Under-Exposed by Aaron Asis

UnderExposed written by:

Aaron Asis

Under-Exposed

Aaron Asis

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture

University of Washington 2009

Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of Architecture

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….....………...............iii Preface…………………………………………………………………………...............................ix Thesis Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 Subway History.........................................................................................................................11 Network Proposal.....................................................................................................................23 Site Proposals..........................................................................................................................41 Conclusions..................................................................................................................83 Endnotes...............................................................................................................................90 Bibliography…………..….....…………………………………………...............................93 Figure Credits.…....……………………………………………….................................................99 Appendices.............................................................................................................109

Appendix A...…...............................................................….……………………..........110

Appendix B..………........................……….…...……...................................................114

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number

Page

Freedom Tunnel (Manhattan)...................…..……………………………………...................1

Station excavation and construction…...…..………………………………………..................2

6th Avenue El - prior to submersion…………………..………………………….....................2

Expansion of the NYC Subway………………..……………...................…………..…………3

Construction of 63rd Street Tunnel……………..……………..................………….……….. 3

Abandoned Subway Station - South Ferry…………..……………..............…….……….…4

Abandoned Subway Station - City Hall…………..…...................………………...……...…4

Abandoned Subway Station - 91st Street.…………….…………...................…...……...….5

Abandoned Subway Station - 42nd Street.…………….…………...................………….….5

10. 18th Street IRT Station………………..……………..................………………………............6 11. 18th Street IRT Station……………..……………..................………………………................6 12. 18th Street IRT Station…………………..……………...................……………………............7 13. 18th Street IRT Station…………………..……………..................…………………........…….7 14. Abandoned Subway Station - South Ferry………………..……………..................………...8 15. Abandoned Subway Station - City Hall…………………..……………..................………….8 16

Abandoned Subway Station - 42nd Street….......................…….............................…….9

17. Abandoned Subway Station - 91st Street..........................................................................9 18. Typical Street Conditions…..................................................................................………..11 19. Charles Harvey’s Elevated Prototype…………………….……………...........................….12 20. Charles Harvey’s Elevated Railway…………….……………….................………………...12 21. Alfred Beach’s Pneumatic Subway………….……………….................…………………....13 22. Alfred Beach’s Pneumatic Subway...................................................................................13 23. Subway Evolution Diagram (1875-1905)…...…………….................…………………….…14 24. Subway Tunnel Excavation...............…….…………………................……………………..15 iii

25. Subway Tunnel Excavation…….…………………..............................…………….……..….15 26. Subway Evolution Diagram (1905-1940)……….....……………………….......…………...16 27. 2nd Avenue El……………………….....................................………………………………...17 28. 6th Avenue El.....................................................................................................................17 29. Subway Evolution Diagram (1940-1975)……………………………………………….......…18 30. Elevated Section of Uptown 1-Train……………………………………………………...........19 31. Remains of the 3rd Avenue El…………………………………………………………..........…19 32. Subway Evolution Diagram (1975-2010)………………………………….............................20 33. White Graffitti Resistant Subway Paint………………………………………………..........…21 34. Jamaica-Van Wyck Station Extension…………......………………………….…...................21 35. Freedom Tunnel (Manhattan).........………………………………………...……...................23 36. Grand Central Station (Manhattan)…………....................................…………...................24 37. Grand Central Station (Manhattan)….....…………………...……....………...…..................24 38. Freedom Tunnel (Manhattan)……………….……..................……………..….....................25 39. Freedom Tunnel (Manhattan)..............…….………………………………..….....................25 40. Network of Abandoned Subway Stations.….…………...……..................……………..…..26 41. Network of Abandoned Subway Stations….………………………………………………....27 42. Deconsturction of Manhattan ……………….………………………………………....………28 43. New York City - Open Space….………..…….………………...................………...………..29 44. New York City - Historic Districts…………….………………...................……………..……29 45. “The Geography of Buzz”………………………………………………......……………..……30 46. New York City - Art Events …………………….……………….................……………….....31 47. New York City - Music Events………………….……………………....................…………..31 48. Network of Abandoned Subway Stations…….……………....................…………...……....32 49. 14th Street Union Square…………….......................……………..…............................…33 50. 96th Street………...............…………………………………......................……………...….33 51. Network of Abandoned Subway Stations……………..………………….......................……34 52. Brooklyn Bridge.....……………………………......................………………………...………35 iv

53. 42nd Street - Times Square................................................................................................35 54. Site-Scaled Circulation Diagrams…………………......................……….…………..……….36 55. Battery Park…………......................…………….....................................…………………...37 56. Wall Street District…………......................……………...........................………………...…37 57. Network of Abandoned Underground………………………..........................…....………....38 58. Network of Abandoned Underground………………………......................………….....……39 59. Abandoned City Hall Station…………………………....................…………..……..……….41 60. Inspirational Public Artists……...............................................………………………….……42 61. New York City Thumbnails…………...……….......................…………………………..…….43 62. New York City Subway - Structural Photos……………........…………………………………44 63. NYC Subway - Original Documents………………………...................……………………...45 64. NYC Subway - Original Documents……......................…..................…………………...…45 65. South Ferry Station Intervention (125m) …………………………………………..............….46 66. South Ferry Area……………………...........…………………….………….......................…47 67. South Ferry Area……………......................……………………….……….......................…47 68. Design Process/Matrix - South Ferry …………..................................................................48 69. South Ferry Station Intervention Site………………………………...................................…49 70. South Ferry Station Intervention….............………………………………........................….49 71. South Ferry Station Intervention Rendering…..…………………………….…..................…50 72. South Ferry Station Intervention Aerial…….....….............…………………………...........…51 73. South Ferry Station Intervention Section……….............……………….…………….......51 74. City Hall Station Intervention (125m) ……………………………...…….………..............….52 75. City Hall Area……………………...........…………………….…....…….….......................…53 76. City Hall Area……………......................……………………….....…….….......................…53 77. Design Process/Matrix - City Hall ………….......................................................................54 78. City Hall Station Intervention Site……………………………….........................................…55 79. City Hall Station Intervention…….............………………....……………..........................….55 80. City Hall Station Intervention Rendering…...................................…...............................…56 v

81. City Hall Station Intervention Aerial.........…………...…....………………………..............57 82. City Hall Station Intervention Section…...............……....……………...………….......57 83. Worth Street Station Intervention (125m) .……………………………...…………….........58 84. Worth Street Area……………………............…………………….…....……….................59 85. Worth Street Area……………........................……………………….....………................59 86. Design Process/Matrix - Worth Street ….……….............................................................60 87. Worth Street Station Intervention Site………....….……………........................................61 88. Worth Street Station Intervention……………..............………....…………….....................61 89. Worth Street Station Intervention Rendering…..…….....……………….…........................62 90. Worth Street Station Intervention Aerial…............……………....……………………….....63 91. Worth Street Station Intervention Section…………................………………………….63 92. 18th Street Station Intervention (125m) …………………………....…...……………...........64 93. 18th Street Area……………………...........…………………….…........………..................65 94. 18th Street Area……………......................……………………….........………..................65 95. Design Process/Matrix - 18th Street …………................................................................66 96. 18th Street Intervention Site………………………………..................................................67 97. 18th Street Intervention……………………....……………..................................................67 98. 18th Street Station Intervention Rendering………………....……………...........................68 99. 18th Street Station Intervention Aerial..........………………....…………….....………….....69 100. 18th Street Station Intervention Section……............………………….............……………...69 101. 42nd Street - Port Authority Street Station Intervention (125m) ………………......................70 102. 42nd Street - Port Authority Area……………………...........…………………….….............71 103. 42nd Street - Port Authority Area……………......................………………………...............71 104. Design Process/Matrix - 42nd Street - Port Authority …………............................................72 105. 42nd Street Station Site…………....…………………..........................................................73 106. 42nd Street Station Intervention……………………....……………......................................73 107. 42nd Street - Port Authority Station Intervention Rendering………………....………….........74 108. 42nd Street Station Intervention Plan………………....……................................................75 vi

109. 42nd Street Station Intervention Section……...........................……………………........75 110. 91st Street Station Intervention (125m) ………….………………....…...……………..........76 111. 91st Street Area……………………...........…………………….…........………..................77 112. 91st Street Area……………......................……….……………….........……….................77 113. Design Process/Matrix - 91st Street …………..................................................................78 114. 91st Street Station Site……………………………….........................................................79 115. 91st Street Station Intervention……………………....…………….....................................79 116. 91st Street Station Intervention Rendering…………..……………....….…........................80 117. 91st Street Station Intervention Plan………………....…………….....………….................81 118. 91st Street Station Intervention Section……….………….............………………….......81 119. Grand Central Terminal…..…….……...........................…................………...……….......110 120. Grand Central Terminal ………….……........................…...……....…...….......……..........111 121. Amtrak “Freedom” Tunnel……………………...........……...…………….…......................112 122. Amtrak “Freedom” Tunnel.…………......................………....…………….........................113 123. Presentation Boards (1 of 14)…………...........................................................................114 124. Presentation Boards (2 of 14)…………...........................................................................115 125. Presentation Boards (3 of 14)…………...........................................................................116 126. Presentation Boards (4 of 14)…………...........................................................................117 127. Presentation Boards (5 of 14)…………...........................................................................118 128. Presentation Boards (6 of 14)…………...........................................................................119 129. Presentation Boards (7 of 14)…………...........................................................................120 130. Presentation Boards (8 of 14)…………...........................................................................121 131. Presentation Boards (9 of 14)…………...........................................................................122 132. Presentation Boards (10 of 14)……..…...........................................................................123 133. Presentation Boards (11 of 14)……..…...........................................................................124 134. Presentation Boards (12 of 14)……..…...........................................................................125 135. Presentation Boards (13 of 14)……..…...........................................................................126 136. Presentation Boards (14 of 14)……..…...........................................................................127 vii

viii

PREFACE In 1986, when I was 6 years old, my family and I visited the Statue of Liberty. I don’t remember much from that family day, but I do remember some of the details. I remember the Liberty Island Ferry ride. I remember running along the sidewalk towards the Statue of Liberty’s entrance gate. I remember tripping and falling on a sidewalk grate while running. And, I remember cutting my hand so badly that I needed to spend the afternoon in the infirmary. To this day, I have never been back to Liberty Island, and In the aftermath of that afternoon I developed a fear of sidewalk grates. I avoided stepping on all sidewalk grates until I was about 11 years old. But, in that time I realized that I was no longer afraid of falling onto a grate, but rather of the chance I might fall through a grate into an under-exposed world beneath the streets. Thus, I realized that sometime between the ages of 5 and 11 years old, I learned to recognize that sidewalks grates were not objects to fear but barriers that separated us from a living, breathing, functional subsurface city that was embedded into the New York City underground. In the summer of 2008, 22-years later, I traveled into the New York City underground. My intentions were simply to explore the spatial and sensational qualities of these buried worlds. I spent two days beneath Grand Central Terminal and immediately gained a profound respect and appreciation for the stories and beauty that were concealed within this inaccessible and hidden city. I spent a third day beneath the streets of the city in the “Freedom Tunnel” (which services Amtrak service out of Penn Station), which reinforced the same feelings. The culmination of these experiences served as the inspirational framework for this thesis, which focuses on inaccessible/abandoned remnants of the New York City Subway, as forgotten components of this underground city beneath New York.

xii

Thesis Introduction

increased fivefold, which only exacerbated

General Introduction & Project Framework

congestion on the streets. Still, it wasn’t until 1900 that construction of the city’s first subway line began. Construction of

“It is specifically in its subterranean realms

the subway was completed and officially

that this often chaotic metropolis becomes

opened in October of 1904, and by 1905 the

approachable; the secret spaces of the

system was already transporting twice as

underground, desolate and beautiful, are

many passengers per mile than any other

the intimate surfaces of the gargantuan

subway system in the world.2

city. Above ground, New York treats its abandoned structures like seeds stuck

Over the next 50 years, the success of the

between its streets; well-meaning forces

subway prompted system expansion and

jab at them, hoping to reintegrate them into

continued urban development. However,

usefulness, yet eventually they are crushed

beginning in 1960, the subway system

or absorbed. In losing its ruins, the city is

expanded relatively little. In order to

giving up a part of its soul. Only beneath its

accomodate for new patterns of growth on

streets do the dark places linger; here are

the city’s streets, and to more efficiently

remnants from [the] past...that haven’t been

streamline subway services, several trains,

renovated or modernized, structures that

stations and platforms were redrected or

have been left to age alone in the dark.”

shutdown.3 These changes resulted in

obsolete remnants which currently exist Since the middle of the 19th century, New

beneath the street’s surface as preludes

York City has suffered from catastrophic

to the subway system’s history and their

transportation problems. Between 1860

relationship to the active underground

and 1900, the population of the city

components of the city.

Figure 1: Freedom Tunnel (Manhattan) “Venus de Milo” Mural (Chris Pape)

2 The physical presence of these buried

the intro quote), “It is specifically in its

components of the city hidden beneath the

subterranean realms that this often chaotic

streets has led to the formation of an entire

metropolis becomes approachable”5. She

layer of inaccessible forgotten-spaces.

continues, suggesting “In losing its ruins,

This subterranean layer of hidden history

the city is giving up a part of its soul.”6

is indicative of a lack of transparency in the public realm and the consequent

Therefore, It is the intent of this thesis

lack of public awareness has led to an

to identify the value of these obsolete

increased disconnect between the forces

remnants, and to develop a proposal that

that coalesce to assemble these hidden

incorporates them into fabric of the city.

spaces and their relationships to the active infrastructure and systems in the urban Figure 2: Station excavation and construction 33rd Street and 8th Avenue - Manhattan (1902)

realm.

Thesis Overview

Tim Edensor, the author of Industrial Ruins,

In Dolores Hayden’s The Power of Place,

argues for the (re) integration of such

Hayden states, “ A more inclusive urban

obsolete remnants into the active fabric

landscape can stimulate new approaches

of the city. He states, “There is much

to urban design…and a heightened sense

value that can be reclaimed from [these]…

of place in the city.”7 Working within

spaces.”4

the framework of Hayden’s statement, this thesis proposes a “museum without

Figure 3: 6th Avenue El - prior to submersion 6th Avenue and 33rd Street - Manhattan (1940)

Julia Solis, the author of New York

walls”. The “museum without walls” is

Underground Julia Solis, the author of New

intended to create a more inclusive urban

York Underground, argues that in the case

landscape by integrating the hidden (active

of the New York City underground (from

and inactive) components of the city with

3 the public realm, and by designing a

and non-physical layers of Manhattan and

network that unites the various layers of

urban-museum precedent studies. The

the city. More specifically, this proposal

objective of this urban-scaled proposal

calls for the development of a network of

is to produce a “museum without walls”

physical interventions, designed to expose

that unites various layers of the city, but

Manhattan’s abandoned subway stations,

also serves to re-define the way people

providing insight into the city’s previously

experience/move through it.

buried history, systems, and infrastructure, which will result in a heightened

The thesis concludes with site-specific

understanding of place in the city.

intervention proposals, resultant from a synthesis of historic data, urban (network)

This document presents the historical

analysis, public art precedent studies and

development of the subway, to serve as a

the information acquired in each site’s

framework for understanding the forces that

existing conditions analysis. The goal of the

resulted in the abandonment of six (6) NYC

site-specific proposals is to develop a series

Subway stations. The history section is

of interventions that function to assemble

subdivided into 35-year sub-sections, which

the network, but also serve as a catalyst for

correspond with a specific era of New York

a new urban model whose objective is to

City’s urban history.

increase transparency in the public realm.

Figure 4: Expansion of the NYC Subway 168th Street - Jamaica, Queens (1977)

The design component of this document begins with the proposal of a network

Research Questions

of spaces. The network is derived from historic subway system analysis,

The first stage in structuring the research

deconstruction of the (applicable) physical

for this thesis consisted of the formulation of

Figure 5: Construction of 63rd Street Tunnel 63rd Street - Underneath Central Park (1978)

4 a set of research questions. The research

associated with the development of a

questions were divided into two sections:

network of exposed underground spaces in

Historical Narrative and the Network.

New York City?

The questions are as follows:

What (if anything) can we forecast about the future integration, value and social use of

Historical Narrative of the NYC Subway

underground spaces In New York City?

What can we learn about the development of the NYC Subway, from its interdependent

Research Objectives

relationship with New York City? In order to organize this research and Figure 6: Abandoned Subway Station - South Ferry Reconstruction of South Ferry Station (2008)

How can a design strategy aid in the further

create an outline for this thesis, the

integration of people and place?

following list of research objectives were divided into two sections: Network and

The Urban Network

Site. The first stage consisted of research to support the creation of a network of

Figure 7: Abandoned Subway Station - City Hall City Hall â&#x20AC;&#x153;Loopâ&#x20AC;? Platform (2006)

How can a polycentric design strategy

interventions to expose the history and

function to the benefit of its program?

hidden systems of New York.

How can a design strategy serve to create a

The first stage of research objectives were

successful interpretive/exposed network?

as follows:

What (if anything) can we forecast

- To research the history of the New York

about immediate socio-physical benefits

City Subway system.

5 - To document the present conditions of the

- To investigate the ideologies associated

New York City underground.

with installation/public art(ists), to inspire and support the proposal of each

- To identify all existing abandoned subway

intervention in the public realm.

stations on Manhattan Island. - To analyze the historical context of - To deconstruct the surface layers of

each abandoned subway station site in

Manhattan, relative to a network of

Manhattan.

abandoned subway stations. - To analyze the existing (sub-surface) - To identify urban scaled precedent studies

conditions for each site within the network.

to support the proposal of the network. - To analyze the existing (surface) The second stage of investigating this thesis

conditions for each site within the network.

Figure 8: Abandoned Subway Station - 91st Street Graffitti on the abandoned 91st Street platform (2008)

consisted of research to support the design of intervention prototypes and interventions within the proposed network of abandoned

Preliminary Assumptions

subway stations. The design section of this thesis consists The second stage of research objectives

of a proposal for a network of abandoned

were as follows:

subway station interventions and a conceptual station intervention proposal

- To explore and document the present

for each site. To establish a point of origin

conditions of each station within the

for the design process, the following list

network.

preliminary assumptions was generated:

Figure 9: Abandoned Subway Station - 42nd Street Lower level - Port Authority Bus Terminal (2009)

6 Traditional “museums” generate mono-

A collection of intervention prototypes will

dimensional visitor environments. A

justify the development of the proposal for a

polycentric network of interventions will

network of abandoned subway stations.

successfully function as a “museum without walls”.

Can the physical characteristics present in the abandoned underground be effectively

Can the design of a network of individual

exposed to validate the proposal of a

sites create a poly-dimensional visitor

network of abandoned subway station

experience? Can the proposal of a network

interventions? Can a feasible collection of

based on the exposure of buried history,

site-scaled intervention proposals validate

generate sufficient interest in the historic

the urban intent of this thesis?

narrative of New York City to successfully Figure 10: 18th Street IRT Station Original Photograph (1904)

function as a “museum without walls”? Presentation & Content Exposure and integration of underground infrastructure can serve as the foundation

This thesis document is subdivided into six

for a new approach to urban design.

main sections:

Can the physical integration of the hidden

- Introduction and Conceptual Framework

(active/inactive) underground, with the public realm serve as the foundation for a

- History of the NYC Subway System

new approach to urban design? Can the network of abandoned subway stations

- Network Proposal

serve as the vehicle for future exploration Figure 11: 18th Street IRT Station Original Photograph (1904)

into an integrated urban realm?

- Site Proposals

7 - Conclusions and Reflections

The History of the NYC Subway System section details the evolutionary growth of

- Appendices

the NYC Subway and the interdependent relationship between New York City and

The first two (2) sections introduce the

the subway. This section consists of five

history of the subway in New York City and

era-specific historical sections designed

establish the framework for this thesis.

to provide chronological insight into

This framework leads to the proposal

understanding the historic forces that

of a network of abandoned subway

resulted in the abandonment of each

station interventions and to the design

individual station site (within the network).

of intervention prototypes for each of the

The presentation of this section includes a

network sites. The network and site-scaled

series of maps that trace the chronological

proposals are followed by a series of

evolution subway, historic photos and

reflections and conclusions derived from the

descriptive text that recounts the historical

success in achieving the project goals.

linkages that exist between the subway and

Figure 12: 18th Street IRT Station Original Photograph (1904)

the city. The Introduction and Conceptual Framework introduces the project and the

The Network Proposal section introduces

structure of the document. This section

the network of abandoned subway stations.

introduces the focus of the project, its

This proposal begins with an introduction

research objectives and outlines the

to the six (6) abandoned subway station

framework of the document. This section

sites. The network is then presented in

also introduces the history of subway

relation to a series of neighborhood maps,

construction, underground spaces, as well

deconstructed maps of the city, circulation

as their respective conditions on the street.

maps between the individual sites, and

Figure 13: 18th Street IRT Station Original Photograph (1904)

8 as a series of analytical maps to highlight

The Conclusions and Reflections section

the future potential of the network. The

serves as a synthesis of the history,

presentation of this section includes a series

research and theoretical findings.

of analytical maps, network precedents,

Additionally, this section provides an

urban circulation diagrams, photos and text

opportunity for the author to expand on the

that support the proposal of a network as a

design process and proposals as they relate

single architectural entity.

to the satisfaction (or non-satisfaction) of pre-design objectives, assumptions and

The Site Proposal section introduces the

proposals.

individual sites that assemble the network,

Figure 14: Abandoned Subway Station - South Ferry Street Perspective View - South Ferry Station (2008)

Figure 15: Abandoned Subway Station - City Hall Street Perspective View - City Hall Park (2008)

and the intervention proposals for each

The Appendices serve as an additional

of the six (6) network sites. This section

source of visual information. The

begins with an inspirational introduction

first appendix will present a limited

to a design process, beginning with public

collection of photographs representing

art(ist) precedents and a list of design

an ongoing exploration into the physical

guidelines, to inform the design proposals.

reality that exists within the New York

The design process continues with an

City underground. This collection of

existing conditions analysis, photographic

photographs represents a visual sample of

documentation/analysis and a conceptual

the explorations sited in the preface, and

intervention proposal for each intervention

served as the inspricational framework in

site. The presentation of the intervention

the development of this thesis. The second

proposals include an aerial site plan,

appendix represents the final presentation

typical street section and an experiencial

boards used during the presentation of the

perspective rendering for each site.

thesis.

9 Final Thoughts

The relationship of New York City to its subway system has undoubtedly evolved over the past 100-years. However, it is not the intent of this thesis to challenge this evolution. The intent is rather to highlight the historic narrative between New York City and its antiqued subway, re-connect the city and to express the buried components (systems and infrastructure) that assemble the city.

The goal is to create a â&#x20AC;&#x153;museum without

Figure 16: Abandoned Subway Station - 42nd Street Street View - Port Authority Bus Terminal (2008)

wallsâ&#x20AC;?, whose long-term objectives are to help build an urban environment where individuals are informed, aware and held accountable for the physical complexities that contribute to the operation of the urban machine, and to project forward into the potential of a more transparent and systematically integrated public realm.

Figure 17: Abandoned Subway Station - 91st Street Street Perspective View - 91st Street (2008)

Part II: History

Subway History

The Evolution of the Subway System & The Evolution of New York City

built in 1904 up until its most recent South Ferry station scheduled to open in 2010. “To straphangers, the subway can seem like a strictly utilitarian environment of steel

“There are two mental maps of New

and concrete, bright lights and screeching

York City, one above ground, and the

wheels…Yet from the beginning, the people

other below, the first showing the city as

who planned the subway’s construction

separation, and the second as connection.

considered it...in words actually written into

The conventional map documents boroughs

the contract, a “great public work,” worthy of

divided by bodies of water; the underground

attractive design, even “beauty”…”9

map shows subways stitching the boroughs together, making the city one.”8

Nothing in New York City ever stands still. It’s a city in constant motion and its

Modern day New York City is inconceivable

approach to subway planning, construction

without its subway system. New York’s

and maintenance, has evolved as rapidly as

intricate transportation network of

its urban streetscapes over the past 100-

underground tunnels and overhead trestles

years. “The evolution of subway design

serve as the bloodline of this city, uniting all

follows the trajectory of the world of art and

5-boroughs and servicing millions of people

architecture as these came to terms with

every day. But, its history precedes its

the Industrial Revolution, and the tug-of-

present day utility.

war between a traditional deference to European models and a modernist ideology

Spatial design and aesthetics have been

demanding an honest expression of

critical components of the New York City

contemporary industrial technology.“10

Subway ever since its original stations were

Figure 18: Typical Street Conditions Seventh Avenue and 42nd Street (1914)

12 Pre-1875

relationship with the streetcar business, providing little incentive for him to consider

Nineteenth century New York was

proposals for alternative transit. Because

probably best categorized by “Dark, airless

of this, all proposals for alternative transit

apartments so crowded you couldn’t turn

were rejected by Tweed, as was the case

around: no running water: one privy per

with Hugh B. Wilson, who in 1866 proposed

building, all the way down in the yard: no

constructing a tunnel between the Battery

light, no air, no privacy, no space – this was

and Central Park.12

the New York that countless immigrants

Figure 19: Charles Harvey’s Elevated Prototype Lower Manhattan - Greenwich Street (1867)

knew, a city strangled by its own growth.”11

In response to Tweed and the political

Between 1850 and 1900 the population

climate surrounding alternative

of New York City increased fivefold, as a

transportation issue of the time, inventor

seemingly endless wave of immigrants

Charles Harvey developed an unauthorized

saturated Manhattan Island. By the turn of

plan to construct an elevated train

the nineteenth century Manhattan Island

prototype in Lower Manhattan. In 1867,

was host to the worst overcrowding the

Harvey completed construction of his first

world had ever seen.

prototype and introduced it Greenwich Street (Figure 19). The prototype was

Figure 20: Charles Harvey’s Elevated Railway Lower Manhattan (Approximately 1880)

During that time, New York City was under

an operational success and immediately

the control of William Tweed, one of the

gained the support of the general public.

most corrupt politicians in the city’s history.

However, Tweed quickly stepped in to

Tweeds legacy, reputation and policies

temporarily block any further development

favored the rich and his priorities were

of this system. Eventually Harvey (who

formed by lucrative bribes and kickbacks.

had powerful political allies in Albany) was

Furthermore, Tweed had a longstanding

afforded the right to expand his elevated

13 system. In 1868, the first official elevated

underground palace. Beach’s subway

line opened in Lower Manhattan.

was lavish, characterized by chandeliers, elegant stone details and a grand piano.

Inspired by the unauthorized success of

It was hailed by the press and proclaimed

Charles Harvey’s system, another inventor

to be “…like being a board a fairy ship.”13

by the name of Alfred Beach decided to

Beach’s subway was a success. Still,

privately finance his own secret subway

engineers and politicians were skeptical

project. In 1868, Beach rented out the

of the strength and economic feasibility

basement of a building on Murray Street

of a citywide pneumatic system. For the

and submitted a fraudulent permit proposal

next 3-years Beach worked to upgrade

to construct a pneumatic mail delivery

his system to a more powerful (and cost-

system underneath Broadway. In hopes

efficient) steam system. Unfortunately,

that his unauthorized prototype would

the stock market panic of 1873 dried up all

generate enough support for system

investor dollars and New York City’s first

expansion and/or a full-scaled subway

subway line was permanently shut down.

Figure 21: Alfred Beach’s Pneumatic Subway Broadway - Between Warren and Murray Streets (1870)

system, Beach hired a team of diggers and began working on what would be New York

In 1875, Beach’s original tunnel was finally

City’s first subway line. In 1869, the permit

sealed closed. However, by that time

for the pneumatic mail delivery system was

Charles Harvey’s elevated train network

granted, 58 days later, on February 26,

(with the continued support of state

1870, the construction of New York City’s

municipalities) had reached as far north

first subway tunnel was completed.

as 42nd Street. The rate of expansion and public support of Harvey’s system

At the opening of Beach’s subway,

signified a dramatic shift in the potential for

the public compared his station to an

alternative transportation in New York City.

Figure 22: Alfred Beach’s Pneumatic Subway Broadway - Between Warren and Murray Streets (1870)

14 1875-1905

Funding for the subway proved to be a problem throughout the late 1890’s.

For nearly 30 years following the closure

Construction cost analysis revealed that

of its first subway line, New York City

subterranean rail construction was expected

continued to entertain the idea of a subway

to cost 4-times more than the construction

system. In that time, the city experienced

of elevated rail and 20-times more than

unprecedented growth, and with no

typical streetcar infrastructure. These

subway plan in place, a dire need for public

figures deterred private investors, and

transportation accelerated the expansion of

forced Hewitt to come up with a creative

the elevated rail network already in place

financial plan in order to secure funding.

throughout lower Manhattan.

Hewitt’s proposal stated that New York City would own the subway, finance construction

2 mm

In 1886, Harvey’s elevated train network

and charge rent to private backers who

serviced 115 million riders, twice the

would in return be responsible for the actual

population of the entire United States at

construction and operations of the system.

that time. The explosive expansion of the

The private backers would be permitted to

elevated rail infrastructure began to alter

keep all profits.

the characteristics of New York’s streets,

Figure 23: Subway Evolution Diagram (1875-1905) (Red - Current Era; White - Previous Era )

making them uncomfortable dark and

A man by the name of John McDonald,

shaded places to be in (underneath the

along with business partner August

rail infrastructure). This prompted (former)

Belmont, emerged as the ambitious

Mayor Abram Hewitt to finally convince city

individuals who eventually built, operated,

council to approve a plan for a city-wide

and founded New York City’s first subway

subway system.

company and system, to be known later as the Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT).

15 In 1891 the Rapid Transit Act was signed

York City Subway had become the city’s

and in March 1900, the official ground

paramount attraction.

breaking ceremony for the New York City’s first subway line was held in front of City

“New Yorkers were apparently enamored

Hall. The first subway line originated at

with the idea of disappearing down a hole

the southern most tip of Lower Manhattan

in the street and casually popping up

(South Ferry Station), traveled north past

somewhere else, as if it were the most

Wall Street to City Hall and then continued

natural thing in the world.”14

past Union Square and 34th Street to Grand Central Station. At Grand Central Station it then turned west just below 42nd Street

1905-1940

heading for Times Square and then lead north again along Broadway, past Columbus

Within its first year, the New York City

Circle, and finally ended up in the Bronx,

Subway was operating beyond capacity. By

where the subway line connected with the

1906, the original line was already carrying

existing network of elevated rail.

twice as many passengers per miles as the

Figure 24: Subway Tunnel Excavation Elm Street - Adjacent to Croton Water Pipes (1902)

London Underground. Yet despite its early On October 27, 1904, New York City

success, Belmont had no interest in building

celebrated the inaugural ceremonies of its

a second line and there were no early plans

subway system. Massive crowds packed

to expand the subway.

the original stations, gathered in the streets surrounding the stations and climbed onto

In 1911, the Brooklyn Rapid Transit

nearby roofs to observe the spectacle

Company (BRT) introduced plans to

of a subway car train emerging from the

construct a second subway line. The

underground. Almost immediately, the New

proposed second line would connect the

Figure 25: Subway Tunnel Excavation 135th Street & Broadway (1902)

16 independent transit systems in Brooklyn

comparative to the total mileage of both

and Manhattan via tunnel, beneath the

the London and Parisian subway systems

East River. The BRT, which controlled all

combined (156 miles and 59 miles

elevated railways and trolleys in Brooklyn,

respectively). The Dual System subway

had sought to expand its system into

expansion made it possible for New Yorkers

Manhattan since the inception of the

to travel both north-south and east-west,

subway in 1904. However, Belmont’s

facilitating the horizontal growth of New

control over the Subway and his resistance

York City into its outer Boroughs.

to expansion kept the two systems isolated and independent. In 1912, the city officially

By providing an efficient means to bring

proclaimed its support for the BRT’s

people from outlying residential areas

proposal. This endorsement undermined

to work in Manhattan, New York City

(and ultimately ended) Belmont’s

effectively enabled the city to accommodate

monopolistic period of influence over the

tremendous density in the workplace,

Rapid Transit Commission. In March 1913,

without needed to sacrifice its limited land

the Dual System contract was signed.

to provide more housing. This phenomenon essentially gave rise to an increasing

The New York City Subway was now

profusion of skyscrapers, and bore the

comprised of two independent systems –

infamous cityscape of Manhattan.15

the IRT and BRT. In the years immediately

Figure 26: Subway Evolution Diagram (1905-1940) (Red - Current Era; White - Previous Era )

following the signing of the Dual Systems

In 1924, mayor John Hylan (an adversary

contract, competition between the two

against the privatization of the city’s

systems fueled extraordinary and rapid

subway) submitted a proposal for a third

system growth. By 1920 the combined

(independent) public subway company. The

systems totaled 202 miles of track,

Independent Subway System (IND) would

17 be owned and operated by the New York

Immediately following the unification of

City Board of Transportation. The focus of

the subway, the city began to eliminate

the IND would be to submerge all remaining

all redundancies in the subway system.

elevated rail, and to improve access to

The IRT 9th Avenue line, most of the 2nd

public transportation in aging sections of

Avenue elevated line, the BMT 5th Avenue

Manhattan – to better accommodate daily

line, the BMT 3rd Avenue line in Manhattan

commuters. The introduction of the IND

and most of the Fulton Street elevated line

and the burial of the city’s elevated railways

in Brooklyn were the first transit lines to be

demarked the peak of strength for the

closed. During World War II, closures in the

subway system – prior to Robert Moses era

subway continued, including the remainder

(1930’s) in New York City.

of the IRT 2nd Avenue elevated line in Manhattan, and the BMT elevated services over the Brooklyn Bridge.

1940-1975

Figure 27: 2nd Avenue El 2nd Avenue & 34th Street (1937)

Following World War II, the subway In 1940, mayor Fiorello LaGuardia decided

system then entered an era of deferred

to unite the three independent subway

maintenance. During this period, subway

enterprises to become a single New York

infrastructure, service and cleanliness

City Subway Authority. The unification

were essentially left to deteriorate, and

proved to be a tremendously ambitious

the subway closures resultant from the

undertaking due to the size and scale of the

unification continued. This final wave of

three independent systems, which by then

massive subway line closures included

had grown to include 293 miles of track and

the entire IRT 3rd Avenue elevated line

almost 35,000 employees.16

in Manhattan (1954) and in the Bronx (1974). In Brooklyn the BMT Lexington

Figure 28: 6th Avenue El 6th Avenue & 9th Street (1940)

18 Avenue elevated line (1950), the remainder

issue was passed to build what would

of the Fulton Street elevated line (1956),

have been the third new line constructed

the downtown Brooklyn part of the Myrtle

during this era - the Second Avenue Line in

Avenue elevated line (1969) and the Culver

Manhattan. But the money for this project

Shuttle (1975) were the final line closures

was reallocated. The Dyer Avenue line

stemming from the unification.17

(1941) and the Rockaway line (1956) were the only two lines to expand (rather than

Between 1940 and 1975, nearly 10 elevated

reconstruct or relocate â&#x20AC;&#x201C; subterranean) the

train lines were removed (or moved

system during this era. Both lines were in

underground), countless subterranean

Queens and both were rehabilitations of

stations were destroyed and approximately

existing railroad rights-of-way rather than

10 other subway stations were closed and

new construction.19

left for ruin. The six Manhattan stations were: South Ferry Station (1975), City Hall Station (1945), Worth Street Station

1975-2010

(1962), 18th Street Station (1948), 42nd Street Station (1981), 91st Street Station

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the

(1959). The other four stations include:

operation of the subway system reached

Myrtle Avenue (1956), Court Street (1946)

rock bottom. For decades the city had

and Sedgwick Avenue (1958) stations in

deferred maintenance on the subway

Brooklyn and Jerome Avenue Station (1958)

system, which lead to a poor quality of

in the Bronx.

service, infrastructural integrity and crime

rate in the first half of the 1980s.. Signage Figure 29: Subway Evolution Diagram (1940-1975) (Red - Current Era; White - Previous Era )

Furthermore only two new subway lines

became inadequate, or unreadable due to

were open during this era. In 1951, a bond

the graffiti and The New York City Subway

19 became notoriously; dirty, noisy and

is currently completing a new South Ferry

defaced.

Station (2009) and has begun construction on an extension of the 7-train (2012) into

Furthermore, the Koch mayoral

the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood on the

administration did not provide funding for

Manhattans west side. The MTA has also

preventative maintenance throughout the

resumed construction on the city’s infamous

1980s. Subway system components failed

Second Avenue line, a plan that has been

on an average of every 6,200 miles (down

on city record since the 1920’s.

from 15,000 miles throughout the previous decade), and maintenance was only

The Second Avenue line was original

provided once components failed, which

intended to relieve congestion on the

resulted in additional service delays and

Lexington Avenue line (now the 4, 5, 6 line)

decreased rider confidence. It wasn’t until

throughout the 1920s. The project was

the re-election pressure of the late 1980s

approved in 1927, but the Great Depression

that the city reinvested in the subway.

of the late ‘20s and early ‘30s crippled the

Figure 30: Elevated Section of Uptown 1-Train 125th Street & Broadway (1958)

progress of the project.22 By 1989 the subway was finally clean. Crime had been reduced, service improved

In 1944 new plans for the Second Avenue

and the New York City Subway was

line were drafted, but were delayed due to

recognized as the most improved system in

political and financial uncertainty. In 1967,

North America. 21

Governor Nelson Rockefeller reallocated funding for the project, however only three

Today, after nearly a half-century of

tunnel section were excavated before the

developmental stagnation the New York City

budgetary crisis of 1975, and the project

Subway has plans to expand. The MTA

was put on hold yet again.23

Figure 31: Remains of the 3rd Avenue El 3rd Avenue & 149th Street (1973)

20 Throughout the 1980s, the MTA has

Current Subway System Specs24

experimented with leasing the unfinished tunnel spaces to local businesses, but

Number of Lines: 26

by then the partially completed tunnels

Number of Stations: 468

had already become refuge space for

Daily Ridership: 4,432,700

underground homeless in New York. The partially completed tunnels remained vacant

Subway Opening: 10/27/1904

for over 25-years.

EL Opening: 7/3/1868

In 2001, the MTA has again revived

System Length (Route): 229mi

construction of the Second Avenue line â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

System Length (Track): 656mi

scheduled to be complete in 2012.

System Length (Total): 842mi

Today the New York City Subway system is one of the most extensive public transportation systems in the world, with 468 reported passenger stations and 656 miles of revenue track (842 miles including non revenue trackage).

The subway is also notable for being among the few rapid transit systems in the world to run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Figure 32: Subway Evolution Diagram (1975-2010) (Red - Current Era; White - Previous Era )

21 Abandoned Subway Stations25

91st Street Station (Manhattan) (October 1904 - February 1959)

South Ferry Station (Manhattan)

Existing abandoned portions: 2 platforms

(July 1918 – January 1977)

(on tracks in service).

Existing abandoned portions: 1 side platform (on a track in service).

Myrtle Avenue Station (Brooklyn) (June 1915 – July 1956)

City Hall Station (Manhattan)

Existing abandoned portions: 1 platform

(October 1904 – December 1945)

(on a track in service).

Existing abandoned portions - 1 platform (on a track in service).

Court Street Station (Brooklyn) (April 1936 – June 1946)

Worth Street Station (Manhattan)

Existing abandoned portions: Platform and

(October 1904 – July 1962)

2 tracks in use as the Transit Museum.

Figure 33: White Graffitti Resistant Subway Paint MTA’s Anti-Graffitti Efforts (1982)

Existing abandoned portions: 2 platforms (on tracks in service).

Sedgwick Avenue Station (Brooklyn) (July 1918 – August 1958)

18th Street Station (Manhattan)

Existing abandoned portions: part of 2

(October 1904 – November 1948)

platforms on abandoned trackways.

Existing abandoned portions: 2 platforms (on tracks in service).

Jerome Avenue Station (Bronx) (July 1918 – August 1958)

42nd Street Station (Manhattan)

Existing abandoned portions: part of 1

(September 1959 – March 1981)

platform on abandoned trackways.

Existing abandoned portions: 1 platform

Figure 34: Jamaica-Van Wyck Station Extension Archer Avenue & The Van Wyck Expressway (1988)

Part III: Network

Network Proposal

hidden beneath the street surface. The

Introduction to the Underground & Network Identification + Proposal

phenomenon of an abandoned underworld raises many questions regarding exposure, transparency, social use, economics and

â&#x20AC;&#x153;(The form of ruins) must be respected

maintenance of these hidden spaces and

as integrity, embodying a history that

systems. However, it is the value inherent

must not be denied. In their damaged

in these hidden stations and systems

states they suggest new forms of thought

that will serve as the foundation for the

and comprehension, and suggest new

proposal of the Network of Abandoned

conceptions of space that confirm the

Subway Stations (NASS). Therefore, the

potential of the human to integrate itself,

following question needs to be preemptively

to be whole and free outside of any

considered prior to the proposal of the

predetermined totalising system. There is

Network of Abandoned Subway Stations:

an ethical and moral commitment in such an existence and therefore a basis for

- What is the value of hidden underground

communityâ&#x20AC;?26

spaces (and systems) and how can they be incorporated into spatial fabric and/or socio-

The developmental history of New

public environments in New York City?

York City and its subway system is a concentrated narrative, focused on the

Urban relics, ruins and abandoned

reciprocal growth of each network. In its

remnants within the built environment are

current state, the relationship between

generally considered voids in the urban

the city and the subway has left behind

landscape. However, there is immense

numerous subterranean spaces (no

value in the historic preservation and

longer in functional service) that now exist

integration of abandoned urban ruins into

Figure 35: Freedom Tunnel (Manhattan) Upper West Side (Penn Station - 125th Street)

24 urban life.27 In discussing the historic

the city and urban life...[because] they

value of abandoned urban ruins, Tim

contain within them stimuli for imagining

Edensor states, “[Abandoned urban] ruins

things otherwise.”29 The exploitation of this

offer different ways of remembering the

mysterious quality of the ruin is essential

past. They are already material allegories

(when integrated into the public realm) in

of the imperfect way in which the past is

promoting a forum to ponder the nature of

remembered….”28 Here, Edensor is not

transparency in the urban realm.

only defending the value of ruin as a portal

Figure 36: Grand Central Station (Manhattan) Park Avenue & 42nd Street

into the collective memory, but also the

In answering the question regarding the

ways in which the distinct qualities of the

value of the urban ruin (hidden underground

ruin influence the directive of the historic

space), the proposal for a network of

narrative that is recounted.

(exposed) abandoned subway stations becomes “an evocative public program,

Furthermore, in deciphering the value

using multiple sites in the urban landscape.

of integrating urban ruins into the active

[The network] can build upon place, in

public realm, one must first separate the

all of its complexity, to bring local history,

value of the physical ruin (historic value)

buildings, and natural features (urban

from the impact of its integration. The

systems) to urban audiences with a new

value here will come from the change

immediacy as part of daily life.”30

induced by integration, rather than from the ruin itself. Because the ruin is not commonly integrated, known, or seen

The Network

within the active fabric of the city “their Figure 37: Grand Central Station (Manhattan) Park Avenue & 42nd Street

very allegorical presence can cause us to

Beneath its surface, New York City has

question the normative ways of organizing

nearly a dozen independent networks

25 that co-exist to facilitate the city’s daily

- To link a collection of individual abandoned

operations. Under these conditions,

station interventions into a single entity.

Richard Rogers provides an applicable architectural example of an integrated

- To expose the narrative between the city,

design approach. In discussing his Lloyd’s

the subway and the assemblage of systems

of London project, Rogers stated that:

beneath the streets, as a vehicle to increase

“The key to this juxtaposition of parts is the

public awareness of place (urban scale).

legibility of the role of each component… the how, why and what of the building.

- To create a multi-dimensional path, by

Each single element is isolated and used

which to experience the city in a new way.

to give order. Nothing is hidden, everything is expressed.”31 This suggests that the

- To emphasize the value of transparency

whole is best understood as an integrated

in the public realm, as a catalyst for a new

compellation of its individual components,

approach to urban (public) spatial design.

Figure 38: Freedom Tunnel (Manhattan) Upper West Side (Penn Station - 125th Street)

and that each component (within the whole) should be expressed. Roger’s intent is irrefutably architectural, however, if the

The NASS

word “building” were replaced with the word “city”, this statement would directly support

“The city is not constituted out of an

the ideological framework for the proposed

organized web of interconnected, discrete

Network of Abandoned Subway Stations

spaces. Instead it contains spaces incommensurable with such containment.”32

The urban objectives for the proposed

Therefore, rather than conceiving a rigid

Network of Abandoned Subway Stations

containment strategy to integrate the

(NASS) are:

various components of the network or

Figure 39: Freedom Tunnel (Manhattan) Upper West Side (Penn Station - 125th Street)

26 the city, the proposed NASS will “weave

user and the user-experience, in a designed

complex interactions of the architectural

outdoor urban landscape. The proposed

[and the subterranean] fabrics with human

NASS goes further to breakdown both the

organization”33

institutional museum and the sculpture park, by directly exposing the content of its

The NASS will function as a “museum

museum into the multi-layered (existing)

without walls” that consists of six (6)

fabric of the city, and by using said fabric as

individual interventions that will expose

the vehicle to guide individuals through the

each of Manhattan’s six (6) abandoned

networks museum space.

subway stations (Figures 40 + 41) to the

Figure 40: Network of Abandoned Subway Stations Identification of Intervnetion Sites

surface. The primary distinction between

A secondary distinction between the

the “museum without walls” and a traditional

“museum without walls” and a traditional

museum space lies in the distinction

museum space exists in the nature of the

between the institution and the city, as

artifacts being displayed. In contrast to

venues for displaying artifacts. Traditional

the traditional museum, in which all objects

museum spaces typically occupy vast

are removed from use and put on display,

indoor environments, while the entirety of

most of the exposed components of the

the NASS will be exposed to the natural

NASS will remain active components of

elements and will exist in the public realm

the city’s everyday infrastructure and all

– 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This

of the exposed components of the NASS

component of the network is exemplified

will be exposed in their current conditions,

in The Olympic Sculpture Park (Seattle,

embedded in their original context. Some of

Washington), which begins to remove

these physical characteristics of the network

the user from the containment of the

are reflected in the Highline Park (New

institutional museum, by placing the art, the

York City, New York), which reinforces the

27 value of the urban ruin in the public realm,

cultural space in the city.

by integrating public access/use along an elevated path with the preserved remnants

The four (4) primary layers are: (Figure 42)

of an existing railway (no longer in use). Both the Highline Park and the proposed

- Manhattan Historic Districts

NASS superimpose paths of public use and urban remnants onto the active (existing)

- Public Museums

urban realm, but the NASS literally embeds a new layer of public access/use and a new

- Arts + Cultural Institutions

layer of exposure into the existing fabric of the city.

- New York City Parks (Manhattan)

Bernard Tschumi, architect of Parc de la

In addition to the network’s connection to

Villette wrote (about designing at the urban

these physical layers, the relationship of the

scale) “when confronted with an urbanistic

network to the city’s non-physical layers of

program…deconstruct what exists by

cultural space and activity infuses another

analyzing the historical layers that preceded

layer of value into the everyday urban

it, even adding other layers derived from

spaces created by the NASS. In March

elsewhere…”34 In this network proposal, the

of 2009, Elizabeth Currid, a professor

historic layers are already derived from the

in the School of Policy, Planning and

existing locations of the abandoned subway

Development at University of Southern

stations in the city. However, the surface

California established a study, referred to

program for the network museum space is

as “The Geography of Buzz”.35 Based on

based on the physical relationship between

the results of this study, Currid assembled a

the network and the following layers of

series of diagrams that highlight the density

Figure 41: Network of Abandoned Subway Stations Identification of Network and Neighborhoods

Historic Districts

Museums

Arts + Culture

Open Space

HISTORIC DISTRICTS

MUSEUMS

ARTS + CULTURE

OPEN SPACE

Figure 42: Deconsturction of Manhattan Location of Historical Districts, Arts + Culture, Museums and Open Space

29 of cultural activities in Manhattan. (Figure

intervention to the next, an individual is

54) These diagrams literally indicate the

certain to travel past/through at least one

frequency and location of specific types of

historic district, cultural institution and/or

cultural events in Manhattan from 2006-

open space, and nearly each intervention

2008. Despite slight shifts in density of

is located in an identified region of dense

art, film, music, theater occurrences, the

cultural activity.

relationship of each analytical diagram shows a correlation between the densities

The network facilitates a new way to

of cultural activity and the proposed location

experience the city - by chance or by

of a NASS intervention site. Furthermore,

design. The location of each of the six

there is a strong correlation between the

(6) interventions scattered throughout

non-physical layers of cultural activity

distinct neighborhoods in the city creates

(Figure 45), the physical layers of cultural

potential for the unintentional discovery

space (Figure 42) and the network.

of intervention sites. The occurrence of

Figure 43: New York City - Open Space Union Square Park - Union Square, Manhattan

a chance encounter with the network is The physical layers that combine to

comparable to an accidental encounter

assemble the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Historic Districts,

with the Berlin Wall Memorial (Berlin,

Cultural institutions and Open Spaces and

Germany), where sections of the wall have

the non-physical layers that highlight current

been preserved in their original locations

trends in the frequency of activity in Art,

throughout the city. The relationship of the

Film, Music and Theater events, converge

network path the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s layers of culture

to create a palimpsest of enriched everyday

and cultural activity (Figures 42 & 45) also

urban environment in the interstitial

increases the potential for an accidental

spaces between a NASS intervention

encounter with an intervention site, or a

sites. Walking along the surface, from one

component of the network, by linking its

Figure 44: New York City - Historic Districts Greenwich Village - Greenwich, Manhattan

Figure 45: “The Geography of Buzz” The Density of Cultural Events in Manhattan (2006 - 2008)

31 network to an already active community of

networkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s south most intervention site at the

culture in the city.

old South Ferry Station and travels north ending at its north most intervention at 91st

In the event of a chance encounter (or

Street and Broadway. However, despite the

a single site visit), each intervention site

intention that the NASS be traveled through

is independently designed to expose the

in its entirety, the network does not need to

subterranean to the surface (and vice

be experienced in a single visit. Circulation

versa), and to provide a site-specific (public)

through the NASS can begin at any one

forum to gather, ponder and to gain a

of its six (6) intervention sites, and each

better understanding of the corss-section

intervention will make available the same

of the city, its history and its infrastructure.

information regarding the network, and

However, the network as a whole will

specific information regarding the individual

provide a more comprehensive sense of

intervention and circulation options from

place and serve as a connective force

that point.

Figure 46: New York City - Art Events Burden Street Art Gallery - Chelsea, Manhattan

between the various layers of physical and cultural space embedded into the fabric of

Traveling through the NASS is expected

the city. (Figures 41, 42 & 45)

to take place by train and by foot. Users typically experience each abandoned station from the perspective of the active

Circulation & Use

subway prior to experiencing the station intervention from the surface. Each

Circulation through the NASS provides a

intervention exposes the underground

path by which individuals can experience

to the surface, which will allow daylight

the city in a new way. The designed

to illuminate each abandoned subway

path through the NASS originates at the

station. While on the subway, these day-lit

Figure 47: New York City - Music Events Aimee Mann Concert - Battery Park City

32 moments serve to notify interested riders

In most cases the nearest station will

of the location of each intervention. Upon

be different from the original point of

approaching an abandoned station, riders

ascension. This continues users along a

mobilize near train car windows (or in-

distinctive path, before descending back

between train cars) to catch a glimpse, as

into the subway system. Once back in the

they pass through an intervention. After the

subway, riders will typically travel in the

train passes through the station, individuals

direction of the next intervention, which will

are expected to get off the train at the next

generally be on a different subway line.

active station to experience the intervention from above. Stations will be artificially lit

This dichotomist circulation path through

after dark, to maintain a consistent effect

the network enables individuals to observe

24-hours a day.

the exposed components of the city from the “solid to the void, [from] the seen to

On the street, intervention sites are located

the unseen…[the NASS] inverts the usual

several (1-6) blocks from the station. Each

image of New York, making the invisible

intervention will be designed to expose

visible [and] bringing the underground to

the subterranean, inform the user of its

light.”36

contents, and to activate its immediate surroundings by encouraging various public activities. At the site of any of the six (6) interventions, individuals are expected to ponder the implications of the network and the intervention. Additionally, individuals Figure 48: Network of Abandoned Subway Stations Circulation & Neighborhood Proposal (Subway)

can acquire formal information to help identify the nearest active station.

33 The advantages of experiencing the

The advantages of experiencing the

network by train:

network on the surface:

- Travel through the network along a fixed

- Freedom to create a personal progression

path (subway lines).

through the network.

- Simultaneously experience the historic

- Full sensory exposure to the complete

and active components of the NYC Subway

cross-section of the city - at the site of each

system.

intervention.

- Experience the abandoned subway

- Opportunity to ponder the implications

stations from a perspective of the subway.

of the network and its interventions - at a personal pace.

- Exposure to various cultural phenomenon, specific to the NYC Subway.

Figure 49: 14th Street Union Square Northbound N | R | W platform

- Opportunity to acquire information about the network at the site of each intervention.

- Rapid travel between intervention sites and close proximity (on the surface) to each

- Exposure to an assortment of activities

intervention.

neighborhoods, and characteristics.

-Subway system provides protection from

- Exposure to various cultural phenomenon,

the weather.

specific to New York City street culture. - No fixed cost, and free of cost if travel done by foot.

Figure 50: 96th Street Southbound 1 | 2 | 3 platform

Figure 51: Network of Abandoned Subway Stations Circulation & Neighborhood Proposal (Street)

South Ferry Station (Figure 54)

City Hall Station (Figure 54)

Sub/Above Path

Arrival Station: South Ferry Station

Arrival Station: City Hall Station

Arrival Train: (Southbound) 1 Train

Arrival Train: (Northbound) 4 | 5 Train

Departure Station: Bowling Green Station

Departure Station: City Hall Station

Abandoned Station Location: Between

Rector Street and South Ferry Stations

Courtland Street and City Hall Stations

Abandoned Station View: Left

Path to Intervention: Battery Park

Path to Intervention: City Hall Park

Distance to Intervention: (Approx) 1-block

Distance to Intervention: (Approx) .5-blocks

Surface Path

Point of Origin: Staten Island Ferry

Point of Origin: City Hall

End Point: City Hall

End Point: Thomas Paine Park

Walking Path: (North) Broadway

Walking Distance: 0.84 miles

Walking Distance: 0.40 miles

Walking Time: 15 minutes

Walking Time: 9 minutes

Touring Neighborhoods:

Wall Street & Lower Manhattan

Civic Center

Sites: Stock Exchange, Ground Zero

Sites: City Hall, Brooklyn Bridge

35 Worth Street Station (Figure 54)

18th Street Station (Figure 54)

Sub/Above Path

Arrival Station: Worth Street Station

Arrival Station: 23rd Street Station

Arrival Train: (Northbound) 6 Train

Departure Station: Chambers Street Station

Departure Station: Union Square Station

Abandoned Station Location: Between

City Hall and Canal Street Stations

14th Street and 23rd Street Stations

Abandoned Station View: Right

Path to Intervention: (South) Lafayette St

Path to Intervention: (South) Broadway

Distance to Intervention: (Approx) 5-blocks

Distance to Intervention: (Approx) 6-blocks

Surface Path

Point of Origin: Thomas Paine Park

Point of Origin: Union Square

End Point: Union Square

End Point: 42nd Street â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Port Authority

Walking Path: (North) Broadway

Walking Distance: 1.75 miles

Walking Distance: 1.50 miles

Walking Time: 29 minutes

Walking Time: 23 minutes

Touring Neighborhoods:

Chinatown, SoHo & Greenwich Village

Midtown Manhattan & Times Square

Sites: Canal Street, SoHo & Union Square

Sites: Times Square & Empire State Bldg

Figure 52: Brooklyn Bridge (Nearest - City Hall Station)

Figure 53: 42nd Street - Times Square (Nearest - 42nd Sreet Port Authority Station)

36 to 42nd Street Port Authority

to 91st Street & Broadway 23rd Street Station

18th Street Intervention Union Square Station

Greenwich Village

42nd Street Intervention

Times Square Port Authority Station Times Square Station

18th Street

Riverside Park

Midtown Manhattan

East Village to City Hall Station

Upper West Side

96th Street Station

91st Street Intervention

86th Street Station Central Park

Union Square Station

to Port Authority Station

42nd Street - Port Authority

91st Street to Union Square

Ground Zero

Thomas Paine Park City Hall

City Hall

Wall Street District

Ground Zero

City Hall Station

Brooklyn Bridge

South Ferry Intervetion

Wall Street District

Chinatown Canal Street Station

City Hall Intervetion

Bowling Green Station Battery Park

Tribeca

Thomas Paine Park

Worth Street Intervention Federal Court District

South Ferry Station

Bowling Green Station

South Ferry

City Hall

Figure 54: Site-Scaled Circulation Diagrams Sub\Above + Surafce Circulation through the NASS

City Hall Station

Worth Street

37 42nd Street – Port Authority (Figure 54)

91st Street Station (Figure 54)

Sub/Above Path

Arrival Station: 42nd Street – Times Square

Arrival Station: 96th Street Station

Arrival Train: (Northbound) N | R | W Train

Arrival Train: (Northbound) 1 | 2 | 3 Train

Departure Station: 42nd St – Port Authority

Departure Station: 86th Street Station

Abandoned Station Location: Below

Abandoned Station Location: Between

42nd Street - Port Authority Station

86th Street and 96th Street Stations

Abandoned Station View: N/A

Abandoned Station View: Right

Path to Intervention: Port Authority

Path to Intervention: (South) Broadway

Distance to Intervention: 0-blocks

Distance to Intervention: (Approx) 5-blocks

Surface Path

Point of Origin: 42nd Street – Port Authority

Point of Origin: 91st Street & Broadway

End Point: 91st Street & Broadway

End Point: 86th STreet & Broadway

Walking Path: (North) Broadway

Walking Path: (South) Broadway

Walking Distance: 2.31 miles

Walking Distance: 0.24 miles

Walking Time: 40 minutes

Walking Time: 6 minutes

Touring Neighborhoods:

Theater District

Upper West Side

Sites: Columbus Circle, Lincoln Center

Sites: Central Park, Riverside Park

Figure 55: Battery Park (Nearest - South Ferry Station)

Figure 56: Wall Street District (Between - South Ferry & City Hall Stations)

38 Subway Path: (Figure 48)

Surface Path: (Figure 51)

Total Number of Interventions - 6

Total Number of Accessible Interventions - 3

Total Distance Traveled - 7.04 miles

Total Number of Access Stations - 12 + 3

Total Walking Time - 2 hours + 11 minutes

Total Number of Active Stations - 23

Total Number of Neighborhoods - 13

Transfer Points/Stations: South Ferry to Bowling Green

Expansion Potential

(1 Train to the 4 | 5 Line) Initially the NASS is designed to expose City Hall to City Hall

the six (6) abandoned subway stations

(4 | 5 Train to the 6 Line)

in Manhattan. But, this proposal is also intended to serve as a catalyst in exploring

Canal Street to Chamber Street

the integration and expression of other

(6 Train to the 4 | 5 Line)

forgotten spaces beneath the streets, as a potential new approach to urban design.

23rd Street to 14th St | Union Square (4 | 5 Train to the N | R | W Line)

The following list identifies eight (8) abandoned subway platforms (Figure 57)

42nd Times Square to 42nd Port Authority

and eight (8) abandoned PATH/railroad

(N | R | W Train to the 2 | 3 Line)

stations (Figure 58) that could serve as future components of an integrated, multi-

Figure 57: Network of Abandoned Underground Expansion Potential - Abandoned Subway Platforms

96th Street to 86th Street (2| 3 Train to the 1 Line)

layered urban realm.

39 Abandoned Platforms37 (Figure 57)

Abandoned Railroad Station38(Figure 58)

Chambers Street (Platforms)

Hudson Terminal (PATH Station)

(August 1913 – May 1931)

(July 1909 – July 1971)

Bowery (Platforms)

Williamsburg Bridge (Railway Terminal)

(August 1913 – September 2004)

(October 1904 – December 1948)

Canal Street (Platforms)

19th Street (PATH Station)

(August 1913 – September 2004)

(February 1908 – August 1954)

14th Street (Platforms)

28th Street (PATH Station)

(October 1904 – Approximately 1910)

(November 1910 – August 1937)

59th Street (Platforms)

Grand Central Terminal (Private Station)

(Approximately 1953 – Approximately 1974)

(Dates not available)

Lexington Avenue (Platforms)

Queensborough Bridge (Railway Terminal)

(Never Completed)

(October 1909 – October 1957)

63rd Street (Platforms)

86th Street (Railway Station)

(Never Completed)

(March 1986 – Approximately 1903)

96th Street (Platforms)

Park Avenue (Railway Station)

(October 1904 – Approximately 1956)

(May 1976 – Approximately 1902)

Figure 58: Network of Abandoned Underground Expansion Potential - Abandoned Railroad Stations

Part IV: Sites

Site Proposals

permanently closed in 2010, when the new

Introduction to the Sites Design Process + Proposals

South Ferry Station is scheduled to begin active service. All five of these stations lie underground, are covered in graffiti,

“Authentic knowledge of space must address the question of its production.”

and can be seen while passing, on local 39

trains. The abandoned station at 42nd Street Port Authority was never opened

The NASS will function as a “museum

for regular service to the general public

without walls” that consists of six (6)

and cannot be viewed aboard any active

individual interventions that will expose

lines of service. The 42nd Street platform

each of Manhattan’s six (6) abandoned

is currently one level below the existing

subway stations to the surface. (Figures

station platforms.40 With the background

40 + 41). The New York City Subway

and relative (underground) location of

(in Manhattan), currently has only four

each NASS intervention site identified the

stations (that were once active) that have

following question needs to be preemptively

been closed in their entirety – IRT City Hall

considered prior to the proposal of the each

Station, Worth Street Station, 18th Street

individual intervention site within the NASS.

Station and 91st Street Station. These stations are remnants of the1904 IRT

- How can the design of each abandoned

subway line, and each became obsolete

station intervention expose the underground

as a result of train elongation in the 1950’s.

to the public, while appropriately addressing

The original 1904 station/platform at

its own independent site conditions, in a

South Ferry is still active (the abandoned

manner that is consistent with, the network

station section is the 1918 inner loop

and the objectives of this thesis?

station), but the outer loop station will be

Figure 59: Abandoned City Hall Station (Underground site of City Hall Station Intervention)

Figure 60: Inspirational Public Artists (from left to right) Christo & Jean-Claude, Gordon Matta-Clark and Jenny Holzer

43 Design Process

differences, however, they all work(ed) within the confines of existing public space

The design process for each abandoned

to challenge the viewer, beyond visual

station intervention began with an

observation, by transforming the everyday

exploration of installation art in the public

ordinary, into art.

realm. In discussing the differences between art, architecture and installation

The argument surrounding installation art

art, Hugh M. Davies suggests that “artists,

extends beyond comparative difference

who work in unconventional media such

and into the realm of permanence. “Much

as installation function as the aesthetic

installation art is transient and does not

explorers…and they operate in territory

survive in the forms of permanent objects.”43

well beyond the conventional supply

This phenomenon raised questions

lines and safety nets…” Furthermore,

regarding the user program of these NASS

Davies states “when installation artists ask

installation sites, that are proposed to

viewers to relate to the artwork in some

stand as permanent interventions between

way other than through visual observation

the surface and the underground. The

– often by asking them to participate in the

objectives of each installation (Page 45)

completion of the piece – they challenge

begin to address the issue of program.

the viewers’ expectations about materials

Again, the work of Christo & Jean-Claude,

and conventions.” In considering Davies

Gordon Matta-Clark and Jenny Holzer,

arguments, the work of Christo & Jean-

provide the framework for permanence

Claude, Gordon Matta-Clark and Jenny

and longevity, by providing guidlelines

Holzer, emerged as critical works of

for activation of each intervention, via

influence in the site design portion of this

installation.

thesis. These artists posses clear stylistic

Figure 61: New York City Thumbnails Experiencial qualities of the NASS

Figure 62: New York City Subway - Structural Photos Existing (Structural) Conditions - 86th Street Station

45 The combination of these installation art

Design Guidelines

ideologies speak directly to the objectives of the NASS interventions as individual sites,

Working within these parameters, the

in the over-stimulated, fast paced urban

following list of design guidelines was

environment, that epitomizes New York City.

established to serve as the design

In New York, it is culturally common for the

framework for each intervention:

general public to stare at the ground while in the public realm, choosing to focus on their

- Address the section of the city as a

feet, rather than the stimuli of the urban

whole to establish a relationship between

environment that surrounds them. Thus,

subterranean, streetscape and building.

the philosophy and work of installation art/ ists is critical to induce the public to break

- Work within the existing urban conditions â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

from their habitual patterns and paths

above and below the street. (Figures 62-64)

through the city - to become more aware of thier surroundings.

Figure 63: NYC Subway - Original Documents Existing (Structural) Conditions.

- Minimize the interventionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impact on the physical conditions along the street and the

Inspired by installation art and public artists,

existing circulation patterns through the city.

this thesis proposes to inject variation into the public realm, by providing moments

- Design to allow the intervention to change

that deviate from the everyday urban

over time, to facilitate changes in use by

streetscape.

the city and/or the public. - Facilitate various program, to include installations and public gatherings. above and below the street.

Figure 64: NYC Subway - Original Documents Existing (Structural) Conditions.

e at

St Ave nue

So ut

Figure 65: South Ferry Station Intervention (125m) Existing Conditions Aerial Map

et ll Stre

@ Active S t atio n

ha White

t u o

er ry

rr y

all Whiteh

S d e Abandon

all Whiteh

tation @

tat ion

ate W

tation @

Active S

8th

St ab

e re

t rS

47 - Allow the sights, smells, sounds and

South Ferry Station

sensations of the subterranean to permeate above ground (and vice versa).

South Ferry Station is a unique two-track loop station. The outer loop platform was built in 1904 as part of the original IRT

Site Design Objectives

Brooklyn Extension and was served by this line until the IRT West Side/7th Ave.

Within these guidelines, the architecture of

Subway reached South Ferry in 1918. The

each intervention is critical in relationship to

platform is extremely short (only five cars

the network and the exposed underground,

fit), so passengers wishing to exit at this

while proposing potential activation

station must be in the first five cars.

strategies, uses and existing conditions. Essentially a separate station, the South The objectives for each site are:

Ferry inner loop platform was built in 1918

Figure 66: South Ferry Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

for IRT Lexington service when the IRT - Identify public art(ist) precedents to inspire

West Side service was given the outer

the development of each intervention

loop. The inner loop platform was used

proposal.

until 1977, by a shuttle to the Bowling Green station on the Lexington/Brooklyn

- Define a list of potential users/uses to

IRT. Because of itstight radius (even tighter

inform the development of each intervention

than the outer loop), trains could open only

proposal.

their center doors at the inner loop station, and so instead of a full platform face,

- Analyze the existing (surface/sub-surface)

slightly arched openings were cut into the

conditions for each site within the network.

old walls where the center doors would be.

Figure 67: South Ferry Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

Gordon Matta-Clark - “Fake Estates”

Gordon Matta-Clark - “Conical Intersect” Figure 68: Design Process/Matrix - South Ferry Public Art, Activities and Exsiting Conditions

Street Performers - Battery Park, New York

South Ferry Intervention Site - View South

Museum of Natural History - Exhibit from Balcony

South Ferry Intervention Site - Southwest

49 Beginning in the late 1950s, when the new

Terminal (Figure 65). Battery Park is one

R-type cars replaced most of the original

of Manhattan’s oldest parks, and provides

IRT rolling stock, trains arriving from the

ferry service to the Statue of Liberty and

Lexington line on nights and weekends

Ellis Island. The Wall Street District is New

were rerouted to share the outer loop

York City’s infamous financial district, home

because the new cars could not selectively

to the New York City Stock Exchange and

open only the center doors. The weekday

the Staten Island Ferry serves as the only

shuttle used specially modified cars that

public transportation connection between

opened only center doors, and continued

Staten Island (500,000 residents) and

using the inner loop until service ended in

Manhattan Island.

1977. 44 South Ferry Station is the terminal station Today, the original South Ferry Station is on

for the 1-train, and provides connections to

the brink of extinction and a new 2-platform

the 2 3, the 4 5 6 and the N R W Lines. The

South Ferry Station is scheduled to open in

South Ferry Station services approximately

its place 2010-2011.

15,000-20,000 passengers a day.

Existing Conditions

Design Considerations

The South Ferry Abandoned Station

Design considerations for the South Ferry

is located at the south most point on

Intervention combines existing conditions,

Manhattan Island, between Battery Park,

with proposed activities and inspiration

The Wall Street District and Manhattan

from specific works of installation art. The

Bay and beneath the Staten Island Ferry

South Ferry intervention investigates “Fake

Figure 69: South Ferry Station Intervention Site Existing Conditions (2008)

Figure 70: South Ferry Station Intervention Conceptual Intervention Proposal

Figure 71: South Ferry Station Intervention Rendering South Ferry Station Intervention - view South

51 Estates” and “Conical Intersect”, works by

South Ferry Intervention

Gordon Matta-Clark, as studies to inspire the final intervention design.

The South Ferry Intervention creates a performance and gathering area along

Fake Estates was an unrealized project, in

Centre Street, between Wall Street, the

which Gordon Matta-Clark purchased tiny

nearby 6-train and the Staten Island Ferry

plots of land in an alleyway in Los Angeles.

(Figure 72). This intervention, entitled the

This project was intended to explore/exploit

“Staging Station” peels up from the street’s

the potential of “inaccessible” spaces in

surface, creating a balcony-like showcase of

the city. Conical Intersect explored the

the newly constructed active 1-train and the

concealed reality behind the walls of a

existing (abandoned) South Ferry stations

traditional structure in Paris France, during

below ground (Figure 73). This “Stage”

the construction of Centre Pompideu. The

is designed to capture the interest of

project allowed for changing insights from

passers-by, while simultaneously producing

different reference points. Both of these

a staging area backdrop to Battery Park.

projects, combined with potential uses

The interventions gesture does not obstruct

that include: staged performances, street

the flow of traffic along Centre Street or

performances, lunch breaks, urban sports,

through its “plaza” - enroute to the nearby

relaxation, lounging, meeting, coalesce to

6-train or Financial Districts (Figure 72). Its

create the foundation for the design of the

peeling up from the street surface will invite

South Ferry Station Intervention.

pedestrians and street vendors to gather

Figure 72: South Ferry Station Intervention Aerial Plan Diagram

and view along the street. The staging area is prime for activation by a wide variety of street performers and/or legitimate performance events (Figure 71).

Figure 73: South Ferry Station Intervention Section Section Diagram

y wa

yH all

Figure 74: City Hall Station Intervention (125m) Existing Conditions Aerial Map

Cit n@ tio ta eS tiv

5 6

abandoned

Par

abandoned

idg

City Hall abandoned

yH all

Cit n@ tio ta Ac

n kly oo

an b A

ion t a St

ne o d

tiv

tive

Sta

tive

tio

Sta

tio

Cit

oa d

yH all

53 The South Ferry Intervention measures

deemed impractical for lengthening. The

approximate 85’x 60’ (footprint) and lifts

new longer trains had center doors and

diagonally along its surface (Figure 72), to

were dangerous to open along City Hall’s

approximate 7’ at its highest point. Three

tight curve. Because of this City Hall was

of its four corners lie at ground. The fourth

abandoned in favor of the nearby Brooklyn

(southeast) corner is the intervention’s

Bridge station. City Hall was closed to

vertical apex.

passenger service on December 31, 1945. The street entrances were sealed and the skylights covered over.45

City Hall Station City Hall Station opened along with the rest

Existing Conditions

of the Interborough’s first subway line on October 27, 1904. It was immediately clear

The City Hall Abandoned Station is located

that expansion of the subway system would

in City Hall Park, between the Brooklyn

be necessary and additional lines would

Bridge to the east and Ground Zero to the

need to be built. Ever-increasing ridership

west, on the threshold between a densely

eventually required the Interborough’s

populated mixed-use neighborhood and

five-car local stations to be lengthened to

the Federal Courthouse District. The City

accommodate longer trains, and so the IRT

Hall complex consists of New York City’s,

underwent an extensive program of station

City Hall building, the governmental Library

lengthening in the 1940s and early 1950s.

and City Hall Park, which is opened to

Figure 75: City Hall Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

the public and located immediately above City Hall, due to its architecture and

the original City Hall Station. The original

construction along a tight curve, was

abandoned station lies between two active

Figure 76: City Hall Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

Jenny Holzer - “Survival Series”

Street Performers - Paris, France

City Hall Intervention Site - View Southeast Street

Gordon Matta-Clark - “Days End”

Jungle Gym at Burning Man

City Hall Intervention Site - View South

Figure 77: Design Process/Matrix - City Hall Public Art, Activities and Exsiting Conditions

55 City Hall Stations (N R W and 4 5 6), near

approximately 25,000 – 30,000 passengers

the southern entrance to the park.

daily.

The original City Hall Station was located between Broadway-Nassau Street Station

Design Considerations

and Brooklyn Bridge Street Station. However, since the system has expanded

Design considerations for the City Hall

and the original City Hall Station was closed

Intervention combines existing conditions,

in 1945, Broadway-Nassau Street has been

with proposed activities and inspiration from

renamed Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau

specific works of installation art. The City

Street and the Brooklyn Bridge Station was

Hall intervention investigates “Truisms” and

renamed the City Hall – Brooklyn Bridge

“Day’s End”, works by Jenny Holzer and

Station. Thus, the original City Hall Station

Gordon Matta-Clark respectively, as studies

is now located between Fulton Street/

to inspire the final intervention design.

Figure 78: City Hall Station Intervention Site Existing Conditions (2008)

Broadway-Nassau Street Station and City Hall – Brooklyn Bridge Station. The Fulton

Day’s End appropriated a waterside

Street/Broadway-Nassau Street Station

warehouse space in New York City,

provides 6-train local service (only), while

scheduled for immediate demolition. This

the City Hall – Brooklyn Bridge Station

project explored the impact and affect of

provides service and connections to the 4

introducing direct light into (existing) dark

5 lines and terminal service for the 6-train.

space - through the removal of a component

The Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau Street

of an exterior “concealer”. Truisms were

Station services approximately 45,000 -

Jenny Holzer’s groundbreaking project.

50,000 passengers a day, while the City

This project explored the concept of

Hall – Brooklyn Bridge Station services

using the public realm as a forum to

Figure 79: City Hall Station Intervention Conceptual Intervention Proposal

Figure 80: City Hall Station Intervention Rendering City Hall Station Intervention - view Southwest

57 communicate/transfer information. This

into the “gem” of the original 28 subway

project used a variety of exiting objects in

stations (Figure 80). The intervention does

the public realm as informational backdrops.

not alter current flows of pedestrian traffic

Both of these projects, combined with

through the park (the intervention would

potential uses that include: street

be an extrusion of an existing/embedded

performances, projections, urban climbing,

seal - which is not part of the park’s current

contemplation, day-time gathering coalesce

circulation diagram), and it lifts into the air,

to create the foundation for the design of

splitting focus between the underground

the City Hall Station Intervention.

and to the city above. The Illuminated intervention will attract bridge tourists and contemplative park goers, while its light

City Hall Intervention

and its height could attract climbers and/or curious visitors at all hours of the day.

The City Hall Intervention illuminates and activates Downtown’s City Hall

The City Hall Intervention is offset over

Park, located at the junction between

the original train platform, exposing the

Broadway and Lafayette Streets (Figure

City Hall Station rotunda to the surface,

81). This intervention, entitled the “The

while providing sensory connections

Illuminating Park” rises from the pavement

to the original train platform, from the

creating a lantern-like marker, designed

intervention’s east side view (Figure

to draw nearby subway riders and/or

82). The “Illuminating Park” intervention

Brooklyn Bridge visitors into the park. The

measures approximate 30’ in diameter and

intervention both projects information

lifts 45’ into the air.

and messages onto its structure, while simultaneously creating a sensory portal

Figure 81: City Hall Station Intervention Aerial Plan Diagram

Figure 82: City Hall Station Intervention Section Section Diagram

hS tre

Lafaye

tte Stt

reet Figure 83: Worth Street Station Intervention (125m) Existing Conditions Aerial Map

Centre

eet @ Worth Str Abandoned

Abandoned

abandoned

@ Worth Str

Worth St

eet

Street

oa d

Wo rt

abandoned

Wo rt

hS tre

59 Worth Street Station

the U.S. Court of International Trade, the U.S. Tax Court, as well as the New York

Worth Street Station opened on October

City Supreme Court and State Courthouse

27, 1904 and was closed to passengers

buildings. The Worth Street Abandoned

on September 1, 1962, due to the platform

Subway Station lies between Thomas Paine

lengthening at Brooklyn Bridge. In fact, from

Park and a public plaza on the eastside

1962 to 1995, Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall

of 306 Broadway. The Abandoned station

was named Brooklyn Bridge/Worth Street

lies beneath and open (space) segment

on platform signs. This station underlies the

of Lafayette Street which consists of three

sidewalk on the west side of Foley Square.

(3) lanes of southbound only vehicular and

The subway tunnel runs very close to the

bicycle traffic.

foundation wall of the lower level of Federal Plaza, but the station does not intrude into

Worth Street Station is located between

footprint of the plaza. 46

the City Hall Station and the Canal Street

Figure 84: Worth Street Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

Station. The City Hall Station is the terminal station for the 6 train and provides service Existing Conditions

and connections to the 4 5 6 lines. The Canal Street Station provides service and

The Worth Street Abandoned Station is

connections to the 4 5 6, N Q R W and the

located in the Federal Courthouse District of

J M Z lines. The City Hall Station services

New York City, on Lafayette Street (between

approximately 25,000 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 30,000 passengers

Duane and Worth Streets). The Courthouse

a day, while the Canal Street Station

District is located 3-block northeast of

services approximately 45,000 - 50,000

City Hall and consists of the U.S. Federal

passengers daily.

Courthouse, the U.S. Court of Appeals,

Figure 85: Worth Street Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

Christo & Jean-Claude - “The Gates”

“Feeding the Pigeons” - Barcelona, Spain

Worth Street Intervention Site - View South

Gordon Matta-Clark - “Circus”

British Musuem - London, England

Worth Street Intervention Site - View North

Figure 86: Design Process/Matrix - Worth Street Public Art, Activities and Exsiting Conditions

61 Design Considerations

via, photo and video assemblages. Both of these projects, combined with potential uses

Design considerations for the Worth Street

that include: exposing subway/courts, urban

Intervention combines existing conditions,

sports, gather/picnic, feeding the pigeons,

with proposed activities and inspiration

lunch breaks, relaxation coalesce to create

from specific works of installation art. The

the foundation for the design of the Worth

Worth Street intervention investigates “The

Street Station Intervention.

Gates” and “Circus”, works by Christo & Jean-Claude and Gordon Matta-Clark respectively, as studies to inspire the final intervention design.

The Gates was Christo & Jean-Claude’s most recent public work. The Gates defined/

Figure 87: Worth Street Station Intervention Site Existing Conditions (2008)

highlighted a series of paths that essentially reintroduced components of the network of existing man-made paths through the park, as well as the progression through (along said paths) the park. Circus was MattaClark final work, before his unfortunate death at the age of 35. Circus, which is also often referred to as “The Caribbean Orange”, explored the hidden reality beneath the skin of a traditional structure. This project showcased these relationships

Figure 88: Worth Street Station Intervention Conceptual Intervention Proposal

Figure 89: Worth Street Station Intervention Rendering Worth Street Station Site - view North

63 Worth Street Intervention

The Worth Street Intervention consists of five (5) individual excavated sections of

The Worth Street Intervention is the

street, each measuring 15’ in width, with

networks most modest intervention, due to

variable lengths measuring 40’ - 70’.

its location along Lafayette Street, amidst New York City’s City, State and Federal courthouse buildings. This intervention, entitled the “Revealing Paths” does not break the ground plane (Figure 89), and it exposes the underground via a series of slits in the surface of the road, that are perpendicular to the traffic flow, along the street (Figure 90). This intervention is a playful expression of the polycentric nature

Figure 90: Worth Street Station Intervention Aerial Plan Diagram

of the proposed NASS. The “Revealing Paths” would laterally draw pedestrian traffic across the street and across its varied (sensory) portals into the underground. Since the intervention does not break the ground plan it does not alter the current flows of traffic (Figure 91). After Dark, the “Revealing Path” intervention would create a unique field of broken light along the duration of its path, drawing passers-by into its proximity.

Figure 91: Worth Street Station Intervention Section Section Diagram

Broadw a

th S tre

th S

tre

Bro

adw

Aband

ned

Figure 92: 18th Street Station Intervention (125m) Existing Conditions Aerial Map

Ave nue 8th

8th St tion @ 1

abando

ned Sta

ned

Abando

abando

oned S tation

ned

th A ven ue

4 5 6

abando

@ 18th

th S tre

18 St. abando

ned

65 18th Street Station

When the Board of Transportation embarked on a platform extension

18th Street Station was open from 1904

program after World War II, they decided

to 1948 and was part of the first New York

to close 18th Street rather than enlarge

subway line. Like most local stations along

it. Therefore,18th Street still exists as

the original subway line, the 18th Street

two short platforms beneath the streets of

Station was built using the cut and cover

Broadway.47

construction technique, which kept its station depth relatively shallow. Thus, it is

Existing Conditions

located just below street level. The station has separate fare controls on itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s platform

The 18th Street Abandoned Station is

level on each side. Its early history is similar

located on Broadway (between 17th and

to Worth Street.

18th Streets), one-block northwest of Union Square. Union Square is in the heart of

There was a streetcar line in East 18th

the garment district, surrounded by the

Street until 1913, a diagonal route called

Flatiron District to the north, Chelsea to

the Central Crosstown, that ran from the

the west, Greenwich Village to the south

Christopher Street Ferry on the Hudson

and Gramercy to the East. Union Square

River to the 23rd St Ferry on the East River.

Park is located between 14th and 17th

It ran along 18th Street from Broadway to

Street, between Park Avenue and 5th

Avenue A, returning along 19th Street.This

Avenue â&#x20AC;&#x201C; at the junction of Park Avenue,

was not an important line by 1900, and the

4th Avenue, Broadway and University

station was sited simply to fulfill the required

Place. The 18th Street Abandoned Subway

half-mile spacing between subway stops.

Station lies beneath a modest segment of Broadway, consisting of 3-5 story mixed-use

Figure 93: 18th Street Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

Figure 94: 18th Street Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

Jenny Holzer - “Truisms”

Calgary Tower - Glass Floor Observation Deck

18th Street Intervention Site - View Northeast

Gordon Matta-Clark - “Splitting”

Billboard - “Get a Life”

18th Street Intervention Site - View West

Figure 95: Design Process/Matrix - 18th Street Public Art, Activities and Exsiting Conditions

67 residential structures, and three (3) lanes

Survival Series” and “Splitting”, works by

of southbound only vehicular and bicycle

Jenny Holzer and Gordon Matta-Clark

traffic.

respectively, as studies to inspire the final intervention design.

18th Street Station is located between the 14th Street – Union Square Station and the

The Survival Series was Jenny Holzer’s

23rd Street Station. The 23rd Street Station

second major (recognized) project. This

provides service and connections to the 4

series of projects was an extension of the

5 6 lines. The 14th Street - Union Square

Truisms installment effort. The Survival

Station provides service and connections

series re-examined the “Art Realm” and

to the 4 5 6, N Q R W and L lines. The

determined/utilized the public realm as a

23rd Street Stations services approximately

realm appropriate for conveying information.

12,000 – 15,000 passengers a day, while

Splitting was arguably Matta-Clarks

the 14th Street – Union Square Station

most recognizable work. It explored the

services approximately 100,000 passengers

sectional/spatial relationship of the “section”

daily.

in built space. The project also introduced

Figure 96: 18th Street Station Intervention Site Existing Conditions (2008)

the interjection of light into the section. Both of these projects, combined with potential Design Considerations

uses that include: information board, digital interaction, sub/above installation,

Design considerations for the 18th Street

“subway” performers, market, taxistands,

Intervention combines existing conditions,

advertisement, wayfinding coalesce to

with proposed activities and inspiration

create the foundation for the design of the

from specific works of installation art. The

18th Street Station Intervention.

18th Street intervention investigates “The

Figure 97: 18th Street Station Intervention Conceptual Intervention Proposal

Figure 98: 18th Street Station Intervention Rendering 18th Street Station Intervnetion - view Southwest

69 18th Street Intervention

screens atop each of the two facing building anchoring this intervention to the street and

The 18th Street Intervention serves as a

the surrounding neighborhood.

threshold into the Union Square area of Downtown Manhattan, between 17th and 18th Streets along Broadway (Figure 99). This intervention, entitled the “Projecting Threshold” exposes the underground in a single band, which serves as a “threshold” into the Union Square district. The excavated band spans the width of two facing buildings along Broadway, that the intervention unites (Figure 98). The intervention suggestively extends up the

Figure 99: 18th Street Station Intervention Aerial Planl Diagram

facades of the two facing buildings to terminate in the form of projection screens on the rooftops. The screens can are visible from Union Square and/or north along Broadway – calling attention to the intervention as the threshold into or out of the Union Square District (Figure 97). The 18th Street Intervention consists of a single 78’x 18’ excavated section of street (Figure 100), and two facing 22’ x 18’

Figure 100: 18th Street Station Intervention Section Section Diagram

st S tre

and o

Ave nue

8th

tion

Sta

ned

Ac tive

tre

Figure 101: 42nd Street Port Authority Station Intervention (125m) Existing Conditions Aerial Map

Sta

40 th S

ned

ndo ned

ndo

ion

aba

Sta t

ned

@4 2n dS

ndo

2n dS

aba

tive

ned

ndo

th A ven ue

aba

st S tre

71 42nd Street - Port Authority Station

like the Aqueduct Racetrack special fare trains, and for rush hour E trains for a

42nd Street Port Authority Station was

period during the 1970s. For many years,

opened on September 10 1932. It is

a cross-under was open between the

an express station with four tracks and

upper level platforms using a passageway

two island platforms in use. The Times

at the northern end of the lower level.

Square/42nd Street complex is the

Rearrangement of the mezzanine a few

busiest in the system and consequently

years ago allowed passengers to crossover

the platforms here are extra wide to

using the mezzanine within the fare control.

accommodate passenger volume. In

It is not clear why this lower level was even

order to fit the wider platforms, they are

built.48

offset from north to south; the southbound platform extends between 40th and 42nd Streets. and the northbound between 42nd

Existing Conditions

Figure 102: 42nd Street - Port Authority Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

and 44th Streets. The 42nd Street â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Port Authority Abandoned In addition to the platforms described

Station is located beneath the Port Authority

above, there is an abandoned lower

Bus Terminal in the Times Square District

platform on the southbound side (one

on the west side of Midtown Manhattan.

track, underneath the downtown local track

With attractions ranging from world famous

on the upper level, and one side platform

lights and billboards, to New Years Eve

underneath the island platform above). The

parties, from 42nd Street Shows, to the

lower level platform was built along with the

heart of the Broadway performance scene,

rest of the station in 1932, but it was only

Times Square has achieved the status of

used from 1959 to 1981 for odd services

an iconic world landmark and is one of

Figure 103: 42nd Street - Port Authority Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

Jenny Holzer - “Xenon”

Wall Art - Graffitti in Richmond

42nd Street Intervention Site - View Northwest

Christo & Jean-Claude - “Reichstag Wrapped””

Alian Robert - French Building Climber

42nd Street Intervention Site - View West

Figure 104: Design Process/Matrix - 42nd Street Port Authority Public Art, Activities and Exsiting Conditions

73 Manhattan’s most famous city attractions.

existing conditions, with proposed activities

The Port Authority Bus Terminal is the

and inspiration from specific works of

largest bus terminal in the country and the

installation art. The 42nd Street – Port

busiest in the world (by volume) servicing

Authority intervention investigates “Xenon

approximately 200,000 people on 7,200 bus

Projections” and “Wrapping the Reichstag”,

daily.

works by Jenny Holzer and Christo & JeanClaude respectively, as studies to inspire

42nd Street – Port Authority Station is a

the final intervention design.

part of a conglomeration of five (5) active subway stations beneath Times Square

The Xenon Projections are Jenny Holzer’s

that make up the largest and most heavily

most recognizable, contemporary works.

trafficed stations in the city. The 42nd

Xenon for [insert city name] exploited

Street – Port Authority Station provides

the built environment as a backdrop for

direct service for the A C E lines and provide

personal expression. This project also

sconnections to the 1 2 3, N Q R W and 7

explored the notion of art impact versus

lines, as well as S-train shuttle service to

time spent absorbing in the public realm.

Grand Central Terminal. The 42nd Street

The Reichstag focused public attention

Stations services approximately 150,000-

to the presence of the Reichstag (both

175,000 passengers a day.

physically and historically) as a changing

Figure 105: 42nd Street Station Intervention Site Existing Conditions (2008)

center of government in Germany. This wrapped installation created a public Design Considerations

spectacle and ignited a massive public response (in the form of gathering)

Design considerations for the 42nd Street

without creating a hindrance to any

– Port Authority Intervention combines

everyday urban conditions. Both of

Figure 106: 42nd Street Station Intervention Conceptual Intervention Proposal

Figure 107: 42nd Street Port Authority Station Intervention Rendering 42nd Street Station Intervention - view West

75 these projects, combined with potential

observation space on the lower level of the

uses that include: Projection, information

Bus Terminal (Figure 109). The surface

board, advertisement, digital interaction,

intervention gesture is consistent with the

contemplation, shelter, climbing, graffiti

Time Square District, and the underground

coalesce to create the foundation for the

component is consistent with the other

design of the 42nd Street – Port Authority

NASS interventions, to facilitate passage,

Station Intervention.

contemplation, and sensory connection to the exterior intervention, and the underground.

42nd Street - Port Authority Intervention On the street, both of the 42nd Street The 42nd Street - Port Authority Station

Intervention’s structural insertions measure

Intervention is the only intervention that

(approximately) 25’ x 50’. On the lower

physically facilitates an indoor/outdoor

level of the Port Authority Bus Terminal,

experience (Figure 109). This intervention,

each insertion measures approximately

entitled the “Wrapping Building” inserts

25’ x 16’. The excavated section of

two mesh display cases into the existing

sidewalk measures approximately 10’ x 50

exoskeleton of the Port Authority Bus

and replaces the existing sidewalk. This

Terminal (to serve as digital projection

section of the Port Authority Bus Terminal is

spaces), and pierces through the related

currently under construction (Figure 107).

Figure 108: 42nd Street Station Intervention Aerial Plan Diagram

section of sidewalk (Figure 107). In this intervention the exposed station is below the original “cut and cover” line, two stories below the street surface. The added depth enables for an interior

Figure 109: 42nd Street Station Intervention Section Section Diagram

eet

adw ay

Str

ion

aba ndo ned

dS tat

st S tre

Figure 110: 91st Street Station Intervention (125m) Existing Conditions Aerial Map

Ab ay adw

tre

Bro

Bro adw

90 th S

and o

ned

and

one

tS t

ned

ndo

aba

ion

ned

Sta t

ndo

@9 1s t

aba

Bro

B r o adw ay

91 aba

ndo

St.

ned

st S tre

Str

eet

77 91st Street Station

Existing Conditions

91st Street Station was in operation as

The 91st Street Abandoned Station is

a local station from 1904 to 1959. At the

located on Broadway in Manhattan’s Upper

completion of the IRT’s H system in 1918,

West Side neighborhood, between 91st

the 91st Street Station was on the west side

and 92nd Streets. The Upper West Side

route, known as the Seventh Ave subway.

is one of New York City’s most prestigious

Unlike stations south of Grand Central, the

and well-known residential neighborhoods.

local stations along Broadway were not

It measures 2.1 sq miles and is located

extended in 1948 and remained short until

between Central Park and the Hudson

the Transit Authority’s extension program of

River, and extends from (approximately)

the mid 1950’s. At that time, in an effort to

59th Street to 110th (the length of Central

accommodate longer trains, the 96th Street

Park). The Upper East Side (another one

Station was extended to 94th Street. The

of New York City’s most well-known and

lengthening of these platforms created an

prestigious neighborhoods), is defined by

exit that was only three blocks north of 91st

the residential neighborhood on the east

Street, therefore the station at 91st Street

side of Central Park. In terms of iconic

was no longer necessary.

proximity, the Upper West Side is best

Figure 111: 91st Street Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

defined by its location between Central Park The 91st Street station is fairly well-

and Riverside Park, as well as being home

preserved if you disregard the graffiti and

to cultural structures – Lincoln Center and

spray paint cans all over the place. And,

the American Museum of Natural History.

like the 18th Street Station platforms, the

The Broadway 1 | 2 | 3 Line is one of only

91st Street platforms are still the old 1910

two lines that service the 208,000 residents

local station length. 49

of the Upper West Side. The 91st Street

Figure 112: 91st Street Area Neighborhood Conditions Photo

+ Gordon Matta-Clark - “Circus”

Homeless Person - Panhandling

91st Street Intervention Site - View Northeast

Christo & Jean-Claude - “Running Fence”

Gray’s Papaya - Upper West Side Character

91st Street Intervention Site - View North

Figure 113: Design Process/Matrix - 91st Street Public Art, Activities and Exsiting Conditions

79 Abandoned Station lies beneath a block of

Orange” and “Running Fence”, works by

mid-rise mixed use residential structures

Gordon Matta-Clark and Christo & Jean-

with four (4) lanes of traffic (two northbound

Claude respectively, as studies to inspire

and two southbound) along Broadway.

the final intervention design.

91st Street Station was located between

The Caribbean Orange explored the hidden

the 86th Street Station (local service) and

reality beneath the skin of a traditional

the 96th Station (express service). 86th

structure. This project showcased

and 96th Street Station provide connections

these relationships via, photo and video

between 1 2 3 trains, as well as walking

assemblages. Running Fence embodies

connections to the A C and the B D

a highlighting of existing conditions to

lines. The 86th Street Stations services

accentuate an existing landscape. No

approximately 12,000 – 18,000 passengers

reinterpretation or obstruction for purposes

a day, while the 96th Street Station services

of exposure. Both of these projects,

approximately 28,000 – 32,000 passengers

combined with potential uses that include:

daily.

escaping the city, message board,

Figure 114: 91st Street Station Intervention Site Existing Conditions (2008)

information, advertisement, education destination, play, exercise, gather, sleep, Design Considerations

stroll, walk dog coalesce to create the foundation for the design of the 91st Street

Design considerations for the 91st Street

Station Intervention.

Intervention combines existing conditions, with proposed activities and inspiration from specific works of installation art. The 91st Street intervention investigates “Caribbean

Figure 115: 91st Street Station Intervention Conceptual Intervention Proposal

Figure 116: 91st Street Station Intervention Rendering 42nd Street Station Intervention - view North

81 91st Street Intervention

The 91st Street Intervention measures approximately 110’ x 9’ (footprint) and

The 91st Street Intervention is the Network

descends 4’ below the surface at its lowest

of Abandoned Subway Station’s north

point. The lowest point (4’ below the

most intervention site. This intervention

surface) extends 15’ at the interventions

creates an urban escape along Broadway,

midpoint. The intervention two endpoints

in the heart of the Upper West Side. This

points (along the 91st and 92nd Street

intervention, entitled the “Descending

crosswalks) measure 10’ x 16’, filling the

Street” descends 4 feet into the surface

existing median crosswalk and anchoring

of the street, creating a sunken avenue

the intervention into the two crosswalks

conducive to catching a glimpse of the

(Figure 117).

underworld below. This intervention is designed to descend from street grade (along crosswalks at 91st and 92nd Streets)

Figure 117: 91st Street Station Intervention Aerial Plan Diagram

to the structural depth of the Subway at mid-block (Figure 116). The interventions gesture will not obstruct the flow of traffic along the sidewalks, the street or along the two active crosswalks (Figure 117). The “Descending Street” will likely attract a variety of individuals, and on a daily basis, the walkway itself is prime to be activated by a wide variety of local residents and tourists.

Figure 118: 91st Street Station Intervention Section Section Diagram

Part V: Conclusions

Thesis Conclusions

consisting of 28 stations, to 26 lines and

General Conclusions & Research Reactions

468 stations. New Yorkers of the early century embraced subway development, born from construction innovations and

“Part of the allure of New York’s

private support. 40-years later, the era of

underground worlds is that they actually

consolidation witnessed the inception of

exist. Because of the city’s density, much

a united subway in New York City. Mid-

of its infrastructure is tucked beneath it,

century station closures were the direct

not only trains, subways and shopping

product of public consolidation and platform

arcades but also electric lines, sewers

lengthening programs. Today there are

and water tunnels. New Yorkers journey

12 distinct abandoned subway stations, in

into this subterranean world every day,

existence throughout the system. Six (6)

casually and almost unthinkingly...In an

of those stations are located in Manhattan,

island city as small and densely packed

and five (5) were constructed as part of

as Manhattan, the underground serves as

the original subway line in 1904. The

a physical frontier. But it also serves as a

combination 480 stations (468 active and

psychological frontier. arguably even more

12 abandoned) comprise the underground

so than do the undergrounds of London

essence of New York City.

and Paris. In New York, something about the fantasy subterranean world appeals

Today, the New York City Subway is as

powerfully to the psyche of the city’s

much an aging testament to the past as it

residents.”

is a catalyst for sustained growth, serving

as the cornerstone for mobility, growth and Over the past 105 years, the New York City Subway has grown from a single line

survival in New York City.

84 Design Process Reflections

the street of New York City, impart a sense of the physical reality that surrounds each

This thesis has highlighted the potential

intervention site and the their integration

in exposing forgotten underground

into the urban fabric.

spaces. The thesis process began with the identification of all of Manhattanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

The provision of constraints, created by

abandoned subway stations and the

the location of the abandoned subway

potential of these stations as sites for a

stations, and the generation of design

network of interventions exposing the

guidelines were critical in the proposal of

underground. To validate this proposal

each NASS intervention. The objective

the deconstructed urban environment, in

of each intervention was to expose the

parallel with critical philosophies in the work

underground and seamlessly integrate itself

of renowned public artists, were established

into an existing set of urban conditions.

to provide a framework for this proposal.

The success of each network proposal can be linked to each interventions ability

Through urban analysis, imagery and text,

to activate urban space to create a more

this document revealed a comprehensive

transparent sense of place in the urban

link between urban-scaled and site-

environment. The in-depth analysis of the

scaled design. The inclusion of various

existing urban conditions and the current

maps, photos and analytical diagrams

relationship between the surface and

(historic evolution, station identification,

subsurface environments have been vital

deconstruction, etc), provide insight into

to the proposal for a network of abandoned

the feasibility of this thesis proposal.

subway station interventions.

Additionally, the visual documentation and analysis of the experiential character on

85 General Reflections

an unparalleled urban experience, rich in history and culture.

This thesis began with an introduction to the history of the NYC Subway system. In

At the urban-scale, the NASS serves as

spite of political corruption, extreme urban

the compellation of several sites embedded

congestion and unsanitary living conditions

into the fabric and character of the city, as

at the turn of the 20th century, private

the program for interstitial space between

financing funded early construction of the

each intervention. Each intervention

subway. The earliest lines were built via

was influenced by the works of public

“cut and cover” construction, keeping station

artists who transformed the ordinary into

depth shallow and tracks near the surface.

the extraordinary by means of simple

Mid-century subway expansion resorted

spatial intervention/manipulation. Each

to modern tunnel boring technology, and

intervention was designed to express/

systematic consolidation in 1940 led to the

expose its respective abandoned station,

expansion of platforms and the closure of

its potential for use (activation, installation,

stations throughout the network. Today,

etc.), as well as the surrounding areas and

New York City is the contemporary version

potential activities/uses.

of its 20th century self, carrying on the tradition of crowding, corruption and it’s

This thesis proposal is a design narrative,

hidden underworld.

whose objective is to expose the conceptual narrative between New York City, its subway

The essence of New York City as a one-

history, infrastructure, systems, art and its

of-a-kind urban environment served as the

people.

motivation behind a proposal for a “museum without walls”. The city inherently facilitates

86 Project Shortcomings

- Is the development of the NASS feasible? How could it be financed?

The unfortunate reality of any research document are the shortcomings of the

- What liability arrangement and/or building

research and the subsequent impact such

code exceptions would be required?

has the final results. The objective of this thesis was to propose interventions into the

- How would a collaboration between the

abandoned subway stations in Manhattan,

city and subsurface infrastructural parties

to help build an urban environment where

be established?

individuals are informed, aware and held accountable for the physical complexities

- What would the materials used for each

that contribute to the operation of the urban

intervention be (mesh, steel, etcâ&#x20AC;Ś)?

machine, and to project forward to unveil the potential that a more transparent and

Even without answers, these questions

systematically integrated public realm has.

cast tremendous light on some of the

Answering the following questions could

complexities involved in any project that

have strengthened the feasibility of the final

proposes to expose the underground

proposal.

to the public realm. The logistics of a public urban-scale project of this type is

- How would changes in the cityscape affect

notably ambitious. The reality of a single

the functionality of the NASS?

project being developed and designed to expose the underground, via six (6)

- What community support/resistance would

individual entities, without a more rigid set

exist in response to a NASS proposal?

of collaboration guidelines, challenges the feasibility of this proposal, both

87 physically and financially. Therefore, the

easy to imagine an urban environment

absence of research dedicated to how the

that is comprised of various levels of

city, individual investors, designers and

activity, operating independently from

developers would collaborate with regards

one another. It is easy to imagine the

to the criteria proposed herein, could be

superimposition of transportation networks,

considered the most significant shortcoming

urban infrastructure, and building systems

of the proposal presented in this document.

operating in unison. It is also easy to imagine a city of residents, tourists and employees flowing in and out of buildings,

Future Implications

into and out of various transportation systems and never coming into contact

This thesis is a conceptual look into the

with various components of the urban

potential for cross-sectional integration in

infrastructure that is (in-part) responsible for

the public realm. Through the identification

urban life. It is all easy to imagine because

of abandoned subway stations as the sites

it is a current description of New York City

for underground exposure, the NASS is

urban development. However, what if it

composed of several satellite-structures

were the model for urban development

throughout Manhattan. This enables the

within the city? What if urban space

projects objective to be dissolved into the

were not sectionally divided? What if the

surrounding urban fabric.

urban realm was comprised of spaces that integrated subterranean systems and

The physical implications of this type of

infrastructure into the public realm? What if

fragmented urban proposal, transcends

these spaces could also be vibrant spaces

architecture and expands into the realm

for art, gathering and activity?

of greater urban design ideologies. It is

88 The concentration of various paths,

- An active subway line, passing through an

structures, activities, installations and

NASS intervention station is closed.

abandoned stations within the confines of a single network would consist of several

- The physical requirements for the subway

satellite structures, each with the ability to

(cars, tunnel, station, etc.) change.

function independently within the greater urban realm. This phenomenon embodies

The NASS provides the city with a series

the proposal of the NASS as it relates to

of programmatically flexible interventions.

uncovering the urban reality in New York

The flexibility affords the the city the

City. Simply stated, the NASS would be

ability to re-allocate the use of any of its

both an urban network and a compilation of

structure originally designated for exposing

individual structures that embody the same

the underground. The primary objective

notions of exposure and integration. Since

of this thesis has been to challenge the

we cannot absolutely forecast the future

current nature of a sectionally isolated

of New York Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban landscape, the

urban form, and to embrace the potential

dissolution of the network into several sub-

for future evolution. Shortcomings and

structures considers the future direction of

unpredictable events are the reality in any

urban spaces. In the event of the following:

projected future. Still, the resultant Network of Abandoned Subway Station Interventions

- The surface area surrounding a NASS

promotes transparency and activity at

intervention is redeveloped.

the site-scale, in an effort to inform sociophysical function, circulation and use/re-use

- A NASS intervention station is appropriated for re-use.

at the urban scale.

89 Final Thoughts

“From labyrinthine diagrams, urban legends, and reports from the trenches, it would

The NYC subway is a single component

seem that if New York’s underground were

of a complex network of systems and

uncovered, a maze of canyons and chasms,

infrastructure, commonly hidden beneath

riddled with a dense network of conduits

the streets of New York City. Still, the

and tunnels, would meet our eyes...

network of abandoned subway station

“The city’s history is filled with attempts

interventions proposed in this thesis should

to harness the world below its streets.

be viewed as both a portal into the active

Possessing the world’s most formidable

and historic components buried beneath

collection of skyscrapers nicely shows how

the city, as well as a critical step towards

well New York stands up to engineering

increasing systematic transparency and

challenges. But at least a few New Yorkers

integrating the subterranean into the active

know that the real adventure is far below…

(surface) urban realm.

where you can feel and smell what New York is really made of and where the very

The next era in the history of New York City’s urban evolution will focus on the reinvention of the city’s urban fabric. The reinvention of this era will be laden in the dramatic reallocation/activation of obsolete underground spaces within the urban environment, and the evolution of these spaces may be the single-most significant urban innovation, looking to the future of New York City’s urban history.

fabric of the city vibrates with life.” 51

90 ENDNOTES 1. Solis, Julia. New York Underground. (Routledge: New York. 2005). p. 3. 2. Solis, 74. 3. Solis, 81. 4. Edensor, Tim. Industrial Ruins: Spaces, Aesthetics and Materiality. (Berg Publishers: New York. 2005). p. 166. 5. Solis, p. 3. 6. Solis, p. 3. 7. Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place. (The MIT Press: Cambridge. 1995). p. 12. 8. New York Transit Museum, Metropolitan Transit Authority. Subway Styles: 100 years of Architecture & Design in the New York City Subway. (Stewart, Tabori & Chang - La Martiniere Groups: New York. 2004). p. viii. 9. New York Transit Museum, Metropolitan Transit Authority, p. 1. 10. New York Transit Museum, Metropolitan Transit Authority, p. 3. 11. Heller, 14 12. Solis, 61. 13. Heller, 15 14. Solis, 71-72. 15. Solis, 75. 16. Solis, 78.

91 17. Brennan, Joseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan. 18. Brennan, Joseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan.. 19. Brennan, Joseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan. 20. Heller, 72 21. Heller, 75 22. Solis, 78. 23. Solis, 79. 24. New York City Subway. http://nycsubway.org/. 25. Brennan, Joseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan. 26. Woods, Lebbeus. War and Architecture. (Princeton Press: New York. 1993). p. 16. 27. Edensor, 166. 28. Edensor, 170. 29. Edensor, 166. 30. Hayden, 228. 31. Sudjic, Deyan. The Architecture of Richard Rogers. (Fourth Estate and Wordsearch Ltd: London. 1994). p. 68. 32. Edensor, 168. 33. Zeynep Ă&#x2021;elik, Zeynep & Favro, Diane & Inger, Richard. Streets: Critical Perspectives on Public Space. (University of California Press: Berkeley & Los Angeles. 1994). p. 1.

92 34. Tschumi, Bernard. “Beranrd Tschumi.” The Architecture Review. (January, 2006). p. 11. 35. Ryzik, Melena. “Mapping the Cultural Buzz” New York Times (April 7, 2009). p. C1. 36. New York Transit Museum, Metropolitan Transit Authority, p. xi. 37. Brennan, Joseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan. 38. Brennan, Joeseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan. 39. Hayden, 14. 40. Solis, 81-82. 41. Davies, Hugh M. & Onorato, Ronald J. Blurring the boundaries: installation art, 19691996. (Museum of Contemporary Art: San Diego. 1997). p. 10. 42. Davies, 14. 43. Davies, 15. 44. Brennan, Joeseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan. 45. Brennan, Joeseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan. 46. Brennan, Joeseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan. 47 Brennan, Joeseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan. 48. Brennan, Joeseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan. 49. Brennan, Joeseph. Abandoned Stations. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan. 50. Marsh, Katherine. “Tunnel Vision” New York Times (November 4, 2007). 51. Solis, 1.

93 BIBLIOGRAPHY Andreotti, Libero & Costa, Xavier. Situationists: Art, Politics, Urbanism. Museu d’Art Contemporani: Barcelona. 1996. Augé, Marc. translated by John Howe Non-places : Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. Verso London; New York. 1995. Betsky, Aaron. Scanning: The Aberrant Architecture of Dillard and Scofido. Whitney Musuem of American Art: New York. 2003. Bingaman, & Amy Sanders, Lise & Zorach, Rebecca. Embodied Utopias: Gender, Social Change, and the Modern Metropolis. Routledge: New York & London. 2002. Bishop, Claire. Installation Art: A Critical History. Routledge: New York. 2005. Braidwood, Robert. Archeologists and What they Do. Franklin Watts: New York. 1960 Brennan, Joseph. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/ Brenson, Michael. Lippard, Lucy. Pasternak, Anne & Peltason, Ruth. Creative Time: The Book: 33 Years of Public Art in New York City. Princeton Architectural Press: New York. 2007. Castells, Manuel. “Towards a Sociology of The Network Society,” Contemporary Sociology. Vol .29, No. 5. 2000. (693-699). Cerver, Fransisco Asensio. The Architecture of Stations and Terminals. Watson-Guptill Publications: New York. 1997. Certeau, Michel de. “Spatial Stories,” The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press: Berkeley. 1984. (115-130). Cho, Aileen. “Engineers are Digging Deep to Rebuild New York’s Subway,” ENR: Engineering News-Record. Vol. 252, Issue 15. 2004. (26-30)

94 Corner, James & MacLean, Alex. Taking Measures Across the American Landscape. Yale University Press: New Haven. 1996 Coutard, Olivier, Richard E. Hanley, and Rae Zimmerman. Sustaining Urban Networks: The Social Diffusion of Large Technical Systems. The networked cities series. Routledge: London. 2005. Currid, Elizabeth. The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art and Music Drive New York City. Princeton University Press: New York. 2007 Davidson, Justin. “The Illusionists,” The New Yorker. May 14, 2007. (128). Davies, Hugh M. & Onorato, Ronald J. Blurring the boundaries: installation art, 1969-1996. Museum of Contemporary Art: San Diego. 1997. Davis, Mike. City of Quartz. Random House Publishers: New York. 1992 Dear, M. J. The Postmodern Urban Condition. Blackwell: Oxford, England. 2000. Dixon, Steve. Digital performance: a History of New Media in Theater, Dance, Performance Art, and Installation. MIT Press: Cambridge. 2007. Doron, Gil. “Debates: The Dead Zone and the Architecture of Transgression,” City. Vol.4, No. 2. 2000. (247-262) Edensor, Tim. Industrial Ruins: Spaces, Aesthetics and Materiality. Berg Publishers: New York. 2005 Forgotten New York. <http://www.forgotten-ny.com/> Gandy, Matthew. “The Paris Sewers and the Rationalization of Urban Space,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24. 1999. (23-44). Greenberg, Stanley. Invisible New York: the Hidden Infrastructure of the City. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. 1998

95 Greenberg, Stanley. Waterworks: A Photographic journey through New York’s hidden water system. Princeton Architectural Press: New York. 2003. Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. The MIT Press: Cambridge. 1995 Heller, Vivian. The City Beneath Us: building the New York Subway. W.W. Norton: New York. 2004. Huyssen, Andreas. Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory. Stanford University Press: Stanford CA. 2003 Iversen, Margaret. Alois Riegl: Art History and Theory. The MIT Press: Cambridge. 1993 Jordan, Jennifer A. Structures of Memory: Understanding urban change in Berlin and Beyond. Stanford University Press. Stanford. 2006 Koolhaus, Rem. Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. Oxford University Press: New York. 1978. Lewis, Paul. Lewis, David & Tsurumaki ,Marc. Lewis. Tsurumaki. Lewis: Opportunistic Architecture. Princeton Architectural Press: New York. 2008 Lewis, Paul. Lewis, David & Tsurumaki ,Marc. Situation Normal. Princeton Architectural Press. New York. 1998 Lindner, Christoph. Urban Space and Cityscapes: Perspectives from Modern and Contemporary Culture. Routledge: New York. 2006. Macaulay, David. Underground. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston. 1976. Martin, Richard. The New Urban Landscape. Olympia & York Companies and Drenttel Partners: United States. 1990. Marsh, Katherine. “Tunnel Vision” New York Times.com. http://www.nytimes. com/2007/11/04/nyregion/thecity/04unde.htmt. November 4, 2007.

96 McGimsey, Charles. Public Archeology. Seminar Press: New York. 1972 Moeller, Christian. A Time and Place: Media Architecture, 1991-2003. Lars MĂźller: New York. 2004. Morsiani, Paola & Smith, Trevor. Andrea Zittel: Critical Space. Prestel: Munich; London. 2005. Morton, Margaret. The Tunnel: The Underground Homeless of New York City. Yale University Press: United States. 1995 New York City Subway. <http://nycsubway.org/> New York City.org. <http://www.nyc.org/> New York Transit Museum, Metropolitan Transit Authority. Subway style: 100 years of architecture & design in the New York City subway. Stewart, Tabori & Chang - La Martiniere Groups: New York. 2004. Oliveira, Nicolas. Oxley, Nicola. Petry, Michael & Archer, Michael. Installation Art. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, D.C. 1994. Oliveira, Nicolas de. Installation Art in the New Millennium: The Empire of the Senses. Thames & Hudson Ltd.: London. 2003. Paul, Christiane. Digital art. Thames & Hudson: New York. 2003. Payne, Christopher. New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Forgotten Substations: The Power Behind the Subway. New York. 2002 Payne, Gordon. Against Architecture: An Installation by Gordon Payne. Arts Alliance Centre for Contemporary Art: Courtenay, B.C. 1996. Revell, Keith D. Building Gotham: Civic Culture and Public Policy in New York City, 18981938. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. 2003.

97 Rosenthal, Mark. Understanding installation art: from Duchamp to Holzer. Prestel: Munich; London. 2003. Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. The MIT Press: Cambridge. 2002 [1982]. Rush, Michael. New Media in Late 20th-Century Art. Thames & Hudson: New: York. 1999. Ryzik, Melena. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Mapping the Cultural Buzz: How Cool Is That?â&#x20AC;? New York Times. April 7, 2009. (C1) Schrag, Zachary M. The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. 2006. Solis, Julia. New York Underground: The Anatomy of a City. Routledge: New York. 2005 Sollins, Susan. Art 21: Art in the Twenty-First Century 3. Harry N. Abrams: New York. 2005. Suderburg, Erika. Space, Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis. 2000. Sudjic, Deyan The Architecture of Richard Rogers. Fourth Estate and Wordsearch Ltd: London. 1994 Swaffield, Simon. Theory in Landscape Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. 2002. Toth, Jennifer. The Mole People: Life in the Tunnels Beneath New York City. Chicago Review Press: Chicago. 1993. Vanderbilt, Tom. Survival City: Adventures Among the Ruins of Atomic America. Princeton Architectural Press: New York. 2002. Verne, Jules. The Underground City. Luath: Edinburgh. 2005.

98 Virilio, Paul & Steve Redhead. The Paul Virilio Reader. European perspectives. Columbia University Press: New York. 2004. Weitzman, David. A Subway for New York. Phoenix Color Corporation: New York. 2005 Woods, Lebbeus. War and Architecture. Princeton Architectural Press: New York. 1993 Zardini, Mirko Sense of the City: An Alternate Approach to Urbanism. Canadian Centre for Architectre and Lars Muller Publishers: Montreal. 2005. Zeynep Ă&#x2021;elik, Zeynep. Favro, Diane & Inger, Richard. Streets: Critical Perspectives on Public Space. University of California Press: Berkeley & Los Angeles. 1994.

99 Figure Credits 1. Photo by author. 2. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008) 3. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008) 4. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008) 5. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008) 6. Photo by author. 7. Photo by John Paul Palescandolo. 8. Photo by David Pirmann. 9. Photo courtesy of New York City Transit. http://nycsubway.org/perl/show?95442 (Date accessed: November, 2008) 10. Photo courtesy of the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners. http://www. columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/18st.html (Date accessed: November, 2008) 11. Photo courtesy of the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners. http://www. columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/18st.html (Date accessed: November, 2008) 12. Photo by Ed Levine. 13. Photo by Saul Blumenthal 14. Photo by author.

100 15. Photo by author. 16. Photo by author. 17. Photo by author. 18. Photo by author. 19. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/articles/beach.html (Date accessed: November, 2008) 20. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/articles/beach.html (Date accessed: November, 2008) 21. Photo from Fifty Years of Rapid Transit. James Blaine Walker. http://nycsubway.org/ articles/fifty_years_of_rapid_transit.html. (Date accessed: November, 2008) 22. Photo from Fifty Years of Rapid Transit. James Blaine Walker. http://nycsubway.org/ articles/fifty_years_of_rapid_transit.html. (Date accessed: November, 2008) 23. Image by author. 24. Photo from Fifty Years of Rapid Transit. James Blaine Walker. http://nycsubway.org/ articles/fifty_years_of_rapid_transit.html. (Date accessed: November, 2008) 25. Photo from Fifty Years of Rapid Transit. James Blaine Walker. http://nycsubway.org/ articles/fifty_years_of_rapid_transit.html. (Date accessed: November, 2008) 26. Image by author. 27. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008) 28. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008)

101 29. Image by author. 30. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008) 31. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008) 32. Image by author. 33. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008) 34. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008) 35. Photo by author. 36. Photo by author. 37. Photo by author. 38. Photo by author. 39. Photo by author. 40. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 41. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 42. Image by author. 43. Photo by author.

102 44. Photo by author. 45. Images courtesy of the University of Southern California - Norman Lear Center. 46. Photo by author. 47. Photo by author. 48. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 49. Photo by author. 50. Photo by author. 51. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 52. Photo by author. 53. Photo by author. 54. Images by author. 55. Photo by author. 56. Photo by author. 57. Image by author. 58. Image by author. 59. Photo by Fred Guenther.

103 60. Photos courtesy of: Christo & Jean-Claude. http://www.christoandjeanclaude.net. San Francisco Musuem of Moden Art. http://www.sfmoma.org. Jenny Holzer. http://www.jennyholzer.com. (Date accessed: May, 2009). 61. Photos by author. 62. Photos by author. 63. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008) 64. Photo courtesy of nycubway.org. http://nycsubway.org/earlytransit.html (Date accessed: September, 2008) 65. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 66. Photo by author. 67. Photo by author. 68. Image by author. 69. Photo by author. 70. Photo by author. 71. Image by author, photo by author. 72. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 73. Image by author, photo by author. 74. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008).

104 75. Photo by author. 76. Photo by author. 77. Image by author. 78. Photo by author. 79. Photo by author. 80. Image by author, photo by author. 81. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 82. Image by author, photo by author. 83. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 84. Photo by author. 85. Photo by author. 86. Image by author. 87. Photo by author. 88. Photo by author. 89. Image by author, photo by author. 90. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 91. Image by author, photo by author.

105 92. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 93. Photo by author. 94. Photo by author. 95. Image by author. 96. Photo by author. 97. Photo by author. 98. Image by author, photo by author. 99. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 100. Image by author, photo by author. 101. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 102. Photo by author. 103. Photo by author. 104. Image by author. 105. Photo by author. 106. Photo by author. 107. Image by author, photo by author.

106 108. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 109. Image by author, photo by author. 110. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 111. Photo by author. 112. Photo by author. 113. Image by author. 114. Photo by author. 115. Photo by author. 116. Image by author, photo by author. 117. Image by author, aerial photo courtesy Terra Metrics (2008). http://www.terrametrics. com. (Date accessed: June, 2008). 118. Image by author, photo by author. 119. Photos by author 120. Photos by author 121. Photos by author 122. Photos by author 123. Image by author. 124. Image by author.

107 125. Image by author. 126. Image by author. 127. Image by author. 128. Image by author. 129. Image by author. 130. Image by author. 131. Image by author. 132. Image by author. 133. Image by author. 134. Image by author. 135. Image by author. 136. Image by author.

108

Part VI: Appendix

109

Appendices Underground Photos and Presentation Boards

Appendix A: Underground Photos A-1: Grand Central Terminal A-2: Amtrak “Freedom Tunnel Appendix B: Presentation Boards B-1: New York City Subway B-2: History of Forgotten Space B-3: Abandoned Subway Stations B-4: Deconstruction of Culture B-5: Museum without Walls B-6: Connecting the City B-7: Transforming the Ordinary B-8: Activating the Exposed B-9: “Staging Station” B-10: “Illuminating Park” B-11: “Reavealing Paths” B-12: “Projecting Threshold” B-13: “Wrapping Building” B-14: “Decending Street”

110 Appendix A-1

Figure 119: Grand Central Terminal Photos from beneath Grand Central Terminal (September 17 + 19, 2008)

111 Appendix A-1

Figure 120: Grand Central Terminal Photos from beneath Grand Central Terminal (September 17 + 19, 2008)

112 Appendix A-2

Figure 121: Amtrak “Freedom” Tunnel Photos from inside the Amtrak “Freedom” Tunnel (September, 24 2008)

113 Appendix A-2

Figure 122: Amtrak “Freedom” Tunnel Photos from inside the Amtrak “Freedom” Tunnel (September, 24 2008)

114 Appendix B-1 History of Forgotten Space

1905 - 1940 Even before the first line opened, a second line that would connect Brooklyn to the network in Manhattan had been planned. The construction began in 1905 and involved building the first subway tunnel below the East River.

The 2nd Ave El - near Houston Street (1940)

The 2nd Ave El - along 34th Street (1937)

By 1920 the dueling subway systems (IRT & BRT) had reached a total of 202 miles, whereas the subways in London only had 156 miles of track and Paris only 59 miles of track. It was extraordinary that two systems were in competition in the same city, and while it fueled the growth of both enterprises, this was not necessarily to the benefit of the customers (such as when two lines would run paralleled to each other without offering any transfer points). Nonetheless, the dual system managed to unite the entire city. Now that there were connections from the Bronx to Brooklyn, New York could expand horizontally and vertically at the same time. Building high-rises only made sense if there were masses of people to fill them, By providing an efficient means to bring people from outlying residential areas to work in Manhattan, the subway gave rise to an increasing profusion of skyscrapers. In 1940, the three separate subway lines were finally united by the Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia. The unification of these privately held enterprises was a massive undertaking. By now there were 293 miles of tracks and almost 35,000 employees. To this day the New York City Subway Authority,the agency created to supervise the unified subway, belong to the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA).

A 3-car train heading to South Ferry Terminal - along 9th Avenue (1939)

The 6th Ave El - along 50th Street (1938)

The 6th Ave El - along 9th Street. (1940)

The 6th Ave El - along 33rd Street. (1940)

Subway Evolution (1905-1940)

1870-1905 In 1867 inventor Charles Harvey has already introduced the first prototype of an elevated train on Greenwich Street, and after the first line in lower Manhattan opened in 1868, the network quickly expanded. By 1875, elevated trains had reached as far north as 42nd street.

Portal of subway at 135th Street. (1901)

Station Excavation and Portal of Tunnel and 33d Street (1902)

In 1891 the Rapid Transit Act was signed, giving the official green light for the subway construction, but years were spent trying to iron out the details of how such a massive project would be funded. On March 24, 1900, the official ground breaking ceremony was held in front of City Hall. The first subway line was planned to lead from City Hall north to Grand Central Station, then turn west below 42nd Street to what is now Times Square, turning north again along Broadway, north to the Bronx, where the 9.1 mile long subway line would connect with elevated rail lines already in-place. On October 27, 1904, the entire city was swept up by the inauguration ceremonies. Crowds gathered around the stations, waiting to experience the strange spectacle of people suddenly emerging from the underground. Spectators had climbed roofs and fire escapes and assembled in the streets to witness the train emerging from the tunnel. All at once, the subway had become the ultimate city attraction. â&#x20AC;&#x153;New Yorkers were apparently enamored with the idea of disappearing down a hole in the street and casually popping up somewhere else, as if it were the most natural thing in the world.â&#x20AC;?

View of the work on Broadway, looking south from One Hundred and Fifty Seventh Street. (1902)

Typical Cross-Section of Subway on Fourth Avenue. (1902)

Preliminary work for the tunnel on Elm Street - excavation along the Croton water pipes. (1902)

Broadway and 120th Street. (1904)

Subway Evolution (1870-1905)

History of Forgotten Space

Figure 123: Presentation Boards (1 of 14) History and Evolution: 1870 - 1940

115 Appendix B-2 (History of the) New York CIty Subway

1975 - 2010 The 1980s could be summarized as the “Jekyll and Hyde” period of the New York Subway System. As the decade began, it had the filthiest trains, the craziest graffiti and the noisiest wheels. By the end of the decade, it had cleaner trains, no graffiti and quieter wheels.

B train of 1968 R-40 “Slant” cars on the Brighton line. (1988)

Jamaica-Van Wyck station of the Archer Avenue Extension, opened in 1988 (2004)

In the 1980s, things got worse before they got better. Decades of deferred maintenance, going back to Subway Unification in 1940, finally caught up with the system. In the first half of the 1980s, service, infrastructure and crime were abysmal. There was no preventative maintenance - components were fixed as they failed - which was often. Breakdowns occurred an average of every 6,200 miles; down from 15,000 in the midseventies, also not a figure to be proud of. Signage was very poor, or unreadable due to the graffiti. However, by 1988, the change on the subways was very noticeable. 94% of the trains were graffiti free and the New York City Subway was recognized as the most improved system in North America. Today the New York City Subway system is one of the most extensive public transportation systems in the world, with 468 reported passenger stations and 656 miles of revenue track (842 miles including non revenue trackage). The subway is also notable for being among the few rapid transit systems in the world to run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Subway System Specs: Locale: New York City Number of Lines: 26 Number of Stations: 468 Daily Ridership: 6,432,700 Subway Opening: 10/27/1904 EL Opening: 7/3/1868 System Length (Route): 229mi System Length (Track): 656mi System Length (Total): 842mi

The “graffiti control” all-white paint scheme (1982)

The “graffiti epidemic” displayed in full swing - Dyre Avenue Line (1980)

Views of 63rd St. tunnel construction - under Central Park (1976)

The “graffiti epidemic” displayed in full swing - Dyre Avenue Line (1980)

Subway Evolution (1975-2010)

1940 - 1975 In 1940, the three separate subway lines were finally united by the Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia. The unification of these privately held enterprises was a massive undertaking. By now there were 293 miles of tracks and almost 35,000 employees. To this day the New York City Subway Authority, the agency created to supervise the unified subway, belong to the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). Throughout the 1940’s (in the aftermath of the BMT and IRT systems were taken over the City of New York), the City immediately began to eliminate what it considered redundancy in the system, closing the IRT 9th Avenue and most of the 2nd Avenue elevated lines in Manhattan, and the BMT 5th Avenue, 3rd Avenue and most of the Fulton Street elevated lines in Brooklyn. The futuristic “SOAC” train in service at Newkirk Avenue on the Brighton line. (1974)

168th Street station in Jamaica, Queens. (1977)

Even during World War II which gave a reprieve to the closure of most rail transit in the US, some closures continued, including the remainder of the IRT 2nd Avenue el in Manhattan, and the surviving BMT elevated services over the Brooklyn Bridge. Following World War II, the subway system then entered an era of deferred maintenance in which infrastructure was allowed to deteriorate, and closures continued. These closures included the entire IRT 3rd Avenue el in Manhattan (1954) and the Bronx (1974); in Brooklyn the BMT Lexington Avenue el (1950), remainder of the Fulton Street el (1956), the downtown Brooklyn part of the Myrtle Avenue el (1969) and the Culver Shuttle (1975). Only two new lines were opened in this era, the IRT Dyer Avenue Line (1941) and the IND Rockaway Line (1956). Both of these lines were rehabilitations of existing railroad rights-of-way rather than new construction And, In 1951 a half-billion dollar bond issue was passed to build the Second Avenue Subway, but money from this issue was used for other priorities and the building of short connector lines.

IRT station at 50th Street on the West Side (1972)

The remains of the 3rd Avenue El at 149th Street (1972)

3rd Ave looking north to Canal - Manhattan Bridge. (1958)

The Diamond Jubilee IRT special train at 125th St. (Manhattan Avenue), in March, (1968)

Subway Evolution (1940-1975)

New York City Subway

Figure 124: Presentation Boards (2 of 14) History and Evolution: 1940 - 2010

116 41

st S tree

St.

done

st S tre

th S

nue

nd S

th St

8th

ion @ 18

abandone

Bro

adw

th S tree

ned Stat

tree

18 St.

Abando

th S

Abando

abandoned

There was a streetcar line in East 18 Street until 1913, a diagonal route called the Central Crosstown, running from the Christopher Street Ferry on the Hudson River to the 23 St Ferry on the East River. It ran in 18 Street from Broadway to Avenue A, returning in 19 Street However this was not an important line by 1900, and probably the station was sited simply to maintain a half-mile spacing between subway stops. The Ninth and Sixth Ave Els had 18 Street stations where there was no crosstown streetcar.

ned St atio

abandoned

nue

abandoned

Ave

4 5 6

was open from 1904 to 1948 and was part of the first New York subway line. Like most local stations on the line, it is just below street level to reduce stair height, so there is no mezzanine, and it has separate fare controls on platform level on each side. Its early history is similar to Worth Street.

When the Board of Transportation embarked on a platform extension program after World War II, they decided to close 18 Street rather than enlarge it. 18 Street therefore still exists as two short platforms beneath the streets of Broadway.

Abandoned Station Network_Uptown Manhattan

Abandoned

Lafaye tte Stt

arl

Str

Cha

n@ tio Sta

ive Act

Sta tio ive Act

Hal l Hal l

City

ed on

tio

Sta

ive Act

ne d

Aba

City

Hal l ne d St atio

City

Row

e idg

Park

lyn

adw

yH all

ab an

Bro

mbe

Hal l

Cit

tio

Aba

Sta

ive

Str ee t

Act

City

Bro n @ City ad wa Hall y io

be rs

Stat

Ac tive

Stat ab

tive

Centr

reet

tre et

eS tre et

@ Worth

@ Worth Abandoned

Re ad

abandoned

e Street

Du an

Str ee t

o Br

City Hall, due to its architecture and its being situated on a tight curve, was deemed impractical for lengthening. The new longer trains had center doors on each car, and at City Hall’s tight curve, it was dangerous to open them. It was decided to abandon the station in favor of the nearby Brooklyn Bridge station, and so City Hall was closed to passenger service on December 31, 1945. The street entrances were sealed and the skylights covered over.

abandoned

tre et Bro ad wa y

be rs

City Hall Station opened along with the rest of the Interborough’s first subway line on October 27, 1904. It was immediately clear that expansion of the subway system would be necessary and additional lines were built. But ever-increasing ridership eventually required the Interborough’s five-car local stations to be lengthened to accommodate longer trains, and so the IRT underwent an extensive program of station lengthening in the 1940s and early 1950s.

Worth St

mbe

Re ad

Cha

Worth Street Station

18th Street_Abandoned Station

opened on October 27, 1904 and was closed to passengers on Septmeber 1, 1962, due to the platform lengthening at Brooklyn Bridge. In fact, from 1962 to 1995, Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall was named Brooklyn Bridge/Worth Street on platform signs. This station underlies the sidewalk on the west side of Foley Square. The subway tunnel runs very close to the foundation wall of the lower level of Federal Plaza, but the station does not intrude into footprint of the plaza.

Abandoned Station Network_Midtown Manhattan

8th

18th Street Station

n @ 18 th St

The resultant network of abandoned subway stations (when experienced in any sequence) will facilitate travel to/through various Manhattan neighborhoods and provide a public forum to gather, ponder and to gain a comprehensive understanding of the city, its history and its infrastructure.

st S tree

Broadw

th S tree

The abandoned stations become points of intervention, because they can most clearly unite the various chapters in the historical narrative of the subway system with the current relationship of the city’s underground and street.

42nd Street_Abandoned Station

Network of Abandoned Subway Stations

Ave

91st Street_Abandoned Station

that will function as a “museum without walls” that consists of six (6) individual interventions that will expose each of Manhattan’s six (6) abandoned subway stations to the surface. At the location of each site, a spatial intervention will be embedded into the surface of the city to unite the existing subterranean infrastructure with the existing conditions at grade.

tree

tat ion @

In addition to the platforms described above, there is an abandoned lower platform on the southbound side (one track, underneath the downtown local track on the upper level, and one side platform underneath the island platform above). The lower level platform was built along with the rest of the station in 1932, but it was only used from 1959 to 1981 for odd services like the Aqueduct Racetrack special fare trains, and for rush hour E trains for a period during the 1970s. For many years, a crossunder was open between the upper level platforms using a passageway at the northern end of the lower level. Rearrangement of the mezzanine a few years ago allowed passengers to crossover using the mezzanine within the fare control. It isn’t really clear why this lower level was even built.

8th

done d

done

Ac tive S

tS t aban

aban

nue

and

Ave

St 91 st

eet

Str

done d

o ne

Ab and tre

adw

th S

Bro

Bro adw ay

The 91st Street station is fairly well-preserved if you disregard the graffiti and spray paint cans all over the place. And, like the 18th Street Station platforms, the 91st Street platforms are still the old 1910 local station length.

aban

Ab and one d

was in operation as a local station from 1904 to 1959. At the completion of the IRT’s H system in 1918, the 91 Street Station was on the west side route, known as the Seventh Ave subway. Unlike stations south of Grand Central, the local stations along Broadway were not extended in 1948 but stayed at their short length until the Transit Authority’s extension program of the mid 1950’s. At that time, in an effort to to accomodate longer trains, the 96th Street Station was extended south to 94th Street. The lengthening of these platforms created an exit that was only three blocks north of 91st Street, therefore the station at 91st Street was no longer necessary.

done

aban

ion

st S tre

dS tat

done

one dS tat ion @

aban

91st Street Station

was opened September, 10 1932. It is an express station with four tracks and two island platforms in use; abandoned lower level with one track and one side platform on the downtown side. The Times Square/42nd Street complex is the busiest in the system and consequently the platforms here are extra wide to accommodate passenger volume. In order to fit the wider platforms, they are offset from north to south; the southbound platform extends between 40th and 42nd Sts. and the northbound between 42nd and 44th Sts.

nue

done d

Ave

done

aban

8th

aban

42nd Street Station

Sta tion @4 Ac 2n tive dS t Sta tion @4 2n d

eet

Str

Bro

adw

Bro adw ay

Appendix B-3 Abandoned Subway Stations

City Hall + Worth Street_Abandoned Stations

te Sta

hF er ry

eet

all Str

Whiteh

tre

Active S t atio n

rry

ne d

ate W

all Whiteh

Abandoned

So ut

ation @

tat ion

ation @

Active St

Abandoned Station Network_Downtown Manhattan

Ave nu

Essentially a separate station, the South Ferry inner loop platform was built in 1918 for IRT Lexington service when the IRT West Side service was given the outer loop. The inner loop platform was used up till 1977, mostly by a shuttle to the Bowling Green station on the Lexington/Brooklyn IRT. Because of the sharp curve (even sharper than the outer loop), trains could open only their center doors at the inner loop station, and so instead of a full platform face, slightly arched openings were cut into the old walls only where the center doors would be. This also probably simplified the engineering problem compared to removing all of the old wall. Starting in the late 1950s, when the new R-type cars displaced most of the original IRT rolling stock, trains arriving from the Lexington line on nights and weekends were rerouted to share the outer loop, because on the new cars it was not possible to selectively open only the center doors. The weekday shuttle used specially modified cars that opened only center doors, and continued using the inner loop until service ended in 1977.

Active St

8th

ee Str

South Ferry Station is a unique two-track loop station. The outer loop platform was built in 1905 as part of the original IRT Brooklyn Extension and was served by this line until the IRT West Side/7th Ave. Subway reached South Ferry in 1918. The platform is extremely short (only five cars fit), so passengers wishing to exit at this station must be in the first five cars.

South Ferry_Abandoned Station

Abandoned Subway Stations

Figure 125: Presentation Boards (3 of 14) Network of Abandoned Subway Stations

117 Art

Fashion

Film

Music

Theater

Appendix B-4 Deconstruction of Culture

Television

Cultural Activity In March of 2009, Elizabeth Currid, a professor in the School of Policy, Planning and Development at University of Southern California established a study, referred to as “The Geography of Buzz”. Based on the results of this study, Currid assembled a series of diagrams that highlight the density of cultural activities in Manhattan. These diagrams literally indicate the frequency and location of specific types of cultural events in Manhattan from 2006-2008. Despite slight shifts in density of art, film, music, theater occurrences, the relationship of each analytical diagram shows a correlation between the densities of cultural activity and the proposed location of a NASS intervention site. The combination of the physical layers that combine to assemble the city’s Historic Districts, Cultural institutions and Open Spaces and the non-physical layers that highlight current trends in the frequency of activity in Art, Film, Music and Theater events, converge to create an enriched everyday urban environment in the interstitial spaces between a NASS intervention sites. Tschumi would refer to this characteristic of the network proposal as “a palimpsest”. Walking along the surface, from one intervention to the next, an individual is certain to travel past/ through at least one historic district, cultural institution and/or open space, and nearly each intervention is located in an identified region of dense cultural activity.

Geography of the “Buzz” - Density of Cultural Activity

Burden Street Art Gallery - Chelsea, Manhattan

Arts + Culture Diagrams the relative location of all “Arts + Culture” institutions in Manhattan, as listed by New York City Alliance for the Arts. This network map diagrams all spaces south of 125th Street on the West Side and 110th Street on the East Side.

Gu gg M

Notable Parks Identified: Uptown: Central Park Riverside Park Morningside Park Midtown: Bryant Park Union Square Park Madison Square Park Downtown: Battery Park City Hall Park Gramercy Park Washington Sq Park Tompkins Square Park

Am e So ricas cie ty

Alv in Da Ailey The nce ate r

al P

rE ast

ark

Me tr Mu opolit an su of A em rt

Infin Da ity The nce ate r

Notable Art Spaces Identified: Uptown: Infinity Dance Theater Interfaith Center of New York America’s Society Midtown: Alvin Ailey Dance Theater Burden Street Art Gallery Austrian Cultural Forum Chashama ClubbedThumb Downtown: Clemente Soto Center Minetta Brook Gallery Dia Art Foundation

Mu of M suem od Art ern

Au s Cu trian lt Foru ural m

Am eri C can Mu raft seu m

ash

Bry a Pa nt rk

Lad ie Mile s

Gra Dis

Minetta Brook Gallery

tric

Sky s Mu crape seu r m Mu + of J seum e w He rita ish ge Mu s o eum Am f the eri Ind can ian

uth So eet t Str por a Se

Historic Districts_Network

sh Sq ingto ua n Pa re rk

Cle

me So nte Ce to nte r

So Ca Ho Iro st n

Afr B ic Gr uria an a ou l Co nd nds m the m on s

Un Sq ion ua Pa re rk

Clu b Thu bed mb

B Str urden ee Ga t Art ller y

Greenwich Village m Pa erc rk

rnin Pa gside rk

ntr

Mu of N seum a His tura tor l y

en usu heim em

Open Spaces Diagrams the relative location of all “Open Spaces” in Manhattan - as listed by the New York City Parks Department. This network map diagrams park spaces south of 125th Street on the West Side and 110th Street on the East Side.

Notable Musuems Identified: Uptown: Metropolitan Museum of Art Museum of Natural History Guggenheim Museum Midtown: Musuem of Modern Art American Folk Art Museum American Craft Museum Downtown: Skyscraper Museum NYC Police Museum American Indian Museum Museum of Jewish Heritage

Sid e

Up p

Downtown: SoHo - Cast Iron Greenwich Village South Street Seaport African Burial Grounds & the Commons

Sid e

tro

polit

seu

Notable Districts Identified: Uptown: Upper East Side Metropolitan Museum Upper West Side Midtown: Gramercy Park Historic District Ladies’ Mile

Inte Ce rfaith n Ne ter o wY f ork

Museums Diagrams the relative location of all “Museums” in Manhattan - as listed by The New York City Department of City Planning. This network map diagrams all arts + culture spaces south of 125th Street on the West Side and 110th Street on the East Side.

Historic Districts Diagrams the relative location of all New York CIty “Historic Landmark Districts” in Manhattan, as listed by the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission. This network map diagrams historic landmark districs south of 125th Street on the West Side and 110th Street on the East Side.

Union Square Park - Union Square, Manhattan

ers ide

American Museum of Natural History - Upper West Side, Manhattan

Riv

Greenwich Village Street - Greenwich, Manhattan

Gra m Pa ercy rk To m Sq kins ua Pa re rk

Cit Ha y Pa ll rk

Dia Art Foundation

Museum_Network

Ma d Sq ison ua Pa re rk

Battery Park

Arts + Culture_Network

Open Space_Network

Deconstruction of Culture

Figure 126: Presentation Boards (4 of 14) Layers of Cultural Fabric in NYC

118 Appendix B-5 Museum without Walls

Experiential Realm “To most people, Manhattan is New York, the place to “go to business,” the downtown of all downtowns. This is where the action is, where the money is earned and, in large part, spent. To nonNew Yorkers, Manhattan is know in excerpts from the whole: Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Greenwich Village, Wall Street, the caricatures of the chic, of bright lights, of the offbeat, of big business – excepts symbolic of the public power and influence of Manhattan as the capital of banking, corporate headquartering, the theater, advertising, publishing, fashion, tourism, and, `to a lesser degree, the United Nations... ...This passing parade of visitors mostly misses Manhattans myriad of neighborhoods with handsome buildings and areas of visual delight. That there are distinguished architecture and urban design in Harlem, on the vast Upper West Side, or in the loft districts of Lower Manhattan will startle and, we hope, pleasantly surprise those visitors who have savored only the well-publicized monuments, musicals, and museums.” The largest diagram (on the adjacent left hand board) illustrates the relationship of the Network of Abandoned Subway Stations to the various neighborhoods throughout Manhattan. The diagram on the right is intended to illustrate some of the unique experiential qualities of the New York City public realm, that combine to define the interstitial user experience through the Network of Abandoned Subway Stations. Diagrams (below) from left to right: Con Edison steam vents - New York City utilities provider Manhattan population – residential and daily commuters Yellow Cabs – New York City licensed taxicabs Street Vendors – licensed and unlicensed street vendors

Experiential Realm - Deconstruction of a typical sensory experience along the Network Path

7,200

1,610,000

miles of steam pipe beneath the streets

Con Edison - Steam Vents

Manhattan residents 15M daily occupants

10 - 15,000

12,187

Manhattan - Local Occupants

licenced taxi-cabs on the streets

street vendors (853 licensed)

New York City - Taxi Cabs

New York City - Street Vendors

Network Character The Network of Abandoned Subway Stations will facilitate a new way to experience the city - by chance or by design. The location of each of the six (6) interventions scattered throughout distinct neighborhoods in the city generates a reason for individuals to travel to various sections within the city. Thus, traveling through the network exposes individuals to a broad spectrum of physical and cultural phenomenon that are specific to New York City, but also specific to their respective locale within the city. Furthermore, the scattered nature of the intervention sites along the network path, creates an opportunity for an individual to unintentionally explore the city and/or discover the NASS of the site of an intervention along their path. The diagram to the right highlights a selection of the physical characteristics beyond the immediate context of the networks intervention sites. These images represent pre-existing physical conditions that define the user experience throughout the Network of Abandoned Subway Stations. Images from right to left: Vendor in Battery Park - nearest South Ferry Station. Beneath the Brooklyn Bridge - nearest City Hall. Construction in Union Square - nearest 18th Street Station. Newsstand on Broadway - nearest 18th Street Station. Thrift Store on 8th Avenue - nearest 42nd Street - Port Authority. 96th Street Subway Platform - nearest 91st Street Station.

Experiential Characteristics along the Network of Abandoned Subway Stations

Musuem without Walls

Figure 127: Presentation Boards (5 of 14) Experiential (Public) Realm

119 Appendix B-6 Connecting the City

Morningside Heights Harlem

91st Street Station

Surface Path et 91 st S

tre

Upper East Side

Central Park Riverside Park

Yorkville

Cen

est

tow

tra

(Up

Sid e

nue Ave 8th

18th Street Station

Union Square Garment District

)

idto

Tim

Station_5: 42nd St - Port Authority Point of Origin: 42nd St–Port Authority End Point: 91st Street & Broadway Walking Path: (North) Broadway Neighborhoods: Theater District Sites: Columbus Circle, Lincoln Center

Riv

Tudor

Chelsea

Murray Hill

Station_6: 91st Street Station Point of Origin: 91st St & Broadway End Point: 86th STreet & Broadway Walking Path: (South) Broadway Neighborhoods: Upper West Side Sites: Central Park, Riverside Park

Kips Bay Medical City

Midtown South

Total Number of Station Interventions - Six (6) Total Distance Traveled - 7.04 miles Total Walking Time - 2 hours + 11 minutes

City Hall Station

Battery Park Ellis Island Statue of Liberty

South Ferry Station

tion

Network of Abandoned Station Stations_Surface Progression

Sta Str th

Subway Path

East Village

ncia

(Dow

Alphabet City

l Dis

ntow

tric

Brooklyn

Bowery

ina

tow

Worth

Once back in the subway, riders will typically travel in the direction of the next intervention, which will generally be on a different subway line.

Lower East Side

Two Bridges

Civic Center

n kly oo ge Br rid B

Wall Street

Willi

amsb Brid urg ge

Station_1: South Ferry Station Arrival Train: (Southbound) 1 Train Departure Station: Bowling Green Abandoned Station Location: Between Rector Street and South Ferry Stations Abandoned Station View: Left Distance to Intervention: 1-block

an hatt Man ge Brid

White Hall

tio

rry

uth

Sta

91st Street Station

Users typically experience each abandoned station from the perspective of the active subway prior to experiencing the station intervention from the surface. After the train passes through a station, individuals are expected to get off the train at the next active station to experience the intervention from above.

1 Line

)

Network of Abandoned Subway Stations + Neighborhoods

1L ine

tion Street Sta

uth

42nd Street Station

Station_2: City Hall Station Arrival Train: (Northbound) 4 | 5 Train Departure Station: City Hall Abandoned Station Location: Between Courtland Street and City Hall Stations Abandoned Station View: Left Distance to Intervention: .5-blocks Station_3: Worth Street Station Arrival Train: (Northbound) 6 Train Departure Station: Chambers Street Abandoned Station Location: Between City Hall and Canal Street Stations Abandoned Station View: Right Distance to Intervention: 5-blocks

18th Street Station 14th St - Union Square Transfer Point

ine

Station_4: 18th Street Station Arrival Train: (Northbound) 6 Train Departure Station: Union Square Abandoned Station Location: Between 14th Street and 23rd Street Stations Abandoned Station View: Right Distance to Intervention: 6-blocks

City Hall Transfer Point

Subway Path ine

Worth Street Station

City Hall Station

Station_5: 42nd St - Port Authority Arrival Train: (Northbound) N | R | W Departure Station: 42nd St–Port Auth Abandoned Station Location: Below 42nd Street - Port Authority Station Abandoned Station View: N/A Distance to Intervention: 0-blocks

(Potential) Network of Abandoned Subway Platforms

(Potential) Network of Abandoned Railroad Stations

(Potential) Network of Abandoned Stations + Platforms

Bowling Green Transfer Point

South Ferry Station

1 Line

Station_6: 91st Street Station Arrival Train: (Northbound) 1 | 2 | 3 Departure Station: 86th Street Station Abandoned Station Location: Between 86th Street and 96th Street Stations Abandoned Station View: Right Distance to Intervention: 5-blocks

42nd St - Times Square Transfer Point

Line

Fina

Station City Hall

Stuyvesant

N|R|W

Tribeca

Walking Distances + Times: South Ferry to City Hall Station - 0.84mi (15 minutes) City Hall to Worth St Station - .40mi (9 minutes) Worth St to 18th St Station - 1.75mi (29 minutes) 18th St to 42nd St Station - 1.50mi (23 minutes) 42nd St to 91st St Station - 2.31mi (40 minutes) 91st St to 86th St Station - 0.24mi (6 minutes)

Wall Street Stock Exchange South Street Seaport

ion

idto

Greenwich Village

SoHo

Ave

ad wa y

Surface Path

Worth Street Station

eet

Gramarcy Park

4th

Bro

Chinatown U.S. Courthouses Brooklyn Bridge City Hall World Trade Center

e uar

Queens

Beekman

Point of Origin: Union Square End Point: 42nd St – Port Authority Walking Path: (North) Broadway Neighborhoods: Midtown & Times Sq Sites: Times Sq & Empire State Bldg

nu e

Station_4: 18th Street Station

Sutton

Turtle Bay

42 nd

Str

Th ea ter D

eet

istr

ict

Sta

tion

elt

Station_3: Worth Street Station Point of Origin: Thomas Paine Park End Point: Union Square Walking Path: (North) Broadway Neighborhoods: Chinatown & SoHo Sites: Canal Street, & Union Square

Midtown

Chysler Building Empire State Building

nd Isla

Lennox Hill

Hell’s Kitchen

West Village

Times Square Grand Central Station

Station_2: City Hall Station Point of Origin: City Hall End Point: Thomas Paine Park Walking Path: (North) Broadway Neighborhoods: Civic Center Sites: City Hall, Brooklyn Bridge

Upper East Side

Clinton

42nd Street Station

Broadway

l Pa

Up pe

American Museum of Natural History

Central Park Columbus Circle

Station_1: South Ferry Station Point of Origin: Staten Island Ferry End Point: City Hall Walking Path: (North) Broadway Neighborhoods: Wall St & Downtown Sites: Stock Exchange, Ground Zero

Bro

Hu ds on Riv e

In most cases the nearest station will be different from the original point of ascension. This continues users along a distinctive path, before descending back into the subway system. Upper East Side

Lincoln Square

Meat Packing District

On the street, intervention sites are located several (1-6) blocks from the station. At the site of any of the six (6) interventions, individuals are expected to ponder the implications of the network and the intervention. Additionally, individuals can acquire formal information to help identify the nearest active station.

Broadway

tion

Upper West Side

Sta

New Jersey

Chambers St Transfer Point

Network of Abandoned Subway Stations_Subway Progression

Connecting the City

Figure 128: Presentation Boards (6 of 14) Circulation through the NASS

120 Appendix B-7 Activating the Exposed Worth Street

Christo & Jean-Claude - “The Gates”

Gordon Matta-Clark - “Circus”

“Feeding the Pigeons” - Barcelona, Spain

British Musuem - London, England

Worth Street Intervention Site - View South

The abandoned Worth Street Station lies between Thomas Paine Park and the City, State and Federal Courthouse buildings. The Worth Street Intervention also exists nearby a list of landmarks that include: City Hall, The Brooklyn Bridge, Chinatown, SoHo, The Bowery and Canal Street. The design process for the Worth Street Station Intervention began with inspiration from Christo and Jean-Claude’s “The Gates” and Gordon Matta-Clark’s “Circus” projects. In Christo and Jean-Claude’s work, the created an activated procession through an existing path in Central Park, while Gordon Matta-Clark inserted “slits” into the surface of a decayed building to introduce light and manipulate internal experiences of a decrepit structure. The Worth Street intervention lines the street with a series of slits perpendicular to procession of traffic and will ignite lateral mobility between facing open spaces, and be conducive to meditative actives (lunch, feeding the pigeons, etc.) within each. Beneath the surface Worth Street was the second station stop along the systems original 1904 line. The Stations physical characteristics are standard with two central express tracks and outer local tracks stopping along the east and west platforms.

Worth Street Intervention

City Hall

Jenny Holzer - “Survival Series”

Street Performers - Paris, France

City Hall Intervention Site - View Southeast

The abandoned City Hall Station lies between the Brooklyn Bridge and Ground Zero, beneath what is now City Hall Park in Downtown Manhattan. A list of nearby landmarks include: City Hall, The Brooklyn Bridge, Ground Zero, The Wintergarden and One Police Plaza. The design process for City Hall Station Intervention began with inspiration from Jenny Holzer’s “Truisms” and Gordon Matta-Clark’s “Days End” projects. In Holzer’s work, she exploited existing urban characteristics to communicate messages. In Matta-Clark’s work, he puncture a hole into an existing warehouse to changes the landscape of it interior volume. The City Hall intervention will both pierce into the ground and ascend 45’ into the sky and serve as an area of contemplation, projection and urban climbing. This point of intervention also marks the zenith of its stations subsurface dome. Beneath the surface the original station at City has long been regarded as the crown jewel of the New York City Subway System. Colorful tiles and chandeliers contribute the its allure and the vaulted ceilings are still uniquely classic. The original station was also the original point of departure, when the subway was inaugurated in 1904, and is a designated historic landmark.

Gordon Matta-Clark - “Days End”

Jungle Gym on the Beach

City Hall Intervention

City Hall Intervention Site - View North

South Ferry

Gordon Matta-Clark - “Fake Estates”

Street Performers - Battery Park, New York

South Ferry Intervention Site - View South

The abandoned South Ferry Station lies at the nexus of Downtown Manhattan, between the Staten Island Ferry, Battery Park and the Wall Street/Downtown Financial District. A list of nearby landmarks include: The Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, Governors Island, Battery Park, Staten Island Ferry and Wall Street. The design process for South Ferry Station Intervention began with an investigation of Gordon Matta-Clark’s, “Conical Intersect” and “Fake Estates” projects. In each of these examples of Gordon Matta-Clark’s work, he reinvents the spatial experiences of seemingly expendable spaces. The South Ferry Station intervention will transform an un-programmed and under-utilized 100’ x 70’ left-over space into an active portal into the underworld, while transforming its surface into a stage for performances and gatherings. Beneath the surface, the abandoned subway station at South Ferry’s “inner-loop” platform sits adjacent to an active construction site currently scheduled to open a new South Ferry Station in 2010. Despite this construction, there are no plans to remove or refurbish the existing abandoned stations at South Ferry.

Gordon Matta-Clark - “Conical Intersect”

Museum of Natural History -Exhibit from Balcony

South Ferry Intervention Site - Northwest

South Ferry Intervention

Activating the Exposed

Figure 129: Presentation Boards (7 of 14) Design Process / Matrix

121 Appendix B-8 Transforming the Ordinary 91st Street

Gordon Matta-Clark - “Circus”

Homeless Person - Panhandling

91st Street Intervention Site - View North

The abandoned 91st Street Station lies underneath Broadway in New York CIty’s Upper West Side Neighborhood. A list of nearby landmarks include: Central Park, Riverside Park, Museum of Natural History and The Upper West Side Historic District. The design process for the 91st Street Station Intervention began with inspiration from Gordon Matta-Clark’s “Caribbean Orange” Christo & Jean Claude’s “Running Fence” projects. In “Caribbean Orange”, Gordon Matta-Clark dissects a decaying building to create unique sight lines through its structure. In “Running Fence”, Christo and Jean Claude highlight the contours of a natural landscape to create an enhanced path in a natural setting. The 91st Street intervention is the only residential intervention and will enable opportunities for visitors and local residents to temporarily escape the city, share information, walk, exercise, play or even walk the dog through its structure. Beneath the surface, the interventions physical characteristics are standard with 4’ ground thickness and four subway rail tracks - two central express tracks and outer local tracks stopping along the east and west platforms.

Christo & Jean-Claude - “Running Fence”

Gray’s Papaya - Upper West Side Character

91st Street Intervention Site - View North

91st Street Intervention

42nd Street The abandoned 42nd Street – Port Authority Station occupies an entire level below the currently active subway A,C,E subway lines in Time Square. This intervention is located at the site of the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Midtown Manhattan. A list of nearby landmarks include: Times Square, Midtown Theater District, Midtown Fashion District, Midtown Manhattan, Central Park, Columbus Circle, Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, Jacob Javitz Center.

Jenny Holzer - “Xenon”

Christo & Jean-Claude - “Reichstag Wrapped””

Wall Art - Graffitti in Richmond

Alian Robert - French Building Climber

42nd Street - Port Authority Intervention Site - View West

The design process for the 42nd Street – Port Authority Station Intervention began with inspiration from Jenny Holzer’s “Xenon Projections” and Christo & Jean Claude “Wrapping The Reichstag” projects. In Holzer’s work, she projects her truism statements onto the sides of existing urban objects to transform space without changing it. Christo and JeanClaude’s work, transforms space physically, by means of physically wrapping an ordinary object in the environment. The results are instant activation of varied spaces. The 42nd Street – Port Authority intervention wraps the first two bays of the bus terminal southern façade, creating a space for projection and transformation. In design this intervention will facilitate the transference of information, and create a forum for digital interaction, contemplation, climbing and shelter. Beneath the surface 42nd Street - Port Authority intervention is the only intervention in the Network of Abandoned Subway Station that will draw crowds in the outdoor public realm, as well as within the bus terminal, throughout its interior lower level. .

42nd Street - Port Authority Intervention

18th Street

++ Jenny Holzer - “Truisms”

Calgary Tower - Glass Floor Observation Deck

18th Street Intervention Site - View West

The abandoned 18th Street Station lies beneath Broadway one block north of Union Square. The 18th Street Intervention exists near landmarks that include: Union Square, 5th Avenue, Greenwich Village, The Garment District, Madison Park, The East Village and (visually) The Empire State Building. The design process for the 18th Street Station Intervention began with inspiration from Jenny Holzer’s “Truisms” and Gordon Matta-Clark’s “Splitting” projects. In “Truisms”, Holzer embeds statements into the everyday urban environment, while in “Splitting”, MattaClark literally splits an existing home in half to reveal its section before demolition. The 18th Street intervention splits the street between two facing buildings on either side of Broadway and increases their heights by installing 20’ projection screen on the tops of each. The projection screens will serve as projection spaces for information, advertisement and/or digital installation space. Beneath the surface the 18th Street once linked the N,R,W lines with the 4,5,6 lines. However the entirety of that connection has since been moved to the 14th Street Union Square Station. The Stations physical characteristics are standard with two central express tracks and outer local tracks stopping along the east and west platforms.

Gordon Matta-Clark - “Splitting”

Billboard - “Get a Life”

18th Street Intervention Site - View Northwest

18th Street Intervention

Transforming the Ordinary

Figure 130: Presentation Boards (8 of 14) Design Process / Matrix

122 Appendix B-9 The “Staging Station”

South Ferry - Site Plan

New 1-Train Tunnel

Abandoned Platform

Subway Substructure

Subway Understructure

South Ferry - Section Detail

South Ferry - Intervention Perspective

South Ferry

The South Ferry Station Intervention is the Network of Abandoned Subway Stations south most intervention site. This intervention creates a performance and gathering area along the highly traffic Centre Street, between Wall Street, the nearby 6 train and the Staten Island Ferry. The “Staging Station” peels up from the surface creating a balcony-like showcase of the newly constructed active 1 train and the existing (abandoned) South Ferry stations, and is designed to capture the interest of passers-by, while simultaneously producing a staging area backdrop – to face Battery Park. The interventions gesture will not obstruct the flow of traffic along the street or through its “plaza” (enroute to the nearby 6 train, or Financial Districts), and its lift from the street surface will attract pedestrians and street vendors to its viewing area along the street. The staging area is prime to be activated by a wide variety of street performers and/or legitimate performance events in its space. The South Ferry Intervention measures approximate 85’x 60’ (footprint) and peels up from the surface approximate 7’ at its highest point. Three of its four corners lie at ground. The fourth represents the interventions vertical apex. .

South Ferry Intervention

South Ferry Station - Neighborhood Characteristics

The “Staging Station”

Figure 131: Presentation Boards (9 of 14) South Ferry Intervention

123 Appendix B-10 The “Illuminating Park”

City Hall - Site Plan

City Hall Station (Abandoned)

Abandoned Platform

Subway Substructure

Subway Understructure

City Hall - Section Detail

City Hall - Intervention Perspective

City Hall

The City Hall Abandoned Station Intervention illuminates and activates Downtown’s City Hall Park, which is located at the junction between Broadway and Lafayette Streets. “The Illuminating Park” rises from the surface of the creating a lantern-like marker, designed to draw nearby subway riders and/or Brooklyn Bridge visitors into the park. The intervention would both project information/messages onto its structure, while simultaneously creating a sensory portal into the “gem” of the original 28 subway stations. The intervention would not alter current flows of pedestrian traffic through the park (the intervention would be an extrusion of an existing/embedded seal which is not part of the park’s current circulation diagram), and it would lift into the air, splitting focus between the underground and to the city above. The Illuminated intervention would attract bridge tourists and contemplative park goers, while its light and its height would attract urban climbers and/or various visitors at all hours of the day. The City Hall Intervention measures approximate 30’ (diameter) and lifts 45’ into the above the ground.

City Hall Intervention

City Hall Station - Neighborhood Characteristics

The “Illuminating Park”

Figure 132: Presentation Boards (10 of 14) City Hall Intervention

124 Appendix B-11 The “Revealing Paths”

Worth Street - Site Plan

Abandoned Platform

Subway Substructure

Subway Understructure

Worth Street - Section Detail

Worth Street - Intervention Perspective

Worth Street

The Worth Street Station Intervention is the networks most modest intervention, due to its location along Lafayette Street, amidst New York City’s City, State and Federal courthouse buildings. The “Revealing Paths” do not break the ground plane, but they expose the underground via a series of slits in the surface of the road, perpendicular to the flow of traffic along the street. The intervention would laterally draw pedestrian traffic across the street and across its assortment of sensory portals into the underground. Since the intervention does not break the ground plan it easily does not alter the current flows of traffic. After Dark, the “Revealing Path” intervention would create a unique field of broken light along the duration of its path. The Worth Street Intervention consists of five (5) individual excavated sections of street, each measuring 15’ in width, with variable lengths measuring 40’ - 70’.

Worth Street Intervention

Worth Street Station - Neighborhood Characteristics

The “Revealing Paths”

Figure 133: Presentation Boards (11 of 14) Worth Street Intervention

125 Appendix B-12 The “Projecting Threshold”

18th Street The 18th Street Intervention serves as a threshold into the Union Square area of Downtown Manhattan, between 17th and 18th Streets along Broadway. The “Projecting Threshold” exposes the underground in a single band, which serves as an “entryway” into Union Square. The excavated band is suggestively projected from the width of two facing buildings along Broadway. The intervention then symbolically extends up the facades of these two facing buildings to terminate in the form of a projection screen on the rooftops, that can been seen from Union Square and/or north along Broadway – calling attention to the intervention as the threshold into or out of the Union Square District. This intervention lends itself well to projectionists, passers-by and street-performers. The 18th Street Intervention consists of a single 78’x 18’ excavated section of street, and two facing 22’ x 18’ screens atop each of the two facing building anchoring this intervention.

18th Street Intervention

Abandoned Platform

18th Street Station - Neighborhood Characteristics

Abandoned Platform

Subway Substructure

Subway Understructure

18th Street - Section

18th Street - Site Plan

18th Street - Intervention Perspective

The “Projecting Threshold”

Figure 134: Presentation Boards (12 of 14) 18th Street Intervention

126 Appendix B-13 The “Wrapping Building”

42nd Street - Port Authority The 42nd Street - Port Authority Station Intervention is the only intervention that physically facilitates an indoor/outdoor experience. The “Wrapping Building” inserts two (2) mesh display cases into the existing exoskeleton of the Port Authority Bus Terminal (to serve as digital projection spaces), and pierces through the related section of sidewalk. In this intervention the exposed station is below the original “cut and cover” line, and that added depth enables for an interior observation space on the lower level of the Bus Terminal. The surface intervention gesture is consistent with the Time Square District, and the underground components is appropriate to facilitate passage, contemplation, and sensory connection to the exterior intervention, and the underground. The 42nd Street Intervention measures approximate 2 x 25’ x 50’ one the street level and, 2 x 25’ x 16’ in the lower level of the port Authority Bus Terminal. The excavated section of sidewalk measures approximately 10’ x 50’ as a porous replacement to the existing sidewalk (currently under construction).

42nd Street - Port Authority Intervention

42nd Street Port Authority - Neighborhood Characteristics

Port Authority Bus Terminal

Port Authority Bus Terminal Lower Level

NYC Subway Storage Space

Subway Substructure

Subway Understructure

42nd Street Port Authority - Section

42nd Street Port Authority - Site Plan

42nd Street Port Authority - Intervention Perspective

The “Wrapping Building”

Figure 135: Presentation Boards (13 of 14) 42nd Street - Port Authority Intervention

127 Appendix B-14 The “Descending Street”

91st Street The 91st Street Intervention is the Network of Abandoned Subway Stations north most intervention site. This intervention creates an urban escape along Broadway, in the heart of the Upper West Side. The “Descending Street” descends 4 feet into the surface of the street, creating a sunken avenue conducive to catching a glimpse of the underworld below. This intervention is designed to descend from street grade (along crosswalks at 91st and 92nd Streets) to the structural depth of the Subway at mid-block. The interventions gesture will not obstruct the flow of traffic along the sidewalks, the street or along the two active crosswalks. The “Descending Street” will likely attract a variety of individuals, and on a daily basis, the walkway itself is prime to be activated by a wide variety of local residents and tourists. The 91st Street Intervention measures approximately 110’ x 9’ (footprint) and descends 4’ below the surface at its lowest point (a 15’ platform lies 4’ below the surface). The two endpoints points (at 91st and 92nd Streets) measure 10’ x 16’ and anchor the intervention into the two crosswalks. .

91st Street Intervention

Abandoned Platform

91st Street - Neighborhood Characteristics

Abandoned Platform

Subway Substructure

Subway Understructure

91st Street - Section

Str

eet

adw Bro

0’

Bro

adw

’ (9

st S

’)

tre

91st Street - Site Plan

91st Street - Intervention Perspective

The “Decending Street”

Figure 136: Presentation Boards (14 of 14) 91st Street Intervention

Under-Exposed Aaron Asis University of Washington ÂŠ copyright 200

128