https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9152e6049f67ecd30959c7562f09be99.pdf 777a0f4f64494c5767da7588e9295498 PDF Text Text At a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown held at the Corporation Rooms in said Village on the 18th day of February, 1932. Present: Gerald B. Gould, Chairman John K. Mullon William C. Schmidt David Page, Jr. John J. Lofaro, Secretary Mr. Gould called the meeting to order at 8:10 P. M. The minutes of the adjourned meeting of January 26, 1932, were read and approved. In connection therewith, Chairman Gould suggested that inasmuch as no report was received from Corporation Counsel regarding the matter of "Red Gables" and the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance generally, he would write Mr. Sinnott to ascertain from him the results of his conference with the Board of Trustees pursuant to Mr. Sinnottfs promise at the last meeting of the Board. There being no further business to transact, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. to meet again on April 21st next. �^ �tt W^mmx? 1§» *93t Dear ifis>» SfeftsoUt 1 wa* se&gr $&$ $m **** sat ffflg*§&* at $&* aftfttl&g of tfc* 3e*y& of Xm****9 l#M *«•% fti#*» f * tm& «cp«eted tbat by $&i8& - ffisHi j^nst ti$*I& w i w^Mi 1& ?wpapp% $# mt OIK t l * i «wwwJ» i V^*^^.*1 ^^^ff ^^^PWW* T^PWWP^M-.^J^PP^*^^^** fAMI % ^Wfw. ^ ^ WFTPJP^^^*^^^*™^ T(JWPJ|PPWW^W^*W* • • • p s ^ ' W w *P***P"-i ^ p B ^ w P V ^ p ^ ^ ^ i p P W i ^ * ' ^ P ( r ^W^P> ~^W^wp^^^ »^W ^^^w^^^^-^^pr wpTppj#>»ppp^pwjp^wA •#*?• w w w l * P P w ^ v iiaii^Maanr in. -VMMI& '«fe «eMHaoH^k ^ t t M s atttlJtf &%fi&<Mtirl3F haw «rri«^ *i •(»• mm** vaimUf&lt* i&Vx V* BowrA ^ / will W «l*d *o M i l spwial aw*la« ortt«Beejrt. of App«al» « « f W m m ^ » i»*Hi9ft *o f«ap^#3r dtMttM H«U» «**** with •>ij' vv^-t -::^ . ' ^ ' App««lC .^>. P^^^>^^.^^#..^, • r'' �-!'' w -•• ,-. ...* ;*•• -/: ' * -••*-. ': ••.•^^F:;;' . -. j - ^ : : �1 PLAN INFORMATION BULLETIN N O . 6 Issued by the Regional Plan Association, Inc., 4 0 0 Madison Ave., New York N. Y. FEBRUARY T}pse Bulletins* published from time to time, are intended • rily for tne information of news editors, editorial writers, P ' i fS 0f the Association, and others particularly interested fe i Regional Plan and planning. They permit of the amplifi"*. 0j Regional Plan proposals beyond what is practical in C waver releases; an occasional resume of the history of some " rific development, and a discussion of planning situations, iects and suggestions in which the attitude of the Regional f t officially is reflected. r 15, 1932 BULLETINS ARE RELEASED TO THE PRESS IN ADVANCE of the private distribution made on the date indicated above. They are distinct from news releases and the text or facts contained may be used in any way desired upon receipt. They are numbered serially for convenience in filing and should be valuable as a reference on planning progress. Subscription price one dollar a year. EDifARD McKERNON, Editor. "THE BUILDING OF THE CITY" JL review of Plan Volume II, the recently published concluding number of a series of two Plan volumes and eight Survey volumes presenting the studies, conclusions and proposals of the Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs. By HENRY JAMES It is appropriate that a review or summary account of the second and final report from the Regional Plan should appear in this Bulletin. "The Building of the City" as it is called, which was recently given to the public, concludes the series of ten monumental volumes of fact-finding and recommendation that are among the fruits of more than nine years of work by the Sage Foundation's Regional Plan Committee. It marks the completion of a bold and splendid enterprise. When one examines this book and incidentally glances back at its predecessors one's first conviction is that what has been done amounts to much more than the completion of a mere analysis of the structure of the metropolitan region, with the addition of a series of particular proposals concerning its future. For even if one were to dispute nearly every allegation of fact and were disposed to quarrel with all the recommendations, yet it would remain palpable and undeniable that this has been a work of very large significance and that it is full of encouragement. There are several reasons for this conviction. For one thing, this hae been the first workmanlike attempt to consider at one and the same time the detail and tne totality of the structure of a modern metropolis. The interest of the undertaking is thus more than local. For New York is a sample, and one of the most interesting examples of a class. It is in the metropolitan communities that the great city-ward trend, which is urbanizing western civilization, raises many of its most distressing and perplexing questions. Ihese centers are sure to grow and multiply, for we n <>w have a world economy that pushes more and more people toward the towns, and an engineering science which can make it possible for any one of them to swell to almost limitless size. In the last century the growth of great city centers has proceeded almost without guidance, and right here the greatest of them has spread itself so far beyond the geographical boundaries of any single municipality—spreading in fact over 22 counties and into the territory of three states—that even an initial study of its larger aspects had come to look like a greater task than any single governmental bureau could undertake. What was needed was the initiative and generosity of an agency that did not depend on the taxpayers for its resources. The Sage Foundation, whose funds are dedicated to "the improvement of social and living conditions" recognized that here lay an opportunity to render a great public service. The work thus devotedly undertaken has, even before its completion, stimulated similar efforts in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Boston, and other cities, not only in North America, but in foreign countries. Another reason for speaking of this as a work of large significance, quite irrespective of any particular findings or recommendations, is that it has supplied for local use such a collection of analyzed and analyzable information about the physical, economic, and social structure of the New ^ o r k Region as was not previously available. To be sure, each borough, or town, or county engineer's office has files full of data about streets, transportation lines, sewers and so on, and there are numerous business and social agencies which have special knowledge that is of general interest. But these things are scattered, usually out of sight, and sometimes concealed from public view. By the efforts of the Regional Plan Committee something like a comprehensive survey of such information has been made and the relations of the parts to each other have been studied and expounded. For the next twenty years nobody, whether in public office or in �1 '—I * fa *i< 11 'EL ",(ffl jnvnii* « *s,, Eric Gugler, Architect FOR THE LOWER TIP OF MANHATTAN An enlarged and redesigned Battery Park, dominated by a central monument, is proposed as part of the Plan. some private station, who rolls up his sleeves and plunges his arms into the detailed work of trying to order and organize the community's welfare will fail to find guidance and instruction in these volumes. Then, too, they present such a record and picture of what exists here that future students of city planning and municipal organization in New York, and elsewhere too, will be able to understand better than they could otherwise what, in approximately the year 1920, was the state of the New York metropolitan region. * * * As long ago as 1914, Mr. Graham Wallas said, "The science of city planning is rapidly developing into the master science of the material conditions of modern life." What he meant by this will be abundantly clear to anyone who scans the present volume and who reflects that the welfare of the community and the well-being of its inhabitants can never escape the influence of physical environment. Such artificial conditions and surroundings as we New Yorkers dwell in are fundamentally unlike any to which the race as a whole has ever had to adapt itself in the past. To this important underlying fact must undoubtedly be attributed no small measure both of our social unrest and of the nervous strain which is frequently felt in our private lives. In short, modern city dwellers are forced more or less consciously to wrestle with prob- lems of adjustment. These may be approached in two ways: We can alter our personal habits and our social structure away from what they have been heretofore; or we can deliberately shape the city environment— which, is after all a man-made artifact—into something that requires of us a less strenuous effort of accommodation. In the end we must to some extent do both— i.e., adapt ourselves to city ways and our form of government to metropolitan requirements, and make the metropolis a more congenial and governable place of abode. The city planners who set to work to relieve America's growing pains fifteen to twenty years ago frequently had in the background of their minds the conception that it was their mission to shape the environment into something congenial to all mans nature. But anyone familiar with their work knows that they usually brought to the task too narrow a training. They were narrowly engineers who thought in terms of highroads, transportation and public utilities; or they were lop-sidedly architects, concerned for a city-beautiful; or they were primarily social reformers and were unprepared to grapple effectively with the physical elements of the case. And, until the Regional Plan Committee's ambitious undertaking was underwritten by the Sage Foundation, nobody, no matter how broad his training and how 8ta^.8' manlike his imagination, was in a position to assemble �Page Cheater B. Price, A STRIKING N E W MUNICIPAL BUILDING PROPOSED FOR N E W YORK'S CIVIC CENTER The old City Hall is shown as the only building remaining in City Hall Park. The present Municipal Building and other features of the Civic Center are shown just beyond the proposed building. Architect Three �Page Four . ililiililiiliiO LAM * a t J . l M A M . t i j l f* * & < • A*AA«»AAt>aL*.i>JLAAiJ i h ^ M t & ^ ^ ^ ^ r ^ FranctH S. Swales, Architect DEVELOPMENT OF WATERFRONTS IS AN OUTSTANDING FEATURE OF T H E PLAN Above is a suKKcstion freight yardB on the warehouses, office together for utilizinpr the air rights over the 60th Street West Side of Manhattan. A railroad tcrminnl, and residence buildings would be included, with a beautiful waterfront drive. the data of all sorts that are essential to city planning in a great metropolis. Even the staff of the Regional Plan Committee, with its diversified personnel, has had to learn as its long labors advanced. Accordingly it is not surprising that the last chapter of these labors, as presented in this volume, turns out to be in good part reflective and philosophical. The book does indeed present a certain number of specific proposals that round out other proposals made in the preceding volume. But the first half of it is taken up with a discussion of what are really questions of principle, method, and procedure. The best way to convey a fair impression briefly will be to mention a few of the questions which are discussed in this part of the book. Centralization versus Decentralization, with some reference to the cityward trend and the back-to-thefarm agitation. There are slum-spots in small towns as well as in London and New York, and worse sanitary conditions on farms than in the city. On the other hand there are admirable, almost ideal, neighborhoods in large cities as well as in small communities. The city planner can not alter personal tastes, nor divert the great economic forces which drive men to and fro between farms and factory towns. The conclusion is that it is academic for him to dwell on tastes and trends. What he can do is to provide a suitable balance of physical elements in every community, whether large or small. Houses and Neighborhoods. The reader will probably find himself reflecting, after examining this phase of the discussion, that badly planned neighborhoods are even more to blame for the slum than are bad tenement houses. To be sure, plumbing, light and ventilation must be provided for the inside of the building, but there are slum areas which have taken over whole blocks of houses that were first built for the well to do, and New York City's Lower East Side today illustrates the impossibility of improving the quality of a run-down district except by planning and providing breathing spaces, recreation grounds, and other facilities that cannot be covered by the tenement house law. Fitting Streets to B u i l d i n g s . N o end of thought has been devoted by both town planners and real estate men to what might be called doctrine about adapting buildings to frontage on different kinds of streets; but I believe that this is the first city planning report to contain anything like a good discussion of the converse problem of adapting the street system to a building pattern that has already become strongly established. In the heavily built portions of a city like New York it is really from this side that the planner must approach the problem of circulation. T e r m i n a l Facilities. Greater coordination of the various elements in the distributing systems for freight and passengers is seen as the biggest need in solving New York's terminal problems. For freight,—large terminal warehouses at the railroads, store door delivery, improved ferry services, union inland terminals and greater use of container systems are recommended. Stress is laid, throughout the discussion of these problems, on making the maximum use of existing facilities, which should be supplemented,—rather than superseded, by new improvements. Skyscrapers. It turns out that the authors of the Regional Plan hold no brief against the skyscraper as such. They do point out the serious and perhaps disastrous consequences of crowding together too many skyscrapers of the present prevailing types, and resolve the question into that of controlling or guiding the relation between building bulks and a suitably balancing quantum of street space and open space. At this moment of acute depression in the real estate world what the volume says on this subject ought to be particularly interesting to architects and investors. Zoning. Since New York adopted the first American zoning ordinance during the World War, experience has taught us much. As to this subject "The Building of the City" brings us up to date. Double-deck Streets and Sidewalks. It appears that the Regional Plan prefers cheaper and less fever- �Page Five Drawinti by A. J. Frappicr II. Craiti Severance, Inc., Architect. Rendering hu Huuh L. Fcrristt Drawing bu A. J. Frappier HOW T H E LIMITATION ON BUILDING BULK IN CENTRAL AREAS PROPOSED BY T H E REGIONAL PLAN COMPARES WITH P R E S E N T STANDARDS In the center is shown one ol' the finest examples of present-day skyscraper architecture—the Bank of Manhattan Building on Wall Street. The part ol' the building below the tower is built up to the maximum b.ilk permitted by the present zoning ordinances. The Regional Plan proposals would permit buildings of this size or even a little larger, in central areas, but they would require a much greater uiTii of plot. At the left is a drawing of a building having the greatest bulk which would be permitted on a plot the same size as that of the Bank of Manhattan, and on the right is a drawing of a building of the same height and approximately the same bulk as the Bank of Manhattan, but on a plot nearly twice as large, which would be required for this bulk under the proposals of the Regional Plan. ish, although less spectacular, remedies for street congestion. It does not believe that New York requires either double-deck streets or double-deck sidewalks in any but a very few spots. But it does urge that there are many at which traffic crossings ought to be arranged on separate grades. Civic Art. Here we find a better discussion of the extent to which aesthetic considerations may reasonably count in the planning of a city than has, so far as I know, been presented in any such report. Capital Cities and Others. There is an interesting chapter which points out the difference between the planning procedure and the objectives that suit a city like New York, and those that can be pursued in a capital city like Washington, Paris, or Berlin. Relations of the Center and the Suburb. It has been said that there are two places in which a great c % changes its physical form rapidly and in which l here is accordingly the best opportunity to plan or to replan. These two are the very center and the outer fringe. The importance of the outer fringe from the planner's point of view is rightly emphasized. This list is by no means exhaustive, but is enough to be suggestive. The discussion of all these questions makes it clear that the Regional Plan Committee not only recognizes that it is impossible, in a democracy, to impose a plan as Napoleon III and Haussmann imposed their plans on Paris, but believes whole-heartedly that a city is altogether a vital organization and that its growth will be healthiest if it is guided by educational processes and by submitting to popular discussion such plans as they themselves have been making for New York. The /happiest community will in the end be the one which fits its shell to popular requirements and which continually reshapes it to express the aspirations of its inhabitants. "The greatest opportunity and most urgent need in any urban community in a democracy is that of �A BIRD'S-EYE V| (a) The Tri-Borough Bridge, to connect Queens with! nection between the bridge and Manhattan at 110th strel River between 108th and 109th streets; (d) the utilizj the existing Hell Gate! educating and organizing public opinion toward an intelligent understanding of what is 'well-building' and of t h e need of foresight in planning t h e city to achieve it. W h e n building is guided in h a r m o n y with t r u e objectives and a well conceived city plan, concrete opportunities will present themselves for securing dignity and beauty coincident with true economy. * * * O u r visions are visions of h o p e and not of prophecy as to what t h e future holds. Change will still be governed by t h e uneven t e m p e r and intelligence of t h e average m a n and woman. W h a t they desire strongly will come to pass." T h e second p a r t of t h e volume explains a n u m b e r of m o r e or less definitely worked out and graphically illustrated proposals. These are to be regarded both as illustrating principles and policies t h a t have previously been discussed, and as practicable solutions of significant problems in t h e future development of t h e New York Region. T h e y supplement a n d are harmonious with other definite projects which h a d been explained in t h e preceding volume, " T h e Graphic Regional P l a n . " A full list of these proposals will b e found to touch all parts of t h e Region. Not only t h e outer environs in New Jersey and Long Island and t h e Jersey shores t h a t are touched by t h e tide-waters of New York Bay, b u t t h e five boroughs of Ne\| City are considered. To e n u m e r a t e all these proposals, or to st^ arguments for any one of t h e m fully would possible i n t h e space h e r e available. But a fa tures from t h e v o l u m e u n d e r consideration arel duced herewith, a n d a few of t h e more im( projects should b e m e n t i o n e d . T h e r e is a c h a p t e r o n the future of Central! a subject over w h i c h t h e r e h a s been and willj b e bitter wrangles. T h e r e is a n o t h e r chapter & t h e possible t r e a t m e n t of the Harlem River T h e comparative simplicity of t h i s project an magnificent results t h a t m i g h t b e realized by c it out are quite inspiring to consider. The for t h e enlargement and improvement of Batten has, like t h e H a r l e m River project, already bed cussed in t h e p u b l i c press. I t is impressively prel in this volume. I T h e great possibilities of t h e Hackensack i«(j have similarly b e e n discussed i n t h e public pre8| were dealt with in t h e preceding voluine lr0,l special point of view of t h e transportation «| ments. T h e Regional P l a n Committee's pr°A which closely resemble those t h a t are now be«1 forward by p u b l i c authorities i n New Jersey summed u p . �Page Seven "''i>S^!5 "igfcwffia r EV«AND V I C I N I T Y \sf. (now under construction) ; (b) an additional coni strip extending from Central Park to the East ndalls Islands for park purposes. In the background, IConnecting Railroad. are also proposals for Jamaica Bay and for jaterfronts on both sides of Manhattan Island, JLong Island shores of the city, and on Staten and sketches suggestive of what might be acihed toward the creation of useful and dignified 'titers for communities of different sizes are y plans for such centers as City Hall Park in tan and others in Brooklyn, in Queens, in .Paterson, N. J., Ossining, N. Y., Islip, L. I., where. e whole these projects impress the reader mines them one by one by their practicality ir worthwhileness. Graham Wallas, who has been quoted, said, "When one looks at the 1 drawings which have been lately prepared 'y of citizens for a new Chicago [he was writ^14], one feels that they are suited to giants nien, or at least only to the gigantic qualities *Htd. It is a good thing that every citizen's would be occasionally stirred by seeing the * a tall municipal office against the skyline, or tog beneath the enormous dome of a museum. parks, which the inhabitants of ten quarters !K i n A, t w enty minutes walk, are better than ten times as large which few can reach withF g a day's work; and if a working man's wife is to buy the family supplies in comfort, shopping streets must be neither too distant for her feet nor too broad for her eyes." It is in this less spectacular and more practical spirit that the Regional Plan Committee has worked. It has evidently thought of the working man's wife. The cost of executing all of the projects proposed would run into enormous figures, but it must be realized that not even the most ardent enthusiast connected with the Regional Plan Committee has ever dreamt that all these projects will be carried out; nor is it proposed that they should all be regarded as immediately executable. The work of the Committee looks many years ahead. During that time—this can never be too often emphasized in connection with these discussions—a great part of the physical structure of the city will be torn down or torn up and rebuilt anyhow. Enormous sums will certainly be spent in the process. The point is that the community will spend what it is going to spend to better purposes if plans are available for study and discussion which have been, made with reference to the larger aspects of the Region's welfare and are also more or less definitely suggestive as to its parts. The report tells us that "as the work has gone on �/'<igc Eight Committee of Architects, Harvey W. Corbctt, Chairman A VERY LIMITED USE OF ELEVATED SIDEWALKS ARCADED WITHIN T H E BUILDINGS. AS ILLUSTRATED ABOVE. IS PROPOSED IN T H E REGIONAL PLAN the aim has become more clearly defined as an attempt to show what is desirable from a social point of view, within the limits of what is ultimately practicable from architectural, engineering and financial points of view. Although our proposals involve difficulties in respect to cost and method of execution, all of them are capable of being carried out in a substantial degree by a gradual process. They do not come within the category of fantastic projects to which we allude elsewhere, and which are described by others as constituting 'impossible turreted Babylons'. The proposals may be called visionary, however, in the sense that applies to all suggestions that are made by a body which has no statutory power to carry them into effect . . . They permit of substantial modification without loss of their real value, which is to guide Photo by Brown Bros. WHERE ELEVATED SIDEWALKS ARE NEEDED AND EXISTING BUILDINGS PROBABLY MAKE ARCADING IMPRACTICABLE. AS IN TIMES SQUARE. THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION MIGHT HAVE TO BE USED. �Page PLAN LOWER SECTION OF HARLEM PROPOSED New Street Areas BY THE OF RIVER VALLEY REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN HEIUC Existing Street Area included in New Street System public opinion and both public and private action toward more order and economy in the building of the citv " * * * But at this point it becomes necessary to distinguish sharply between the recommendations which the Regional Plan Committee makes or adopts, and other projects which it courteously discusses. I can not help thinking that the Committee has given more space to the courteous discussion of impracticable ideas—or ideas addressed wholly "to the gigantic qualities of mankind"—than is, from its own point of view, politic. For one who picks up this large volume and turns its pages over casually, without stopping to read carefully, is in danger of being misled into the impression that divers schemes, some of which are very strikingly presented by architectural drawings, represent the Regional Plan. Multiple-deck streets have been rather a pet theme for "prophecies" by architects and others whose imaginations show a certain cousinship with the imaginations of Jules Verne and H. G. Wells. Such fanciful studies sometimes have a moderate suggestive value and are usually entertaining to consider; but the Regional Plan Committee does not itself propose journeys to the moon. In its report two-level treatment i 8 suggested in a few specific instances where topography is favorable or where there is no other w »y of overcoming intolerable congestion. * * * 1 nomas Adams, the author of the volume under review, has been the Regional Plan Committee's titular Director of Plans and Surveys and has been in lac t the guiding spirit in its work. His personal 'laities color it so strongly that it is impossible to dose without speaking of him. If his tolerant and iVme Proposed Parks :m Drawing by A. J. NOT HEIGHT—BUT BULK IS ATTACKED IN T H E P L A N ' S ZONING STANDARDS Frappier REGIONAL An example of the old box-type building on Fourth Avenue, Manhattan, erected prior to the enactment of the present "set-back" zoning laws. To provide adequate light, air, and street and transit facilities, the Regional Plan would go beyond the present laws. A conception of a building occupying the same plot as the old "box" building, but complying with the proposed standards is shown at the left. Although it is 22 stories higher than the present building, it has -10% less bulk. However, the Regional Plan points out, it would have a much greater total rental value because of the better access of all rooms to light and air. �Arthur C. Holden & Associates, Architects A RAILROAD TERMINAL FOR QUEENS Design for a combined terminal and office building, together with other development of the air rights above Sunnyside Yards. scrupulous fairness to others and to their proposals has been carried almost to the point of endangering the clear view of his own convictions and the ideas of his staff, it is doubtless also the case that his modesty and generosity have contributed largely to the success of a long labor that had to be collaborative and cooperative. It is also easy to see that Mr. Adams is no Baron Haussmann; he not only accepts the fact that he has no power to put designs into effect by executive fiat, but honestly believes that the best community plans are those which become operative in response to public demand and as a result of intelligent discussion and unselfish public leadership. His chief insistence is that public discussion must proceed upon a basis of adequate information and well studied projects, and that it must be guided intelligently. Thus the task of the Regional Plan Committee under his leadership has been that of preparing the information and proposals that are needed tor discussion. Mr. Adams' qualification for this work arises not simply from his openness of mind and wide previous experience of community planning on both sides of the Atlantic, but, and perhaps this is what �-Ji Page Eleven DESIGN FOR A PORTION OF T H E PARK BEING DEVELOPED AT GREAT KILLS, STATEN ISLAND matters most, from a certain statesmanlike quality of his intelligence. To be statesmanlike a man must possess both imagination and an ability to appraise the relative values of entirely different types of fact and argument. His thinking must not be committed to a moral groove, or a financial groove, or a groove of any single realm of consideration. Among these and many others he has the ability to make common sense choices and to effect reconciliations. Although he can not be a specialist in this or that field, he can understand and direct specialists. But he is not an opportunist, for he seeks orderly arrangements and sound policies. In so far as the Plan possesses balance and comprehensiveness, it owes almost everything to its Director of Plans and Surveys. Wherever its good influence is felt, now or hereafter, recognition will be, in great measure, an acknowledgement of what is due to the statesmanlike vision of Mr. Adams. A CONCEPTION FOR T H E CIVIC CENTER OF NEWARK �V. ! <P DESIGN FOR THE ENTRANCE TO THE PROPOSED BUSINESS CENTER IN THE HACKENSACK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT This would be located at the head of a proposed straightening of the Hackensack River. m fo'Vl' !>' 1 t'i • if.! Ml A CONCEPTION FOR T H E DEVELOPMENT OF PATERSON'S CIVIC CENTER (III �MONTHLY REPORT OF BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Village of North Tarrytown, N. Y. permits grantedpermits denied— ^ ^ Jan 26th 6 none 1Q, 2 f as . & includeing 1Q<z2 follows f o r W rd l i c a t i o n of - J -?. s e P? 1 - R i . z z l ^ ..5^.L.?°..^ » n ^ „ li o^coa t*e^d aoft E a s t s i d e V a- l l e y S t , about 150 f t -S. of Building Permit g r a n t e d - d w l M i T on----£$?L 26thj. A p p l i c a t i o n of Mr..Bo.ya C h e s-t n u t S t . 1 9 3 ? - - P e r m i t No-39.2 ^emolshing o l d Ward Building l o c a t e d a t 3vo^mj.^M..J)evej3ter_StA Permit granted-TJHirtns'ti on~~?fe£—?&* 193?- A p p l i c a t i o n of .-SM..PQllpcX.and.wife Building l o c a t e d a t ..Ma.ple„.st., _ Permit No Addition. p.lA..Haye.s..feP]A8©.-. Permit g r a n t ed-«ifcyirreTr on.-Eeb.Ath _ No_27.t 193£--~Permit No«323_t. A p p l i c a t i o n of -JI~JRaniola Blo_e&__ajidlkl.Q_n. Building l o c a t e d a t ----42--Clintje.n.--Sfc.* Permit granted-d-en-retf- on...F&fc>...9tlL, A p p l i c a t i o n of John.-Gancr.Q., 193& Permit No--3SA«. &tQr.e._.j£r.Q.ni.,_„ Building located at .-9.4..JfeeJanaJX.AY3.* Permit granted-^etrL-eth on-JBfefe.IZth., 193-?- Application of -Aram.-.Cliillnslr.iam jaefc&;L.ga.rage.., Building Located at -i3e.ekman..ATEe—ajn<l.C.lliit.an...St., Permit granted-*e-»i-e«i- on....-F-e£_-2.6tkr Permit No-355. .GDhn..J?rjape.rt^ 1932 Permit No--356-* �Application of Building located at - :——. Permit granted-denied on Application of -- --..-- - Building located at - - - - — —- Building located at - Building located at - - —- —- — — - Building located at Permit granted-denied on , -- ........193- — - - Permit granted-denied on- - Application of —- 193--' Permit No - —- - - Permit granted-denied on - - - Application of - - - Permit No- - -193- -Permit No - Permit granted-denied on - - - —- 193 - -- Building located at Application of - - - Permit granted-denied on Application of - -- —- ------ Permit No. - -. 193-——-Permit No r;——:- - - --- w - 1 9 3 — — Permit No- ^S Dated: North Tarrytown , N. Y . , J ^ . ^ _ ^ . ^^6^L „-193^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Building I n s p e c t o r of the r i l l a g e of North T a r r y t o w n , N.? Y �^ R E G I O N A L PLAN INFORMATION BULLETIN NO. 7 Issued by the Regional Plan Association, Inc., 4 0 0 Madison Ave., New York, N. Y. ^"~ • M A R C H 2 8 , 1 9 3 2 rt osc Bulletins, published from time to time, are intended arily for tne information of news editors, editorial writers, Vrl i?l,ys 0f the Association, and others particularly interested •" the Regional Plan and planning. They permit of the amplifi" lion of Regional Plan proposals beyond what is practical in C Miutper releases; an occasional resume of the history of some and a discussion of planning situations, ecifir development, in which the attitude of the Regional TOjec:s and suggestions plan officially is reflected. • BULLETINS ARE RELEASED TO THE PRESS IN ADVANCE of the private distribution made on the date indicated above. They are distinct from news releases and the text or facts contained may be used in any way desired upon receipt. They are numbered serially for convenience in filing and shotdd be valuable as a reference on planning progress. Subscription price one dollar a year. EDWARD McKERNON, Editor. Present Distribution and Future Growth of Population in the New York Region An Analysis of Trends as Indicated by the Census of 1930—Marked Tendency Toward Decentralization as the Migration Is Predominantly Outward—Adjoining Counties Make Great Cains Compared With the Center—Shift in Highest Density—Population Center of Greater New York. Striking changes in the population map of New York City and the Region during a period of ten years are revealed in the studies of the Regional Plan on the trend of population distribution in Greater New York and the Region as indicated by the United States Census of 1930. These studies, just completed, are presented herewith in the form of comparative maps for 1920 and 1930, diagrams and tables, accompanied by an explanatory text in which some of the influences at work and the significance of the tendencies are pointed out. The outstanding facts and conclusions should prove of great interest not alone to the statistician, the engineer, the architect and the real estate operator, but to every real and potential home owner. In the light of past experience, the present situation and the influencing factors noted, the Regional Plan makes new forecasts of the population of the several boroughs and other counties of the Region in 1940, 1950, 1960 and 1965. The previously estimated total of 21,000,000 is retained. It will be recalled that in 1923 the Regional Plan indicated a probable population of the Region in 1930 which was very closely borne out by the recent census figures. High Spots of the Analysis From the wealth of data afforded by the studies of the engineers, certain findings may be emphasized: The New York Region has the largest population of any urban region in the world, having outstripped a comparable area in the London region by a margin of 1,600,000. Within this area decentralization is occuring more rapidly than had been expected. The tendency of migration is toward the borders of the city and into the suburbs beyond. The point of highest density has shifted from the lower East Side of Manhattan to northeast of Central Park. The center of population of Greater New York is in the Borough of Queens. The Spread of Population The most impressive feature of the growth of population in the Region has been its tendency to spread itself outward. This tendency is readily understood and, it may be added, is most gratifying. If the Regional Survey and Plan has made anything clear, it is that such a trend is desirable. At the same time, the greater the disposition of the population to spread the greater the need for planning. The movement has the effect of leaving slum areas in a condition in which replanning and reconstruction becomes more practical, and simultaneously causing increased demands for more transit facilities in the environs and more subdivision of acreage land. However desirable the spread of population may be in itself, it will not be a permanent benefit if the movement is not preceded by planning of the �Page Two new areas to which it moves. The extensive planning of the Region must be followed by the intensive planning of the counties, the cities, the towns and villages. It is time New York City realized that its financial stability rests on maintaining spacious and well planned residential neighborhoods for persons of means as well as for those in more modest circumstances. However, it has nothing to gain by trying to keep population that can be more healthfully housed elsewhere than in Manhattan except, perhaps, an inflation of land values, which may not in itself be a good thing. It has everything to gain from having planned communities outside its borders—communities that will use Manhattan as a center of much of their social and economic life. The economic basis of the New York Region depends more on the family unity between different communities surrounding New York harbor than on the concentration of wealth, population and industry in one comparatively small unit such as Manhattan Island. Surprising Gains in Rural Counties The spread of population is not strong in the suburbs alone. There is indication of a "back-to-the-land" movement. Whereas the populous county of Hudson increased only 9.8 per cent, the rural counties of Suffolk, Rockland and Putnam, in the ten year period, increased 46.1, 30.8 and 27.2 per cent, respectively. The latter two have moved from the minus to the plus column in an extraordinary way. Nearer in, we have the comparison between the whole of New York City, which increased 23.3 per cent as against increases of 140.3, 73.2, 52.5 and 51.2 per cent, respectively, for Nassau, Bergen, Union and Westchester counties. Decreased Maximum Densities It is shown that the group of districts having populations of from 25,000 to 100,000 per square mile is increasing, compared with the group having less than 25,000 persons per square mile. This is the result of filling in the gaps in partly developed areas, and is all to the good. What is even more encouraging is that the group of districts having over 100,000 persons per square mile, or 156 persons to the acre, has actually decreased in area from 17.6 square miles in 1920 to 12 square miles in 1930. One of the desirable ways to lessen density artificially is to increase public open space, now a little under five per cent of the total area in New York City, to the standard of ten per cent. Area of Highest Density It appears that the area of highest density has moved from the Lower East Side to the district adjacent to the northeast edge of Central Park. The city should attack this remaining area of crowded slums in the same manner as it lessened the density east of City Hall by opening small parks. It should follow the advice of the Regional Plan and cut a park strip through from the upper end of Central Park to the East River, thereby reducing the overcrowding, in- creasing real estate values, and linking Central p a r ^ . Vlt the proposed island parks in the East River. ^ The Hub of the Metropolis It is interesting to note that the center of population " New York City is near to and likely in a few years to b * come actually within area 0n i conic «V.LU»», ,»~ ; the- ~ ~ - suggested --*»—— by -v the «ic Regi R egional le Plan for a central airport for witl " New York City *""combined '" <hvith a civic center for Queens. Why should Queens lose thi1 opportunity to have the focal point of the population of New York City its own civic and most modern transpor tation center? Comparison with London The year 1930 removed all doubts as to whether the NewYork Region had the largest population of any urban region in the world and as to the prevailing tendencies of its growth. New York and London have been running a race for some time in regard to size of population. Actual comparisons are difficult because the areas are different, but if we take New York City and its most densely populated neighbor, the county of Hudson, serving an area which is comparable to the counties of London and Middlesex in which a greater part of the London population resides, we have the following results: Acreage Population New York City and Hudson County.. 218,590 7,621,176 London and Middlesex Counties 223,541 6,036,342 Thus in two areas of about the same size, the population of New York is about 1,600,000 greater than London. This may be thought an unfair comparison for London because it is probably true that the population of the London region spreads itself even more widely in the adjacent counties than is the case in the New York Region. But if we take larger units we get somewhat similar results. In 1839 square miles in the New York Region, the population in 1930 was 10,475,317, whereas in 1846 square miles in the London region, the population in 1931 was 9,101,843. Thus in any form of comparison which ignores the political units and has regard to similarity of area, New York is now well over a million in advance of the London region. ANALYSIS OF 1930 CENSUS Report of Findings in Maps, Diagrams and Tables—Forecasts of Growth The census of 1930 showed a remarkable growth in the population of the Region, considerably greater than that which had occurred in the previous decade both in numbers and in percentage increase. It developed that an additional population of about 2,500,000 had been given to the Region in the preceding ten years. An analysis of the distribution of population has proved even more interesting. Decentralization is taking place not only within New York City but as between the Metropolis and the surround- �Page TABLE I.—1930 Three. POPULATION CENSUS FOR N E W YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS BY GROUPS, AND A COMPARISON WITH REGIONAL PLAN ESTIMATES Population 1930 ^ York C i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jSJyork'and Environs GB Per cent increase 1920-1930 1920 Regional Plan estimate for 1930 Nelson P . Lewis Pearl and Reed 6,930,446 4,527,558 11,458,004 5,620,048 3,359,007 8,979,055 23.3' 34.8 27.6 6,622,000 4,248,000 10,870,000 7,032,000 4,545,000 11,577,000 8,063,513 6,663,726 21.0 7,900,000 8,441,000 2,184,382 1,383,645 57.9 1,860,000 1,990,000 1,210,109 931,684 29.9 1,110,000 1,146,000 °Sew York City Hudson Co., N . J . Newark, N . J . Principal Suburban Areas GROUP 3 • •••-. Balance of Region m" suburban areas at a rate greater than was anticipated in the Regional Plan studies of population published in 1929 in Survey Volume II. As a result, it has been found necessary to revise some of the estimates of future county populations although the estimates for the entire Region have been substantiated by the census figures. Importance of Population Estimates Some definite prediction as to population growth is essential to city or regional planning. The exact date at which any population figure will be reached is of secondary importance. In the Regional Survey four independent population estimates were presented. These led to the conclusion that by the year 1965 the population of the Region might reach a total of 21,000,000. It was stated that the Regional Plan should anticipate such a total and that the date at which it might be reached would have little effect upon the Plan, but would merely dictate the rate at which it should be carried out. Total Population of the Region The total population of the Region in 1930 was 11,458,004. Preliminary figures were published by the Regional Plan in September of that year. Final census figures since that date have resulted in some minor revisions. The figures for New York City, the Environs and the three groups into which the Region was subdivided for purposes of estimates, are given in Table I, which also shows the 1930 figures in the two original estimates upon which the Regional Plan was based. The areas included in each of the three groups are shown in the map in Figure 7. The tremendous increase °f 57.9 per cent in Group 2, which includes the principal suburban areas, as against a growth in the whole Region of 2 7.6 per cent, is an indication of the decentralization from the central part of the Region. In spite of this, New York City increased 23.3 per cent as against an increase of 17.9 Per cent in the decade from 1910 to 1920. Changes in Population Densities A series of population density maps for the years 1850, 1900 and 1920 were published in Survey Volume II. These included maps of both the whole Region showing densities varying from under 200 to over 50,000 persons per square mile, and maps of New York City and contiguous territory showing densities from under 5,000 to over 200,000 persons per square mile. Two 1920 density maps are reproduced herein as Figures 1 and 3 and on opposite pages are corresponding maps based upon the 1930 census. Maps for these two years alone show striking differences, although still greater ones appear by comparison with the earlier maps in the Regional Survey. The densities are based upon net areas obtained after deducting those "open spaces" devoted to parks, municipal watersheds and cemeteries in excess of five per cent of the gross area. This was necessary to get comparable figures, as in many communities large areas are not available for building development due to their being set aside as permanent open spaces in the form of public parks, reservations to protect municipal water supplies, or as cemeteries. In order to have the densities approximately proportional to those on the buildable areas the excess of these open spaces over five per cent was deducted. This is based on the assumption that about five per cent of any area should be set aside as local parks, which should be quite uniformly distributed, although many communities are still far below this standard. Streets are included in the net areas. The areas used in computing densities are in general computed by a planimeter. Tidal waters are excluded and where docks and piers existed the areas are figured to the bulkhead line. In view of the approximate nature of the land areas there was no justification for computing densities beyond three or four digits. Therefore, where densities were 2,000 or more per square mile round figures were given and the calculations were carried out only to the first three digits. �Page Four 1 i is miii m >« FIG. 1 �Page Five NR wYORK AND ENVIRONS ' 5H0WIHG ' , , , l l V E DENSITIES OF POPULATION ACCORDING ACCORDING RU' / U U s. TO TO CENSUS OF 1930 FIG. 2 �Page Six Fig. 3 Densities per square mile Per cent of land area in above map. Square miles Less than 25,000 88.5 560.4 Throughout the Region On the maps for the entire Region (Figures 1 and 2) the areas for which 1920 densities were computed included all incorporated units which had a population of 3,000 or more, but this was not followed strictly as some isolated 25,000 to 100,000 8.7 54.8 100,000 or more 2.8 17.6 communities with smaller populations were computed separately. Densities of unincorporated areas were for the area remaining after the deduction of any incorporated sections for which separate densities were computed. For the 1930 census each political unit was figured separately irrespec- �Page Seven Fig. 4 Densities per square mile Per cent of land area in above map. Square miles tive of its population and the densities for towns in New York and Connecticut are in each case for the unincorporated section of the town. The two maps show the tremendous increases in densities between the ten and thirty •tile circles from New York City Hall. On Long Island Less than 25,000 82.0 518.9 25,000 to 100,000 16.1 101.9 100,000 or more 1.9 12.0 and in Fairfield, Westchester and Rockland counties this growth has extended out to the forty mile circle and in some places beyond. A summary by counties appears in Table IV. The decreases in New York City and the other, central areas are shown much more clearly in Figures 3 and 4. �Page Eight TABLE II.—POPULATIONS AND POPULATION DENSITIES, BY ASSEMBLY DISTRICTS IN N E W YORK CITY, 1920 AND 1930 1930 Area in square miles Assembly District Total area Deduct Open Spaces in excess of 5 % of total area Population p e r s q u a r e d !111| of net e net nr„n area Population Net area 1920 1930 BRONX COUNTY 1.29 3.00 2.76 .82 .87 22.60 .87 9.60 Total. 41.81 "!i8 2.85 5.91 110,315 117,611 83,042 84,195 88,428 70,482 89,123 88,820 101,735 222,084 96,866 86,282 110,560 277,645 113,907 256,179 85,500 39,200 30,100 129,500 101,600 3,550 102,400 12,700 35.9 | 732,016 | 1,265,258 (County density based on total area 20,300 17,500 1.29 2.96 2.76 .64 .87 19.75 .87 6.57 .04 78,900 '5,000 35,100 134,800 127,100 14,060 130,900 39,000 = ~^2Q0 30,300) KINGS COUNTY (BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN) ;l« * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 in 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 lili It Total. 1.33 21.10 2.12 1.15 .96 .77 1.87 1.06 5.18 1.29 1.50 .18 ,70 ,87 37 50 10 47 85 44 90 03 91 68.65 1.33 20.12 2.12 1.15 .96 .77 1.2 1.06 4.9 1.26 1.5 1.4 1.7 .87 1.37 7.50 1.10 4.47 .85 1.3 2.9 4.9 .91 .98 .67 .28 .03 .'78 .14 .13 2.11 | 86,912 109,104 90,760 82,336 67,808 85,895 77,455 79,658 92,754 75,873 78,062 77,872 83,399 97,344 72,994 97,110 76,186 98,100 83,897 99,357 84,484 122,637 98,359 61,201 300,054 72,644 71,954 64,414 74,474 75,218 63,964 215,477 72,317 89,531 84,367 61,718 71,888 63,006 283,876 73,296 237,870 63,229 92,867 141,109 147,800 78,127 66.54 | 2,018,356 | 2,560,401 (County density based on total area 65,400 5,170 42,800 71,500 70,700 111,500 65,600 75,100 18,500 61,200 52,000 55,200 49,000 111,700 53,700 12,900 69,200 21,900 98,700 76,400 21,000 24,500 108,000 46,000 14,910 34,300 62,600 67,100 96,700 62,700 60,400 44,000 57,400 59,700 60,300 36,300 82,600 46,000 37,900 66,600 53,200 74,400 71,400 48,700 30,200 85,900 29,600 29,400 38,500 37,300) NEW YORK COUNTY (BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 II Total. 1.89 .69 1.19 .38 .76 .89 137,522 147,115 113,098 94,980 103,166 99,165 85,486 109,522 82,994 79,801 79,314 121,539 76,008 120,879 96,072 108,117 85,663 141,790 78,052 83,156 76,982 74,895 88,789 87,300 86,067 71,408 53,866 67,765 63,915 87,774 70,984 92,819 66,133 78,474 88,122 69,460 81,045 91,299 76,325 71,722 110,063 76,490 67,284 76,205 77,598 155,194 21.93 2,284,103 | 1,867,312 (County density based on total area. Total- 72,700 213,000 95,000 250,000 136,000 111,000 104,000 261,000 163,000 46,300 169,000 113,500 109,000 177,000 81,400 190,000 252,000 143,000 147,000 106,500 135,000 104,000 39,100 46,200 124,700 60,000 141,800 89,200 71,800 111,100 169,000 197,500 38,500 170,600 82,400 108,500 119,200 76,700 133,900 217,300 111,200 141,600 86,300 136,100 104,900 80,400 111,400 104,200 93,100 85.200) •Ward 1.. 'Ward 2.. Ward 3.. Ward 4., Ward 5.. Total. •Net a parks. As fArea {Due tomposed i New Yoi A comj Xew Yor Regional piling u p 1900 the tion not Hudson ated dur and 4 w tricts in in Richr ties are oughs ir The ' esting £ populat square mile grf almost 10'0,00f miles t droppe Inl in the Person �Page — , —-—""" \sscnibly 'District 1930 Area in square miles ' Total area Deduct Open Spaces in excess of 5 % of total area r- o n . . . , - « Population Net area Nine .„:i~ of net area 1920 1930 1920* 1930 Q U E E N S COUNTY 1 ') 3 4 5 6 5.0 9.83 14.95 43.5 28.2t 6.36 107.84 Total. .96 .96 i .si 2.17 5.0 8.87 14.95 42.54 28.2 4.55 78,805 74,441 76,593 83,175 83,228 72,800 151,197 141,625 191,942 297,272 184,293 112,800 15,760 8,380 5,120 1,930 2,940 14,800 105.67 469,042 1,079,129 4,350 10,210 4,350 10,010) (County density based on total area. 30,200 15,970 12,840 6,990 6,540 24,800 R I C H M O N D C O U N T Y (STATEN ISLAND) 1. 2. 3, 4, 5. 5.22 .40 6.45 15.72 12.79 17.02 1.20 .36 Total.... 57.20 1.28 •Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward 4.82 6.45 14.52 12.43 17.02 34,401 21,280 28,720 15,587 16,543 52,782 23,998 31,156 32,961 17,449 7,010 3,300 1,820 1,220 973 10,950 3,720 2,150 2,650 1,025 55.92 116,531 158,346 2,040 2,830 2,040 2,770) (County density based on total area. •Net areas upon which 1920 densities are based are in a few cases different from the 1930 net areas due to recent additions in public narks. As only the present areas are of current interest the earlier ones are not included in the table. fArea remaining after transfer of 0.1 sq. mi. to Lawrence Village in Nassau County in 1928. JDue to the large size of the assembly districts in Richmond, ward areas were used in t h a t borough. Assembly District N o . l is composed of Wards 1 and 2 and Assembly District N o . 2 is composed of Wards 3, 4 and 5. JVew York City and Contiguous Territory A comparison of the density maps for 1850 and 1900 of New York City and contiguous territory, as given in the Regional Survey, shows in a very impressive way the initial piling up of population in the center of the Region. Since 1900 there has been a spreading out of this central population not only in Manhattan but also in Brooklyn and Hudson county. This movement has been greatly accelerated during the last decade, as indicated by Figures 3 and 4 which show population densities by assembly districts in all boroughs of New York City except Richmond; in Richmond and the larger New Jersey communities densities are shown by wards. Detailed figures for the five boroughs in New York City are given in Table II. The figures given beneath the two maps tell an interesting story. The last ten years have seen a shifting of population density from both the less than 25,000 per square mile group and the more than 100,000 per square wile group, to the group with intermediate densities, which almost doubled in area. The areas with densities of over 10O ' jOOO per square mile had increased from 8.3 square wiles to 17.6 square miles between 1900 and 1920 but dropped to 12.0 square miles in 1930. In 1850 the maximum density in New York City was in the Sixth Ward near City Hall, representing 165,000 Persons per square mile. By 1900 a maximum of 400,000 per square mile existed in the Eighth Assembly District on the Lower East Side. By 1920 this same assembly district still had the highest density, but it had dropped to 261,000 per square mile. In 1930 the densest population was found in the 17th Assembly District, at the northeast corner of Central Park, with 217,300 persons per square mile. In Brooklyn the maximum has decreased from 148,800 persons per square mile in the 16th Ward in 1900 to 96,700 per square mile in the Sixth Assembly District in 1930. In Hudson county, New Jersey, the maximum in 1900 was 59,250 per square mile in the Fifth Ward of Jersey City, where it increased to 75,500 in 1920. By 1930 the maximum was found in the Third Ward of Jersey City, with a density of 64,800 per square mile. Manhattan The changes in distribution of population within Manhattan, which lost 18.2 per cent of its population from 1920 to 1930, are shown still more effectively in the dot maps in Figures 5 and 6 than in the density maps. Each dot in these maps represents 100 persons and the decreases on the Lower East Side and northeast of Central Park appear very clearly. It is also obvious that these decreases to a large extent represented reductions in excessive densities and, therefore, are to some extent an improvement over earlier conditions. �30.C 10, Fie. 6 �Page Group 1 v/ New York City Newark City Hudson County Orange ^ /' JJ Groups / Morris Nassau County Westchester County Fairfield County (Part) Bergen County (Part) > 1,170 sq.mi. Passaic County (Part) Essex County (Excluding Newark) Union County fl^'* Urn V Eleven Union J Group 3 T h e Remainder ^^••^M on mouth "5,993 sq.mi. T o t a l Area : 5,5£8 sq.mi. y—i 30,000 30,000 _„. 20,000 — - ' - ' "-" 10,000 N 1 , \& ,«<&^ SsJ%^ \ ^ 5,000 4,000 i-^>i <Hb fCVJ* 2,000 ^-*~ ^ > *"' 1,000 s$ >' 500 <"*r ^- , H _^' " ,» **^ _.,.— — —... "— „_—- """ •»«"*"" --" " > „*- ' ~~~. 310,000 - _^,« • — * . . , yoVv »-«- - * p--—^ - - - - '-"" • „ «• ' „„•*• **"' - »«"*"' ^.**~ 5,000 4,000 ^» *" 3,000 p-"' ^'' sr-*.- .**' 2,000 .*.—" -—-' c*2& „ ** s T-** " i — - - ' **^\ <*<' \^ ^ - H oS ^A ^ V^f ^ ' ' O^ i-c^v%r ^ r~" 3,000 400 ft'6 - |—'-izojooo •.«•"" fir -" - .."5 .1,000 jHi^ ^*' 500 400 300 300 200 200 y ^ 100 100 POPULATION OF NEW YORK 8c ENVIRONS 50 FROM 1850 TO 1930 WITH ESTIMATES TO THE YEAR 1965 40 30 Figures for Different Groups Relate t o Boundaries as Existing in 1930 20 93/ /fe*'/ j e o * / /& 10 1850 I860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 FIG. 7 1920 0/7 / 930 1930 us/ 1940 1950 I960 �Page Twelve 1790 1800 10 nm u»n up «M .860 , «*> , iBaO^JggQigOO WO '920 - y o m o j y i960 IQ0O0 uJ h Z O POPULATION OF NEW YO£k CITY PAST £. ESTIMATED GROWTH, BY BOROUGHS, 1790-1965 (BASED O N 1930 QEGIONAL PLAN CF NEW BOUNDARIES) YOPJ£ AND ITS ENVIRONS FIG. 8 Center of Population of New York City Several inquiries have been received by the Regional Plan as to the present center of population of New York City. This spot might be defined as the center of gravity of the resident population, or that point from which the average distance to the home of every person in the city is the minimum. The center has been computed from the 1930 census and its location is indicated by the star in Figure 4. It falls within the Borough of Queens and between Long Island City and Maspeth. The actual point as plotted on the city map lies within Calvary Cemetery, about 1,100 feet south of the intersection of Borden and Greenpoint Avenues and about 2,000 feet from Newtown Creek, which forms the boundary between Queens and Brooklyn. It would fall within the lines of a southerly extension of Moore Street. The center of population, therefore, lies zyA miles from Times Square, almost exactly on the axis of 42nd Street extended, and 4}b miles from the Brooklyn Borough Hall. While its exact location is of no great importance in planning the city, it is of general interest and its movement is indicative of the direction in which the residential development of the city is moving. The forecas were a prepar subdi. Thep and tr of the a rate total some �Page Thirteen ISJO t I860 1870 I860 1B9Q 1900 1910 1920 I9S0 1940 1950 ^--'(960 POPULATION OF ENVIRONS OF NEW YOWZ. PAST a. ESTIMATED GROWTH BY COUNTIES, 1790-1963 REGIONAL 1790 !640 _ I&50 1800 '810 1820 (830 (BASED PLAN 1840 1850 ON 1530 OF NEW I860 1870 YO&K 1880 FIG. Revised Population Estimates The Regional Plan did not attempt to make population forecasts for communities smaller than counties and these were adjusted so as to correspond with the estimates first prepared for the three groups into which the Region was subdivided and to which reference already has been made. The published estimates were based on figures up to 1920 and the 1925 New York State Census established that some of the outlying counties had started to gain population at a rate far beyond their previous rates of growth. While the total figures involved were not great, it was obvious that some revision in the Regional Plan estimates for counties BOUNDARIES) 1890 AND 1900 1910 uJ ITS ENVIRONS 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 8 9 would be necessary, and the 1930 census made this still more evident. Table I I I gives revised estimates up to the year 1965 for each of the three groups and the counties or parts of counties which are included therein. (This table supersedes Table XV on page 119 of Regional Survey Volume II.) The 1930 figures are also given for comparison. Estimates for the whole Region and the three groups and also for New York City are shown graphically in Figure 7, which, also includes past records back to 1850. (This supersedes Figure 33 on page 89 of Regional Survey Volume II.) The indications are that the suburban areas, or Group 2, will '4 �Page Fourteen TABLE I I I . - P O P U L A T I O N ESTIMATES BY COUNTIES AND GROUPS, 1940, 1950, 1960 AND 1965 (Supersedes Table XV, page 119, Regional Survey, Volume II) Estimated Increa^T 1930-1965 Estimated Population County Census of 1930 1950 1940 1965 1960 Per cent Nu morical GROUP 1 Bronx Kings (Brooklyn) New York (Manhattan).. Queens Richmond 1,265,258 2,560,401 1,867,312 1,079,129 158,346 1,675,000 2,900,000 1,800,000 1,507,000 227,000 1,987,000 3,327,000 1,727,000 1,900,000 335,000 2,346,000 3,790,000 1,706,000 2,423,000 533,000 2,478,000 3,965,000 1,678,000 2,620,000 600,000 Total New York City Hudson Newark (City) 6,930,446 690,730 442,337 8,109,000 735,000 489,000 9,276,000 829,000 568,000 10,798,000 980,000 650,000 11,341,000 1,040,000 686,000 64 51 55 8,063,513 9,333,000 10,673,000 12,428,000 13,067,000 62 Total Group 1 96 55 —ii 143 279 GROUP 2 Nassau Westchester Essex (excluding Newark) Union Passaic (Part) *Fairfield (Part) Bergen (Part) Total Group 2 303,053 520,947 391,176 305,209 256,609 89,877 317,511 453,000 703,000 582,000 425,000 301,000 119,000 483,000 611,000 913,000 798,000 566,000 340,000 146,000 615,000 820,000 1,135,000 1,068,000 740,000 391,000 183,000 770,000 912,000 1,313,000 1,225,000 852,000 432,000 203,000 837,000 201 152 213 179 68 126 164 609,000 792,000 834,000 547,000 175,400 113,100 519,000 2,184,382 3,066,000 3,989,000 5,107,000 5,774,000 164 3,589,500 GROUP 3 Suffolk •Fairfield (Part) •Dutchess (Part) Putnam •Orange (Part) Rockland Bergen (Remainder) Passaic (Remainder) Morris Somerset Middlesex •{••Monmouth (Part) Total Group 3 TOTAL N E W Y O R K REGION 161,055 258,269 20,751 13,744 71,229 59,599 47,466 45,520 110,445 65,132 212,208 144,691 192,000 345,000 21,500 14,500 73,000 63,500 64,000 59,500 126,000 73,000 255,000 177,000 215,000 435,000 22,500 15,000 80,000 68,000 85,000 73,000 142,000 77,500 306,000 198,000 244,000 540,000 24,500 16,000 84,500 74,000 104,000 78,000 169,000 80,000 367,000 222,000 258,000 596,000 25,000 16,500 86,000 76,000 116,000 80,500 174,000 82,000 413,000 236,000 60 131 20 20 21 27 144 77 58 26 95 63 1,210,109 1,464,000 1,717,000 2,003,000 2,159,000 78 11,458,004 13,863,000 16,379,000 19,538,000 21,000,000 83. TOTALS F O R COUNTIES SPLIT BY G R O U P I N G Bergen Passaic •Fairfield (Part) 364,977 302,129 833,513 348,146 547,000 360,500 1,071,000 464,000 700,000 413,000 1,366,000 581,000 874,000 469,000 1,718,000 723,000 953,000 512,500 1,911,000 799,000 161 69 129 130 •All of county not in region. tIncluding estimated population in 3.7 square miles transferred from Monmouth County to Ocean County in 1928. �Page Fifteen TABLE IV.—SUMMARY, BY COUNTIES, OF 1920 AND 1930 POPULATION IN N E W YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS SHOWING DENSITIES AND RATES OF INCREASE County Total area, square miles L , v YORK STATE 1920 Per cent increase in population Population per square mile Population 1930 1920 1930 ' B-°"*'/Brooklyn) Kings , H U , / , Sw York (Manhattan) 41.8 68.7 21.9 107.8* 57.2 732,016 2,018,356 2,284,103 469,042 116,531 1,265,258 2,560,401 1,867,312 1,079,129 158,346 17,510 29,400 104,300 4,350 2,040 30,300 37,300 85,200 10,010 2,770 Total New York City 297.4* 5,620,048 6,930,446 18,890 115.7 273.4* 415.1 241.0 183.0 915.1 446.2 18,502 126,120 65,795 10,802 45,548 110,246 344,436 20,751 303,053 71,229 13,744 59,599 161,055 520,947 2,886.9 6,341,497 235.8 127.4 44.1 308.8 426.7 477.7 198.9 305.1 103.4 Dutchess (part of) rtWrhester I Somerset Union Total New Jersey 1920-1930 70.0 23.5 72.8 26.9 2.0 —18.2 65.1 35.6 130.1 35.9 23,300 17.9 23.3 160 461 159 45 249 120 772 179 1,108 172 57 325 176 1,168 — 7.0 50.3 — 0.5 —26.3 — 2.8 14.7 21.7 12.2 140.3 8.3 27.2 30.8 46.1 51.2 8,080,824 2,200 2,800 17.9 27.4 210,703 652,089 629,154 162,334 102,554 82,694 259,174 47,991 200,157 364,977 833,513 690,730 212,208 144,691 110,445 302,129 65,132 305,209 893 5,120 14,270 526 240 173 1,303 157 1,935 1,548 6,540 15,660 687 339 231 1,519 213 2,950 52.7 27.1 17.1 41.9 11.4 10.7 20.0 23.6 42.8 73.2 27.8 9.8 30.7 41.0 33.6 16.6 35.7 52.5 2,227.9 2,346,850 3,029,034 1,053 1,359 25.9 29.1 413.2 290,708 348,146 704 843 29.1 19.7 5,528.0 8,979,055 11,458,004 1,625 2,073 20.3 27.6 VEW JERSEY Middlesex jMonmouth (part of) 1910-1920 •—• CONNECTICUT Fairfield (part of) TOTAL FOR N E W Y O R K AND E N V I R O N S *1930 areas, after transfer of 0.1 sq. mi. from Queens to Nassau County in 1928. The 1920 densities are based on the previous areas, jlncludes area (3.7 sq. mi.) annexed to Ocean County in 1928, in which the estimated 1930 population was 55. J continue to increase at about the present rate for another ten years, after which a more uniform rate of growth throughout the Region may be expected. face Between The Bronx and Queens Corresponding curves for the five boroughs in New York City are given in Figure 8. The most notable feature on these curves is the great jump in the rate of growth in the Borough of Queens since 1920, undoubtedly largely influenced by the fact that Queens is about to obtain greatly I '^proved rapid transit facilities. Manhattan's loss in population has been more than made up by the rapid growth in tath Queens and The Bronx. It is estimated that by the year I960 these two boroughs will have approximately e qual populations. The spreading of population throughout the city is indicated quite clearly in Figure 10, which shows the changes in the percentage of total city population within each borough from 1790 to date and estimates up to 1965. In 1830 Manhattan reached a maximum of about 83.5 per cent, which had decreased to about 27 per cent in 1930. During the last decade the Borough of Brooklyn has moved into first place and now contains about 37 per cent of the city's population. It is believed that this figure is the maximum and that Brooklyn will begin to decline slightly in its percentage of the city's population. It is indicated that by the year 1965 Manhattan will not have more than 15 per cent of the total population and that The Bronx and Queens will contain 22 and 23 per cent respectively. I II �Page Sixteen POPULATION OF NEW YORK CITY CURVCS S u o W I N G PtRCCNTAGl Or ToT»L F b p U U T I O N IN E l C U &OKOJGM 1 7 9 0 TO 1 9 3 0 • o WITH ESTIMATE.:; TO THE YrA*. I9W — > T i a o r c s for Different borouqhs rclolc r o f c o u n d a r l M at e « l » » i n q In 1930 r t & r . i M R . v 1932 5 / *- in u 3 NA. ! / / '^ 1 o !' 1 ; o -J Nfsv j < 1 o 0 _) 1 \l —Iv ^ \ .*'JP\ ~f~ 2 70 u A f i \ 1 \ ^_ M 1 i « Ce Attns TOTAL 3^2 ?5.l I9.Z :^.i J/1 100.0 rs. I—j_ 0 a to o RtHTiVE L A N D b o e o u G u - °joof QUUNS 6ROOKLYN RICHMOND 6K.ONX MANUATTAN j VI FIG. ; ^-J • ^ >- f-'s L... ^ J =H \. , 1 / ^ s* — • -"^ 10 Counties in the Environs Population curves for the various counties in the environs present a great variety in rates of increase. Separate curves are given for each county and part of county within the environs in Figure 9. On the upper part of this diagram are grouped the nine counties in the State of New Jersey, while on the lower part of the diagram are shown curves for the seven New York State counties and one Connecticut county which fall within the boundaries of the Region. These curves also cover records from 1790 to 1930 and estimates to the year 1965, as tabulated in Table III. In the New Jersey metropolitan area there has been the same shift of population from the central areas to tl rounding communities as has occurred in New Yor^r? As a result, the rates of increase in Hudson Count U the City of Newark in Essex County have decreased \\l same tendencies are carried forward in the populate ^ mates. The race between Bergen and Union counti^ expected to continue, but with Bergen County maintai * the lead acquired during the last ten years. Essex Cou ^ due to the possibilities of growth in its central and west "' sections, is expected to maintain its past rate of increase The striking feature in the population curves for iv New York State counties in the environs is the recev ,.„ • growth in Nassau County, which has been approachin Westchester County in the number of its population. It estimated that during the next 35 years these two countiwill maintain about equal rates of growth and that the will both continue to grow faster than the more clistan counties. Nassau County will probably move ahead of tha part of Fairfield County, Connecticut, within the Regi, during the next ten years. The importance of the environs is indicated by the estimate of a total population increase therein between 193 and 1965 of 5,131,500, or about 113 per cent. This amount to 54 per cent of the estimated total increase within th Region of 9,542,000, or 83 per cent, during the same period Experience has shown the difficulty in making accuraf forecasts for even county areas in a large metropolitan region, such as that with which we are dealing. Undoubt edly there will be some shifts in population growths be tween the various counties which cannot be foreseen fro information now available. The estimates given herein are based on the carrying out of the major improvements included in the Graphic Regional Plan, and such redistribution of population as they will lead to has been taken into consideration in arriving at the present figures. �a$< MONTHLY REPORT OF BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Village of North Tartytown, N. Y. permits g r a n t e d --n-?n~- permits denied prom- .Jfe.lth 1 9 3 _2 as Peller paul A p p l i c a t i o n of jn,. Building l-,o c a t.e d, a t, tO—^F-.-^. 37 -til follows DeVrees Ave,: — ^ _ 193.2.. -Permit No- 397 Mar 7 t h permit -grmrfr&'dr- 193-?- A p p l i c a t i o n of -Ale.x.. feld.rp.n... Building l o c a t e d a t .-8.6...^e.ekmaii.-AYe. Permit granted-jisnLad-on A p p l i c a t i o n of : Majr_._l9th 19 3-?- Permit No~3-9.8 193.2 Permit No-252. P.r..Louis.Berg Building l o c a t e d a t 25.0.Np.rth..Broadway. Permit granted-jiejilejj on~~Mar.26th Application of - Building located at Permit granted-denied on ; 193 Application of Building located at Permit No- Permit grant ed-denied on 193 Permit No- 193 Permit No- Application of Building Located at Permit grant ed-denied on.... - �Application of Building located at „ .. , , , . , ' Permit granted-denied on Application of 193.—.—- ------.—-- : Building located at — ""• - - — - Permit granted-denied on Application of — Building located at "" - ---193 --- •—- - Application of - Building located at .- - -193 -Permit No —— ---—————---- - ------ - 193- < - : —- ~-193 Application of ------ Permit' No------ - Permit granted-denied on Dated: North Tarrytown, N. Y. , Permit NO- .--—: Permit granted-denied on Building located at Permit No - - - Permit granted-denied on ' " :: - ----- Application of --- "" .-—.--— Permit granted-denied on Building located at Permit No- —— - ,-193 Apr--8tii - Permit No- -. 193-2- lding Inspector of the Village of North Tarrytown, N. Y � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1932 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_1932-02-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1932 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1932 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text