case study highline

3,067 views

Published on

Published in: Design
0 Comments
10 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,067
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
10
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

case study highline

  1. 1. 03 URBAN RENEWAL CASE STUDIES URBAN RENEWAL OF RAIL YARDS A case study of High Line, New York CONTEXT The highline is an urban renewal scheme for the unused railway trail going through the city of Manhattan , new york. Built it in 1930 as part of the west side improvement plan by Robert Moses , it was used heavily till the 1960’s. by the 1980’s the plan to revive the rail system started and was strongly advocated by friends of highline. It became a very successful project as an urban renewal scheme as the ripples of the landscape project caused an increase in the real estate values. Thus it caused a land use change in the area.ReferencesDavid 2002, reclaiming the high line, design trust for public space, New YorkGopnik Adam, A walk on the highline, The New Yorker, 21 may 2001Jacobs Karrie, The new train of thought, New York magazine, 12 October 1988Lobbia .J.A, One track mind, Village Voice, 21 January 2001City zoning mapswww.wikipedia.comwww.standardhotel.comwww.backspace.com CONTEXT MAP Source: Google earth Department of Urban Design School of Planning and architecture, New Delhi
  2. 2. HIGHLINE, WEST MANHATTAN, NEW YORK HIGH LINE FACT SHEET Source: Reclaiming the highline report Source: Reclaiming the highline report ’ Source:architecturelab.net ’ Source: Reclaiming the highline report Source: freetoursbyfoot.com03.1 URBAN RENEWAL OF RAIL YARDS- A case study of High Line, New York Anjith Augustine SPA UD I 587
  3. 3. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE ‘HIGHLINE’ 1911- west side improvement trust 1999- CSX forms and assume control of conRail invites 1924- order to remove all on grade rail proposals. Highline is formed 1925- Manhattan borough president Julius miller plan of double 2000- Two separate commissions to study as per the proposal decker rail road. Later termed as the west side improvement of FHL plan 2001- Design trust for public space meet with CPO. ULURP filed 1926- by amendment 300 million dollar bonds for construction Four options considered are: against CPO demolition 1927- exchange of real estate and easements between city and Still CPO demolition talks are going on. If it happens easement Demolition and development rail authority rights will be diverted back to land owners. CEQR- (city Transit oriented reuse 1928- new york city grade crossing elimination act environment quality review) to be done before doing so. Commercial reuse 1932- land below bought by railroad in 350 transactions 1934-60 – fully operational Open space reuse 1963- south block destroyed later Jane Jacobs initiated renewal 1976- ConRail formed. High line became their property URBAN DESIGN VISION 1983- Notice to insufficient running costs. 90 days to sell for To tap the potential of the revelatory govt purposes. 120 days to sell to any buyer. Congress pass movement of the rail near the yards by national trails system act to protect the abandoned trails. from the open view of the rail yards 1989- Oblitz organization plans to buy it, but opposed by 20th to 26th – to be kept as a cultural Source: Reclaiming the highline report Chelsea Property Owners.(CPO) corridor Built only on one side and keep the river NEW EXTENSIONS PROPOSED FOR THE HIGHLINE EXPANSION side vacant 14th to 20th- passing through buildings, provides opportunity for the owner to start second layer of commercial like Chelsea market Source: curatormagazine.com03.2 URBAN RENEWAL OF RAIL YARDS- A case study of High Line, New York Source: Reclaiming the highline report Anjith Augustine SPA UD I 587
  4. 4. EXISTING LAND USE • Mi-5 landu se less intense manufacturing and other land uses like housing and community facilities max far-5 • Community facilities 6.5 • Mi-2 and m1-3 heavy manufacturing • Art uses line the highline • Pressure from land owners adjacent to change the land use predominantly manufacturing Source: Reclaiming the highline report Source: curatormagazine.com PROPOSED LAND USE • Allowed residential mix on the lower areas • 11th street night clubs boon and bane in disguise- hence controlled land use modifications • Glaesvroot to be preserved as heritage03.3 Source: Reclaiming the highline report URBAN RENEWAL OF RAIL YARDS- A case study of High Line, New York Anjith Augustine SPA UD I 587
  5. 5. PROPOSAL FOR RAIL YARDS MECHANISMS USED TO PROTECT • Under the rail trail policy protecting abandoned rail lines by preserving it without shutting the options for further development(Rail Banking) DEVELOPMENT STAGES • First stage- only making walk able, with certain necessary requirements and maintenance. Project cost- 150 million dollar • Second stage- inserting art related facilities, retail etc as the fund comes in which provide eye on street • Benefits- developments up to 2 billion dollar • 29 new projects,2500 dwelling units,1000 hotel units,500000 sq.ft office space • Third stage- rail yards re-development, construction of anchor buildings at the edges of the high line. Estimated cost for rail yards 90 million dollar Source: Reclaiming the highline report FUNDING MECHANISMS ADOPTED • Various stake holders to get the rail board permission like FHL, CSX, mixed use, Olympic authority, convention center expansion, city, state authorities, community, private owners • Creation of various districts • Zoning incentives for retaining and preserving district and TDR. • Business improvement district( BID) which levy extra charges to be used for development • Tax increment financing( TIF) issues bonds for development in downtrodden districts and cover taxes with extra revenue • Transportation equity act which allows highways funds to be used for OTHER MODES Vision by Manhattan borough president • Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program Source: Reclaiming the highline report • Federal transportation bill 2003 many projects can be included in the project head. • Maintenance funds from BID and conservancy a non profit organization • Botanical garden- authority found the place apt for the botanical garden missing only in this borough. LEARNINGS • The possibility of using different rules regulations and acts which are efficient if used properly to guide proper urban design efforts. India also has similar varieties which can be put to use. • Different funding mechanisms used where project is intelligently phased and money is cashed in from different govt. sources like protection acts and rail banks etc. Even in Indian context similar efforts are relevant given our multi pronged development agencies and policies. It is the efficient way of utilizing these resources that makes the project feasible. • Development is an initiative backed by people who use the space. Thus it is also understood that the brightest of ideas needs to be generated at the grass root level. VARIOUS PROPOSALS • Also the success of such small interventions leading to dramatic changes in the • Extension of convention center urban fabric says that it is not always the scale of the input but the timing and • Olympic center stadium approach that matters. • • To tackle the various real estate stake holders is the trick to success.03.4 Mixed use development URBAN RENEWAL OF RAIL YARDS- A case study of High Line, New York Anjith Augustine SPA UD I 587

×