125th Pavilion the node to reconnecting the neighborhood 700 W 125TH STREET NEW YORK, NY 100027
TRANSPORTATION
82% 4.8% ALVIN YANG ARCH 52100 PROF. LANCE BROWN FALL 2014 - SPRING 2015
1.5%
8%
?
TABLE OF CONTENTS introduction analysis design fall final spring final case studies references
04-10 11-17 18-23 24-29 30-45
THESIS PROPOSAL : 125TH STREET AMTRAK STATION Location: W. 125th Street and 12th Avenue
New York, NY 10027
The neighborhood of Manhattanville is undergoing a lot of changes. One of the changes is due to the expansion of Columbia University. The campus will span from 129th Street to 133rd Street between Broadway and 12th Avenue. The Economic Development Corporation (EDC) has proposed a master plan to revitalize the neighborhood and integrating the new campus. The new plan is to reactivate the waterfront and inland district for redevelopment. Many waterfront structures around the world splits neighborhoods into two communities, warehouses and residential. Riverside Drive is one of those structures. An opportunity arises to take advantage of the area’s history for redevelopment by finding the fine line between the two communities and potentially apply this throughout the world. The Master Plan consists of three stages: Stage 1 - Waterfront Stage 2 - Transportation Stage 3 - Upland Development.
“The challenge is to connect the Study Area to its surrounding environment, both physically and economically... equally important, the local residents, businesses, and institutional communities should have strong links to greater Harlem and Manhattan’s economy.”
Waterfront (Completed)
- EDC
Maximizing the narrow strip of land creates a successful waterfront destination. Three new piers were created: a large pier for a new ferry terminal, two smaller piers for small boats and ecological education. Transportation (Proposed) The focus on a transportation hub is necessary for the environment and location of the site. Therefore, an alliance with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority allows a proposal of a new multimodal hub. This hub will be benefitial to the neighborhood of Manhattanville and the upcoming expansion of Columbia University (completed in Stage 3). This multimodal hub will consist of new transit stops, a ferry landing on the Hudson piers previously completed in Stage 1, an improved streetscape along 125th Street, and a new roadway design, potentially connecting to Riverside Drive. With an upcoming transportation hub on 125th Street, the improved aesthetics will prove to be desirable for redevelopment. Additional improvements located inside the station will include retail storefronts and hosted event activities will greatly increase the desire for redevelopment. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has done the Penn Station Access Study, a research to study Amtrak access into Penn Station. This study allows new stations along the existing Amtrak line; with the 125th Street Station estimating 30,000 daily passengers and cost approximately $7 million. Upland Development (TBA) This is for economic and institutional development, a private investment. The idea is to create a vibrant, working neighborhood. This includes commercial and institutional uses created in the upland with Columbia University’s Expansion part of the plan.
INTRODUCTION / PROPOSAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
4
THE NODE : 125TH STREET AMTRAK STATION Location: W. 125th Street and 12th Avenue
New York, NY 10027
Boundaries I propose to design a transportation hub in the heart of Manhattanville. With the rise and expansion of Columbia University, a diverse and an abundance of people will gather near the institution. I take the opportunity to help the community to expand and activate the space along one of its most important street. The site is located on the intersection of 125th Street and 12th Avenue. Along 12th avenue, a large iconic infrastructure - the 125th Viaduct - is the imaginary line between the newly proposed station and the community of Columbia University. The property is bounded by two infrastructure: Amtrak rail on the West and the Viaduct on the East. West of the Amtrak is the Henry Hudson Parkway and the Hudson River. Goals With a very important site for the community, my goal is to design a new station for the Amtrak rail with a restaurant and retail space servicing Columbia University. The station will also provide a direct connection from the waterfront into the station and up to the Viaduct taking advantage of the views towards New Jersey. As the location of this station will be replacing the existing building of restaurants, the restaurants will be integrated into the station with the goal of experiencing the views towards the water, the train platform and under the Viaduct along 12th Avenue. Not only will the station be connecting to the Viaduct, a future possibility of extending a lightweight structure along 125th Street from under the Viaduct to the elevated platform of the 125th Street 1 train station. Main Investigations With a large project such as this, there will be three main issues I would like to investigate. - The idea of connecting four places together will be difficult: waterfront, station, viaduct, and 1 train. People in this community are more active as the majority of the people that live there are young adults. Providing a system to connect the major spaces of 125th Street allowing target destinations to be an easy and experiential. Moving from one area to the other, should the experiences be different or should it be similar with no drastic changes? Would this drive the project’s form? Should the circulation be complicated or simple? - The issue of indoors and outdoors arises when providing a large scale connection system. Both spaces should experience different things, a vast open area with great views towards the river, the old steel arches of the 12th Avenue Viaduct, a group of people rushing to get onto the train. What dictates the need to create outdoor space or indoor space? Is it a necessity to have a connection that is exposed to outdoor environments? Should outdoor activity be included? - Sustainability. With the rise of a new construction, sustainability comes into mind. As a new train station, the possibility of adding solar panels for energy efficiency, the choices of materials, and/or fabrication. An idea of placing solar panels as the roof. If there are outdoor activities or connections should there be a roof/canopy for protection? Will this be a possible use for solar panels? What kind of roof can be used for this kind of service? Would the roof/canopy cover only connection pieces or vice versa?
5 INTRODUCTION / PROPOSAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
MATRIX DIAGRAM LOBBY
~
TICKET COUNTER
3050 SF
HEADHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION
~ 50 SF ~ 200 SF
OFFICES
~ 500 SF
MECHANICAL & UTILITIES
~ 10000 SF
RPZ
~ 400 SF
MECHANICAL ROOM
~ 200 SF
COMMUNICATION ROOM
~ 500 SF
UTILITY ROOM
~ 200 SF
ESCALATOR MACHINE ROOM
~ 200 SF
ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM
~ 200 SF
ELECTRICAL ROOM
~ 200 SF
EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL ROOM
PUBLIC
3000 SF 8000 SF
JANITOR CLOSET
~ 50 SF
REFUSE ROOM
~ 50 SF
MARKET
~ 1500 SF
RESTAURANTS
~ 1500 SF
RETAIL
~ 3300 SF
RESTROOMS
~ 200 SF
BIKE STATIONS
~ 200 SF
CHARGING STATIONS
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
OUTDOOR CIRCULATION
~ 50 SF ~ 100 SF
SIGNAL ROOM
6900 SF
~ 300 SF ~ 5000 SF
BUS TERMINAL TRAIN PLATFORM
2150 SF
~ 200 SF
PLAZA
~ 2000 SF
TERRACES
~ 1000 SF
CIRCULATION
POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL
2000 SF
INFORMATION BOOTH
LOCKERS / STORAGE / RESTROOM
15000 SF
LEGEND
(INCLUDING UNDERPASS) ~ 8000 SF
TERRACES 100O SF PLAZA 200O SF
TRAIN PLATFORM 1000O SF BUS TERMINAL 500O SF
INTRODUCTION / PROGRAM
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
6
LOBBY 200O SF
OFFICES 50O SF INFO BOOTH TICKET COUNTER 20O SF 5O SF
OFFICE AMENITIES 30O SF
PUBLIC INFO BOOTH
PRIVATE
CHARGING STATION BUS TERMINAL
REFUSE ROOM
JANITOR CLOSET
BIKE STATIONS EMER. ELEC. RM.
UTILITY ROOM
REST ROOMS
RESTAURANTS
TRAIN PLATFORM
RPZ
MARKET HEADHOUSE
OFFICES MECHANICAL ROOM
SIGNAL ROOM ESC. MACH. ROOM COMMUNICATION ROOM
ELEV. MACH. ROOM
ELEC. ROOM
REFUSE ROOM 5O SF
RPZ 40O SF
JANITOR SIGNAL CLOSET EMER. ROOM 5O SF ELEC. ELEC. 10O SF ELEV. MACH. ROOM ROOM 5O SF ESC. MACH. UTILITY MACH. ROOM 20O SF COMM ROOM ROOM 20O SF MECH ROOM 20O SF 20O SF ROOM 50O SF 20O SF
RESTROOM 20O SF
RETAIL 330O SF
SOLAR CHARGE STATION 20O SF
BIKE STATION 20O SF
MARKET 150O SF RESTAURANTS 150O SF
7 INTRODUCTION / PROGRAM
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Master Plan Study Area
th
135 St.
st
131 St.
Broadway
133rd St. Amtrak Viaduct Riverside Drive
EDC Waterfront Site Henry Hudson Parkway
Hudson River
125th Street
The potential scope of Manhattanville. Source: NYCEDC
Sanborn Map of Manhattanville (Manhattan Street & 129th Street) Source: Sanborn Map
The new 125th Street Metro North Station (RED) and future Columbia University Expansion (GRAY) in Manhattanville. Source: NYCEDC
INTRODUCTION / SITE
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
8
Broadway
Columbia Expansion
125th St. Station
12th Ave.
The new 125th Street Metro North Station (RED) in Manhattanville. Source: NYCEDC
Top Left: 8 AM Traffic in Manhattanville Top Right: 6 PM Traffic in Manhattanville Source: Google Maps Traffic Left: Proposed future traffic flow. Source: NYCEDC
HUDS
NEW JERSEY
9 INTRODUCTION / LOCATION
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
N RIVER
CITY COLLEGE
COLUMBIA EXPANSION
NEW FERRY DOCK
NEW AMTRAK STATION
PEDESTRIAN LINK
MANHATTAN INTRODUCTION / SCOPE
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
10
Historical Timeline
1867
Manhattanville used to be a “village” before the city of New York expanded north of Central Park. Before long, people started to move and connect with the city itself. The maps show the progression of the city’s expansion.
1897
1916 PROPOSED SITE FIGURE GROUND
2014
11 ANALYSIS / HISTORY
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Neighborhood Analysis This district has a large variety of land use due to being nearby the waters and large infrastructures. A very populated area with many apartment buildings, most of which are rent stabilized as many residents are young and earn little annually.
LAND USE 1 & 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE OPEN SPACE & OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION INDUSTRIAL PARKING TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNITES OF COLOR
VACANT LOTS
0.5 - 20% 20.1 - 40% 40.1 - 60% 60.1 - 80%
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
80.1 - 97%
< $25,000
97.1 - 100%
$25,000 - $45,000 $45,000 - $65,000 $65,000 - $85,000 $85,000 - $105,000 > $105,000
ZONING RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
YOUTH POPULATION
INDUSTRIAL PARK
0.3 - 10% 10.1 - 20% 20.1 - 30% 30.1 - 40% 40.1 - 100%
ANALYSIS / CONTEXT
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
12
New York City Preliminary FIRM Data Viewer This map print out is intended for informational purposes. Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels are also available for viewing through FEMA Map Service Center.
Natural Causes There are known conditions within the site that affects new designs. Due to the site located near the waterfront, flooding will be a problem. Not only that, there exists a fault line couple blocks south.
October 12, 2014
1:4,514
1 Pct Annual Chance Flood Floodway
0
0.0375
0
0.05
0.075 0.1
0.15 mi 0.2 km
0.2 Pct Annual Chance Flood Zone Break
FEMA
Limit of Floodway Limit of Study Limit of Moderate Wave Action Base Flood Elevations Coastal Transects County State Water Lines Zone A Zone AE Zone AO Zone VE Floodway Zone X - 0.2 PCT COMMUNITY BASED, PANEL PRINTED COMMUNITY BASED, NOT PRINTED Political Jurisdiction Areas NGS Benchmark
2020 Floodzone
2050 Floodzone
13 ANALYSIS / FLOODZONE
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
ANALYSIS / FAULT LINE
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
14
Transportation M
11
Active bus routes and bike paths.
M
5
M Bx
4
15
M
104
Bus Routes
Bike Path
15 ANALYSIS / BUS AND BIKE
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
ANNUAL PASSENGERS - 2013 GRAND CENTRAL
126 MILLION
TIMES SQUARE
122 MILLION
PENN STATION
115 MILLION
DAILY PASSENGERS PER SECOND (WEEKDAY) PEAK (7 - 10 am)
NON-PEAK (10 - 4 pm) GRAND CENTRAL
TIMES SQUARE
PENN STATION
DAILY PASSENGERS PER SECOND (WEEKEND) PEAK (7 - 10 am)
NON-PEAK (10 - 4 pm) GRAND CENTRAL
TIMES SQUARE
PENN STATION
ANALYSIS / TRANSPORTATION
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
16
ANNUAL SUBWAY RIDERSHIP grand central 75,000,000
50,000,000
25,000,000
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2008
2011
2008
2011
times square 75,000,000
50,000,000
25,000,000
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
penn station 75,000,000
50,000,000
25,000,000
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
17 ANALYSIS / TRANSPORTATION
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
HUDSON RIVER columbia university
125th St - irt line
henry hudson parkway COLUMBIA EXPANSION RIVERSIDE DRIVE
waterfront
TRANSPORTATION HUB
AMTRAK LINE
riverside drive viaduct
NEW JERSEY
riverside drive
MANHATTAN
Existing Site Plan SCALE: 1/256” = 1’-0”
amtrak line
DESIGN / EXISTING
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
18
Existing Site Section SCALE: 1/256” = 1’-0”
19 DESIGN / EXISTING
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Site Plan Scale: 1/512” = 1’-0”
Section Scale: 1/32” = 1’-0”
Mechanical
Cafe
Bus Terminal
Mechanical
Lobby
Terrace
Platform
Restroom Retail Retail
Office Mechanical
Ground Floor Plan Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0” DESIGN / SCHEMES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
20
Second Floor Plan Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0”
Third Floor Plan Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0”
Over and Under
Site Plan Scale: 1/512” = 1’-0”
Section Scale: 1/32” = 1’-0”
Terrace Plaza
Restroom
Bus Terminal
Office Office
Mechanical Retail Cafe
Retail
Platform
Lobby
Ground Floor Plan Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0”
Second Floor Plan Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0”
Third Floor Plan Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0”
21 DESIGN / SCHEMES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Cut and Fill
Site Plan Scale: 1/512” = 1’-0”
Section Scale: 1/32” = 1’-0”
Terrace
Mechanical
Restroom Plaza
Cafe Lobby Bus Terminal
Platform
Mechanical Retail
Market
Platform
Office Mechanical
Ground Floor Plan Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0” DESIGN / SCHEMES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
22
Second Floor Plan Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0”
Third Floor Plan Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0”
Retail
Retail
Retail Retail
Roof Plan Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0”
Overpass Connection Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0”
Platform Level Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0”
Ground Level Scale: 1/128” = 1’-0”
Existing
Proposed
180 View
Entry
Entry
Circulation
Heirarchy
Heirarchy
Public Transit
Section Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0”
23 DESIGN / SCHEMES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
HUDSON RIVER
CITY COLLEGE
COLUMBIA EXPANSION
NEW FERRY DOCK
NEW AMTRAK STATION
PEDESTRIAN LINK
NEW JERSEY
MANHATTAN
Site Plan
FALL / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
24
Waterfront Amtrak IRT Uninterupted Circulation
Elevated Landings
Public Mechanical Headhouse Circulation Outdoor Transportation
Accessible walkway
25 FALL / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Proposed
Upper Level 3 Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0”
Entry
Circulation
Upper Level 2 Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0”
Bridging Connection
View
Upper Level 1 Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0” FALL / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
26
Waterfront View
Second Floor Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0” 12th Ave View
Accessibility
First Floor Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0”
Existing Structure
New Structure
Ground Floor Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0”
27 FALL / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Section Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0”
Section Scale: 1/256” = 1’-0” FALL / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
28
29 FALL / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
125th Amtrak Station The station would be used to connect to various levels within the site. There are 3 main connections: the ferry terminal in the waterfront, bus terminal outside the station, direct connection to the viaduct with a pedestrian link to the 1 train.
City College
Within this project includes a plaza with access to the stationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s concourse filled with retail stores and a waterfront view restaurant. An entrance to a tower reaching up to the viaduct is accessed from the plaza and a walkway connecting the mezzanine level of the station. The tower services an outdoor bike rack, exterior seating and stands, a pedestrian link to the 1 train, elevated bar and restaurant with 180 degrees view of the hudson river and view of the underside of the viaduct.
Columbia University
12th Avenue Riverside Drive
Institution Map
W 130th Street
W
12
5t
hS t
St. Clair Place
re
et
W 129th Street
Tiemann Place
Site Connections SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
30
Broadway
W 131st Street
1
Site Plan Scale: 1/32” = 1’-0” Existing <180
Entry
View - 180 degrees on viaduct
Flood
Proposed < 180
Entry
Resiliency - Elevated access with topography
Accessibility
Transportation
View - 180 degrees on four levels and train platform
Pedestrian Link
31 SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Circulation Legend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
viaduct pedestrian link restaurant bar plaza walkway train platform
2 3 4
5 7
6
Circulation Outside Restaurant / bar / cafe retail Concourse
Outside Platform
Circulation
mezzanine Outside Space
Ground SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
32
Restaurant / bar
33 SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
UP
DN
Fourth Level - Southbound Platform Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0”
UP
UP
Third Level - Northbound Platform Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0” SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
34
UP DN DN
UP
Second Level - Mezzanine Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0”
UP UP
UP
Ground Level Scale: 1/64” = 1’-0”
35 SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
North Elevation
SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
36
West Elevation
2389
2389
37 SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
East Elevation
Section SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
38
39 SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
2389
2389
2389
2389
SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
40
Section
41 SPRING / FINAL
Section
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Interior Rendering of Concourse
View of walkway connection from cafe SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
42
Views of Arcade
Arcade entering Concourse
View of Viaduct from pedestrian link to 1 train
43 SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Metal Decking Structural Grid
1’-0” x 2’-0” Duct W24 x 76 Metal Sheet Beyond Steel Angle W18 x 50
Concrete Slab
Wall Section
HVAC Diagram
SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
44
45 SPRING / FINAL
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
The Node, Helsingborg
ARCHITECT: METRO ARKITEKTER LOCATION: HELSINGBORG, SWEDEN YEAR: 2010 With the extension of the platforms to the south end of the new increases in a unique location adjacent to City Park. Here we propose a new station building, designed as a sculptural and easy roof. The station's walls consist of reflection-free glass so that from all sides get visual contact with the park throughout the room and to the various funds. Easy-oriented and transparent. The design resembles stylized trees stretching out their foliage over the platforms. Unlike the hub today, where trains are living an inconspicuous life in an office complex, the station becomes a private individual like the old station which was at the same place. The new structure will thus be an identity and unifying node, not only for the station area, but also for Helsingborg.
1” = 250’-0”
1/16” = 40’-0”
1/8” = 40’-0”
CASE STUDIES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Malmo Central Station
ARCHITECT: METRO ARKITEKTER LOCATION: MALMO CENTRAL STATION, SWEDEN YEAR: 2011 The overall objective of the Malmö Central Station has been to integrate the new station with the existing, thereby creating an effective and clear overall, a new Central Station. The station has 150 years altered, changed and extended. One can see it as a series of well-defined growth rings. The Glass Hall, Central Hall and the Royal Langan added another annual ring to. Malmö Central Station is a protected heritage building. The original terminal is the oldest structure of its type in Sweden and it has been a major challenge not just to preserve the terminal’s original character but to enhance it. Jernhusen has worked closely with the Skåne County Administrative Board to achieve this, for instance by creating full visibility into the Train Shed for the first time through the adjacent Glass Hall. INTEGRATING THE CITY’S RICH HISTORY INTO ITS ARCHITECTURE THROUGH MATERIALITY.
1/16” = 40’-0”
1/8” = 40’-0” 1” = 250’-0”
CASE STUDIES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Delft City Hall Train Station
24h toegang kantoor
entree kantoor fietsers expeditie
11
mecanoo het nieuwe kantoor & ns station delft delft, nederland
ARCHITECT: MECANOO ARCHITECTEN LOCATION: DELFT, NETHERLANDS REALIZATION YEAR: 2015 AREA: 300,00 SF (OFFICES) 45,000 SF (STATION AMENITIES) In the city centre of Delft runs a railway viaduct that divides the city in two. The planned construction of a railway tunnel will remove this barrier. There will be an expansion of the inner city including a park and a promenade. The inner city of Delft reflects its past. The Delft University of Technology on the edge of the inner city holds the promise of future development. The starting point for Mecanoo’s design is an interweaving of this history and the future. The result is a building where each elevation is designed in relationship to its context. The building is compact and its design is contextually articulated on each of its facades. By fracturing the volume and lowering the gutter, the building exhibits its more urban front to Westvest and appears smaller in scale from Westerkwartier. WEAVE THE CITY’S PAST WITH ITS FUTURE IN THE EXPANDING URBAN ENVIRONMENT.
FIRST FLOOR CIRCULATION SCALE: 1/128” = 1’-0”
UITGANG3 UITGANG2
UITGANG1
UITGANG4 renvo oi bev eiliging zel fsl u i tendedeur
1 20 min . w bdbo
WB DB O 3 0 min.
d rog eb luslei ding
WB DB O 6 0 min.
b ran dsl ang haspel met i n b ouwkast
WB DB O 1 2 0 min. 3 0 min. wb dbo 6 0 min. wb dbo
re nv o o i materialen b eton
w aa ltjes (2 00 x5 x6 ,5 mm) i n vi sg r a atmotief
kal kzan dsteen
HWA
l ichte scheid in gswand
a lgemene opme rk ingen - a ls o nd er legg er voo r deze teken in g is S SD-DO- TE K- 1.1.51 -M T- 10 41 -B -d efin itief va n CC L gebruikt. - l icht g ri js g ea rceerd e delen do or d er den; zie d emar ca tie
a dv iseurs - con stru ctie:
A B T Delft
- i nsta ll aties:
Deern s ra ad gevend e in geni eu rs bv
noo rdpijl
schema
P . O. B o x 3 2 7 7 , 2 6 0 1 DG Delft, TheNetherlands Ou d e Del f t 2 0 3 , 2 6 1 1 H D D elft, TheNetherlands
P hon e+ 31 (0) 15- 279 810 0, Fax +3 1 ( 0)1 5-2798111 w ww .mecan oo.nl, sta dska ntoo r.delft@ meca noo.nl
o pd ra ch tg ever
Ontwikk elbe drijf Spoo rzone De lft bv
p ro jectnaam
H et N ie uwe Ka ntoo r & Station
teken in go nd er deel
plattegrond begane grond d atum
08-04-2011
teken i n g status
a utocad teken in gnaam
CON CEPT
A422_B_100
p ro jectfa se
sch aa l / fo rmaat
w er kn ummer
Bestek
1:100
w ijzi gi ngen
CASE STUDIES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
74
mecanoo het nieuwe kantoor & ns station delft delft, nederland
op 914x2200
A422
teken i n gnummer
A422_B_100
inductieunits te openen ramen tbv naturlijke ventilatie
+
daglicht toetreding
afzuiging via armaturen vermindert warmtelast
high performance glas
flexibel plattegrond lucht + frisse binnen de patio
energiebesparende computers
+ boven openbaar vervoer
+
PV-cellen
+
BASEMENT CIRCULATION SCALE: 1/128” = 1’-0” warmte van de ICT ruimte gaat naar de warmteopslag
warmtewisselaar
warmtepomp
warmte opslag
57 goederenlift
bron grondwater
koude opslag
mecanoo het nieuwe kantoor & ns station delft delft, nederland
goederenlift station
24uurs toegang
vluchtroute
canoo t nieuwe kantoor & ns station delft ft, nederland
63
37
mecanoo het nieuwe kantoor & ns station delft delft, nederland
mecanoo het nieuwe kantoor & ns station delft delft, nederland
CASE STUDIES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Columbia University In Growth Spurt, Columbia Is Buying Swath of Harlem By CHARLES V. BAGLI NEW YORK TIMES 7/30/2003
Columbia University, long starved for land at its campus in Morningside Heights, is buying up a 17-
acre swath in West Harlem for its first major expansion in 75 years. The university's long-range plan calls for removing the battered brick industrial buildings now in the area bounded roughly by Broadway, 125th Street, 12th Avenue and 133rd Street and replacing them with a new tree-lined campus of school buildings, performing arts centers, research labs, a jazz club and dormitories. The proposed multibillion-dollar project, about half the size of Columbia's 36-acre campus in Morningside Heights, would be built in the coming decades and could become what the university regards as a link to its health sciences complex in Washington Heights. Aside from acquiring the rest of the land, Columbia also needs zoning changes that would allow high-rise development of nonindustrial buildings. Columbia has crowded new buildings onto campus for years and erected towers on scattered sites in the surrounding area, but officials say it needs to expand if it is to continue to attract top professors, researchers and students. Columbia is hoping that its plans will fit well with efforts by the state, city and community groups to redevelop the Hudson River waterfront and West Harlem, which the university prefers to call by its historic name, Manhattanville. "This is an opportunity in Manhattanville to create something of immense vitality and beauty," said Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia's president. "This is not to just go in and throw up some buildings. These would be beautiful, magnificent buildings on the order of what we have in Morningside Heights. Maybe not in mass, but in quality." Columbia has more than 20,000 students and 9,000 employees, making it the 12th-largest employer in New York City and the largest recipient of research funds in the city. The university has hired the Renzo Piano Building Workshop and Skidmore Owings & Merrill to design the project. If it goes ahead, the first phase would include a 500,000-square-foot complex on 125th Street for the School of the Arts, research space, residence halls and retail space.
Columbia hopes to avoid the kind of community opposition and campus rebellions caused by its past attempts to expand, or its effort in 1968 to build a gymnasium in Morningside Park. To that end, the university is focusing on a run-down industrial area of warehouses, auto-repair shops and a meatpacking plant, avoiding a string of apartment buildings along Broadway between 133rd and 132nd Streets, but including an odd-shaped block to the east, bounded by Broadway and Old Broadway. The area is framed by an elevated subway line along Broadway and a highway viaduct along 12th Avenue; Manhattanville Houses are to the east and another housing complex is to the north. The university has been meeting quietly in the past two months with United States Representative Charles B. Rangel and state and city officials about plans to redevelop the area. It has also established a task force including representatives of the local community board and various neighborhood groups, a tactic that some residents have found encouraging and a break with what they said was Columbia's past
arrogance. "They're treading lightly," said Peggy Shepard, executive director of West Harlem Environmental Action, who has met with Columbia officials. "They put together a task force to show the community they want to do this in partnership. They have not really presented anything at this point. It's mostly them listening to us. As long as their needs are compatible with how the community sees the use of the manufacturing zone, it could be a good thing." Over the past 50 years, Columbia has spilled down Broadway from the gates of its main campus at 116th Street. Its attempts to erect new buildings or buy old ones and squeeze out residents have generated one neighborhood battle after another Columbia has owned property on the south side of 125th Street since the late 1960's, but few people have been aware of the extent to which the university has been buying or leasing property in West Harlem, particularly for the past year. It rents space, for instance, in the old Studebaker building on 131st Street and has an option to buy the six-story structure as well as the garage next door. The university owns a parking lot on 129th Street and, real estate executives said, is negotiating to buy the land occupied by a U-Haul franchise on Broadway, near 132nd Street. According to a Columbia document prepared for government officials, it owns or controls more than 40 percent of the 17 acres for the new campus and is in talks to buy 32 percent more. Next spring, the city and the state expect to begin a $12 million plan to rebuild the Harlem piers on the waterfront between St. Clair Place and 133rd Street for recreational use. The city is also working with the community board, Columbia and others on a plan to rezone the neighborhood and encourage economic development under Henry Hudson Parkway, just to the west of the new campus. The university's plans would amount to one of the largest development projects in the city and could fit in with those efforts, although there is clearly potential for friction. School buildings, laboratories and science labs would generate new jobs, university officials said, and there is the possibility that businesses could locate nearby as a result of research work. In addition, Columbia said it would provide space for retail shops and nonprofit organizations along Broadway and 12th Avenue and would develop partnerships between, say, the School of the Arts and local artists and community organizations. That approach contrasts sharply with what others have taken as Columbia's view of Harlem in the past. In the 1960's, the university built a tower for faculty apartments at the corner of 12th Avenue and St. Clair Place, it put the front door facing west, in effect turning its back on Harlem and 125th Street. Now the university's plans for high-rise buildings could also run afoul of efforts by community groups to preserve the low-scale character of Harlem. Housing is a pressing issue, and the university's project may require moving a major Metropolitan Transportation Authority bus garage now on 133rd Street. Finally, Columbia would almost certainly need state help to condemn property that it cannot buy. Jarvis Doctorow, for one, said he was having too much fun to sell. Mr. Doctorow, who is 79, owns the seven-story factory at 3280 Broadway that he converted to an office building, where Columbia is among the renters. "I cannot prevent people from knocking on my door," he said, "but the building is not for sale." Columbia has made no secret of what it says is its desperate need for land to expand. A 1998 survey by the office of the university provost found that it had less space per student than other major universities,
194 square feet; in contrast, the report said Princeton had 561 square feet, the University of Pennsylvania 440 and Harvard 368. Columbia is erecting a 16-story apartment building for law students at Amsterdam Avenue and 122nd Street and an adjacent $50 million academic center. It is finishing a building on 110th Street, starting work on another at 103rd and Broadway, and planning for perhaps two towers on the grounds of the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine. Mr. Bollinger said he saw the land in Manhattanville as an important opportunity. "Over the long term, upper Manhattan is our home," Mr. Bollinger said. "Columbia will never fully realize its own aspirations unless it accepts that. The question is, how do we weave together this tapestry? Any sense of a gated community or a town-gown line would be a mistake."
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Columbia's Expansion in West Manhattanville Columbia University sees a long-term need to expand in the West Manhattanville neighborhood north of 125th St. and
west of Broadway. This area is currently an industrial wasteland consisting of auto body shops, self-storage warehouses, meat-cutters, gas stations, fast-food outlets, social-service offices, a bus-maintenance garage, the Fairway ubersupermarket, and various odds and ends. Click here and here for pictures. Click here for a New York Times story on this whole situation. Click here for a map -- the area in question is at the upper right. Click here for a .pdf introduction to the redevelopment.
Thoughts: 1. It has been obvious for some time they were contemplating this. 2. Nice to see it out in the open; i.e. Columbia isn't keeping secrets or playing games with the community. 3. Columbia plans decades ahead; it may be 20 years before they actually build north of 125th St. 4. It's kind of a yucky area, although the part under the viaduct and along the river has a unique atmosphere and perhaps some potential. 5. The only reason Columbia is short of space is that they perversely refuse to follow the original 1897 plan for campus. This problem is analyzed here: http://www.morningside-heights.net/orplan.htm. 6. The idea of this area as "a link to the Health Sciences campus" in Washington Heights is ridiculous. The different pieces are not within walking distance. If Columbia plans to develop facilities from here to 168th St, it will end up with the worst of all possible worlds: Manhattan crowding plus suburban-like sprawl and inconvenience. 7. If Columbia builds in West Manhattanville, it sacrifices its physical compactness, which is one of the few assets it has that helps build community in a city where the excitements of the town tend to weaken people's attachment to the university itself. 8. Therefore, if I were Columbia, I would use this space as a target area to relocate nonessential facilities to from Morningside Heights, in order to free up space "on the hill." For example, they could rebuild St. Luke's Hospital on 125th St. and take over its existing buildings. St. Luke's gains nothing from being across the street from the Columbia science labs; new Columbia laboratories would gain a lot. Harlem would get a new hospital; everybody wins. 9. Architecturally, if Columbia wants to indulge avant-garde weirdness to prove how hip it is, let it do so in West Manhattanville, where (almost) nobody lives and there is (almost) no existing context worth preserving. That they have hired Renzo Piano suggests they want to do this; that they have hired Skidmore, Owings & Merrill suggests they want the discipline of a corporate architect to keep it efficient, just as they hired Gruzen Samton to hold Bernard Tschumi's leash on Lerner Hall. REFERENCES THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
10. If you look at the map of the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone here, http://www.umez.org/data_nycez.htm, you'll see that the zone was carefully gerrymandered to include this area. Public scrutiny of how this may be used to provide a public subsidy to Columbia is called for. Of course, if they create jobs et cetera, this may be justifiable.
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Why Columbia Should Fulfill Its Original Campus Plan The recent brouhaha about Columbia constructing buildings off-campus has raised the issue of whether
they should be building on-campus instead . There is nothing illegitimate about building off-campus when they have vacant space on campus, but they could definitely do less disruptive external building if only they would use their campus more fully. The key to this is to fulfill the original 1904 plan for their campus, which envisages a lot more buildings on it than they currently have. To see what this plan would look like, click here.
Many people fundamentally misunderstand what kind of a design the Columbia campus is supposed to be.
It is supposed to be in the style of the Italian Renaissance. It is currently trying to be an imitation of suburbia with that big ragged field south of College Walk. Why do people like this so much? Because it's what other universities look like. But Columbia's situation is unique and it should celebrate that uniqueness.
In retrospect, Charles McKim solved Columbia's problem brilliantly. He realized how tiny Columbia's
campus was relative the amount of space a major university would need. He realized that Manhattan land was expensive and would remain so. He therefore realized that the only viable solution was to devise the densest possible campus that would still be aesthetically attractive enough to serve as an elite cultural institution. His original plan, stripped of all the classical trimmings, basically packs in as much square footage as possible while doing two things: 1. It converts necessary "air-shaft" space into courtyards, such as the one behind Avery Hall. 2. It expends all its precious surplus space in one place, Low Plaza / South Field, in order to get the most impressive and most extensive open space possible. If this finite resource had been squandered in uncoordinated dribs and drabs around campus, it would have amounted to nothing.
Frankly, the biggest myth in Morningside Heights is that Columbia's campus in its present condition is
attractive. In fact, it has Low Plaza, a few nice buildings, and the rest is an incoherent and incomplete hodgepodge. Like many of New York's public spaces, it tries hard to "gel" as a public space but doesn't quite.
A double ring of buildings around the edge of campus would serve the crucial function of giving Columbia
a feeling of clear separation from the city that enables it to have a well-formed feeling of being a public space in its own right. Having a double ring of buildings will increase Columbia's sense of being a special, distinct physical environment, secluded from the rest of the city. This is essential in order to attain the cloistered feeling that has been considered appropriate from time immemorial for a university.
The biggest reason people oppose this is that they think this would result in the loss of South Field. But if
you stand on the steps of Low and visualize how things would come out, you will see that South Field stands to lose only its breadth, not its depth, which is what actually makes it attractive. And it would still be quite wide.
Another reason Columbia should build out its original plan is that this is the only way to keep all the
academic departments close together. Physical proximity is one of the few assets Columbia has that promotes a sense of community on campus. Columbia is not, truth be told, a strong community in the sense REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
that many universities are. The distractions of the city and the generally cynical and sardonic culture of its people tend to undermine this. It should take advantage of anything it can do to fight this. A university like Cornell or Stanford has its departments scattered over a square mile or more. Columbia doesn't have to be, but it is currently running the risk of the worst of both worlds: both crowded and scattered.
It goes without saying that given the historic nature of the campus, new buildings would have to be in a 100% classical style. So how much space are we talking about, quantitatively? Let's look at the various buildings Columbia could build on campus:
Columbia's planning framework reports that Pierce Hall, which would go opposite already-existing
Mathematics Hall, would contain 88,000 gross square feet, plus an additional 26,000 in two basement levels under the courtyard that connects to Math. This totals 114,000 square feet. But given that Pierce would also face onto the courtyard between Low and Uris, which is roughly twice as large as the other courtyard, one could on the same assumption of a two-story underground complex add an additional 52,000 square feet. Therefore the total space that could potentially be made available by building Pierce would be 166,000 square feet.
The buildings which can be referred to as twin-Lewisholn and twin-Philosophy Halls can be assumed, on
the basis of their similar size, to have similar above-ground square footage potential. Their underground potential is less because there are already underground complexes beneath the courtyards that they would share with their twins. In the case of Philosophy, this space is mainly the bursar's office; in the case of Lewisholn, this space is taken up by Miller Theatre. However, there does exist potential underground space between the two potential buildings and Low Library, running north parallel to the flanks of Low. Since this space is roughly the same size as the already-taken courtyards, we can again assume about 26,000 square feet in each case. So these two potential buildings would account for about 114,000 square feet apiece, for a total of 228,000 square feet.
Columbia's plan for the Van Am Quad site envisages a building five stories high. The original plan for this site calls for a building that is 10 stories high, including its attic. With the 5-story assumption, the planning framework estimates the building that could be built there would have 43,000 gross square feet, so the 10story building would be approximately double that: 86,000. The planning framework estimates 10,000 square feet for a one-story basement under the courtyard facing Wallach. Since the framework already admits the feasibility of two-story basements under courtyards elsewhere, it is reasonable to double this to 20,000 square feet. Therefore the total space that would be enabled by this building is 106,000 square feet.
Because of similar floor-plans, this 106,000 square feet would also be the correct figure to assume for buildings to be built twin-Furnald and twin-Hartley.
Once the issue of underground space is broached together with the concept of building twin-Furnald and
twin-Hartley, an interesting possibility comes into view: the vast potential space under South Field. Since this space extends, theoretically, to include the space under College Walk and Low Plaza, the potential is truly enormous. The I.M. Pei plan of 1970 shows that it is technically feasible to build under South Field. Yale has done a similar thing at Cross-Campus library, and the concourse at Rockefeller Center shows that underground space can be very attractive. South Field alone, based on its surface area, has the potential, if we assume a two-level basement, to provide 7 times the area that could be built under the Pierce-Math courtyard. This yields an astounding 182,000 square feet without even getting under College Walk or Low Plaza. If these areas were also included, the numbers get even larger.
Therefore, the amount of space that Columbia would gain by fulfilling the 1904 plan and going underground is:
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Pierce Hall: 88,000 West Underground: 26,000 East Underground: 52,000 Twin Lewisholn: 88,000 East Underground: 26,000 Twin Philosophy: 88,000 West Underground: 26,000 Twin Wallach: 86,000 East Underground: 20,000 Twin Furnald: 86,000 West Underground: 20,000 Under South Field: 182,000 TOTAL: 910,000
Of which Columbia currently plans (according to the official Framework for Planning) to construct: Pierce Hall: 88,000 West Underground: 26,000 Short Twin Hartley: 43,000 East Underground 1 story: 10,000 PLANNED TOTAL: 167,000 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CURRENT PLANS AND POTENTIAL: 743,000 square feet
Columbia's current campus is about 6,500,000 square feet, so that's over 11% of the entire existing
campus. It's also half the Empire State Building. Whatever Columbia may say about this proposal in the short run, in the long run they will follow it because they will eventually run out of space, period. Projects List | Next | Home
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
DESIGN GOALS TEAM
Planning and Design Great urban campuses weave the university into the fabric of city life. Planning principles for Columbia's new campus in Manhattanville were guided by this standard. Construction will occur in gradual phases, primarily on the four large blocks from 129th Street to 133rd Street between Broadway and 12th Avenue. Also included are properties on 125th Street and on the east side of Broadway between West 131st and 134th Streets.
An open and welcoming environment The 17-acre redevelopment will be a multiuse center for teaching, academic research and the arts and will include new retail, cultural and community facilities along Twelfth Avenue, Broadway and 125th Street. The plan will transform what is now a largely isolated, underutilized streetscape of garage openings, empty ground floors, roll-down metal gates and chain-link fences on the blocks from West 125th to 133rd Streets into a cohesive, reanimated center for educational, commercial, and community life.
12th Avenue and West 130th Street looking north prior to construction (left) and a proposed view after construction (right)
Revived street life and stores for local consumers and local business Stores, restaurants, and other community amenities will fill the ground floors of buildings along West 125th Street, Broadway, and Twelfth Avenue. In leasing these spaces, the University will maintain its long-standing policy of favoring local entrepreneurs serving local consumer needs.
Every street will remain public and open to pedestrian and vehicular traffic New buildings will be set back and sidewalks widened on cross streets opening onto Twelfth Avenue, improving access to the new Hudson River waterfront park. New trees, lighting, street furnishings, public art, and publicly accessible open space will invite people to the entire area.
131st Street and Broadway looking west prior to construction (left) and a proposed view after construction (right)
Human-scale urban design that honors the past New buildings will not only be open to the public but will also look and feel open because of transparent glass at the street level. They will be designed in consideration of the distinctive architectural features of the historic Riverside Drive and Broadway viaducts. The University will continue to promote responsible environmental stewardship in construction and energy efficiency in new and renovated buildings.
Š 2013 Columbia University
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
COMMUNITY SERVICES
CONTACT US
CREDIT
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
COMMUNITY OUTREACH HISTORY COMMUNITY SERVICES
Community Outreach Over the next three decades, Columbia's redevelopment of the old Manhattanville manufacturing area will transform underused blocks into a new center for academic and civic life. Although much about the redevelopment is still being discussed, key elements of the first phase of construction, which is projected to be completed by 2015, are coming into focus. One of those is construction of the Jerome L. Greene Science Center, a world center for neuroscience research that could yield new insights into brain functioning and potential cures for neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's. Columbia is also working in partnership with the New York City Department of Education to develop a University-assisted public math, science, and engineering secondary school that will serve high-performing local students. The project area would include a new site for the school, which opened for some grades in September 2007 serving 700 students in temporary space. Learners of all ages could participate in continuing education programs provided by the University, local schools, and community organizations. And local residents and other New Yorkers would work here, shop here, and travel across open, lively streets connecting Harlem to a revitalized Hudson River waterfront. In partnership with several community organizations, Columbia provides education services such as tutoring and mentoring throughout Upper Manhattan; learn more about these programs here. The University also holds information sessions sessions where minority-, women-, and locally owned (MWL) construction firms can learn about upcoming bid opportunities at the Manhattanville campus.
Did You Know?
Columbia meets regularly with the West Harlem Development Corporation and Community Board 9 to provide the community with information and updates. Columbia's Double Discovery Center serves more than 1,000 students each year through its two youth education programs, Talent Search and Upward Bound. Each summer, science teachers from local schools participate in Columbia's Summer Research Program for Science Teachers. Teachers completing the program return to their classrooms with a renewed sense of purpose and an increased A Columbia University student appreciation for the process of scientific discovery. volunteer tutors a local high school S-PREP, an educational and motivational program at Columbia student in preparation for the SAT. University Medical Center, provides an academically rigorous college-enrichment experience for minority and economically disadvantaged high-school students, grades 9 through 12, who are interested in science, medicine, or related health professions. Each summer, the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS) hosts approximately 40 high-school students from around the world, who work on service learning projects that benefit Upper Manhattan communities. Columbia Law School and Columbia Business School jointly sponsor Harlem Tutorial Program, a volunteer/mentoring program that works in partnership with the Life Sciences Secondary School in East Harlem to provide tutoring and serve as role models for high-school students.
Š 2013 Columbia University
COMMUNITY SERVICES
CONTACT US
CREDIT
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
COMMUNITY OUTREACH HISTORY COMMUNITY SERVICES
History At the western edge of what was then known as New Harlem, Manhattanville became incorporated as a village in 1806. The village soon boasted a commercial waterfront, stables, warehouses, icehouses, and factories. A rail station and ferry terminal in the 1800s, and then the IRT subway station in the early 1900s, helped spur industrial growth, and commerce and transportation converged in a thriving waterfront. Dairies and meatpacking industries, including Sheffield Farms (today's Prentis Hall) and the McDermott-Bunger Dairy, moved into the area. Automobile manufacturers established operations in Manhattanville in the 1920s, and the Studebaker and Warren Nash Service Center buildings still stand today. Columbia University began construction of its Morningside Heights campus, just to the south, in 1896, and, in the 1920s, established today's Medical Center, to the north, in Washington Heights. Other colleges and institutions also established themselves in the area, as the neighborhood's residential population grew. The stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression signaled the end of strong commercial growth in Manhattanville. Trucking replaced water and rail transportation, leaving Manhattanville's waterfront access no longer advantageous to manufacturers. As industries—and the jobs they created—left the area, Manhattanville lost its industrial base in the decades that followed. Heritage Harlem helped shape the course of artistic expression in the twentieth century and plays a vital role in the world of arts and culture today. From blues and jazz to poetry, literature, and the performing and visual arts, Harlem has been home to innovative thinking for many decades. Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Billie Holiday, Josephine Baker, and countless other musicians helped make history in Harlem. Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, Ralph Ellison, and James Baldwin are just some of the writers who have found inspiration here. Today, the arts community remains vibrant in Harlem. Traditional jazz and contemporary music are finding new audiences at historic jazz clubs. New gallery and studio spaces have taken root in West Harlem, and hundreds of local artists support each other through organizations such as the Harlem Arts Alliance. Stars are still being born and legends made at the Apollo Theater. These are just some examples of the creative community at work today in Harlem. Neighborhood residents come together in other ways, too. Civic engagement flourishes in West Harlem, from the community board and local schools, to religious, philanthropic, and other community-based organizations. Manhattanville Today Community leaders and residents are working together to continually improve the schools, parks, and local businesses that are at the heart of the neighborhoods of West Harlem. In addition, we all recognize the need for new jobs and business opportunities. Columbia's redevelopment plan, crafted with community and government leaders over almost five years, will make the former manufacturing area of West Harlem once again a source of jobs, innovation, and opportunity for the neighborhood and a vital contributor to the future of the city.
© 2013 Columbia University
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
COMMUNITY SERVICES
CONTACT US
CREDIT
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
WEST HARLEM
SUMMER 2002
Master Plan Toward a New Waterfront – 125th St. to 137th St., Broadway to the River In this fourth and final newsletter, we are pleased to summarize the recommendations of the Master Plan. A warm thanks to all who participated in developing the Master Plan, as your input strongly influenced the ultimate recommendations. This plan will serve as a guide in the efforts to redevelop the West Harlem neighborhood, and we look forward to your continued involvement.
Introduction
The narrow strip of waterfront property between St. Clair Place/125th Street and West 133rd Street used to be a center of commerce and recreation, resplendent with ferry service and maritime trade. Just inland of the waterfront, the Manhattanville neighborhood was a thriving manufacturing district, bustling with assorted industries, such as meat packers, doll manufacturing, and the nascent automobile industry. Today, this waterfront area is underutilized and marked by storage facilities, auto-repair, gas stations, and parking lots. The New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC), on behalf of the City of New York, developed a Master Plan setting forth recommendations for reactivation of the waterfront and for redevelopment of the inland district.
Background
Master Plan Study Area
Broadway
Riverside Drive
EDC Waterfront Site Henry Hudson Parkway Amtrak Viaduct
The Study Area is situated within the Manhattanville valley, a valley that was formed by a river that ran down 125th Street, and is 135th St. set against the northern border of Morningside Hudson Heights. The Study Area’s River topography is punctuated 133rd St. by the series of viaducts: the Henry Hudson Parkway, the Amtrak rail 131st St. tracks, Riverside Drive, and the elevated subway above Broadway. Each transverse further 125th Street separates the waterfront from the upland. The Study Area’s zoning – primarily for manufacturing uses – reinforces the area’s isolation by excluding the development of higher density and mixed uses. The Study Area’s physical isolation creates both an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity is to take advantage of the Study Area’s history and geography to create an enclave of redevelopment that is unique to the Manhattan landscape.
The challenge is to connect the Study Area to its surrounding environment, both physically and economically. The waterfront should be connected to the upland community and to the Manhattan Greenway. Equally important, the local residents, businesses, and institutional communities should have strong links to greater Harlem and Manhattan’s economy.
Existing conditions on 12th Avenue (left) and the waterfront (right).
Summary of Recommendations The Master Plan is comprised of three components, or stages, of redevelopment. They are: • Stage 1: Waterfront. A series of piers would bring visitors closer to the waterfront through a variety of activities, including fishing, excursion water tours, boating, and ecological exploration. New plantings and play areas would attract a visitor’s interest, as bikers and pedestrians make their way along the waterfront. A restaurant, visitors center, and/or small shops would help to create a destination at the water’s edge. • Stage 2: Transportation. Creation of a vibrant community requires improved roadways and public transportation. A potential MetroNorth stop at 125th St., improved bus service, and a ferry landing would create an intermodal center to support this need. Reconfiguration of the Henry Hudson Parkway ramps and partial closing of waterfront streets would improve the pedestrians’ experience. Streetscape improvements along 125th Street and 12th Avenue would demarcate the waterfront’s proximity and enhance street life. • Stage 3: Upland Development. Public improvements to the infrastructure – transportation and waterfront – would encourage infill development within the Study Area. Changes to the zoning would allow for uses that are currently restricted or not permitted, including park uses and street front retail. Partnerships with the area’s institutions and organizations would enhance the utilization of existing programs REFERENCES and engender new cultural and commercial THE NODE development. - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Stage 1 Waterfront EDC manages the narrow strip of land -- 80’ wide -- along the waterfront between St. Clair Place and West 133rd Street. The site is bounded by Marginal Way to the east and the Hudson River to the west. To create a successful waterfront destination, it is important to maximize this space. The conceptual design for the waterfront accomplishes this by expanding the useable space over the water. Three new piers – one larger one for excursion boats and potential ferry service and two smaller ones for small boats and ecological education – are proposed to line the water’s edge. In addition, a wharf along the northern slope brings visitors down to the water.
View looking south from the wharf. To separate active space from contemplative space, the waterfront is divided into two areas: the Slope and the Plaza. The Slope consists of a lawn, plantings, and seating area. It slants toward the water and is located at the northern end of the site. The Slope would be an ideal spot to sit and watch small boats make their way down the Hudson. The Plaza allows for active gathering space, and consists of open areas as well as the development of “urban streams.” The urban streams are linear planting areas with grasses, trees, and a naturalized drainage system. A bikeway continues from Riverside Park through the Plaza, weaving its way through the urban streams.
View looking north from the plaza.
The design for the waterfront has a series of linear elements. These elements connect the site to the north and south, and they parallel the linearity of the overhead viaducts. Further refinement of the waterfront design will take place during the next phase of design work.
The ultimate test of a project is its longevity. A priority for EDC is to establish a community amenity that serves as a focus of activity. To create this activity and to help generate income that could assist with maintenance costs, it is envisioned that a private developer or institution would create a 10,000 sq. ft. building at the north end of the site. Uses might include a restaurant, retail space, and a visitors or education center.
Stage 1: Next Steps 1.
Proceed with Final Design of the Waterfront in Coordination with the Community
2.
Secure Funds for Construction of Waterfront Improvements (~$16 million)
3. Construct Waterfront Improvements REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
A view of the excursion pier, looking north.
Stage 2 Transportation The second part of the plan recommends transportation improvements, including an intermodal hub consisting of new transit stops and potential ferry landing, streetscape improvements along 125th Street, and roadway redesign. Streetscape To connect the upland to the water, streetscape improvements will help guide visitors down 125th Street. The improved aesthetics of the streetscape would send a clear signal to local entrepreneurs that West Harlem is ripe for redevelopment. Additional improvements could be made to the 125th Street subway structure, creating a clear view corridor to the water, and along 12th Avenue to encourage street-front retail and marketplace activities. Widened sidewalks, new tree plantings, public streetart, and a possible bike lane will greatly enhance 125th Street.
Changes to the Henry Hudson exit and entrances would substantially improve traffic safety.
Intermodal Hub As the area continues to grow, there should be a longer-term goal of improving public transportation access. In this regard, a hub of intermodal activity (i.e. multiple transit uses) is proposed. Bus lines would extend to Twelfth Avenue, and a bus turnaround at 125th Street would be integrated with the proposed 125th Street Metro-North stop. In addition, EDC will continue to coordinate with the appropriate agencies to pursue the option of ferry service from the excursion boat pier.
Development of a potential MetroNorth stop at 125th Street would create a new core of pedestrian and commuter traffic. The MTA is currently investigating this option as part of the Penn Station Access Study.
Stage 2: Next Steps 1.
Coordinate with CDOT to Implement Short-Term Traffic Improvements
2.
Identify Funding ($7M) and Implement Streetscape Improvements on 125th St.
3.
Coordinate with SDOT to Implement H. H. Parkway Ramp Improvements (~$8M)
4.
Coordination with MTA for Intermodal (Rail and Bus) Improvements
5.
Coordination with CDOT and Port Authority for Potential Ferry Service
Roadway Redesign Traffic from the Henry Hudson Parkway comes sweeping down onto Marginal Street. The challenge was to develop a traffic plan that would improve both traffic flow and pedestrian safety. After extensive traffic surveying, the study engineers developed a plan that would help to change the character of Marginal Way to serve the local neighborhood. In the short term, the consultants recommend narrowing Marginal Way from four-lanes to two-lanes and using special paving to denote a local street. This short term action would narrow Marginal Street by 20,500 sq. ft., adding nearly a half-acre of area to the public waterfront. This area is shown in the diagram to the left. The area shown in red is the space that would be gained for public use by the short-term roadway improvements.
The long-term concept calls for the reconfiguration of the Henry Hudson Parkway on- and off-ramps (see above). This vision would enable the partial closure of Marginal Way. Without the ramp changes, closure of REFERENCES Marginal Way would compromise traffic flow in the area, adding to congestion and queuing. THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Stage 3: Next Steps
Stage 3
1.
Initiate rezoning to increase uses and density in coordination with DCP and the community
2.
Create partnerships with business organizations and local academic institutions for targeted marketing of the area
3.
Encourage developers, local entrepreneurs, and others to infill area, with an emphasis on strengthening the 12th Ave. and 125th St.
Upland Development
The third component of the Master Plan is for economic and institutional development, which calls for substantial private investment. With a new waterfront and the transportation improvements completed in Stages I and II, the Study Area is prepared to take advantage of: (1) institutional partner development with Columbia University and City College, (2) the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone benefits, and (3) the existing industrial building stock.
12th Ave.
Broadway
The objective is to create a vibrant, working neighborhood. To do so, it is recommended that: • A mix of research, commercial and institutional uses be created upland. • Development reflects the area’s topography (a valley) • Mid-rise infill development is encouraged near Broadway • 12th Avenue is activated for street-front retail
REGIONAL ATTRACTION Increased FAR to accommodate economic development
This diagram indicates that infill development should be below the dashed red line, complementing the Manhattanville valley’s topography.
The Study Area’s current zoning restricts the type of businesses that can be developed. For example, the building pictured to the right, the Alexander Doll Factory, could not be constructed today because of the Study Area’s strict density rules. With changes to the zoning, infill development that compliments the existing building stock would be permitted.
Government can help to assure that redevelopment occurs in a manner that complements the area’s history and is consistent with community development goals. Specific actions should be to: • Change the zoning to allow for a greater mix of uses within the West Harlem waterfront area. In addition, the density, or F.A.R., should be increased to allow for the development of contextual buildings that are similar in size to many of the area’s larger 5story industrial buildings. • Create partnerships with the the educational institutions, Empowerment Zone, HiWay125 (a technology zone), and the 125th Street BID to engender greater private investment upland. • Encourage private property owners to develop 12th Avenue as a retail corridor, with a focus on food and entertainment.
New York City Economic Development REFERENCES Corporation THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
W. Harlem Working Committee
As part of the Master Plan, EDC formed a task force, or Working Committee, to provide input. EDC would like to thank the following elected officials, government agencies, and organizations for their participation in the Working Committee: ¾ 144th Street Landmark Block Association ¾ City College: CUNY ¾ Columbia University ¾ Community Board 9, Chair ¾ Community Board 9, Chair, Harlem Piers Committee ¾ Congressman Charles B. Rangel ¾ Council Member Robert Jackson ¾ Council Member Stanley Michels ¾ Fairway Supermarket ¾ General Grant Resident Association ¾ Greater Harlem Chamber of Commerce ¾ Hamilton Heights West Harlem CPO ¾ Harlem Community Development Corporation ¾ Harlem Visitors and Convention Center ¾ Hamilton Heights HDFC Council ¾ Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields ¾ Manhattanville Resident Association ¾ Metropolitan Transportation Authority NYC Transit ¾ Morningside Heights Historic District Committee ¾ Morningside Heights/West Harlem Sanitation Coalition ¾ N Retail Store ¾ NYC Department of City Planning ¾ NYC Department of Parks and Recreation ¾ NYC Department of Transportation ¾ NYS Department of Environmental Conservation ¾ NYS Department of State ¾ NYS Department of Transportation ¾ NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation ¾ North River Community Environmental Review Board ¾ State Assembly Member Keith L. Wright ¾ State Assembly Member Herman D. Farrell Jr. ¾ State Senator David A. Paterson ¾ State Senator Eric T. Schneiderman ¾ Tiemann Place Volunteers ¾ Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone ¾ Urban Kayak ¾ West Harlem Coalition ¾ West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc. (WEACT)
In addition, EDC thanks Community Board 9, private citizens, and businesses who contributed their time and thought to the Master Plan. For further information, or for additional copies of the Master Plan summary report, please call EDC at (212) 619-5000.
The Harlem Piers Master Plan was funded by the New York City Industrial Development Agency, the Office of Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields, and former Council Member Stanley Michels
WEST HARLEM
W I N T E R 2 0 03
W
A T
E
R
F
R
O
N
T
:
S
T
.
C
L
A
I
R
P
L
A
C
E
T
O
1 3 5
T
H
S
T
.
Thank you for your continued interest in the development of the West Harlem waterfront! In October 2002, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) completed the West Harlem Master Plan, which called for a series of waterfront, transportation and economic development improvements. This newsletter is an update on the waterfront recommendations; the transportation and the economic recommendations, such as the zoning proposals, are proceeding on separate but parallel tracks. (To learn more about these initiatives, see below for contact information.) Concurrent with the City's release of the Master Plan, the State, the City and the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone committed funding for the waterfront improvements, an exciting milestone in realizing an accessible, attractive, and dynamic waterfront. Our next step has been to continue the design in coordination with the community. EDC has been regularly attending the Community Board 9's Harlem Piers Committee to further refine the waterfront concept plan. We have also been meeting with the regulatory agencies that have an important role in permitting the waterfront development. The Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York City Department of Transportation will help determine the final configuration and size of the piers as well as the width and character of Marginal Street. In addition, EDC is coordinating with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation on the extension of the Manhattan Greenway north, connecting the "hiker/biker trail" to the rest of Manhattan's waterfront. In response to feedback EDC has received from the community, elected officials and government agencies, the design for the waterfront has evolved into the plan you see below. Beginning in March, EDC will further develop the specific design elements in conjunction with the project stakeholders. We are keeping an aggressive timeframe for implementation of the waterfront improvements; we expect construction bidding to occur in early 2004 and anticipate that construction will be completed in the Summer of 2005.
W E S T H A R L E M W AT E R F R O N T S C H E M AT I C D E S I G N
EARLY DESIGN MODEL
PERCENT FOR ART We are pleased to announce that EDC will be participating in the Percent for Art Program run by the Department of Cultural Affairs.
As part of this pro-
gram, 1% of the project cost will be dedicated to public art on the site. Over the upcoming months, the design team, DCA and interested members of the public will help in the selection of the artists and determining how their work will be incorporated into the overall project. We look forward to engaging in this creative collaboration.
The concept plan builds on the Master Plan's call for the creation of a recreational destination and open space improvements at the foot of West 125th Street and the Hudson River. The waterfront improvements will transform a city-owned parking lot at the edge of the Hudson River into a lovely and accessible amenity. At the base of 125th Street, visitors will enter the gateway plaza. This space will allow for a range of activities: from informal seating to look out over the Hudson to a space for gatherings for small summer concerts or performances. Over the water are two new piers; one will serve as a recreational/fishing pier and the other for docking ferry and excursion boats. Upland and to the north, a forested area will create a significant new green space for recreation. At the southern end of the gateway, a building is planned for ticketing to the ferry/excursion pier, park maintenance, a cafĂŠ and possible space for community activities. In addition, a bike path runs through the site, connecting it to the greenway around Manhattan. 'See you at the piers!' Funding for this project is provided by the New York State Department of State under Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund, the City of New York, the Manhattan Borough President, the City Council, Governor Pataki, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone. EDC welcomes your participation. Please contact the Community Board - (212) 864-6200, or visit our website, www.newyorkbiz/westharlem, for ongoing project updates or call (212) 619-5000.
New York City Economic Development Corporation JOHN S. CHALSTY, Chairman ANDREW M. ALPER, President
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
1867 REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
1897
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
1912 REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
1916
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Inspiration Somerset House
London Salvation Army
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Kings Cross Station London
Washington Union Station - HOK Amtrak
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Los Angeles Union Station - HOK Amtrak
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Light Rail Station in Heilbronn
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Systems Zaha Hadid Cultural Center Spaceframe
Student Nelli Maier “Connecting Link”
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Pre-engineered buildings - Space frames
Materials
Steel
Stone
Concrete
Glass
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Routes
Amtrak
Northeast Train Routes Roam about some of the most culturally vibrant cities in the Northeast Corridor - Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York City and Boston, to name a few. Experience the fast and convenient Amtrak services for both business and leisure travels in the "BosWash Megalopolis." View more details in each route below to learn why it's the preferred transportation in the northeast region.
Wi-Fi速 Available
Acela Express
Boston - New Haven - New York - Philadelphia - Baltimore Washington, DC
Northeast
Adirondack
Montreal - Albany - New York
Northeast
Auto Train
Lorton, VA (Washington, DC) Sanford, FL (Orlando)
Northeast South
Capitol Limited
Washington, DC - Pittsburgh Cleveland - Chicago
Midwest Northeast
Cardinal / Hoosier State
New York - Washington, DC Cincinnati - Indianapolis Chicago
Midwest Northeast
Carolinian / Piedmont
New York - Raleigh - Charlotte
Northeast South
Crescent
New York - Atlanta - New Orleans
Northeast South
Downeaster
Brunswick - Portland - Boston
Northeast
Empire Service
New York - Albany - Syracuse Rochester - Buffalo - Niagara Falls
Northeast
Ethan Allen Express
Rutland - Albany - New York
Northeast
Keystone
New York - Philadelphia Harrisburg
Northeast
Lake Shore Limited
New York/Boston - Albany Chicago
Midwest Northeast
Maple Leaf
Toronto - Niagara Falls - New York
Northeast
Northeast Regional
Boston - Providence / Springfield Northeast - Hartford - New York South Washington, DC - Lynchburg / Richmond - Petersburg - Norfolk / Newport News - Virginia Beach
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
3. Amtrak System
Long Distance Service Auto Train
Long Distance Service Amtrak currently operates 15 long distance trains, covering 18,500 route miles and serving 41 states, providing an important transportation link for many rural communities across the country. Long Distance Service is defined as a route greater than 750 miles, and generally consists of one train per day in each direction. These routes each pass through anywhere from 3 to 12 states, and use freight railroad track for 95 percent of their route mileage. Sleeper service is provided, as well as checked baggage (at select stations). Amtrak Long Distance Services use Superliner or Viewliner equipment. The east coast long-distance services (Lake Shore Limited®, Cardinal®, Crescent®, Palmetto®, Silver Meteor®, and the Silver Star®), utilize Viewliner and Amfleet single-level equipment. All other Long-Distance trains use Superliner bi-level equipment. Long Distance train consists are Amtrak’s longest, with anywhere from 7 to 14 cars comprising trains up to 1,200 feet long. Auto Train® The Auto Train is a unique service that allows travelers to take their personal vehicles with them. The train utilizes Superliner equipment and travels non-stop between Northern Virginia and Central Florida daily.
Long Distance Routes
22
Copyright ©2013
Route Name
Endpoints
Auto Train® California Zephyr® Capitol LimitedSM
Sanford FL Chicago IL Washington DC
Lorton VA Emeryville CA Chicago IL
Cardinal® City of New Orleans®
New York NY New Orleans LA
Chicago IL Chicago IL
Coast Starlight® Crescent® Empire Builder®
Los Angeles CA New York NY Chicago IL
Seattle WA New Orleans LA Portland OR/Seattle WA
Lake Shore Limited® Palmetto® Silver Star® Silver Meteor® Southwest Chief®
New York NY/Boston MA Savannah GA Miami FL (via Tampa FL) Miami FL Chicago IL
Chicago IL New York NY New York NY New York NY Los Angeles CA
Sunset Limited® Texas Eagle®
New Orleans LA Chicago IL
Los Angeles CA San Antonio TX/Los Angeles CA
Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guide
REFERENCES
5/1/2013
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Materials
3. Amtrak System
3.3 Equipment
Equipment
Passenger Car Types The Amtrak system currently operates with equipment types that are a result of the different types of rights-of-way (ROW) that Amtrak shares with other railroads across the country and a legacy of equipment used at Amtrak’s inception over 40 years ago. Amtrak passenger cars consist of either a bi-level design, with a low-level entry floor height, or a single-level design, with a high-level entry floor height. Both single level and bi-level equipment will continue to be used into the future.
Passenger Car Types Talgo equipment used in the Amtrak Cascades service is unique among Amtrak rolling stock and serves only the Amtrak Cascades Service
Passenger Cars Name
Deck Height
Dimensions
Occupancy Location Used Per Car
Other
Superliner
18” ATR
85’ L, 16’ H, 10’ W
74 coach/ 40 sleeper
Long Distance Routes not out of New York or Boston
Variations include sleeper, diner, lounge, baggage, coach, arcade
California Car/Surfliner
18” ATR
85’ L, 16’ H, 10’ W
70 – 90
California
Provides extendable wheelchair lift. Two sets of automatic doors speed passenger boarding. Owned by the state of California.
Bi-Level Passenger Cars
Single-Level Passenger Cars Amfleet
51” ATR
85’ L, 13’ H, 10’ W
60–70
East Coast
Traps in vestibule enables car to serve low level platforms
Horizon
51” ATR
85’ L, 13’ H, 10’ W
60–70
Michigan, Missouri Wisconsin, Illinois
Traps in vestibule enables car to serve low level platforms
North Carolina Coach
51” ATR
85’ L, 13’ H, 10’ W
55–65
North Carolina
Traps in vestibule enables car to serve low level platforms, owned by NCDOT Rail Division
Viewliner Sleeper
51” ATR
85’ L, 14’ H, 10’ W
30
East Coast
Traps in vestibule enables car to serve low level platforms, extra windows for person in top bunk
Acela
51” ATR
85’ L, 14’ H, 10’ W
299 (Per Trainset)
Northeast Corridor
Only service with first class seating Tilts to go around curves faster
Talgo
24” ATR
43’ L, 11’ H, 10’ W
269 (Per Trainset)
Pacific Northwest
Tilts to go around curves faster. Provides extendable wheelchair lift and extendable step. Owned by the State of Washington.
Important characteristics include: • Bi-level equipment has a nominal floor height of 18 inches above top of rail (ATR) that works well on shared passenger/ freight routes where the freights have clearance requirements limiting platform heights to 8 inches ATR; • Because low level equipment is bi-level, it has approximately 30% more capacity for the same train length than high floor equipment, but presents ADA access challenges; • Bi-level equipment has one or two sets of doors per side on the lower level of each car; • Single level high floor equipment has a nominal floor height of 51 inches ATR and is primarily used on the east coast where tunnels limit vehicle heights; • Single level equipment allows more efficient movement between cars and boarding/ deboarding at 48 inch platforms; and • Single level equipment have steps at each exit door that may be used to serve low level platforms. The equipment variations can be important factors for platform design and planning. For instance, stations which serve both Superliner and Acela or Amfleet equipment, which require different platform heights, should ideally be constructed with separate platforms, or if necessary, with two platform sections of different heights, to achieve level boarding for each equipment type.
5/1/2013
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guide
Copyright ©2013
23
3. Amtrak System
Train Consists The arrangement of passenger coaches, sleepers, dining and lounge cars, baggage cars, and locomotives that make up a train is defined as the “consist”. Special trains, like the Acela Express and the Amtrak Cascades, are made up of semi-permanently attached cars, called a “trainset”. Understanding Amtrak’s equipment and consists is important in developing a station’s site and platform design. Specific service types, equipment types, and consists should be determined for each station project, and it should be understood that train consists can change over time to accommodate changes in service types and demand.
Equipment Train Consists
Sample Long Distance Train Consists Long Distance Routes
Locomotives
Baggage Diner Lounge
Coaches/ Sleepers
Length (ft.)
Auto Train
2 Diesels
0
3
2
12 Superliner 34 Autocarrier
4303
California Zephyr
2 Diesels
1
1
1
5 Superliner
818
Capitol Limited
2 Diesels
1
1
1
6 Superliner
903
Cardinal
1 Electric/ 1 Diesel
1
1
0
3 Amfleet 1 Viewliner
575/579
City of New Orleans
1 Diesel
0
1
1
5 Superliner
664
Coast Starlight
2 Diesels
1
1
2
8 Superliner
1158
Crescent
1 Electric/ 2 Diesels
1
1
1
4 Amfleet 2 Viewliner
830/903
Empire Builder
2 Diesels
1
1
1
9 Superliner
1158
Lake Shore Limited
2 Diesels
2
1
1
6 Amfleet 3 Viewliner
1243
Palmetto
1 Electric/ 1 Diesel
1
1
0
4 Amfleet
575/579
Silver Meteor
1 Electric/ 2 Diesel
1
1
1
4 Amfleet 3 Viewliner
915/988
Silver Star
1 Electric/ 2 Diesel
1
1
1
4 Amfleet 2 Viewliner
830/905
Southwest Chief
2 Diesels
1
1
1
6 Superliner
903
Sunset Limited
2 Diesel
1
1
1
6 Superliner
903
Texas Eagle
1 Diesel
0
1
1
8 Superliner
919
NOTE: When both electric and diesel equipment is indicated, locomotives are switched at the end terminal of electrified service.
5/1/2013
Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guide
REFERENCES Copyright ©2013
25
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
4. Station Categories
Summary of Characteristics Rail Station Matrix
4.2 Summary of Characteristics Rail Station Matrix Large
Medium
Projected Greater than 100,000 to Annual Ridership 400,000 400,000 Thresholds
Caretaker
Shelter
20,000 to 100,000
Less than 20,000
Route Service Type High Speed Rail Corridor Service Long Distance Service
Station Location Environment High Density (Urban) Medium Density (Town/Suburban) Low Density (Suburban/Rural)
Multi-Modal Services Full Range (Metro/Light Rail) Basic (Bus) Minimal (Auto/Taxi)
Customer Service Staffing Level Fully Staffed, Management Present Basic Staff for Ticketing Baggage, Train Operations Caretaker, No Passenger Assistance Unstaffed
Baggage Services Checked Baggage/Red Cap/Package Express Checked Baggage/Agent Assistance None
Station Configuration Side Platforms Vertical Circulation to Platforms Terminal Services KEY:
Typical Characteristics Service based on route type, ridership, train frequency and other considerations
28
REFERENCES Copyright Š2012
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guide
5/1/2012
5. Program
Introduction
5.1 Introduction This chapter provides a guideline to understanding the station program. Developing accurate requirements for station spaces is one of first steps in designing the station. More detailed space requirements are provided in Appendix K. Amtrak organizes the architectural program into seven categories as follows: 1. Entrance and Circulation: integrating the station into public space and the public way; 2. Waiting and Boarding: seating and other amenities for Amtrak passengers awaiting their departure. Dedicated waiting areas can be physically separated from other areas of the station and have dedicated restrooms and other amenities; 3. Customer Service: the public face of Amtrak where passengers obtain train information, purchase tickets, and check baggage; 4. Amtrak Support Spaces: back-of-house spaces that support Amtrak station functions, including staff offices and support spaces; police and security offices and holding area; baggage handling spaces; and information technology equipment; 5. Intermodal Transit Services: related transportation uses including subway, street car, city bus systems, and commuter rail; 6. Amenities: restrooms, retail, vending, restaurants, and/or other amenities; and 7. Building Support Spaces: mechanical, electrical, storage and other support spaces. The core functionality of every station from Category 1 to Category 4 includes, the entry/circulation/ ticketing/waiting/boarding sequence. The differences among station sizes relate primarily to scale, with small stations having minimal customer service, Amtrak support spaces or amenities while Category 1 large stations have a full range of these components. Ticket Office, Customer Service Office, Baggage Check/Claim, PIDS
7 Building Support
Commuter Rail, Subway, Street Car, Bus
5 Transit Services
Public Thoroughfare and Parking
3 Customer Service
1 Entrance and Circulation
2 Waiting and Boarding
6 Amenities
5/1/2013
4 Amtrak Support Spaces
Staff Office and break room, Baggage Handling, Telecommunications, police and security
Open or Secure Waiting, First Class Lounge, Boarding
Tracks and Platforms
Restrooms, Retail, Food, Service, Info Desk, Vending
Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guide
Copyright Š2013 REFERENCES
35
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
5. Program
5.3 Station Classification and Features Matrix Medium
Large
Facility Structure Elements
Projected Annual Ridership Thresholds Platform Platform Canopy
Greater than 100,00 to 400,000 400,000
Station Classification and Features Matrix Caretaker 20,000 to 100,000
Shelter Less than 20,000
Thruway Bus (Unstaffed)
Additional program components that are not defined in the Station Classification and Features Matrix, can be required at a station depending on the type of service offered and the operational needs. These can include space for Amtrak crew base, right-of-way and mechanical maintenance staff, nonAmtrak occupancies such as retail and office components, and program space for other transit functions.
Sheltered Waiting Area Station Building Auto/Taxi Pick-Up/Drop-Off Lanes
Access & Wayfinding
Parking Rental Cars on Call Rental Cars on Property Transit and Bus Access Taxi Access Staff Parking
1
Station categories are primarily determined by their passenger ridership volume, service type, and by the stationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position in the local or regional transportation infrastructure.
Bicycle Racks Station Signage (Amtrak Standards) Regulatory Signage (MUTCD) Restrooms
Station Features & Functions
Drinking Fountains
Passenger Ticketing & Information Baggage
Site Lighting Trash Receptacles Trash Pick-Up/Snow Removal Quik-Trak/e-Ticketing
Staff & Support Functions
2
2
2
2
Ticket Office Passenger Boarding Assistance Checked Baggage Handling Passenger Information Display System Pay Telephones Information Counter Customer Service Office 2
Emergency Platform Call Box
Security
Customer Service
1
Security Facilities on Site Security on Call/Systems Local Police Surveillance/Call Box CCTV/Video Survelliance Access Control/Card Readers Station Management Services Passenger Baggage Assistance (Red Cap) Ticket Agents Package Express Handling Staffed Information Counter and Ushers Host/Greeter Staff
Amenities
Janitorial Service/Dedicated Cleaning Staff Restaraunt/Food Service Vending Machines Shops (News, Books, etc.) ClubAcela or Metropolitan Lounge Feature included for given station category Evaluate based on site conditions
5/1/2013
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
1 Evaluate based on site conditions and transit access 2 Include at discretion of state-sponsored agency on corridor routes or funding agency on other routes
Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guide
Copyright Š2013
37
8. Platform
8.5 Platform Length
Platform Length
Platform length, width, and height are critical planning dimensions that are derived from the service types and equipment that serve the station. It is important to think of platform design and planning systematically. For example, a station platform that serves HSR should be consistent with platforms at other stations that serve the same train, as the equipment and consist will remain constant from station to station.
Where there are multiple platforms provide flexibility to accommodate different services
All platforms should accommodate the full length of a typical train consist and allow for maximum flexibility. While the minimum required platform length will vary depending on the type of rail service provided, platform lengths should be as standardized as possible, both within the individual station, and across multiple stations serving a corridor.
Level boarding requires straight (tangent) platforms to achieve the minimum gap between platform edge and the car deck—so the platform lengths specified here assume absolute straight alignment
Platform lengths on the Northeast Corridor are driven by the frequency of service and service types provided by both Amtrak and commuter services. Amtrak has identified preferred and minimum platform lengths, as identified in the following table:
Length and height are related to equipment, while width is typically related to capacity or passenger volume
Service Type
Preferred Minimum All Locations Off NEC
Minimum NEC
Acela Express 1
700’
N/A
550’
Northeast Regional
1000’
425’
850’
State Corridor
700’
300’
700’
Long Distance
1200’
550’
850’
If the preferred platform length is not initially accommodated or built, plan the station location and track layout to allow for future extension of the platform to a greater length without requiring reconfiguration of the building or platform
1 Platform lengths for High Speed Rail services will be modified to accomodate full length level boarding for lengthened Acela Expess and new HSR fleets.
The minimum platform length of 300 feet should only be utilized at stations with low ridership and short trains of four or fewer passenger coaches. Amtrak may consider less than full length boarding platforms based on individual conditions, and will make a determination on platform length after consultation with stakeholders. The required platform length for Long Distance trains is derived from a need to eliminate doublestopping, providing access to and from all car types in the train consist. Platform lengths for Long Distance service should not be minimized, unless specific site constraints prohibit length or the combination of on-board and station staffing preclude safe boardings and alightings at all train consist doors. New and modified platforms that do not provide full-length level boarding from all cars must have FRA or FTA approval of how performance standards will be met.
5/1/2013
Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guide
Copyright ©2013 REFERENCES
87
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
8. Platform
8.7 Platform Height
Platform Height
To the greatest extent possible, platform heights should provide level boarding, which not only supports compliance with accessibility requirements, but is also safer, more convenient, and moves passengers on and off trains more quickly, an important factor in reducing dwell times and speeding service. Level boarding platforms tend to reduce injuries due to the elimination of the steps that are required for boarding at low-level platforms. Level boarding platforms are considered essential for HSR stations for efficient performance.
Standard platform heights include 8, 15 and 48 inches above the top of rail (ATR). Passenger car type, freight train operations, and federal accessibility regulations largely determine which height is applicable to a particular station.
Amtrak operates equipment with three different floor heights, as illustrated below. East coast services are based on high floor equipment, while the rest of the country is planned for low floor equipment, due to existing routes and equipment types, or the use of freight rights of way. Over time, it is likely that level boarding standards will be significantly enhanced through improvements to the fleet, with ramps, lifts, or extensions operating from the rail car, rather than manual lift equipment being provided at the platform.
8” Platform
15” Platform
48” Platform
Category 1 and 2 stations can serve multiple equipment types, and can often require separate platforms of 15 inch and 48 inch ATR to serve the different floor heights of different equipment
Bi-level Equipment
18” nom. floor
24” nom.. floor
Single-level Equipment
48” nom. floor
Single-level Equipment
When determining the platform height during design, there are three primary considerations: the floor height of the passenger trains that use or will use the station; whether or not freight trains operate or will operate on the track adjacent to the platform; and, federal accessibility regulations. Passenger Train Floor Height Depending on which type of Amtrak equipment is used, or will be used, at a station, platform height is preferred to be either 48 inches or 15 inches above the top of rail (ATR) to be consistent with the floor height within the train. Talgo equipment, as presently used on the Cascades service, has a 24 inch floor height, but are equipped with a carborne wheelchair lift, permitting use of a 15 inch ATR platform to effectively achieve level boarding. In some instances, passenger trains with different floor heights may use a station; in these cases, the platform design may combine two segments of different heights. Freight Train Clearances If freight trains use the track adjacent to the platform, level boarding is only feasible if excessive dimension freight cars (i.e., “high and wide”) are prohibited. If such cars are permitted, the platform would interfere with clearances required for safe passage of these reight cars. In these cases, a maximum platform height of 8 inches ATR is typically used, with portable wheelchair lifts, setback (mini-high) platforms and other means permitted to be employed in lieu of level boarding for accessibility purposes.
5/1/2013
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guide
Copyright ©2013
89
Room CFM
Volume
CFM
Air change rate per hour can be expressed as; ACR = 60 x CFM / V
(1)
Where; ACR = air change rate per hour CFM = air flow through the room (Cubic Feet per Minute) V = volume of the room (Cubic Feet) For example; Room = 10 x10 x 8 = 800 cubic feet Supply Grille = 10 x 8 x 6 with 6 inch flex duct attached delivering 80 cfm @ 0.1in. static pressure ACR = 60 x 80 / 800 ACR = 4800 CFH (Cubic Feet per Hour) / 800 ACR = 6.0 Conclusion: The complete volume of air filling this room is completely changed 6 times in one hour when the ventilation equipment is delivering its air to the room for that length of time. However, to be also considered is that the comfort system delivering the air does not always run for the whole hour straight. So to factor in the change rate, one must consider the demand for ventilation requirements based on building construction, heat load requirements, and buildings environmental characteristics. Such as shade, direction of exposure, glass, radiant, convection, and conduction heat loads. The more efficient the building construction, the lower the demand to heat or cool, thus reducing the air changes per hour unless the blower is set to run all the time in the “on” position as is normal in commercial settings.
The tables on the following pages show common Air Change Rates for buildings / rooms;
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Resources, Tools and Basic Information for Engineering and Design of Technical Applications! - adapts seamlessly to phones, pads and desktops!
Search
- "Search is the most efficient way to navigate the Engineering ToolBox!"
Rectangular and Circular HVAC Ducts - Equivalent Diameter Equivalent diameters for rectangular and circular ducts - air flows between 100 - 50,000 cfm Sponsored Links
The table below can be used to compare equivalent diameters for rectangular and round circular ducts. The table is based on the ducts friction loss formula.
The rectangular dimensions and the air flow volume are adapted to the equal friction loss method of sizing ventilation duct systems. An approximate friction loss of 0.08 inches water gauge per 100 ft duct (6.6 Pa/m) is used. Air flow -q(Cubic Feet per Minute, cfm) (m3/s)
Rectangular Duct Sizes (Inches)
Equivalent Diameter Round Duct Sizes - de (Inches)
Velocity in equivalent round Duct -v(ft/min) (m/s)
Friction Loss (Inches water gauge per 100 ft duct)
200 (0.09)
3x7 4x5
4.9 4.9
1527 (7.8)
0.88
300 (0.14)
4x7 5x6
5.7 6.0
1635 (8.3)
0.82
400 (0.19)
4x9 5x7 6x6
6.4 6.4 6.6
1736 (8.8)
0.80
500 (0.24)
6x7
7.1
1819 (9.2)
0.78
750 (0.35)
5 x 12 6 x 10 7x8
8.3 8.4 8.2
1996 (10.1)
0.77
1000 (0.47)
7 x 10 8x9
9.1 9.3
2166 (11)
0.79
1250 (0.59)
8 x 10 9x9
9.8 9.8
2386 (12.1)
0.88
1500 (0.71)
8 x 12 10 x 10
10.7 10.9
2358 (11.9)
0.77
1750 (0.83)
8 x 14 9 x 12 10 x 11
11.5 11.3 11.5
2469 (12.5)
0.78
2000 (0.94)
8 x 15 10 x 12
11.8 12.0
2589 (13.2)
0.81
2500 (1.2)
10 x 14 12 x 12
12.9 13.1
2712 (13.8)
0.8
3000 (1.4)
12 x 14
14.1
2767 (14.1)
0.75
3500 (1.7)
12 x 15
14.6
3010 (15.3)
0.84
4000 (1.9)
10 x 22 14 x 15
15.9 15.8
2938 (14.9)
0.73
4500 (2.1)
12 x 19 14 x 16
16.4 16.4
3068 (15.6)
0.76
5000 (2.4)
10 x 25 12 x 20 15 x 16
16.9 16.8 16.9
3248 (16.5)
0.82
6000 (2.8)
14 x 20 15 x 18
18.2 17.9
3358 (17.1)
0.8
7000
12 x 26
19.0
3482
0.8
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
Issues & Policies Photovoltaic (Solar Electric) Photovoltaic (PV) devices generate electricity directly from sunlight via an electronic process that occurs naturally in certain types of material, called semiconductors. Electrons in these materials are freed by solar energy and can be induced to travel through an electrical circuit, powering electrical devices or sending electricity to the grid. PV devices can be used to power anything from small electronics such as calculators and road signs up to homes and large commercial businesses.
Related Resources PRESENTATION
Solar Photovoltaic Technology (http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-photovoltaic-technology)
REPORT
Residential Photovoltaic Installations Increase Home Value in California
(http://www.seia.org/research-resources/residential-photovoltaic-installations-increase-home-valuecalifornia)
How does PV technology work? Photons strike and ionize semiconductor material on the solar panel, causing outer electrons to break free of their atomic bonds. Due to the semiconductor structure, the electrons are forced in one direction creating a flow of electrical current. â&#x20AC;˘Solar cells are not 100% efficient in Diagram of a typical crystalline silicon solar cell. Solar cells are not 100% efficient in part because some of the light spectrum is reflected, some is too weak to create electricity (infrared) and some (ultraviolet) creates heat energy instead of electricity.
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
(http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/pv-cell.jpg) Diagram of a typical crystalline silicon solar cell. To make this type of cell, wafers of high-purity silicon are “doped” with various impurities and fused together. The resulting structure creates a pathway for electrical current within and between the solar cells.
Other Types of Photovoltaic Technology In addition to crystalline silicon (c-Si), there are two other main types of PV technology: Thin-film PV is a fast-growing but small part of the commercial solar market. Many thin-film firms are start-ups developing experimental technologies. They are generally less efficient – but often cheaper – than c-Si modules. In the United States, concentrating PV arrays are found primarily in the desert Southwest. They use lenses and mirrors to reflect concentrated solar energy onto high-efficiency cells. They require direct sunlight and tracking systems to be most effective.
History of Photovoltaic Technology The PV effect was observed as early as 1839 by Alexandre Edmund Becquerel, and was the subject of scientific inquiry through the early twentieth century. In 1954, Bell Labs in the U.S. introduced the first solar PV device that produced a useable amount of electricity, and by 1958, solar cells were being used in a variety of small-scale scientific and commercial applications.
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
PV panels installed on a private home in Brooklyn Heights, New York (Photo courtesy of Alan Blake)
The energy crisis of the 1970s saw the beginning of major interest in using solar cells to produce electricity in homes and businesses, but prohibitive prices (nearly 30 times higher than the current price) made large-scale applications impractical. Industry developments and research in the following years made PV devices more feasible and a cycle of increasing production and decreasing costs began which continues even today.
Costs of Solar Photovoltaics Rapidly falling prices have made solar more affordable than ever. The average price of a completed PV system has dropped by 33 percent since the beginning of 2011.
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
(http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/smi-2-1.jpg) For more information on the state of the solar PV market in the US, visit our solar industry data page (http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data) .
Modern Photovoltaics The cost of PV has dropped dramatically as the industry has scaled up manufacturing and incrementally improved the technology with new materials. Installation costs have come down too with more expereinced and trained installers. However, the U.S. still remains behind other nations that have stronger national policies to shift energy use from fossil fuels to solar. Globally, the U.S. is the fourth largest market for PV installations behind world leaders Germany, Japan and Spain. Most modern solar cells are made from either crystalline silicon or thin-film semiconductor material. Silicon cells are more efficient at converting sunlight to electricity, but generally have higher manufacturing costs. Thin-film materials typically have lower efficiencies, but can be simpler and less costly to manufacture. A specialized category of solar cells - called multi-junction or tandem cells - are used in applications requiring very low weight and very high efficiencies, such as satellites and military applications. All types of PV systems are widely used today in a variety of applications. Topics Tags REFERENCES Solar Energy Industries Association 202-682-0556 | 505 9th Street, N.W., Suite 800,
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION
REFERENCES
THE NODE - 125TH AMTRAK STATION