way, but also includes all of Riverside Drive to 74th Street, much of
74th Street, and an extension almost to 79th Street. It encompasses
elegant row houses and mansions designed by Clarence F. True and Lamb
& Rich, and larger apartment houses by Emery Roth, Clinton & Russell,
and C,P.H. Gilbert.
(42) West 7lst Street Historic District (NYCL). Discussed above.
Pending Hisroric Resources: In addition, four historic resources in the

secondary study area have had hearings considering their designation as New
York City Landmarks, but no decision has yet been made.
(A) St. Benedict the Moor Roman Catholic Church (Former Second Church of
the Evangelical Association of North America) -- 342 West 53rd
Street, between Eighth and Ninth Avenues. This Italianate church was
built in 1869 to the designs of R.C. McLane & Sons for a Protest~nt
Evangelical congregation. In the 1890's, a black Catholic congrega-
tion founded in 1883 in Greenwich Village moved to the building. A
hearing considering designation of this church as a New York City
Landmark was held on December 10, 1985.
(B) Windemere Apartments -- 400-406 West 57th Street, at Ninth Avenue.

This Victorian-style apartment building, designed by Theophilus G.
Smith and completed in 1881, may have been the first luxury apartment
building in Manhattan. A hearing considering "its designation was
held on October 6, 1988.
(C) Catholic Apostolic Church -- 417 West 57th Street, between Ninth and
T"enth Avenues. This russet-colored brick and terra-cotta church was
designed by Francis H. Kimball and constructed in 1895. A hearing
considering its designation as a New York" City Landmark was held on
December 10, 1985.
(D) Hotel Churchill -- 252 West 76th Street, between Broadway and West
End Avenue. "This Beaux-Arts hotel building was designed by Ralph
Townsend and constructed in 1903. A hearing considering its designa-
tion was held on June 12, 1984.
In addition to these resources, as described above, the interior of the

Central Savings Bank is also being considered for Landmark designation.
Introduction
This section examines the potential archaeological significance of the

project site. It is based on the various documentary studies performed for the
II.H-16
proposed project site: (1) Rothschild, Nan A., Ph.D., and Susan A. Dublin,
M.A., "Penn Yards Development Area, New York, N.Y., Phase I: Cultural Resourc-
es Summary," prepared for McKeown & Franz, Inc., June 1985; (2) Greenhouse
Consultants Inc., "Architectural/Historical Sensitivity Evaluation of the 641
West 59th Street TV City Project, Manhattan New York," prepared for McKeown &
Franz Inc., February 1987; (3) Greenhouse Consultants Inc., "Phase IB Archaeo-
logical Survey of the 641 West 59th Street Site TV City Project, Manhattan, New
York," prepared for McKeown & Franz Inc., August 1987; (4) Greenhouse Consul-
tants Inc., "Supplemental Documentary Research Report, Trump City Project,
Manhattan, New York," Prepared for McKeown & Franz Inc., May 1988; (5) Green-
house Consultants Inc., "Supplemental Documentary Research Report, Trump City
Project, Manhattan, New York," May 1988, Revised June 1988. Predictive models
for prehistoric land use and the documentary record of historic land use in the
area are also presented.
Original Shoreline and Landfill Settlement History
Nineteenth century maps indicate that before development of the project

site shoreline, there were three small stream-fed coves along the shore. These
areas could have been attractive for Native American settlement, as explained
below under "Prehistoric Land Use." Therefore, one of the focal points of the
studies lhted above was thelcication of the original shoreline relative to the
project area, so that it could be determined whether these coves and the land
around them would have been on the project site during prehistoric times.
Because the first two archaeological studies prepared for the project site
(listed above) presented conflicting views of the original shoreline location,
the Supplemental Documentary Research Report focused in more detail on this
issue.
The initial Phase I survey of cultural resources (Rothschild and Dublin

1985) presented a map of the shoreline and the eastern boundary of the project
area based on iriformation derived from E.G. Viele's 1874 map. This report
shows the entire shoreline as west of the project site's eastern boundary, so
that from approximately 100 to 1,050 feet of fast land would exist within the
project site boundaries. The Phase I report concluded that portions of this
shoreline next to the three streams shown on the map could have supported pre-
historic occupation, particularly temporary fishing camps. The second report
prepared on the project area (Greenhouse Consultants 1987), although concen-
trating on the architectural and historic resources within the southernmost
block of the project area, presented a different view of the origi~al shoreline
throughout the project area. Its findings were based on a map, credited to W.
Bridges, that was surveyed in 1807 for the purpose of laying out the street
grid in the central portion of Manhattan island. It shows nearly all of the
project area as built on landfill, with the only substantial amount of fast
land in the blocks south of 62nd Street.
As part of the Supplemental Documentary Research Report prepared by Green-

house Consultants Inc., a number of repositories were visited with the purpose
of obtaining additional cartographic information to resolve this dispute, and a
series of maps were collected that show the shoreline at various times during
the 19th and 20th centuries.
ILH-17
An examination of the various maps surveyed during the first quarter of
the 19th century shows a shoreline without obvious large areas of fill. These
depictions are all in relative agreement. showing a series of three coves, with
at least two fed by streams. The earliest of these maps, Bridges' or the Com-
missioners Map of 1807-1811, shows two streams feeding the northern cove be-
tween 66th and 69th Streets and one feeding the southern cove between 60th and
61st Streets (see Figure II.H-7). When the boundary of the project area is
overlaid on this information, it appears that the shoreline ran east of the
project site, with the only substantial area of fast land within the project
area being the two points of land immediately north and south of the southern
cove. These two points, located between present-day 59th and 62nd Streets,
extended approximately 140 and 380 feet into the project area. Bridges and
Poppleton's 1810-1812 shoreline map shows nearly identical information, as does
Randel's Farms Map of 1820. All of these maps were surveyed in the field by
professional surveyors when the shoreline was visible. The same three coves
consistently appear on the maps produced during the 1830's and 1840's, includ-
ing Colton's 1836 map and Ensign's 1845 map.
The map prepared to show the line of the Hudson River Railroad as laid out
in 1847 is one of the most important. As explained in "Background History,"
above, this railroad later became part of the New York Central and subsequently
the Penn Central Railroad, and the tracks still exist along the eastern bound-
ary of the project area. The shoreline depicted on the 1847 map closely resem-
bles all of the preceding evidence: the railroad tracks closely follow the
shoreline, so that almost all of the project site is west of the shoreline, in
the area not yet filled. The same three coves appear and the only obvious area
of fill appears to be close to the line of 72nd Street, where several buildings
are shown to the west of the railroad right-of-way. Three points of land exist
on the project site between the southern and central coves, between the central
and northern coves, and between the northern cove and 72nd Street. The latter
two are 100 feet and 50 feet wide at their maximums, while the former extends
up to 275 feet into the project area. The next map depicts the original high
water mark for the water lot granted in 1852 covering 63rd to 67th Streets.
This is the point of land between the central and northern coves, and it shows
Thirteenth Avenue as the maximum extent of the proposed landfill. The Harbor
Commissioners Map of 1857 shows the railroad as built, and several areas of
obvious fill appear on the 59th to 60th Street block, just south of 64th
Street, at the foot of 70th Street, and just south of 72nd Street. One inter-
esting change is that the northern cove is now shown as a marsh because the
railroad has sealed this location from the Hudson. Dripps' 1854 map depicts
virtually the same situation, while Perris' 1862 map shows only the section
from 59th to 60th Street. By this time, the southernmost block has been filled
to create a rectangular piece of land where the southernmost point had been.
The point between the southern and central coves is shown primarily between
61st and 62nd Streets and it extends approximately 260 feet into the project
area.
On Boyle's 1865 map. the areas of landfilling are unchanged from the 1857
and 1862 depictions.' In the Street Opening map. which illustrates the shore-
line at a point later than 1865 but before 1869, .when Twelfth Avenue was offi-
cially opened, a pier has been added at the foot of 59th Street and the 65th to
66th Street block has been extended by fill. The northernmost cove has now
been filled in, although its original position is traced in pencil on this
II .H-18
Bridges or Commissioners Map 1807-1811
Figure II.H-7
.•..•.,
._._._._, "
•
' .
.\\\~'\'~\\l~~
• _._ ..,
....
I
•
i•
•
•
r·_·_·_·"•
•
f,.._._._.
• _ . . Project Site Boundary O~I;;;;:::~J::::::::~r::::::::~E:::::::1JOOOFEET

SCALE
:-...""'" Easement
10·91
copy. This is evidently the shoreline used by Viele in his 1874 map, which was
used as the basis for the original archaeological study. It is obvious that
Viele misplaced the shoreline since he shows it as entirely east of -the rail-
road. It is clear from the analysis of the maps presented here that the rail-
road followed the original shoreline very closely. Viele's shoreline parallels
the railroad but is displaced several hundred feet to the west .
. As part of the research into the shoreline, a report compiling more than
100 soil borings from the project area and its vicinity was sent to Dr. Dennis
Weiss of City College. This was done to provide evidence that could confirm or
deny the shoreline location(s) as shown on the maps, as well as to provide
estimates of the depth of deposits that potentially could preserve archaeologi-
cal evidence. Dr. Weiss located the interface between the overlying landfill
deposits and organic silt below, and produced two maps. One 'of these shows the
approximate thickness of the fill deposits, while the other plots a series of
paleo-shorelines. The zero line on this map approximates a shoreline of the
second quarter of the 19th century. A comparison of this line with the shore-
lines shown on the Bridges and Randel maps indicates that the boring data con-
firms their information and refutes that of Viele.
A composite of the cartographic information gathered during the supplemen-

tal stu.dy with the modern outlines of the project site is provided in Figure
II .H-8.
Prehistoric Period
There is no record of archaeological excavations within the study area

itself. Excavations and research have been conducted in Manhattan, the most
notable under the direction of Reginald Pelham Bolton at the turn of this cen-
tury. Bolton and Alanson B. Skinner have produced summary volumes dealing with
the excavated data as well as Contact Period (the 17th century when land trans-
actions occurred between American Indians and European settlers) documents and
records of the indigenous peoples.
Defined Manhattan Island site types include shell middens (piles of dis-
carded shells), fire and trash pits, temporary hunting or fishing camps, burial
sites, rock shelters, and villages. Shell middens are by far the most numerous
site type encountered. Villages appear to have been concentrated in lower
Manhattan and along the East River shore. Rock shelters cluster in upper Man-
hattan, in the Inwood and Washington Heights sections.
There are no reported sites in the project area. This, however, does not
rule out their existence, since excavations in Manhattan have been limited and
the archival research has focused solely on the Contact Period. To evaluate
the probability of encountering prehistoric sites, it is necessary to consider
the settlement patterns of the aboriginal inhabitants. Where a settlement or a
camp is sited depends on a number of variables, including the tbPographic con-
ditions, the accessibility of resources, and the economics of the group.
The aboriginal· population of Manhattan Island practiced a mixed subsis-

tence economy. There was undoubtedly some cultivation of native plants such as
maize and squash. However, the primary subsistence activities appear to have
II.H-19
Original Shoreline of'Project Site
Figure II.H-8
'ifl,~§0~:
~F2~. - , ~~,
I_+- rm ,
I ." WJ '
WU~~
' I
," 1 . 11:·i r.
: I I I
:iJUiI'j .' ,
i-·-·~ I ~~. ,', ,.. . . 'I
~-:I-;)
~. ~
. t. ·
•
~n;
I i '!D
r7':'7':'~?1,.) . \'~ ~ i
r
l. ___ ._J~I \,
: ~
I
I:!
r"-'----Di IIj
1- _ _ _ _ _
\it(g~J'
.• \ ... _-.. ,
...........: 'r n-li'
I
~------r:
1.._-0.-_:
::z: 66th St.
c
a.
g · l il; ·I 11; L4!,
:u
i
. ,i ,··l········j .' ~
('~I I ... j
--~7~~ I •••~ \
.~.6?
I/,/, I I
I
". •
)~'.\
v
.
1'~r1
II
. . . . \\. \
..........
..'
Ii
.
,
,~' . •••••••• '1;

~
. ..~!
.------
. •...•.....•••
1••••••••.•... . .'
: I:
~
IiI~
e· •• \. Jj
~-.,-.~ ··Ill[·-·-·-·-·II-~
Source: Viele Map, 1874
• - • - Project Site Boundary

••• ••••• Original Shoreline
DC===2=5D===~II===5i===sli~
I
SCALE
- - Present-Day Shoreline
- - Former Streams
. 10·91
been hunting and fishing, " judging from data recovered in excavation. There-
fore, sites would likely be found in areas along rivers. Another determinant
of site location would be the availability of fresh water, as the Hudson River
is a tidal estuary and the East River is a tidal strait. Skinner points out
that "wherever the fresh water joins the salt, especially where open water for
fishing and a spring for drinking come together ... there is generally ...
evidence of Indian occupation" (Skinner, Alanson Buck, 1961, The Indians of
Manhattan Island and Vicinity, Ira J. Friedman, Inc., Port Washington, NY).
Bolton notes that the "extent of the population probably depended ... on
facilities for food supply," also specifying·the availability of fresh water
(Bolton, Reginald Pelham, 1922, Indian Paths in The Great Metropolis, Museum of
the American Indian). He points out, however, that the known village sites all
have a southern or eastern exposure, probably asa protection against winter
westerly winds. The range of low hills along the Hudson would have afforded
additional protection, thus suggesting that villages would be more likely to
have been located to the east of these hills, and thus off the project site,
which runs along the unprotected littoral zone of the Hudson.
The site type most likely to be found in the project area would be a sum-
mer fishing camp, indicated by shell middens. Midden deposits have been found
in the vicinities of 79th and 96th Streets, near the location of fresh water
springs.
In summary, avery limited part of the project site may have supported
seasonal fishing camps in the areas at the confluences of streams with the
Hudson. As described above in the discussion of the shoreline, the site once
featured three .streams that fed coves along the river. There is no indication
that these areas were destroyed by later construction. Stratigraphical inves-
tigation samples such as are generally necessary before development would indi-
cate the presence or absence of prehistoric shell middens in these three areas.
These stratigraphical samples will be taken and interpreted during construc-
tion-related excavation (see discussion under "Probable Impacts of the Proposed
Project," below.) The extent and exact location of these samples will be de-
termined, and any necessary associated mitigation measures will be instituted
after consultation of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Historic Period
A detailed history of the project site and surrounding area is presented

above under "Background History." Uses of potential archaeological interest
are elaborated below.
Pre-Industrial Uses. Although Manhattan's Upper West Side near the proj-
ect site was settled during the 17th century, .the region remained farmland,
allocated in large parcels until the middle of the 19th century. The area west
of the current line of the railroad does not appear to have been used for farm-
steads or outbuildings during the historic period. The 1808 Bridges survey of
the property of John Somerindyck places his farmstead on the line of Tenth
Avenue between 6lst and 62nd Streets and the barn a block east. The Harsen
farmstead was located between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues and 70th and 7lst
Streets. A drawing of the house in prominent local resident Hopper Striker
Mott's history of the area shows a Dutch-style home surrounded by woods and
II .H-20
fields (Mott, Hopper Striker, 1908, The New York of Yesterday: A Descriptive
of Old Bloomingdale, G.P. Putnam's Sons, NY). Further, the Bridges map shows
the Tallman house north of 68th Street between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues; the
Dripps map, published in 1854 but compiled earlier, shows the Barker homestead
north of 69th Street between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues. Mott refers to sever-
al other homes east of Eleventh Avenue.
At the time of the construction of the Hudson River Railroad in 1849, the
shoreline had not yet been filled to the line of Twelfth Avenue. Although
water lot grants were issued during the years between 1852 and 1871, little
landfilling occurred until the 1870's. By 1880, the shore, bulkhead, and pier
lines were the same as those of today. (A complete discussion of the location
of the original shoreline is presented above.) With the exception of the block
bounded by 59th and 60th Streets, West End (Eleventh) Avenue, and the Hudson
River, "the area had become the right-of:"way for the Hudson River Railroad by
1849. It does not appear that the land fronting the river was extensively used
before the construction of the railroad. The filled area was in use during the
latter part of the 19th and through the 20th centuries as rail yards, and is
not of any archaeological significance. Only the block between 59th and 60th
Streets showed any important distinction in land use after 1849.
Hamersley For~e. The eastern half of the block bounded by 59th and" 60th
Streets and Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues is the only part of the project site
that was not subject to extensive filling. Part of the property on this block
was purchased in 1839 by Lebbeus B. Ward, who established a forge there -- the
"Hamersley (or Haddersley) Forge. Although Ward retained title to the land
until 1874, the foundry had a relatively short life. The Hamersley Forge ap-
pears on the Dripps Map of 1854; on the 1862 Perris Map, an enlarged complex of
buildings is shown, labelled as a "Bone Black Manufactory" (discussed below).
The "Hamersley Forge" is not listed in the New York City Directories for
the years 1838-1867 or in the Commercial Register, found at the back of the
Directory volumes. The only map reference to the existence of a forge on this
block was found on Matthew Dripps' 1854 "Topographical Map of the City of New
York North of 50th Street." A rectangular building, centrally located on the
block, is depicted. To the south, three smaller buildings are shown fronting
the north side of 59th Street. This four-building complex is labeled by Dripps
as "Haddersley Forge."
Mott documents that the owner of the forge was Lebbeus B. Ward. The 1840-
1841 Longworth Directory is the first to list Ward as having a business in New
York City -- "Ward & Co. L.B. Forge and Iron Works, 59th at North River."
Ward's iron works continue to be listed in the directories until 1849-1850.
The directories for 1851-1870 were searched, but the forge and/or iron works
are no longer listed. Records of property assessments show that Ward's proper-
ty is described as a "factory" in 1845 and a "forge" in 1850, but by 1860, it
is described only as "waterfront." It therefore appears that the forge had a
relatively short lifetime of operation, beginning ca. 1840, and ceasing opera-
tions between 1851 and 1860.
In his history of the area, Mott describes this forge as "the first estab-
lished in the country fitted with furnaces and steam hammers of sufficient size
to manufacture shafts and cranks for steamer and steamboat use." Also accord-
ing to Mott, "Here was forged the 'Peacemaker,' the famous gun which was in-
vented by Ericsson and which was mounted on the U.S.S. Princeton."
II.H-2l
John Ericsson, a Swedish-American inventor and engineer, in 1844 built the
U.S.S. Princeton, the first metal-hulled, screw-propelled warship, and the
first with engines below the waterline for protection. Robert Field Stockton,
a United States naval officer and later a politician, co-designed the warship,
and designed one of its guns, the largest in the U.S. fleet. Stockton was also
responsible for obtaining the charter and financing the construction of the
Delaware and Raritan Canal, of which he was president. He subsequently became
the commander of land and sea forces during the war with Mexico, after the
annexation of Texas in 1845.
The "Peacemaker" gained notoriety because during its trial on the Potomac
River in 1844, it exploded, killing two secretaries in President Tyler's cabi-
net. The proceedings and results of the investigation of the explosion by the
Committee on Science and Arts (made up of members of the Franklin Institute of
Pennsylvania for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts) provide a picture of the
workings of the Hamersley Forge in 1844. Ward's responses to the questions
posed to him indicate that the Hamersley Forge implemented many of the forging
processes, techniques, arid machinery that during its period of operation (ca.
1840-1850) represented the newest inventions and improvements in American iron
forging. At a time when most American forges depended on charcoal and water
power for their basic operations, and were therefore predominantly found in
rural settings, operations at the Hamersley.Forge relied on steam power.-' Its
semi-urban location close to water and overland transportation routes ensured
the forge of its supplies of pig iron and fuel, while enhancing its ability to
serve .the new and growing demand of urban industrial enterprises.
Bone Black Manufactory. By 1862, the Hamersley Forge had become a Bone
Black Manufactory. The Perris 1862 Atlas of the City of New York shows a com-
plex of brick and frame buildings related to the bone black manufactory cover-
ing the central portion of the block, extending into both streets. Although
there are other building complexes on the block, this is the only one identi-
fied. A large boiler is shown in the central and largest of these brick build-.
ings and an even larger smokehouse is shown nearer 60th Street, in an adjacent
connected building. The 1871 Perris and Brown Atlas also depicts the bone
black manufactory with the same basic configuration as in 1862, with a few
additional frame/iron sheds on 60th Street. The lot to the east is labeled
"stone yard" and to the west are "Glycerine Factory" and a "Curled Hair Facto-
ry." At the river's edge is a complex of predominantly frame buildings, la-
beled "Building Materials."
Bone factories used animal bones, brought from slaughterhouses and other
sources by rail, to create charcoal and several byproducts. The charcoal,
known as bone black or ivory black, is produced by the calcination of animal
bones, and contains 10-20 percent carbon within a matrix of calcium phosphate.
At that time, bone black was used by several' industries, including the manufac-
ture of cane sugar, the purification of edible oils, alcoholic beverages,
drinking water, and chemicals, and as the pigment in paints and varnishes.
Bone factories were ideally located close to railroad lines, with a
good supply of water for outflow of effluents, and outside of populated areas
so that its smell would not offend neighbors.
A few references were located that discuss the actual process involved in
the manufacture of bone black. Bone black manufactories generally required
II .H-22
large spaces for the various steps needed in producing the end product of ani-
mal char. The furnace(s), commonly called benches, would likely have been in
the basement. Space would also have been allotted for the trimming of bones
brQught to the charging floor, a cooling shed for the cooling down of the red-
hot char in sealed canisters, a multilevel space for the bone black grading and
cutting mill, and stora:ge space for the bagged black awaiting shipment to mar-
ket. Room was also needed for the distillation of discharged gases.
A search through the commercial register at the rear of the 1850-1875

Directories did not include any listing of a bone black manufactory at this
location. The 1864 Trow Directory does list a bone black business -- at 36th
Street between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues. From this information, it is evi-
dent that the manufactory on the project site was not unique in New York City
during the 19th century. The map research remains the sole line of evidence of
its operation. Although this evidence shows the manufactory was in operation
at least from 1862-1871, it is not clear that it began immediately following
the closing of the Hamersley Forge, circa 1850. Since the next atlas (Robinson
1882) depicts a totally different commercial operation on the block, (stock-
yards), it is also uncertain when bone black manufacture ceased. Ward sold the
property to William H. Vanderbilt, one of the owners of the consolidated New
York Central and Hudson River Railroad, in 1874, and this may perhaps mark the
change ,in commercial use of the block. At the time the land was sold, the
parcel extended through the entire north-south extent of the block from a point
about 220 feet west of Eleventh Avenue to the river.
Later Industrial Uses. The Robinson 1882 Atlas of the City of New York
shows stock pens covering approximately 80 percent of the block. It appears
that a large brick'building, beginning approximately 200 feet west of Eleventh
Avenue and extending through to Twelfth Avenue, had been constructed, which was
evidently divided into stalls, based on the interior trusswork. One- and
three-story frame structures were next to the east and brick structures fronted
onto Eleventh Avenue. The large brick building, however, covered the entire
central and western portion of the block -- the former locations of both the
bone black manufactory and the earlier Hamersley Forge. The Robinson 1889
Atlas shows the same building configuration and stock yards.
During the latter half of the 19th century, a number of small two-"and
three-story commercial buildings were constructed on the eastern end of the
block. Deeds indicate that these lots passed into the hands of the railroad
during a period from the turn of the century until the 1930's. There is cur-
rently a paved parking lot on this eastern section. The Hudson River Railroad
Company's papers indicate that the railway was built on the original land con-
tours with minimal grading and the laying of a shallow bed of cinder. There-
fore, there would be very little disturbance from the construction of the rail-
way.
The 1907 Sanborn Atlas of New York City shows the Union Stock Pens on the
central portion of the block. The portion of the block west of 'the alley
fronting onto Twelfth Avenue were occupied by Rossiter's Stores Terminal Ware-
house Co. To the east were standing structures. The overall dimensions of the
Union Stock Yards building appear to be the same as in 1882.
II .H-23
Existing Conditions and Potential for Archaeological Sensitivity. Figure
II.H-9 shows a plan of existing conditions on the block of the project site
between West 59th and 60th Streets. Section "A," a three-story brick struc-
ture, is what remains of the original Union Stock Yards and Market Building
seen on Robinson 1882 and Sanborn 1907. It was constructed sometime after 1871
and before 1882, based on the historic atlas research.
Section "B" is a one-story brick building surrounding the truncated base-

ment remains of the original Union Stock Yard and Market Building. The archi-
tectural historian has suggested a ca. 1925 date for this building. At some
point after the initial, partial demolition of section A, and ~ubsequent con-
struction of building B, it was altered, as seen in its east facade.
There are no indications in New York City records that Ward's forge build-
ing was demolished. Therefore, an analysis was performed to determine whether
the existing structure'on the lot today, 641 West 59th Street, could be the
original 19th century building constructed by Ward and subsequently enlarged.
This analysis also documented and e'valuated the potential historic significance
of this standing structure. The assessment of the building's architectural and
historic integrity is presented above under "Historic Resources."
During a field visit by Greenhouse Consultants in November 1986"; the exte-

rior and interior of the' structure were inspected, described, and photographed.
A second.visit to the site was made on February 10, 1987, by Greenhouse Consul-
"tants staff members to solve specific questions raised by the historic and
cartographic evidence.
A review of the map evidence above indicates that the structure now stand-
ing on site was built after 1874 and before 1882. The physical evidence of the
structure itself provides nothing that would contradict these dates. Since the
maps indicate that' the original forge structure was replaced, the building
standing at 641 West 59th Street is not the Hamersl~y Forge. Neither was any
physical evidence found during the inspection ~f the structure and its site
that would prove that the area was ever used as a foundry or a bone black manu-
factory. It is possible that the construction and demolition of the stockyards
building so disturbed the ground beneath it that no remains of former struc-
tures survive.
The area next to the structure and the interior of its basement were in-
spected in an attempt to assess the potential of these locations for yielding
archaeological data relevant to the historic uses of the site as a forge and a
bone black factory. This inspection did not yield any positive results. All
of the areas next to the exterior of the structure were paved, either with
macadam or concrete, so no subsurface deposits could be observed. The same
situation applied to the basement of the structure. Here, a concrete floor
covered all possible locations of forge or bone black-related deposits.
Potential archeological remains of the forge might include foundations and

other structural supports ,needed for the furnace, power-driven hammers; and
other machinery. Associated deposits might include slag, cinders, and scrap
iron. The potential remains of the bone black manufactory would probably in-
clude fragments of animal bone, burnt bone remnants, and possibly petroleum
product related deposits (such as benzene or naphtha). Structural remains
would be similar to those of a foundry including massive foundations, retort
and machinery supports and miscellaneous parts.
II .H-24
10'91
U SUPPOSED ORIGINAL SHORELINE

(ROBINSON-1882)
\
~ w. 60 th Street
r-----------------------------------------\--------- r .
I Ii
99'
d d _ '.. _ I A4 __
155' 155' \ ,....,..' "AMP 205'
i ~ "ORIGINAL STRUCTURE -A-

BASEMENT WALL
~
I
I ~.tor, 2.tor, sii
brick brick ~
I ;
PARKING
I ~ A B PARKING
I ~ II c.1880 c.1925
~
I ORIGINAL STRUCTURE -A- tiis
I .. t; BASEMENT WALL
I ';AMP D ~
\.-----_____________ z; ~ .J ta:i
Note: Existing conditions based on field inspection
o 50 100 150FEET
I
SCALE
Project Site Block Between 59th and 60th Street

Figure II.H-9
In an effort to make a preliminary determination as to whether any remains
of the forge or bone black manufactory survive, two test trenches were dug.
Before beginning the trenches, a rectangular area of 25 feet by 100 feet was
cleared of blacktop and excavated to the depth of the cellar floor of the for-
mer stockyard building. From this base, two trenches were excavated running
north-south. The southern trench was approximately 3 feet by 12 feet and the
northern trench was approximately 4 feet by 8 feet.
The latest floor of the cellar found was of concrete. In both pits, when
this floor was removed, an earlier floor constructed of Belgian block paving
stones was found. This floor, set into a layer of clean sand, probably repre-
sents the original cellar floor of the late 19th century stockyard structure.
Below this floor was a deposit including much soot and slag, red brick frag-
ments, some calcined bone, and a few ceramics (which dated in manufacture from
the turn of the 19th century to the 1830's). This deposit, characterized by a
black color, ranged from 3 to 18 inches in thickness. In the northern test
trench, deposits beneath this layer were investigated. In part of the trench a
thin deposit of clay with small red brick fragments was encountered. Below
this deposit, part of an east-west wall constructed of schist was found. The
materials found on either side of this wall were quite different. To the south
were two layers -- the upper consisting of a dark brown silty sand, and the
lower Ii yellow fine sand. Neither contained any visible artifacts. On the
northern side there was only one layer consisting of a mixture of sand, clay,
and some silt, which was a mottled brown and yellow brown. Below the wall and
the deposits on either side was a layer of dark brown silty sand, which was
exposed but not excavated because the limit of excavation for the backhoe had
been reached.
The archaeological consultants have interpreted these findings to be the

remains of the central brick building that served as the forge and later the
bone black manufactory. The calcined bone fragments arid the ferrous slag are
both evidence of industrial processes. Because of the different nature of the
deposits on either side, the schist wall appears to have been an internal re-
taining structure. Based on the cartographic evidence, it lies within the
central brick building and appears to correspond to the southern end of the
furnace. It may represent a retaining wall for a pit just west of the furnace
that could have provided access to the base of the furnace for cleaning out
ashes and cinde.rs, or as an area for placing molds to make castings . The re-
mains associated with this brick building are sealed beneath the floor of the
stockyard building and appear to be relatively undisturbed.
After these investigations, limited Phase IB testing of this location was

carried out by Greenhouse Consultants during May 1987. This investigation
resulted in the discovery of remains that clearly predated the Union Stockyards
building, part of which remains standing today. These archaeological remains
included a dry-laid schist wall that was probably part of the central structure
of the complex that served both the forge and bone black maker. The structural
remains were sealed by a layer of destruction debris that contained ferrous
slag and calcined bone fragments. This destruction debris probably represented
the demolition of the structures used by the bone black maker. Since the en-
tire complex was reused by the bone black maker after the Hamers1ey Forge
ceased operations, it is probable that a number of alterations were made to the
structures and the machinery it housed to facilitate this conversion. Certain
II.H-25
features, such as the main furnace and the steam boiler, were likely retained,
but it is probable that the hammers and their massive bases would have been
removed. It is therefore unlikely that archaeological investigation of this
industrial complex would provide any significant additional information regard-
ing the Hamersley Forge.
Conclusions
Prehistoric Sensitivity. The above discussion of the cartography of the

proposed project area has demonstrated that the only locations where land ex-
isted next to streamcourses within the project area fall between 59th and 62nd
Streets. Although two additional narrow strips of fast land may lie within the
project area, they are both over 200 feet from the known streamcourses and are
less than 50 feet in width. It is possible that the prehistoric population
utilized the points of land on either side of the cove between 60th and 6lst
Streets, considering their proximity to fresh water. The southern point lies
between the northern sides of 59th and 60th Streets and is approximately 200
feet by 250 feet in ~ize. The northern point extends from 40 feet south of
6lst Street to 6'0 feet north of that street, and is approximately 200 feet by
60 feet in size.
These two points are considered potentially sensitive and therefore may'
preserve subsurface evidence of prehistoric occupation such as shell middens.
This is due to their proximity to the confluence of the small stream formerly
located just north of 60th Street and the Hudson River, which would have pro-
vided access to a fresh water supply as well as the food resources of the estu-
arine environment. Such locations have proven in the past to be possible loca-
tions of prehistoric fishing camps. Both of these locations on the project
site have been covered with fill. Research into the paleo-shorelines in the
project area also generated information on the thickness of the fill. These
data indicate that the northern point of land is covered by approximately 10
feet of fill. The southern point evidently is also covered by about 10 feet of
fill along the easterrt boundary of the project area. Greenhouse Consultants'
Phase IB investigation indicate that the western portion of this point lies
under approximately 16 feet of fill.
Historic Sensitivity. The above discussions of the forging and bone

black-making industries provide reasonably clear explanations of how these
industries functioned during the mid 19th century. In the case of the
Hamersley Forge, the Supplemental Report prepared summarizes in detail the
documentary materials uncovered during research. These materials describe how
this specific forge was organized ca. 1844 and provide information about forg-
ing technologies during this time period, giving a clear idea of how the indus-
trial processes were carried out at the Hamersley Forge. Although no specific
description of the subsequent bone black manufactory on this site could be
found, several general discussions were found to provide the characteristics of
these processes. It is probable that several major features of the forge were
retained while other features were removed or modified for use by the bone
black manufactory. The research revealed a reasonable idea of how the bone
black manufactory was organized and how these industrial processes were carried
out on this site.
II.H-26
Although additional archaeological work would probably provide information
about the foundations of the buildings and the layout of the complex, much of
this information is already available from the maps and documents. The infor-
mation that might be gained from such work would reflect the complex during its
final period of operation as a bone black maker. However, the documentary
research presented in the Supplemental Documentary Research Report provides a
reasonably clear picture of how the bone black manufactory operated. There-
fore, no further work is required for these issues, and no additional documen-
tary research or subsurface testing is recommended.
Historic Resources
Primary Study Area. Without the construction of the proposed project, the
historic resources in the primary study area are expected to remain unchanged
in 1997. The Con Edison Power House may be designated as a New York City Land-
mark and the West 69th Street transfer bridge maybe nominated for and listed
on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Riverside Park is
scheduled for a number of improvements described in detail in section II.G,
"Open Space and Recreation." These improvements will have no adverse impacts
on the historic integrity of the park, but will help .restore the park to its
former condition.
As described in section II.B, two high-rise residential developments are

proposed adjacent to the project site, west of West End Avenue between 61st and
65th Streets, and another is proposed east of West End Avenue between 60th and
61st Streets. Addition of these new high-rise projects to currently vacant
sites or low-rise sites in a generally low-rise; industrial area will change
the visual character of the area just east of the project site (see section
II. E, "Urban Design and Visual Character"). This will change the context of
the Con Edison Power House, which currently dominates its low-rise surround-
ings, and will limit some views of the power house, which can now be seen
clearly from West End Avenue up to 65th Street.
Secondary Study Area. No changes are expected to historic resources in

the secondary study area by 1997. New construction proposed in the area, de-
scribed in section II.B, "Land Use and Zoning," may add tall new buildings to
the area. Some of these would be within the Upper West Side/Central Park His-
toric District and therefore would be subject to approval by the New York City
Landmarks Preservation Commission for their appropriateness. These buildings
are not expected to have an adverse effect on the context of the historic re-
sources in the secondary study area.
In addition, the several structures currently under consideration for

designation as New York City Landmarks may be designated in the future, and
other buildings may be considered or designated as Landmarks.
II.H-27
Without the construction of the project, the project site is expected to

remain unchanged. Therefore, any archaeological resources on the site will
remain as they are.
Historic Resources
Primary Study Area. As in 1997, no changes are expected to the historic

resources in the primary study area by 2002. The Con Edison Power Plant may be
designated a New York City Landmark, and the West 69th Street transfer bridge
may be listed on the State and National Registers.
SecondaIY Study Area. Additional construction is proposed in the second-

ary study area by 2002, as described in section II.B. However, no adverse
effects on the historic resources or their contexts are expected to occur.
As in 1997, no changes are expected to occur to the project site hy 2002

if the proposed project is not constructed; therefore, any archaeological re-
sources on the site will remain unchanged.
Historic Resources
Introduction. As described above under "Existing Conditions," several

historic resources are loc.ated close to the project site, including one on the·
site -- the West 69th Street transfer bridge, which has been found eligible for
listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Other nearby
resources include Riverside Park and Drive, four town houses at the corner of
Riverside Drive and West 72nd Street, the Chatsworth Apartments and Annex, the
West 7lst Street Historic District, and the Consolidated Edison Power House.
With the exception of the transfer bridge, development of the proposed project
would not involve any physical impacts to these historic resources -- i.e.,
alteration or demolition. However, the project would convert the large, pre-
dominantly vacant, below-grade site to part of the urban streetscape, thus
changing the context of the nearby historic structures. This section assesses
the potential impacts on those and other nearby historic resources from the
development of Phase I of the proposed project. Possible impacts on nearby
resources during construction activities related to both phases of the project
are discussed in section II.R, "Construction Impacts."
Large Scale Special Permit Controls. As described in Chapter I, "Project

Description," development of the project site would be governed by a set of
Large Scale Special Permit Controls. The Large Scale Special Permit Controls,
which would govern building mass and form, would be included as part of the
II.H-28
site's special pen;nit under the New York City Zoning Resolution. These would
establish individual criteria for each development parcel.
For parcels close to historic resources (Parcels A, B, N, and M -- near

Riverside Drive and Park, the rowhouses at Riverside Drive and 72nd Street, the
Chatsworth Apartments, the West 7lst Street Historic District, and the Consoli-
dated Edison Power House), mandated Large Scale Special Permit Controls would
be more specific than for the other parcels, to ensure compatibility of project
buildings with nearby historic resources. In addition to controlling the maxi-
mum bulk, height, and building envelope, they would also specify streetwall
conditions -- including characteristics of the base, expression lines, and set-
backs.
Transfer Bridge. With the proposed project, the West 69th Street transfer
bridge would be stabilized and would remain. As noted above under "Existing
Conditions," portions of the transfer,bridge have deteriorated and several of
the original features are missing. The project would c}:J.ange the context of the
transfer bridge by replacing the vacant, formerly industrial site with residen-
tial buildings, a new Riverside Drive, and, closest to the transfer bridge, a
new park. However, this change would not be a significant adverse impact. The
proposed project would cast certain new early morning (9 AM) shadows on the
transfer bridge (see Appendix H for shadow diagrams).
Riverside Park and Drive. The proposed project's 25-acre waterfront park
would connect to the southern end of Riverside Park, and would be an extension
of the park. The connection between the two parks would be designed in consul-
tation with the New York City Landmarks Pre~ervation Commission and the Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation, and planned to maintain the integrity of River-
side Park.
The visual setting of the southern end of Riverside Park and Drive would
be altered by the project's northernmost building. From the southern end of
Riverside Park and Drive, looking south, an area of sky that is currently visi-
ble beside the Chatsworth Apartments would be occupied by a new building.
However, this building was designed to be compatible with the Chatsworth

Apartments and Riverside Drive. At 72nd Street, this building would curve from
the Chatsworth Apartments, currently the westernmost buIlding on the south side
of 72nd Street. This building would continue the IS-story streetwall of 72nd
Street and of Riverside Drive, and its curve would echo' the curve along River-
side Drive. This building and the others along the new extension to Riverside
Drive have been designed to create a curving, mid-rise (12- to l4-story)
streetwall like that along the existing Riverside Drive. This would create a
continuity between Riverside Drive and its new extension to the south.
The proposed project would add certain incremental shadows to the southern
end of Riverside Park. These would occur on spring and fall afternoons and for
much of the day during December. On spring afternoons, shadows would move
across the park beginning shortly before 1:30 PM and leaving the park after
3:00 PM (see Figures H-2l and H-22 in Appendix H). On December 21, small in-
cremental shadows would fall west of the Henry Hudson Parkway at 10:30 AM and
would grow longer by noon. These shadows would be moving quickly, and the
incremental shadow would be east of the highway by 1:30 PM. By 3:00 PM, the
project would shade only a narrow incremental strip of the park (see Figures
II.H-29
H-34 through H-37 in Appendix H). No shadows would be cast on Riverside Park
during peak usage times, i.e., during the summer. Because of the limited geo-
graphic extent of the shadows, they would not significantly impact the integri-
ty of Riverside Park or affect the qualities that give the park Landmark
status.
Overall, the project's buildings would not have any adverse impact on the
context of Riverside Park. (Changes in visual character are also discussed in
section II. E, "Urban Design and Visual Character. ")
Row Houses at West 72nd Street and Riverside Drive. Similarly, the pro-
posed project would also change the context somewhat for the Diller, Sutphen,
Prentiss, and Kleeberg Residences at 309-311 West 72nd Street and 1 and 3 Riv-
erside Drive. From these houses, the new curved l4-story building would be
visible. This building would serve as the gateway to the new Riverside Drive
extension, and would echo the curved beginning of Riverside Drive created by
these four historic town houses. From these houses, the project would appear
to extend· 72nd Street farther west. This would not have any adverse impact on r~
these New York City Landmarks. The project would not cast any incremental
shadows on these rowhouses;
Chatsworth Apartments. The proposed project would change·the character of

the setting of the Chatsworth Apartments and Annex. The depressed railyard
adjacent to the west face of the Chatsworth would be replaced with new build-
ings and an extension of area streets at grade with those of the existing
neighborhood. Beside the 72nd Street facade of the Chatsworth, a l4-story
building would curve around the corner, defining the start of the new extension
to Riverside Drive. Adjacent to the Chatsworth on 7Ist Street would be a 4-
story building midblock on the extended street and a 32-story tower on the
corner with Riverside Drive's extension. These additions would make the Chats-
worth appear to be midblock in an extended urbanstreetscape, rather than at
the edge of the city as it appears now. In addition, the project's buildings
would block views of the water from apartments with west~facing windows in the
Chatsworth. (However, it should be noted that these are illegal, lot-line
windows.)
As described above, the project's Large Scale Special Permit Controls

would ensure compatibility of project buildings with the Chatsworth. The Large
Scale Special Permit Controls would mandate streetwall conditions that would
reinforce the character of the 72nd Street streetwall by matching the base,
expression lines, setback, and bay window characteristics of the Chatsworth.
The project's northernmost building, on Parcel A, would curve from 72nd Street
onto the new Riverside Drive at the same height as the Chatsworth. This 14-
story building would continue the streetwall from 72nd Street and the Chats-
worth onto the new Riverside Drive extension. The new 32-story tower would be
separated from the Chatsworth by the 14- and 4-story elements; it would be
sited on the CQrner of a major avenue, consistent with the pattern throughout
the Upper Wast Side. As illustrated in Figures G-2, G-3, and G-4 in Appendix G
("View Corridors"), the new building adjacent to the Chatsworth would not be
visible looking west down 72nd Street until about Riverside Drive, where it
would be barely visible.
II .H-30
In addition, although not visible from the street, the project buildings
on the northernmost block (as on all other project blocks) would surround an
interior courtyard. This yard would place open space next to some of the
Chatsworth's western face.
The project would cast additional shadows on the western face and roof of
the Chatsworth Apartments at 1:30 and 3 PM on March 21 (see Figure H-3l in
Appendix H) and at 3 PM on December 21 (Figure H-46). The street and courtyard
areas would already be shaded at those times. Because of t~e limited time at
which shadows would be cast, these shadows would not be significant.
Overall, the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the
Chatsworth Apartments and Annex.
West lIst Street Historic District. The proposed project would also
change the character and context of the West lIst Street Historic District,
which includes most of the buildings on both sides of lIst Street west of West
End Avenue. The project would add new buildings west of the historic district
and extend lIst Street at the same grade as the existing street, although the
cul-de-sac at the end of the existing lIst Street would remain. Currently,
this area drops away to the depressed former railyard, and, as described above
under "Existing Conditions, ",one of the unique qualities of the West lIst
Street Historic District is its character as a secluded enclave, which results
from lIst Street's always having been a dead end street with little traffic.
The project's Large Scale Special Permit Controls would ensure cohesive-
ness with the historic block. Adjacent to the existing buildings on both sides
of 71st Street, project buildings would be four stories tall, continuing the
pattern of four-story midblock row houses. At the corners of the new Riverside
Drive extension would be taller buildings, as is typical on the Upper West
Side. Like all the project buildings along Riverside Drive's extension, these
would present a l4-story streetwall; buildings with towers would be set back at
14 stories and again at 18 stories before the tower begins. On lIst Street, a
32-story tower would rise on the north side, and the building on the south side
would be 14, stories. These buildings would be similar in height and streetwall
to other buildings on the corners of avenues on the Upper West Side, inclUding
on West End Avenue just east of the historic district. To maintain the histor-
ic district's sense of seclusion, the new extension to lIst Street would be
designed as a pedestrian street, with appropriate landscaping and street furni-
ture. Through traffic would-not be permitted: a barrier between the existing
and new lIst Street would ensure that the historic district remains a dead-end
street for vehicular traffic; pedestrians would be able to continue.
The project would make the district appear as part of an extended urban
streetscape and would connect it visually to the new Riverside Drive extension
and to the new waterfront park. Thus, the proposed project would not have any
significant adverse impacts on the West lIst Street Historic District.
The proposed project would cast incremental, but not significant, shadows
on the roofs and possibly the faces of part of the West lIst Street Historic
District at 3 PM on March 21 (see Figure H-28 in Appendix H) and at 3 PM on
December 21 (see Figure H-46). The street would already be shaded by existing
buildings at those times.
II .H-3l
Historic Resources in the Secondary Study Area. The proposed project
would be too far from the historic resources in the secondary study area to
have any effect on them.
As discussed above under "Existing Conditions," none of the project site

north of 64th Street is considered potentially archaeologically sensitive.
Therefore, development of the proposed project's Phase I would not affect any
archaeological resources.
Historic Resources
Consolidated Edison Power House (former IRT Power House). As explained in

Chapter I, "Project Description," the portion of the project south of 64th
Street would be completed between 1997 and 2002. The only historic resource
near this part of the project site is the Consolidated Edison Power House, just
south of the project site betWeen 58th and 59th Streets. Because of air quali-
ty concerns, the project's buildings south of 63rd Street would be designed to
be. shorter than the power house's smokestacks. Thus,the tall smokestacks
would continue to dominate the skyline in the southern part of the study area.
However, to the north of the powerhouse, the now-vacant project site would be
developed with a new avenue lined with 14-story buildings with towers of vari- f
ous heights. These buildings would change the project site from its current
industrial character to a more residential area. This would be a contrast to
the industrial Con Ed Power House, but like the area around it to the east and
northeast. The project's towers would be of similar scale to the other resi-
dential towers in the area and to those proposed in the future without the
project. Between 59th and 61st Streets, the project would include a large 8-
story building with tWo 30-story tower.s along West End Avenue. As described
above, the project's Large Scale Special Permit Controls would ensure compati-
bility of the southern project buildings with the power house.
With the proposed project,. fewer views of the power house would be avail-
able from West End Avenue betWeen 61st and 59th Streets. Proposed No Build
developments betWeen 6lstand 65th Streets would already block other views
farther north on West End Avenue. Views of the power house from 72nd Street
would also be blocked by the project's buildings. The project would cast in-
cremental shadows on the powerhouse on summer mornings (June 21 at 9:00 AM --
see Figure H-4). ,
Overall, although the proposed project would change the context of the
area to the north of the Con Ed Power House, it would not have any adverse
impacts on that historic structure.
Historic Resources in the Secondary Study Area. Similar to Phase I devel-

opment, the project's second phase would not have any adverse impacts on his-
toric resources in the secondary study area because these resources are distant
from the project site.
II .H-32
As described above under "Existing Conditions," two areas of the project

site, between 59th and 62nd Streets, may be archaeologically sensitive. These
areas were once located near the confluence of a small freshwater stream. Such
locations have proven in the past to be possible locations of prehistoric fish-
ing camps. The proposed project would disturb or destroy any subsurface pre-
historic remains that may exist in those locations. The disturbance of any
such remains would represent a significant adverse impact on archaeological
resources. Possible mitigation measures are discussed in Chapter IV.
Relocation of Miller Elevated Highway
In addition to development of the South Neighborhood, it is possible that

by 2002 the Miller Elevated Highway; which currently transverses the project
site, would be relocated to the area beneath the project's new extension to
Riverside Drive and the existing highway would be demolished (for more details,
see Chapter I, "Project Description"). This relocation would change the con-
text of the historic resources near the project site by removing a visible
industrial structure. However, this change would not have a significant ad-
verse impact on any of the historic resources, except as described below.
Construction activity for relocation of the highway would have temporary

effects on Riverside Park adjacent to the highway right-of-way between 72nd and
75th Streets; Riverside Park is a New York City Landmark and is listed on the
State and National Registers of Historic Places. When the highway relocation
is completed, the Henry Hudson Parkway from 72nd to 75th Street would be lower
over the highway.
II.H-33
I • ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Introduction
Issues
This chapter analyzes the economic consequences of the construction and

operation of the proposed project. Among the items examined are the economic
benefits generated for the city in the form of substantial new tax revenues and
jobs; public sector costs in the form of public subsidies or incentives re-
quired to construct or operate the project and the cost, if any, of added pub-
lic services; the potential secondary effects on the industrial district locat-
ed near the southern end of the project site; and, the effects of the project's
residents and new retail stores on the viability of retail uses near the proj-
ect site.
Study Area
Because of the issues cited above, three study areas were chosen: the
project site for an examination of direct benefits and costs associated with
the project; a neighborhood retail/service study area and the industrial base
impact area. The neighborhood retail/service study area extends to 72nd Street
on the north, 57th Street on the south, and Amsterdam Avenue/10th Avenue on the
east. This is a reasonable distance in which residents of the project could be
expected to shop for convenience goods and services, i.e., those items and ser-
vices used on a regular (almost daily) basis, and the predominant types of
retail uses expected to be included as part of the proposed project. The
industrial base impact study area stretches from 54th to 61st Street west of
Amsterdam-Tenth Avenue. Study area boundaries are shown in Figure 11.1-1.
Existing Conditions
Project Site
Employment
As noted above in section II.B, "Land Use," the project site is occupied
by four active commercial uses: Jay-Gee Motorhomes, a company providing trail-
er services to the film industry; and three parking lots rented respectively by
Con Edison for its employees, by the United States Postal Service for the stor-
age of postal vehicles, and by Square Industries for a public parking lot. The
remainder of the site is vacant or contains vacant, unused buildings. A total
of 16 workers are currently employed on site.
Tax Revenues
The 'project site is currently assessed at $43.9 million (fiscal year 1991-
1992). Based on the current tax rate, the site generates about $4.7 million in
real estate tax revenues for the city. With limited economic activity on-site,
the amount of other tax revenues generated is limited.
II.I-1
Study Area Boundaries
Figure ~I.I-l
,------,I I \ \ U~LW.74THST.~- L-I- - -
~II \ \ \J~[W.73RDST.~ 1,---

\ . 1l
-'----' f--~-\~il
I\..-~
t-:=::~ I \\ \
\ W. 72ND ST.
11,---
l
1-- - - - W. 71ST ST.-
1.-----'
~n.· . I I\ \
~\
[W. 70TH ST.-
lw. 69TH ST.-

- ~
~JTOWEAS
LINCOLN l '\
~\____ - - '
:i~f I [,. : : , -,~.::.:.:~ :;.:. :.: -

. ~\J tW. 66TH ST.-
~-----.. , [W.SSTHST.-:-
] I \~_
L-----,W.64TH ST. I ~E~ ~ \\. . ._
~I D\C
---_......
AMSTERDAM W.62NDST.
HOUSES
. ••••• ~D\~
~W.61STST.
~I \\
1°C·
W. 50TH ST. ~
~~~~"'''fttlI'IIWJI-n'IHWiI* L-_ _- ' - - - - I ~-'W. 59TH ST.
I 11"---··----'1 B~g..--_-'--
...--_ _- - , ........,.-_ _---, W. 58TH ST.
1 I f\\\ . Ilrf- ~,--I_

~
] 11---_
W. 57TH ST.
~'T---,.tm---I-rr=
~~ • W. 56TH ST.
r----------- ~~ I I \\\ Ii C w. 11---- 55TH ST)
... il~l ......J.L. ..~~....ljL.....THSTJ

====: \ ~I< \\\ I L J L-..-I_
, - - I- -
L----___~ ~ I·
DEWITI
CLINTON ui W. 53RD ST.
~I PARK
L---_--I>
\\\_.j!;I~L JI W.52NDST. '---- - -
I~I \\\ I~II ""'-1- -
o 1000 FEET
CI=:=::C:=:=::::JI
- - - - Project Site Boundary SCALE
- - • Retail Study Area Boundary

....... Industrial Study Area Boundary
12 91 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
0
Study Area
Retail/Service Study Area
Within the retail/service study area, retail uses are located along 72nd
Street between Broadway and West End Avenue, in limited locations along Amster-
dam-Tenth Avenues, and West End Avenue, primarily between 66th and 72nd
Streets. Approximately 20,000 people live in this area. A field survey of
retail uses in the retail/service study area identified a total of 108 retail
and service establishments and six vacancies in this area (see Table II.I-l).
Approximately 60 percent of the retail uses are neighborhood oriented, includ-
.ing 22 food stores, 12 beauty and barber shops, 9 laundries or dry cleaners,
and 5 drug stores. About 20 percent serve a larger area, including seven
stores selling furniture or housewares, five financial or real estate related
offices, and three apparel stores. There are 18 restaurants in the study area.
Only six storefronts in the study area are vacant, including the ground floor
retail space in the Aurora residential building on the northeast corner of 57th
Street and Tenth Avenue.
Very few of the retail uses are located in the immediate vicinity of the
project site (see Figure 11.1-2). A few basic retail services are located
along West End Avenue between 69th and 70th Streets, including an A&P.supermar-
ket, a drugstore, and a cleaners. A small grocery store is located on the east
side of West End Avenue between 64th and 65th Streets along with services such
as a record shop and a bicycle shop.
The large-scale residential uses along West End Avenue between 61st and
64th Streets provide no ground floor retail uses. The southern boundary of the
project site is similarly poorly served by retail uses with Eleventh Avenue and
West 57th Street west of Tenth Avenue primarily occupied by commercial, indus-
trial, and auto-related uses.
Approximately half of the study area's retail and service establishments

are located along 72nd Street between West End Avenue and Broadway. Unlike
other parts of the study area, retail uses on 72nd Street are located on both
the ground and second floors. Seventy-second Street supports a mix of local
stores, including a Gristedes supermarket, and services and establishments that
attract shoppers from a wider area such as HMV Records, Radio Shack, and an
Arise Futon Shop.
Retail uses on Amsterdam Avenue are located primarily north of 66th Street
and are geared more toward local neighborhood shops and services such as gro-
ceries, drugstores and dry cleaners. A few uses which attract users from a
larger area are also located along Amsterdam Avenue, including a Red Apple
Supermarket between 69th and 70th Streets, a Woolworth's between 67th and 68th
Streets, and a nightclub (Sweetwater's) also between 67th and 68th Streets.
In summary, the northeastern end of the study area is well-served by a

range of local and comparison stores and services along 72nd Street between
West End Avenue and Broadway, and Amsterdam Avenue between 66th and 72nd
Streets. The portion of the study area south of 66th Street and west of Am-
sterdam Avenue, however, is not well served by retail uses. In particular, the
II.I-2
Table 11.1-1
IRVKl!JroB.Y 01' RETAIL .AND SEB.VICB BSTABLISBJIERTS DJ THE IlETAIL STUDY AREA
Amsterdam! Vest End

Tenth Avenue Avenue 72nd Street Totals
Nei~hborhood Shops and Services

Grocery and other food stores 13 2 7 22
Drugstores 4 1 5
Laundry/Cleaners· 4 1 4 9
Beauty and Barber Shops 4 8 12
Other local retail· 2 5 9
Other local services· ---2 J _8
Subtotal 32 6 26 65
Shops and Services for Larger Area

Apparel/Accessory Shops 2 1 3
Furniture/Housewares 1 6 7
Banks, Real Estate, Insurance 3 2 5
Other comparison goods·· 3 3
Other comparison services·· -1 --1 ---1!
Subtotal 7 o 15 22
Restaurants and Entertainment

Eating and Drinking Places 9 2 7 18
Other Amusement -1 J
Subtotal 10 2 7 19
Other*** 3 2
Vacant _1
Total 54 8 52 114
Rotes:
* Local retail and service uses include such uses as shoe repair,
tailor, check cashing service, and video store.
** Comparison retail and service uses include such uses as photo studio,
exercise studio, and chain store.
**. Includes an OTB parlor, reader/advisor, and a funeral home.
Source: Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. field survey, November 1991.
11.1-3
Retail Establishments In the Study Area
Figure 11.1-2
I I' \ \ U~LW.74THST.---1 I
\ ~,--.:::.
..-.I.I. ....
\
E \ II
- f---~
*
1-
\ \ \Ji[W.73RDST.~ ~I-
\~i'
\ \,
......-_ _ _ \
I
It
W.72NDST. '
=, ==
W. 71ST ST.
,.-----1, 1 ] \\ , I C.70THST.-
*1 I *~\' I tW. 69TH ST.-
- w
~
~
\:'\
l>~
II
. LW.
O"U C67lHST.-
68TH ST.-
~'-------I ~\\J lW.66THST.-
,I
,'-------I.
I .-1--------. 'I l W. 65TH ST.
--I-----.] I \'-_
W.64THST. I LINCOLN \'
I C~R ~\\~_
I-W.62NDST. D\C
~D\~
W.61STST. ~
--.JI ~I \\
I .
L - -_ _
.---- W.EOTHST. g~
1. ___ -
'---_ _---ll r--1L-- -------_-.. . . .,--.J, cC::j~~
I I~\\ I ~il '

~ --t-- w. 57TH ST.
~---,.pm--1-r=
~~ , W. 56TH ST.
J L--I_
'\~ II \\\ I L JIL--_
..-_._---1
_------- W. 55TH ST.
11111
~
I I \\\
.
I L W. 54TH ST.
J ~_
DEWITI ~I \\\ IwL, ] ~~_
~
CUNTON ~ W. 53RD ST. -
,
>L ]
L..--___~ I
ffil \\\ I
~
PARK
L.....-_--J> W. S2ND ST. '-----
I~I \\\ Iml I r---

- - • Retail Study Area Boundary
-_Retail
* Supermarket
12·91 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
absence of supermarket space in the southern part of the retail/service study
area currently leaves most residents a considerable distance from the nearest
supermarkets on West End Avenue and 70th Street and Broadway and 68th Street.
Residents of the westernmost buildings in the Amsterdam Houses and the south-
ernmost buildings in Lincoln Towers are particularly far from retail and ser-
vice uses, .
The industrial area stretching between Amsterdam-Tenth Avenues and Twelfth

Avenue from 54th to 61st Streets (and extending across 61st Street to. include
two industrial buildings on the Amsterdam Houses superblock) was established
when rail and shipping activity were a predominant presence on the Hudson River
waterfront, and it has survived and evolved as development pressures have
emerged in areas to the north and east. Today this area is dominated by auto-
mobile dealers and repair shops, businesses involved in movie and television
production, ami manufacturing plants (see Figure II. 1-3). This area also in-
cludes the Con Edison power plant, a John Jay College administration building,
the Sanitation Department garage, the West 59th Street Recreation Center, two
public schools -- P.S. 191 and 252-- Harborview Terrace, Clinton Towers, the
Roosevelt Hospital staff residence, and the pier areas.
A field survey of uses in the industrial study area was conducted in Octo-
ber 1991 and cross-referenced with the Cole's reverse telephone directory. The
results are summarized in Table 11.1-2 and detailed in Table 11.1-3 and Figure
II.I-4.
The survey indicated that the study area contains a substantial economic
base of over 300 firms. In addition to television-, ·film-, and video-related
uses, and auto-related uses, other notable segments of the study area's econom-
ic base include manufacturing, warehousing, and wholesaling. More traditional
office use also exists in a few buildings in the study area.
Television. Film. and Related Uses. Television, film-making, and related

industries are a major sector of the New York City and study area economies.
Although New York City ranks second to Los Angeles in overall activity, the
production of game shows, soap operas, made-for-television movies, and televi-.
sion specials is concentrated in New York. The media industry also has sub-
stantial linkages to other industries, many of which are located in part of the
industrial use study area. These include film processing (both still and mo-
tion picture), equipment rental, lighting, and editing, as well as such ancil-
lary industries such as advertising, commercial photography, commercial art,
and graphic design.
Forty businesses involved in various aspects of film, television, and

video production are located between 54th and 6lst Street west of Tenth Avenue,
concentrated primarily on 57th Street between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues.
These include production studios, sound stages, studio warehouses, lighting
businesses, film equipment rental facilities, and other industry support ser-
vices. This sector has been present in the study area since the advent of the
television industry over 40 years ago, operating along side older industrial
uses such as manuf~cturing and warehousing.
II.I-4
Industrial Study Area Land Use
54th Street - 61st Street
Figure 11.1-3
.\ ..
\.--.1
\ I.
I:1.~iID1.~~
I.
~ r---------------------~
,--------------------
~--------------------
'"\
\ \
\ \.
===:c:::===:::iSCf!
DC!
SCALE
FEET
•••••• Industrial Study Area Boundary
Industrial
~~
:;:;;;;,~ Television/Film Related.
·······':····.....·~
f:;:;:;:~::~;:::::~ Automotive•
_ Institutional
~ Business Services
- - - Ground Floor Retail
......... Auto Showroom
12 91 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
0
Table 11.1-2
SUIIIWlY OF USES IB THE nmus'lItIAL STUDY A1lEA:

1991
Type of Use llum.ber of Firms
Construction 4
Manufacturing 16
Wholesale 126*
Retail 16
Storage/Yarehouse 4
Movie/Video/Telecommunications 40
Auto Sales/Repair 48
Parking 4
Institutional/Cultural 18
Business Services/Office 36
Miscellaneous --ll
Total 327
Rote:
* A total of 117 oriental rug importers are lo-

cated in the International Center of Oriental
Rugs at 601 West 54th Street.
II. 1-5
Table 11.1-3
nmusTllIAL STUDY ARE& BUSIDSSES
Hap Key· Address Rame Type of Use*
1. 818 Tenth Avenue Circle Newspaper Delivery 3

2. 820 Tenth Avenue Supreme Glass Co. 2
3. 824 Tenth Avenue Labbe General Contractor 1
4. 826 Tenth Avenue Westside Trading 3
5. 856 Tenth Avenue Leo's Fine Foods 4
6. 860 Tenth Avenue Rocco's Heros 4
7. 862 Tenth Avenue Kandilla Phza 4
8. 511 West 54th St. Arkon Drywell Inc. 1
Coastal Mechanic 7
Omega Interiors 1
9. 513 West 54th St. Bethel Agencies 10
Binder Casting 2
Boken Sound 6
L. Digiaimo & Assoc. NK
East End Productions 6.
First Step Productions 6
Navesync Sound 6
Pro Artists Unlimited 6
Up the Roof Productions 6
10. 539 Yest 54th St. Centro Maria 9
11. 500 West 55th St. D&S Radia~or, Body & Fender Work 7
12. 504 West 55th St. Vinnie's Auto Service, 7
13. 508 West 55th St. 55th Street Taxi Garage 8
14. 501 West 55th St. Cirker's Storage Warehouse 5
15. 500 West 56th St. Artkraft Strauss Signs 2
16. 504 West 56th St. Tri-State Newspaper 3
17. 787 Eleventh Avenue Potamkin Motors 7
18. 789 Eleventh Avenue Mazda Showroom 7
Nissan Showroom 7
19. 790 Eleventh Avenue Penske Buick 7
Potamkin Leasing 7
Clinton Cleaners 4
Errico's Market 4
Gem Glass Co. 2
H. J. McGraw & Sons NK
Pizza Cafe 4
20. 796 Eleventh Avenue Security Brokerage 10
21. 798 Eleventh Avenue Penske Showroom 7
22. 799 Eleventh Avenue Nissan-Subaru Showroom 7
23. 801 Eleventh Avenue Manhattan Auto 7
24. 823 Eleventh Avenue Designcraft Industries 2
Hellenic Times Newspaper 10
MCV Advertising Assoc. 10
II.I-6
Table II.I-3 (Continued)
nmusTRUL STUDY AJtU. BUSINESSES
Hap Key Address Name Type of Use*
Montana Studios 6
25. 829 Eleventh Avenue CX Automotive 7
26. 601 West 54th St. International Center of Oriental 3
Rugs (117 rug importers)
27. 619 West 54th St. Apollo & Associates Productions 6
DP Finamore Film 6
I{urnam (Direct Mail) Org. 10
Kroll Productions 6
Labels for Less (back office) 10
MGS Services NI{
MFO Videotronics 6
Newmark & Co. Real Estate 10
Neptune Corp. NI{
RP McCoy Apparel 3
28. 625 West 54th St. Camera Service Center 6
Moviecam Corp. America 6
29. 629 West 54th St. Lina Electric CRP 2
W. E. Maeder Auto 7
Nat Sherman Cigars 3
"Renault Zumbach 7
Saab Zumbach 7
30. 635 West 54th St. Lamel Realty Corp. 10
31. 621 West 55th St. Geller Electric Contracting 1
32. 625 West 55th St. Car Cash of New York 7
11th Avenue Leasing 7
33. 635 West 55th St. Porsche Place 7
34. 637 West 55th St. Meyers Parking Lot 8
35. 613 West 56th St. Harvey Motor Cars 7
36. 875-883 Tenth Avenue Coffee Shop 4
Empire 57 Restaurant 4
Aldo and Ali NI{
Artists Repertory Literary Agency 10
T & H Deli 4
Pharmacy 4
Check cashing 4
Record Store 4
37. 885 Tenth Avenue Anthony Erico Esq. 10
38. 886 Tenth Avenue A & A Deli 4
39. 888 Tenth Avenue Dale Gear & Bearings 7
40. 500 West 57th St. Casriel Institutes 9
41. 506 West 57th St. Eurocast Corp. Broadcast Center 6
42. 510 West 57th St. Unitel Video 6
II. I-7
Table 11.1-3 (C~iDued)
nmUSTaIAL STUDY AJlEA BUSIRISSES
Hap Key Address Kame Type of Use*
43. 514 West 57th St. MPCS Video 6

44. 518 West 57th St. R. Joanne Productions 6
45. 530 West 57th St. Ash Productions Ltd. 6
CBS Inc. 6
German TV-ZDF 6
46. 505 West 57th St. Arrow-U-Drive 7
Coliseum Drive 7
J. Colonna Inc. Autos 7
47. 515 West 57th St. Unitel Video 6
48. 521 West 57th St. International Flavors & Fragrances 2
49. 531 West 57th St. Soho Repertory 9
50. 555 West 57th St. William J. Abelow NK
Adcom Communications 6
Allegiance Advantage Inc. NK
American Institute of Aeronautics 9
and Astronautics
American Journal of Nursing 9
Bakery Driver Local 550 10
Brignatelli & Partners NK
Camelot Communications 6
Carrington & Assoc. NK
Cinema Mistral 6
CUNY Computer Center 9
Drug Enforcement Administration 9
Eastern Newsstand Corp. 4
Morris Ehrlich, Attorney 10
Eleuthyra Films 6
Fermodyl Professionals 6
Ford Motors 7
Geriatric Nursing 10
Greater NY Hospital Assoc 10
Group Records Inc. NK
Grusin-Rosen Productions 6
Health Services Retirement Plan 10
T.A. Helfrich, Atty. 10
Hospital Credit Exchange Inc. 10
Infinity Data Systems 10
International Nursing Index 10
League of Voluntary Hospitals and 9
Homes
Lincoln Mercury Car Rental 7
Manhattan Ford Inc. 7
II.I-8
Table II.I-3 (Continued)
INDUSTRIAL STUDY ·AJlEA BUSIRESSES
Hap Key Address Name Type of Use·
Multitrend Inc. 10
Mary Myers Landscaping 10
New York Center for Liver 10
Transplantation
H. Nason Productions 6
National Gateway Telecommunications 6
National Student Nurses Assn. 9
New York Health Careers Center Inc. 10
Partner Cleaning Corp. 10
RCA Americom 6
Revlon Inc. 10
Smith Greenland Advertising 10
The China Clipper NK
The Printer S o u r c e l O
Ticketmaster 10
Vantage Software 10
Vanyon Corp. NK
Writer's Guild of America 9
CUNY College Discovery 9
51. 600 West 57th St. Gramercy Custom Furniture 2
Olek Lejbezon Furniture 2
Madison Coffee Shop 4
52. 610 West 57th St. Honda Motors 7
Kawasaki Motorcycles 7
The Outrider 7
Vespa Motors 7
Yamaha Motors 7
53. 622 West 57th St. Garage 8
54. 642 West 57th St. Jamie's Foreign Car Service 7
55. 601 West 57th St. All-Car Services 7
Potamkin Toyota 7
56. 607 West 57th St. Goodyear Tire 7
57. 617 West 57th St. Emerald City 4
58. 629 West 57th St. American & Foreign Auto Parts 7
59. 645 West 57th St. Purolator Courier 10
60. 651 West 57th St. Crossroad Outdoor Advertising 2
61. 530 West 58th St. J. West Photo 6
62. 534 West 58th St. House of Burgundy NK
58th Street Warehouse 5
63. 551 West 58th St. GMC Truck Center 7
64. 600 West 58th St. Manhattan Mini-Storage 5
65. 614 West 58th St. Coach Collision 7
11.1-9
Table II.I-3 (Coatfnaed)
nmuSTIlIAL STUDY AREA.. BUSIRESSES
Hap Key Address .&lIle Type of Use·
66. 537 West 59th St. Phoenix Production Services 6

67. 545 West 59th St. Balkan Echo Studios 6
ELA World Wide Video 6
Electrovision Media 6
T.W. Smith Welding Supply 3
68. 555 West 59th St. Hasko Utilities 2
69. 550 West 59th St. Dauman Displays 2
Manhattan Stationery 3
70. 225 West 60th St. Emsig Manufacturing Corp. 2
71. 229 West 60th St. Sebac Coach Works 7
72. 236 West 60th St. Big Apple Auto Repair 7
73. 240 West 60th St. Lasher Carpet Co. 2
74. 211 West 61st St. Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater 9
City Architects 10
Dance Express 9
Dinosaur Dance Co. 9
J. Johnson & Assoc. 10
L. E. Jung & Wolff Inc. 10
New England Dinosaur 9
Stage 61 9
Robert A.M. Stern Architects 10
D. Howard Dance 9
Alan Wanzenberg Architect 10
75. 235 West 61st St. Lincoln Scenic Studios Warehouse 5
76. 218 West 61st St. Parking Garage 8
77. 236 West 6lst St. 3G Stage Corp. 6
78. 250 West 61st St. Dalk Service Corp. 7
79. 2 West End Avenue Gaseteria 7
Sammi Transmission 7
Superior Auto Body 7
80. 12 West End Avenue Ace Transportation 7
Allstate Elevator 3
Arjay Telecommunications 6
Bennet Limousine Service 7
Halcyon Days Production 6
Institute for Advanced Studies in 9
the Theater Arts
Kandel Enterprises NK
Laser Fax Inc. 10
Lero's Point to Point NK
Musicreations 6
Three Star Leasing 3
II.I-lO
Table 11.1-3 (CoatfDaed)
IRDUSDIAL STUDY AIlEA BUSIRESSES
Hap Key Address Rame Type of Use*
Westside Airport Service 7

Window Restoration 2
81. 14 West End Avenue Lee Myles 7
82. 28 West End Avenue Julius Lowy Framing & Restoring 2
83. 30 West End Avenue NYNEX Telecommunications 6
Rote:
*
1 Construction
2 Manufacturing
3 Wholesale
4 Retail
5 Storage/Warehouse
6 Movie/Video/Te1ecommunications
7 Auto Sa1es/Repair
8 Parking
9 Institutions
10 - Business Services/Offices
NK - Not known
This list excludes the following properties: Con Edison power plant, Sanita-
tion Department garage, West 59th Street Recreation Center, John Jay College,
P.S. 191 and 252, Harborview Terrace (and parking lot), Clinton Towers, Roo-
sevelt Hospital staff residence, the Concerto, and pier areas.
II.I-ll
Industrial Study Area Businesses
54th Street - 615t Street
Figure 11.1-4
67 W.s9THST.-
h ~c
]. John
69 63 Jay
"
I \ College
~a
I \
W.58THST. -
~-.
~
'3"'i
[~
\ \ a
\ \ a
\\ " 50 \
48 ~~ a
\
\
\
\ 49 11
47 ~~ 1"
:-a
29
30 28 W27 17,26
.......... U ••••••••••••••••••••
r }

cf ======t=:====::::iSlfl FEET
SCALE
• ••••• Industrial Study Area Boundary
27 Business location
Note: See Table 11.1-3 for reference
5-92 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
The largest and most visible studio use in the industrial study area is
the CBS, Inc. facility, occupying nearly the entire block bounded by 56th and
57th Streets and Tenth and Eleventh Avenues. Unitel Video Studios and MPCS
Video also occupy their own buildings on that block. Approximately 20 percent
of the 47 tenants in the Ford Building, at 555 West 57th Street, are also in-
volved in television, film, or video. Other mixed-tenant buildings in the
study area with a substantial presence of such firms include 513 West 54th
Street, 619 West 54th Street, and 545 West 59th Street.
According to the Mayor's Office of Film, Television, and Broadcasting*,

the film and television industry in New York has been struggling somewhat of
late. Recent strikes of industry workers and the generally sluggish economy
have resulted in greater competition among firms for less work. The recent
sale of a 45,OOO-square-foot television studio at Ninth Avenue and 55th Street,
east of the study area, to SONY, which is refurbishing it as a state-of-the-art
music video studio, is expected to supply much-needed opportunities for area
businesses. Several firms providing related support services, such as lighting
and equipment companies, have merged. Other firms have been forced to close,
and the Mayor's Office anticipates further closings in the near future.
Auto-related Industries. Auto showrooms, which line both sides of Elev-

enth Avenue between 54th and 58th Streets (and which extend south along Elev- .
enth Avenue outside the study area), are the most visible of the 48 auto-relat-
ed uses in the study area. There are also a substantial number of auto repair
and leasing facilities, parking lots, and garages. These uses are generally
concentrated in ground-floor space in the area bounded by Eleventh and Twelfth
Avenues and 54th and 58th Streets. Typically, buildings with auto-related
establishments on the ground floor have warehouse space on the floors above.
Manufacturing. Manufacturing, a sector of New York City's economy that

has shrunk considerably over the last two decades, remains an active but small,
part of the industrial study area's economic base. Several large, well-estab-
lished manufacturing firms, such as International Flavors and Fragrances on
West 57th Street, Artkraft Strauss Signs on Twelfth Avenue, and Emsig Manufac-
turing Corporation on West 60th Street, are the most notable of a core of smal-
ler manufacturers making such goods as display systems, glass products, furni-
ture, consumer products, and steel castings.
Wholesaling. The conversion, in 1987, of an 8-story 10ft building occupy-

ing the entire Eleventh Avenue frontage between 54th and 55th Streets, into the
International Center of Oriental Rugs, brought 117 rug importers to the indus-
trial study area. Wholesaling was not previously a major segment of the study
area's economy, but the rug importers now represent, in number if not in square
footage, over 30 percent of all area businesses.
Other Industries. The industrial study area also offers a substantial

amount of office space, most notably in the Ford Building, mentioned above, but
businesses occupy space in 10ft and small office buildings located throughout
the study area. Small business services firms are most typical, including
* Phone conversations with Patrick Pleven, Mayor's Office of Film, Televi-

sion, and Broadcasting, November 19 and 29, 1991.
I1.1-12
direct mail operations, advertising agencies, architecture and law firms, and
real estate companies. The Ford Building also has a concentration of institu-
tional uses such as union offices, a City University of New York computer cen-
ter, and non-profit health-related associations.
Other business sectors present in smaller numbers in the industrial study

area include warehousing, construction, and retail. Together these account for
about 7 percent of all businesses in the area.
Recent Trends. An earlier analysis of the area's economic base, conducted

in 1986, was examined to determine how the area's economic base has evolved
over the last five years. The study was developed for the previously completed
draft EIS for the Trump City project and was based on a previous Department of
City Planning Report (Clinton M-Zone Study, 1985) and field surveys conducted
in October 1986. The DCP study was based on a Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) listing
of businesses by tax block and lot. This original list was updated in 1986 to
exclude several businesses no longer in the area and to include other business-
es which were not included on the original list. The Trump City analysis esti-
mated that there were nearly 6,000 jobs in this area. The estimates were based
on actual employment figures compiled by D&B figures for certain businesses and
for businesses not covered by D&B, by estimating the number of employees based
on the. building square footage and type of business. The grdss square footage
of each business was estimated from information provided in the Sanborn Manhat-
tan Land Book. A summary of the study is shown in Table II.I-4.
Based on the original D&B survey, as updated through the 1986 field sur-
vey, this area contained a substantial base with more than 120 firms. The 1986
survey does not include the 47 firms· in the Ford Building, the 11 firms in 211
West 61st Street, or the 117 rug importers in the International Center for
Oriental Rugs, which was established in 1987. Adjusted for these uses, the
1986 total would be 295 businesses or about 30 fewer than the number identified
in November 1991, indicating that the study area's economy has remained stable
or has expanded slightly over the last few years. A comparison of Tables
11.1-3 and 11.1-4 also shows that for the most part the number of firms within
each sector remained unchanged during this five year period. Based on these
comparisons, it appears that the 1986 estimate of ~pproximately 6,000 study
area employees remains reasonable today.
With respect to potential displacement pressures, much of this area ap-

pears too isolated from market forces in the Lincoln Square and West Midtown
area to be seriously vulnerable to market driven displacement. However, that
portion of the industrial study area lying closest to the project site -- the
western half of the blocks between Amsterdam/Tenth Avenue and West End/Eleventh
Avenue from 58th to 6lst Streets -- is most vulnerable. These half-blocks
currently have close to 46 firms, primarily small auto-, movie- and television-
related businesses. It. is not isolated from the strong development pressures
of Lincoln Square, particularly with the recent construction nearby of several
large residential buildings and the approval in 1990 of the nearby Manhattan
West project. In addition, the Department of City Planning is exploring the
possibilities of rezoning a portion of this area to allow residential use.
Finally, even if there were no rezoning here, the underlying zoning (Ml-6,
C4-7) would allow a much higher density commercial use (up to a 10.0 FAR) than
is evident in the existing built form of this predominantly one-story area,
II.I-13
Table 11.1-4
SUlOWlY 01' USES· IB TIlE IBDUSTKL\L S'lODY AREA: 1986
Total StudX Area*

Employees
Ro. 8sf Est.
Industry firms (000) Known- astra*- Total
Construction 4 10 34 5 39
Manufacturing 11 626 674 100 774
Wholesale/Business Services/ 11 256 66 35 101
Storage
Retail 18 56 36 55 91
Movie/Video/Broadcasting 30 1,080 883 1,250 2,133
Auto 31 1,290 520 205 725
Parking 13 165 0 11 11
Education/Social Services 3 125 78 10 88
Mixed-Tenant Office N/A 900 0 1,800 1,800
Unspecified Warehouse/Office N/A 91 0 91 91
Known Vacant N/A -ill 0 0 __0
TOTAL· 121 4,922 2,291 3,562 5,853
Source: "ClintonM-Zone Study," prepared for Department of City Planning by

Dun & Bradstreet, 1985; Sanborn Manhattan Land Book; field surveys
conducted by McKeown & Franz, Inc., October 1986.
* Area we"st of Amsterdam/Tenth Avenue between 54th and 61st Streets, ex-
cept Penn Yards site.
** As listed in Dun & Bradstreet report.
*** As estimated for firms not listed in Dun & Bradstreet report.
Rote: This list excludes the following properties: Con Edison power
plant, Sanitation Department garage, West 59th Street Recreation
Center, P.S. 191, Harborview Terrace (and parking lot), Clinton Tow-
ers, Roosevelt Hospital staff residence, pier areas.
II.I-14
which could ultimately trigger some development interest. The balance of the
industrial study area contains a mix of lower density M zones -- M2-3 and M3-2
west of Eleventh Avenue and Ml-5 between Tenth and Eleventh Avenue which is
less likely to encourage new development.
This section describes conditions that are likely to exist on the project
site and in the retail and industrial study areas by 1997 and 2002 in the fu-
ture without the project.
Project Site
Employment and Tax Revenues
1997. As noted above in section II.B, "Land Use," the project site will
continue to be the site of Jay-Gee Motorhomes, and the Con Edison, United
States Postal Service, and public parking lots by 1997 in the future without
the project. Therefore, the number of employees on site and the tax revenues,
including real estate tax revenues, generated by the activities on site are not
expected to appreciably change from those discussed under existing
circumstances.
2002. No further changes in the number of type of businesses on the proj-

ect site are expected by 2002 in the future without the project.
Study Area
Retail/Service Study Area
1997. The retail/service study area, which is currently underserved by

retail uses, will both add new residents and gain a substantial amount of re-
tail space, based on the development projects proposed for completion by 1997.
Seven projects, including the recently c'ompleted but only partially occu-
pied Concerto and 3 Lincoln Center, will add nearly 3,500 new units and 5,500
new residents to the retail/service study area by 1997. A 1,000 unit dormitory
for Fordham University will also be added. These projects will also add sub-
stantial amounts of retail space to an area that is not currently well served.
This will include supermarkets in at least two proposed development projects:
the Concerto, a recently completed residential building on Amsterdam Avenue
between 59th and 60th Streets, and Manhattan West, a project proposed for West
End Avenue between 6lst and 64th Streets. These and other projects proposed in
the retail study area will add other ground floor retail use to the West End
Avenue streetfront as well. Together, the West 60th Street, Capital
Cities/ABC, and Manhattan West projects are projected to add approximately
92,500 square feet of retail space (in addition to the proposed supermarkets)
by 1997.
The result of all the proposed development on the retail/service study

area by 1997 will be the creation a new retail strip along West End Avenue that
II.I-15
will serve not only residents and workers in the proposed developments, but
currently underserved residents of Amsterdam Houses, Lincoln Towers, and other
high-rise buildings in the area as well.
2002. Three of the long-term potential development sites identified in

section II.B, "Land Use," would add an estimated 888 units and over 1,400 new
residents to the retail/service study area. All of the projects are in mid-
block locations and would therefore be unlikely to have any ground floor retail
use. In general, by 2002 in the future without the project it is unlikely that
any additional retail space will be added to the study area.
1997. Because of the sizable amount of industrial activity in the indus-

trial study area, these uses -- including manufacturing, transportation-related
uses, television/film-related companies, and warehouses -- will continue to
maintain a strong presence through 1997 in the future without the project.
Possible development or conversion pressures may arise in the area north of
58th Street, as the various projects described above are actually built, par-
ticularly the West 60th Street, Manhattan West, and Capital Cities/ABC proj-
ects. As noted above in section II.B, "Land Use," the most vulnerable areas
are the blocks of small auto-related, warehouse, and television/video uses
between 58th and 6lst Street east of West End Avenue. For example, if built,
the West 60th Street project will result in the displacement of several auto-
related and warehouse uses on the site, including Sebac Coach Works, an auto-
repair facility at 229 West 60th Street, 3G Stage Corporation, a film-produc-
tion studio at 236 West 6lst Street, Dalk Service Corporation, a taxi garage at
250 West 61st Street ,.and two remaining uses in the commercial building at 30
West End Avenue, NYNEX Telecommunications and Julius Lowy Frames & Restoring
Co.
South of West 58th Street, however, film-, video-, and broadcasting-relat-

ed businesses would be far less vulnerable to development pressures. Estab-
lished uses such as the CBS, Unitel, and MPCS Video buildings would remain in
place, as would the Ford Building, which contains a strong component of film-
and video-related businesses. As mentioned above un~er "Land Use," development
pressures have not been experienced to the degree anticipated in the portion of
Clinton east of Tenth Avenue; it is therefore highly unlikely that pressure
would be felt for conversion of the industrial area west of Tenth Avenue to
other uses. Overall, therefore, the number of television and film-related
firms in the industrial study area should remain fairly steady by 1997 in the
future without the project.
2002. According to the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater, and Broadcasting,

the television/video/film industry will undergo significant changes over the
next 10 to 20 years with the advent of digital technology that will render many
current film and video technologies obsolete. Equipment rental firms, film and
video processors, and other segments of the industry may be forced to shift
their emphasis to digital technology or risk going out of business. It is
reasonable to assume that the industry will adapt itself to the change in tech-
nologies, as it adapted itself in the past to earlier technological break-
throughs, and that the television- and film-related industry, regardless of its
form, will remain a cornerstone of the industrial study area's economy.
II. 1-16
This section analyzes the expected economic impact of the proposed devel-
opment. The analysis of impacts during the development period includes a pro-
jection of direct and generated construction employment and income, as well as
the expected city and state revenues resulting from the construction activity.
The analysis of impacts after development includes an analysis of the permanent
employment and a description of the expected public revenues derived from the
development. Finally, the analysis includes an assessment of the project's
potential to affect economic conditions in the retail and industrial study
areas .
. Construction Period Impacts on the Project Site
Business Displacement
The proposed project would require the displacement of existing businesses

on the project site, including Jay-Gee Motorhomes, and the Con Edison, U.S . .
Postal Service, and public parking lots, which together currently employ fewer
than 20 workers.
Value of Construction in Place
Phase I. The total value of construction in place by the end of Phase I

is estimated at about $859 million. This figure includes the cost of construc-
tion for the residential, professional office, community facility, and retail
components of the project, for the construction of the Phase I open space, and
accompanying streets and infrastructure (see Table II. 1-5)..
Phase II. The total value of added construction in place from Phase II is
estimated at an additional $1.25 billion, including the cost of the remaining
residential buildings, the studi%ffice complex, and the remainder of the open
space, streets, and infrastructure to be constructed during Phase II (see Ta-
ble II.I-5).
Total Project. The total value of construction in place by the completion

of Phase II is estimated at $2.11 billion in constant 1990 dollars, or assuming
a lO-year construction period, an average of about $211 million annually.
Construction Employment
Phase I. As shown above, total construction costs for the Phase I devel-
opment are estimated to be nearly $859 million dollars, exclusive of subsequent
tenant improvements. These costs include direct construction expenditures for
labor and materials, construction management, and related fees and expenditures
(se~ Table 11.1-5). .
The economic effects of major construction projects are generally of two

kinds: direct benefits, usually measured by specific construction-related
expenditures for labor, services, and materials; and indirect benefits, repre-
senting secondary-level expenditures made by material suppliers, construction
workers, and other employees involved in the direct activity, for the purchases
of other goods and services within the region. The "secondary" expenditures
II.I-17
Table II. 1-5
COBSTaUCTIOB V.AL1JE 01' THE PROPOSED PROJECT·
(H1llions of Constant 1991 Dollars)
Phase I Total
Residential/Professional Office Space $761
Non-Building Construction 98
Total Phase I $859
Added in Phase II
Residential/Professional Office Space $ 620
Studio/Office Space 518

\
Total Phase II $1,255
Total Pro1ect
Residential/Professional Office Space $1,381
Studio/Office Space 518
Total: Construction Value of $2.113

InvestDlent in the Area
* Based on assumed costs of $180 per square foot for residential/profession-

al office space and $222 per square foot for studi%ffice space. Costs
are exclusive of subsequent tenant improvements.
II.I-18
support economic activity that, in turn, generates new employment within the
city.
To assess the total economic activity generated by this construction ac-

tivity on the city's economy, the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS
II), developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
is utilized. The model contains data for New York City on 531 economic sec-
tors, showing how each sector affects every other sector as a result of a
change in the quantity of its product or service. The model, which was origi-
nally developed based on 1987 data, was updated for the project based on
changes in the New York metropolitan area price level (the effect of these
changes is to make predictions with the model more conservative). Using this
model (RIMS II, NYC, 1990) and the specific characteristics of the proposed
development, the total effect was projected for New York City from construction
of the proposed project.
Table 11.1-6 presents a summary of the effects on the economy of New York
City from construction of the proposed project by phase. As indicated in the
table, direct employment resulting from the construction expenditures for
Phase I is estimated at about 7,560 person-years (the equivalent of one employ-
ee working one year) for the construction period that is anticipated to be fin-
ished at the end of 1997.
Table 11.1-6
SUHHARYOF TOE ECONOHIC EFFECTS FROK CONSTRUCTION

OP TOE PROPOSED PRO.JECT BY PHASE
Direct Vages Total Vages

and Salaries and Salaries
Direct Employment Total Employment (Kill ions of (Killions of
(Person-Years) (Person-Years) 1991 Dollars) 1991 Dollars)
Phase I: 7,560 11,000 $275 $381
Phase II: 11,000 16,000 403 557
Total Project: 18,560 27,000 678 938
Notes: All figures independently rounded. All dollar amounts are expressed
in constant 1991 dollars, which would be expected to increase as a
result of inflation. The figures are based on the proposed develop-
ment and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis' Regional Input-Output
Modeling System (RIMS II) for New York City.
Source: Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc.
In addition to direct employment, total employment resulting from con-

struction expenditures on Phase I would include jobs in business establishments
providing goods and services to the contractors and resulting in direct or
generated employment. Based on the model's multipliers for New York City's
principal economic sectors, the project would generate an additional 3,440 per-
son-years of employment within New York City, bringing the total direct and
11.1-19
generated jobs from the construction of Phase I of the proposed project to a
total of about 11,000 person-years of employment.
Direct wages and salaries resulting from Phase I construction are esti-
mated at $275 million. Total direct and generated wages and· salaries resulting
in New York City from Phase I construction are estimated at $381 million.
Phase II. Additional expenditures by the completion of Phase II are ex-

pected to equal about $1.25 billion. The direct employment resulting from
. these additional expenditures at the proposed project is estimated at about
11,000 person-years (the equivalent of one employee working one year) for the
construction period between the end of Phase I and the completion of Phase II.
The project would generate an additional 5,000 person-years of employment with-
in New York City, bringing the total direct and generated jobs resulting from
the construction expenditures to an estimated total of about 16,000 person-
years of employment within New York City.
Direct wages and salaries resulting from development of Phase II of the

proposed project are estimated at $403 million. Phase II development would
generate an estimated $557 million in total wages and salaries.
Total Project. Total construction costs for the proposed project are
estimated at $2.11 billion. Direct employment resulting from these construc-
tion expenditures is estimated at 18,600 person-years (or, assuming a 10-year
construction period, an average of about 1,860 annually). Total direct and
generated jobs resulting from the construction of the proposed project are
estimated at 27,000 person-years of employment within New York City. These
figures would correspond to an average during the construction period of about
2,700 person-years of employment annually in New York City during the project's
10-year construction period.
Direct wages and salaries during the construction period are estimated at
$678 million. Total direct and generated wages and salaries resulting within
New York City from construction of the proposed project are estimated at $938
million.
For both construction phases, additional employment would result from sub-.
sequent tenant and resident improvement expenditures not included in the above
construction costs .
.. ""'-'.
Construction Tax Revenues
Phase I. The construction activity resulting from investment in the area

would also contribute to increased tax revenues for the city and state. As
indicated above, total estimated construction costs for the Phase I portion of
the proposed project, excluding financing and related costs, would be approxi-
mately $859 million. Taking into account indirect expenditures (those gener-
ated by the direct expenditures), based on the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analy-
sis' RIMS II models for New York City and New York State, the total economic
activity resulting from the Phase I project construction is estimated at $1.68
billion in New York State, $1.3 billion of which would be spent within New York
City.
Based on aggregate data for economic activity and tax receipts for the New
York State and New York City economies developed for use in evaluating the
11.1-20
economic effects of large development projects, such as Battery Park City and
the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, it is estimated that public revenues
resulting from construction activity would equal approximately 5.4 percent of
the project's total economic activity in New York State. Of these tax reve-
nues, the largest portion would come from personal income taxes and from corpo-
rate, business, sales, and related taxes on direct and induced economic activi-
ty. New York State would receive approximately $61.4 million (68 percent) and
New York City would receive approximately $28.9 million (32 percent) of the tax
revenues generated by construction. In total, construction of the Phase I
portion of the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately $90.3
million in tax revenues for New York City and New York State, exclusive of real
estate and real property related taxes.
Phase II. The Phase II development would cost an estimated $1.25 billion
to construct. Using similar procedures as for Phase I, the construction of the
Phase II development would generate a total of $2.4 billion in economic activi-
ty in New York State and City -- $1.9 billion in New York City and $0.5 billion
in New York State.
Total taxes generated for the city and state from the construction of
Phase II of the project would be. about $130 million, exclusive of real estate
and real property-related taxes - - $42.0 million for New York City and $88.0
million for New York State.
Total Project. Economic activity generated by the construction of the

project in New York State and City would total approximately $4.1 billion.
This would generate approximately $220 million in new tax revenues for New York
State and New York City. Approximately $3.2 billion of the total economic
activity and $71.0 million in tax revenues would accrue to New York City.
Operational Impacts of the Proposed Project
Employment and Business Activity
Phase I. Projected on-site employment associated with the operation of

the proposed project is presented in Table 11.1-7. In total, it is estimated
that 765 permanent jobs would be added to the project site during Phase I.
This includes approximately 170 jobs resulting from the project's retail space,
an estimated 380 jobs related to the professional office space (most of which
would be in medical offices), and 215 building maintenance and other jobsre-
lated to the residential and professional office components of the project.
Phase II. Projected employment resulting from the Phase II development

would include 1,320 permanent jobs resulting from the commercial office devel-
opment, 240 workers in the retail space, 4,000 employees in the studio build-
ing, 300 employees in the professional office space, and 185 building mainte-
nance and other workers. Total permanent employment added to the site in
Phase II would be approximately 6,050 workers.
Thus, the total employment on the project site as a result of the proposed
project would be about 6,800 jobs. These jobs would represent a substantial
increase over the project site's existing 20 jobs.
II. 1-21
Table 11.1-7
PB.OJECTED PEIlHABERT DPIDYlIEB'l OR llEDEVEIDPED SITES

WITIIm TIlE PIlOPOSED PB.O.JJ:C'l
(Pull-Time Equivalent Jobs)
Type Phase I Phase I I
Commercial and Professional Office 380 1,625 2,005

Development1
Retail Space2 170 240 410
Studio Complex3 4,000 4,000
Building Service and Maintenance:
Residentia1 4 210 170 380
CommercialS 5 15 20
TOTAL 765 6,050 6,815
Rotes: Figures are rounded and based on typical factors by kind of economic
) activity and area. Actual figures would vary based on the specific
composition of establishments that may occupy the space. All figures
rounded.
1 One employee per 250 gross square feet of commercial development.
2 One (full-time equivalent) employee per 350 gross square feet; as-
suming two-third are full-time and one-third are part time employ-
ees working half time, total full- and part-time job creation would
be one third larger than shown.
3 One employee per 500 gross square feet of studio development.
4 Based on one employee per 15 dwelling units.
S Based on average of one employee per 30,000 feet of commercial and
professional space.
II. I-22
The studio component would either accommodate a single tenant or a mix of
tenants involved in film and television production. Under an assumption that
the project would be able to attract a single tenant, it is estimated that
approximately 1,500 of its 4,000 jobs would be office-related, occupying the
second of two office towers placed atop the studio building. The remaining
2,500 jobs would be involved with various production and support functions,
including broadcasting, scenery, maintenance, storage, and mechanical.
It is assumed that the bulk of the new retail, professional office, and
building maintenance jobs created on-site would represent new jobs for the
city. The jobs in the office and studio',;components are likely to primarily
represent shifts of jobs from other city locations. The construction of new,
modern studio facilities could retain jobs in New York City that would other-
wise relocate out of the city.
Fiscal Impacts
Tax Revenues. Given the vast increase in economic activity on-site, sub-
stantial additional tax revenues would be generated for the city. It can rea-
sonably be assumed that the assessed value of the project site, currently about
$43.9 million, would increase substantially on project completion. In the
event that tax abatements are sought, initial increases in real estate taxes
would be reduced.
Non-real estate tax revenues would also increase. The largest expected
categories would be resident income taxes from new residents; taxes on wages
and salaries; and sales, corporate income, and occupancy taxes from the activi-
ties that occur on the site. Other tax revenues would be generated from utili-
ties and a variety of other sources, depending on the specific activities on
the site. Additional taxes would be generated by the indirect economic activi-
ty induced by the direct economic activity occurring on.-site. The actual
amount of new taxes would depend on whether the new residents, new jobs, and
new economic activity (particularly retail sales) on-site represented actual
new residents, jobs, and economic activity for New York City. The actual in-
crease would be reduced to the extent that the new on-site jobs, residents, and
economic activity represent shifts within the city.
City Expenditures. The development of the project and the population that
would be added would generate additional localized demands for city services.
Among the areas where there could be added demands for city services are those
analyzed in section 11.0, "Community Facilities:" police 'and fire protection,
public schools, public libraries, and health care facilities. Other city ser-
vices that would be required on the project site include street maintenance,
park maintenance, and sanitation services.
The net tax revenues generated by the project would be reduced to the
extent that additional city expenditures would be necessary to provide services
to the project. The extent to which the added localized demand for services
translates into additional outlays for the city would.depend on whether the
city has the capacity to shift existing resources to the area from other loca-
tions, or whether new expenditures would be required for personnel, equipment,
or new facilities.
II.I-23
The provision of certain services would not require substantial additional
expenditure of city funds. For example, overall staffing levels in the city
for police protection services are based on the city's annual budget alloca-
tion to the police department. This overall allocation is unaffected by lo-
calized demand. The resources are allocated to each of the city's 75 police
precincts on a formula described in detail in section II.D. To the extent
that additional police resources would be needed in the vicinity of the project
site, those resources would represent a shift of existing personnel and equip-
ment within the city rather than an added cost to the city. The fire depart-
ment also has sufficient resources to serve the project without adding to city
costs. While additional capacity would be needed at public elementary schools
to accommodate project-generated students, administrative actions on the part
of the 10~a1 school board could open sufficient capacity to serve project-gen-
erated students. The costs associated with those administrative actions would
be minimal. The additional demand on city sanitation services could be met
through scheduling a second sanitation collection on an existing route where
there is currently one~ Again, these are additional costs but they are likely
to be minimal. Additional expenditures would be required by the city for the
maintenance of the waterfront park, the maintenance of new streets, and the
provision of additional bus service to meet project demand. As mentioned
above, private health care facilities would adequately meet the needs of proj-
ect residents and workers, eliminating ,the need for the shifting or addition of
municipal health care facilities to serve the project site.
Retail Study Area
The main issue related to potential impacts of the proposed project on the
area's retail base is the extent to which retail space provided on-site would
serve the needs of project residents and workers.
Retail Component
The project would provide about 137,800 square feet of at-grade retail
space -- about 42 percent, or 57,600 gsf, in Phase I, and the remainder in
Phase II. 'In addition, a six-screen, l,800-seat cinep1ex would be provided in
Phase II. The project may also include an additional 45,000 gsf of below-grade
retail space.
Phase I. During Phase I of the proposed project, approximately 57,600

square feet of retail space (60,480 gross) would be included on the ground
floor of the residential buildings on Parcels C, D, E, and F on the west side
of Freedom Place between West 66th and West 70th Streets. The anticipated
retail uses in Phase I of the proposed project would provide convenience goods
and services intended to primarily serve residents of the proposed project.
Since the immediate area bordering the Phase I development is not particularly
well served by retail uses, it could reasonably be expected that the project's
Phase I retail uses would also serve some of these nearby residents.
An analysis of the potential expenditures of Phase I residents on the

types of retail goods and services that may be included in the Phase I retail
program indicates the following (see Tables 1-8 and 1-9):
o Total expenditure potential of approximately $37.0 million for a

range of convenience retail goods and services, ranging from food
stores to drug and hardware stores (see Table 1-8);
II.I-24
Table II. 1-8
EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL BY PHASE I PROJECT RESIDENTS
Consumer Unit/Number of Households 3,129
Average Size of Consumer Unit 1.85 Persons/Household

Estimated Household Income $60,000
(Before Taxes)
Estimated Expenditures $51,000
Percent of
Total Total
Categories of Retail £Uenditures (1) Expenditures (2) Dollars (3) £Ue nditures(3)
Food at home 8.5% $4,335 $13,564,215
Food away from home 7.0 3,570 11,170,530
Alcoholic beverages 1.3 663 2,074,527
Laundry and cleaning supplies 0.4 204 638,316
Other household products 0.5 255 797,895
Small appliances/miscellaneous 0.3 153 478,737
Miscellaneous household equipment 1.8 918 2,872,422
Drugs 0.6 306 957,474
Personal care products/services 1.3 663 2,074,527
Reading 0.7 357 1,117,053
Tobacco products/supplies .JJ..J. 357 1,117,053
TOTAL CATEGORIES 23.1% $11.781 $36.862.749
Rotesl
(1)
Categories representative of convenience goods likely to be purchased by residents
close to home, including:
o Food at home: total expenditures for food at grocery stores or other food stores,
and food prepared by the consumer unit on trips;
o Food away from home: includes all meals (breakfast, lunch, brunch, and dinner) at
restaurants, carryouts, and vending machines, including tips; meals away from home
on trips; meals as pay; and catered affairs, .such as weddings and bar mitzvahs;
o Alcoholic beverages: includes beer and ale, wine, whiskey, gin, vodka, and other
alcoholic beverages;
o Laundry and cleaning supplies: and other items, such as cleaning and toilet
tissues;
o Other household products;
o Small appliances and miscellaneous housewares: small electrical kitchen appliances,
portable heating and cooling equipment, china and other dinnerware, flatware, glass-
ware, nonelectric cookware, plastic dinnerware;
o Miscellaneous household equipment: typewriters, luggage, lamps and other lighting
fixtures, hand and power tools, telephone answering devices, telephone accessories,
computers for home use, calculators, floral arrangements, closet and storage
II.I-25
EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL BY .PHASE I PROJECT RESIDENTS
Rote. (Continued):
items, household decorative items, smoke alarms, small miscellaneous furnishings,
and other household appliances (excluding major appliances, such as refrigerators,
dishwashers, microwaves, air-conditioners);
o Drugs: prescription and nonprescription drugs, internal and respiratory over-the-
counter drugs;
o Personal care products and services: products for the hair, oral hygiene, shaving
needs, cosmetics and bath products, electric personal care appliances, other per-
sonal care products, personal care services for males and females;
o Reading materials: purchase of single~copy newspapers, magazines, books, newslet-
ters, encylcopedias, and other reference books; subscriptions for newspapers,
magazines, and books;
o Tobacco products and suplies: cigarettes, cigars, snuff, loose-smoking tobacco,
chewing tobacco, and smoking accessories, such as cigar holders, pipes, flints,
lighters, pipe cleaners, .and other smoking products and accessories.
(2) Aggregate data based on the United States Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics 1987 Consumer Expenditure Survey.
(3) These are annual figures in current dollars.
II.I-26
Table 11.1-9
DEHAND FOR CONVENIENCE RETAIL BY rHASE I RESIDENTS
Total Expenditure Estimated Capture Estimated Expendi- Estimated Sales Estimated Square
Potential (1,2) On-Site ture ~-Site(2) Per Sqgare P'oot(3) Foot Demand
Food at home $13,564,215 75% $10,173,161 $479 21,238
Food away from home 11,170,530 20 2,234,106 258 8,659
Alcoholic beverages 2,074,527 40 829,810 335 2,477
Laundry and cleaning 638,316 75 478,737 244 1,962
supplies
Other household products 797,895 75 598,421 138 4,271
H Small app1iances/ 478,737 33.3 159,419 249 640
H
miscellaneous
H
I
~ Miscellaneous household 2,872,422 33.3 956,516 160 5,978
" equipment
Drugs 957,474 50 478,737 327 1,464
Personal care products/ 2,074,527 50 1,037,264 202 5,135
services
Reading 1,117,053 50 558,526 265 2,107
Tobacco products/supplies __ LllL053 50 558.526 180 3.103
TOTAL CATEGORIES $36.862,749 49.0% $18,063,223 57,034
Notes:
(1)
See Table 11.1-8.
(2) Annual figures in current dollars.
(3) Based on data for the top 10 percent of stores in community-sized shopping centers in the United State as shown
in the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers (1990), published by the Urban Land Institute.
o Of the total retail expenditure potential, approximately $18.0 mil-
lion spent on-site (see Table 1-9); and
o A demand for approximately 57,000 square feet of retail space, in-

cluding 2l,OO~ square feet for stores selling food at home.
It can therefore reasonably be concluded that the Phase I retail develop-

ment would not require the capture of substantial dollars from off-site resi-
dents and existing retailers and that the day-to-day. retail needs of project
residents could be met on-site without adding demand to already heavily uti-
lized retail stores.
Phase II. At project completion, the project would include 137,800 square
feet of above-grade retail space (144,690 gross sf). The project would also
have a six-screen, l,800-seat cineplex and could have up to 45,000 square feet
of below-grade retail uses. About 55 percent of the space would be included in
the ground ·floor of residential buildings proposed for Parcels J, K, and 0,
with the remaining space included on Parcel N in the' office/studio complex.
The cineplex would also be located on Parcel N.
Retail uses to be added during Phase II would be oriented to the needs of

residents and to workers and visitors in the studi%ffice complex. Project
residents would create a total demand for approximately 104,000 square feet of
neighborhood retail/service uses (see Tables 1-10 and 1-11), representing ap-
proximately 75 percent of the above-grade retail space provided by the project
(72 percent of the gross square footage of above-grade retail spac·e).
It is assumed that the balance of the retail program would primarily be

oriented to the on-site workers and visitors, including patrons of the cine-
plex, and would include such uses as restaurants, apparel stores, stationery
stores, etc.
As described above in section II.B, "Land Use and Zoning," the proposed
project would not have a substantial effect on the majority of the industrial
study area's industrial base, which includes a mix of television/film-related
companies as well as auto-related, wholesaling, and manufacturing uses. The
largest portion of the industrial study area is fairly isolated from develop-
ment pressures emanating from either Midtown Manhattan or Lincoln Square and
those that could conceivably result from the proposed project. The area's
current mix of low-density M zones is a further deterrent to widespread change.
However, the proposed project could affect the viability of the manufacturing
and commercial uses located between West 58th and 6lst Streets east of West End
Avenue by supporting market pressures for residential and other support uses.
These pressures, however, would exist in the future without the project, par-
ticularly with the proposed rezoning of the western half of the block between
60th and 6lst Streets, and the development of these large projects (Manhattan
West, Capital Cities/ABC, and Macklowe) in the future without the project.
The studio complex, located on the southernmost parcel of the project

site, would not be expected to have a negative effect on the established tele-
vision/video/film industry to the south. It would be the largest such use in
II.I-28
Table II.I-10
EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL BY PROJECT RESIDENTS
Consumer Unit
Number of Households) 5,700
Average Size of Consumer Unit 1.85 Persons/Household
Estimated Household Income $60,000
(Before Taxes)
Estimated Expenditures $51,000
Percent of
Total Total
Categories of Retail ExpendituresCl) Expenditures (2 ) Dol1ars(3) Expenditures (3)
Food at home 8.5% $4,335 $24,709,500
Food away from home 7.0 3,570 20,349,000
Alcoholic beverages 1.3 663 3,779,100
Laundry and cleaning supplies 0.4 204 1,162,800
Other household products 0.5 255 1,453,500
Small appliances/miscellaneous 0.3 153 872,100
Miscellaneous household equipment 1.8 918 5,232,600
Drugs 0.6 306 1,744,200
Personal care products/services 1.3 663 3,779,100
Reading 0.7 357 2,034,900
Tobacco products/supplies .JL.l 357 2,034,900
TOTAL CATEGORIES 23.1% $11.781 $67.151.700
Rote.:
(1)
Categories representative of convenience goods likely to be purchased by residents
close to home, including:
o Food at home: total expend'itures for food at grocery stores or other food stores~
and food prepared by the consumer unit on trips;
o Food away from home: includes all meals (breakfast, lunch, brunch, and dinner) at
restaurants, carryouts, and vending machines, including tips; meals away from home
on trips; meals as pay; and catered affairs, such as weddings and bar mitzvahs;
o Alcoholic beverages: includes beer and ale, wine, whiskey, gin, vodka, and other
alcoholic beverages;
o Laundry and cleaning supplies: and other items, such as cleaning and toilet
tissues;
o Other household products;
o Small appliances and miscellaneous housewares: small electrical kitchen appli-
ances, rortable heating and cooling equipment, china and other dinnerware, flat-
ware" g assware, nonelectric cookware, plastic dinnerware;
o Miscellaneous household equirment: typewriters, luggage, lamps and other lighting
fixtures, hand and power too s, telephone answering devices, telephone accesso-
ries, computers for home use, calculators, floral arrangements, closet and storage
II.I-29
· Table II.I-10 (Continued)
EXPENDlTUllE POTENTIAL BY PROJECT RESIDENTS
IIote. (Continued):
items. household decorative items. smoke alarms. small miscellaneous furnishings.
and other household appliances (excluding major appliances, such as refrigerators.
dishwashers. microwaves. air-conditioners);
o Drugs: prescription and nonprescription drugs. internal and respiratory over-the-
counter drugs;
o Personal care products and services: products for the hair. oral hygiene. shaving
needs, cosmetics and bath products. electric personal care appliances, other per-
sonal care products, personal care services for males and females;
o Reading materials: purchase of single-copy newspapers. magazines, books. newslet-
ters, encylcopedias, and other reference books; subscriptions for newspapers,
magazines, and books; , "
o Tobacco products and suplies: cigarettes. cigars. snuff. loose-smoking tobacco,
chewing tobacco, and smoking accessories. such as cigar holders. pipes. flints,
lighters, pipe cleaners. and other smoking products and accessories.
(2)
Aggregate data based on the United States Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics 1987 Consumer Expenditure Survey.
(3)
These are annual figures in current dollars.
II.I-30
Table 11.1-11
DKHAND FOR CONVENIENCE RETAIL BY PHASE I RESIDENTS
Total Expenditure Estimated Capture Estimated Expendi- Estimated Sales Estimated Square
Potential (1.2) On-Site tore On-Site(2). Per Square Foot(3) Foot Demand .
Food at home $24,709,500 75% $18,532,125 $479 38,689
Food away from home 20,349,000 20 4,069,800 258 15,774
Alcoholic beverages 3,779,100 41 1,558,879 335 4,653
Laundry and cleaning 1,162,800 75 872,100 244 3,574
supplies
Other household products 1,453,500 75 1,090,125 138 7,899
H Small appliances/ 872,100 33.3 290,409 249 1,166
H
miscellaneous
H
,
\.oJ Miscellaneous household 5,232,600 33.3 1,742,456 160 10,890
t-'
equipment
Drugs 1,744,200 50 872,100 327 2,667
Personal care products/ 3,779,100 50 1,889,550 202 9,354
services
Reading 2,034,900 50 1,017,450 265 3,839
Tobacco products/supplies 2,034,900 50 1,017 ,450 180 5,653
TOTAL CATEGORIES $67,151,700 49.0% $32,952,444 104,160
Notes:
(1)
See Table 11.1-8.
(2) Annual figures in current dollars.
(3) Based on data for the top 10 percent of stores in community-sized shopping centers in the United State as shown
in the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers (1990), published by the Urban Land Institute.
the study area, similar in size to the CBS television facility on 57th Street
between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues. A large-scale production facility such as
the proposed studio would serve to reinforce the already strong presence of
related facilities in the industrial study area by adding jobs and providing
increased opportunities for the numerous ancillary businesses in the study
area, such as lighting, scenic design, and equipment rental firms.
'.'~.'
11.1-32

Riverside South FEIS 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Riverside South FEIS 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Riverside South FEIS 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIVERSIDE

CEQR No. as-253M

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• October 11. 1992

Mr. Joseph W. Ketas Ms. Annette M. Barbaccia

• Prepared for:. Penn Yards Associates

SPOBSOB. PENN YARDS ASSOCIATES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S-l

CIIAPTEB. I. PB.O.JBCT DESClUPTIOll I-I

A. PROJECT OVERVIEW I-I

D. RELOCATION OF THE MILLER HIGHWAY 1-32

E. REQUIRED ACTIONS 1-33

B. LAND USE AND ZONING II.B-l

C. DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR II .C-l

• Study Area Definition II.C-l

TABLE 01' CONTENTS (Continued)

Existing Conditions II.C-3

E. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL CHARACTER II .E-I

TABLE 01' CONTENTS (Continued)

The Future Without the Project II.E-12

F. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLAN II.F-l

G. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION II.G-l

H. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES tI.H-l

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Existing Conditions II .H-5

I. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS II. I-I

J. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION II.J-l

K. AIR QUALITY II.K-l

Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations from II .K-S

L. NOISE II. L-l

TABLE OP CONTENTS (Continued)

Existing Conditions II .L-9

M. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS II.M-I

N. NATURAL RESOURCES II.N-l

O. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER II .0-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.O-4

P. INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOLID WASTE II.P-l

R. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS II .R-l

CIIAPTEB. III. AL'lBBRA.'lIVES· III-I

B. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE III-I

CIIAP'l'EB. IV. KI'lIGATIOB lIEASUIlES IV-I

CIIAP'l'EJl. V. mDlITIGATED ADVERSE DlPACTS V-I

C. AIR QUALITY V-2

CIIAP'l'EB. VI. RESPOBSE TO COIlllD'lS VI-I

LIST OF GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMENTED ON THE DEIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

C. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS VI-9

PROJECT DESCRIPTION VI-9

PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT VI-6l

TOFC/Rail Freight VI-ISS

APPENDIX A Pedestrian Winds Analysis

APPENDIX C Air Quality

APPENDIX E Hazardous Materials

APPENDIX F Letter from Fire Department

S-l Parcel-by-Parcel Land Use Program (Above Grade) S-3

I-I Parcel-by-Parcel Land Use Program 1-15

1-2 Zoning Calculations 1-16