History and Significance of the Central Area

The Central section of the Harlem River study area intersects a number of distinct neighborhoods, including Marble Hill, Inwood, East Harlem, and parts of the Bronx.  Discrete portions of these communities unite to form an important transitional zone for the entire Harlem River.  The Central section is geographically bound by Macomb’s Dam Bridge to the south, the Major Deegan Expressway to the east, Highbridge Park and 10th Avenue to the west, and the Broadway Bridge to the north.

This portion of the study area can be understood as an in-between region that contains the least amount of developed land along the Harlem River, while including a large number of public resources.  In contrast, the Northern and Southern sections are more clearly defined by their predominantly residential or industrial uses.  Due in part to its steep topography, the Central area did not develop as quickly or fully as neighboring sections.  As a result, this narrow fringe has provided adequate space for uses typically pushed out of other neighborhoods during New York City’s development, including a mix of transportation and infrastructure, industry, recreation, and high-density housing. These divergent uses coexist in the Central section, lending a character not commonly found in the other parts of the Harlem River study area.  The historic uses and attitudes towards the Harlem River and its waterfront in the Central section have the ability to inform future perceptions of the notable resources so that these assets are properly understood and valued.

Starting from the southern boundary of the Central area, oneimmediately encounters diverse patterns of growth and use. For example, two large recreational sites, Highbridge Park and Roberto Clemente Park, provide different histories of parkland development in the area.  Highbridge Park, located on the Manhattan side of the river between Macomb’s Dam Bridge and Dyckman Street, was assembled piece-meal by the city from 1867 to 1960. Making use of undeveloped land, Highbridge initially provided a “resort” destination that responded to the recreational needs of a privileged class. Directly across the river is Roberto Clemente Park, which spans from West 176th Street to West 180th Street between the Harlem River and the Major Deegan Expressway.  Opened in 1973, a year earlier than the River Park Towers housing development built within the park, it is located on a former industrial site. The only New York State Park found in the Bronx, it serves the local community, a mix of middle- and lower-income residents from a predominantly minority population.

Further north, the industrial waterfront of Inwood, located between Sherman’s Creek and West 216th Street and 10th Avenue and the Harlem River, historically served as the site of objectionable facilities that meet the basic needs of the city.  This section of riverfront, portions of which are owned by Consolidated Edison and various city agencies, is the location of several utilitarian structures, including the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority Maintenance Yard and the Manhattan Incinerator Plant.  Fordham Landing, just north of the University Heights Bridge on the Bronx shore, is a desolate piece of industrial property adjacent to the potential site of a new public housing development on the waterfront.  These sites, typical to the neighborhood’s character, are perceived as nuisances and derelict properties, though they have ample potential.

At the northern most part of the Central area are the Marble Hill Houses.  These structures are representative of the numerous housing projects located in this portion of the river.  Run by the New York City Housing Authority, as are the majority of the high-density residential structures in the study area, the Marble Hill Houses are typical brick, “slab-style,” multi-story apartment buildings meant to serve a community in need of decent, affordable housing.  Located sporadically throughout the Central section, structures of this type comprise the most recent layer of development as a response to contemporary issues affecting the region, including poverty, reduced housing stock, and unemployment.

Due to the fact that the Central area of the river is composed of pieces of neighborhoods, the demographic information supplied herein will cover the entire span of the section (refer to Appendix II for more detail).  5,772 units (not including the Marble Hill Houses due to census tract restrictions) provide housing for the smallest total population of the three sections of the Harlem River study area. Only 15,561 individuals reside here, totaling just 14.4% of the entire study area and 0.2% of New York City.ⁱ  Of the population residing here, 22% are foreign born and 41% are ethnically Hispanic.  60% of the population is black, 11% white, and 29% are considered “some other race”.  The unemployment rate within the Central area is 23%, with the median per capita income at $7,214.  The median per capita income for the entire study area is $13,848 and New York City’s is $23,357.  37% of the households in the area make less than $10,000 a year and 42.6% are living below the poverty level.

The Central area differs from the regions to the north and south with regard to its topography. For an extensive portion of its length, the landscape is characterized by steep terrain, averaging some two hundred feet above sea level in Highbridge Park and approximately one hundred fifty feet above sea level along the Bronx side, east of the Major Deegan Expressway.  In contrast, at its northern and southern ends, the bulk of the Central area’s land mass averages twenty-five feet above sea level. The lowlands along the eastern shore were ideal for routing the railroad right-of-way, established in the mid-eighteenth century and still active today.  This change in elevation along the river’s course is reflected in the degree and types of development found along its edges:  from heavy industry and manufacturing in the South Bronx, through parkland in the center, and back to industry and maritime use in the north.  Due to the lack of concentrated built fabric in the Central area, the significant resources, their challenges, and our proposals for them are presented according to themes of use rather than neighborhood.

Transportation and Infrastructure:

The study of the transportation arteries in the Central section is important to understanding the history of the Harlem River and New York City.  On the Manhattan side, the Harlem River Drive connects northern to central Manhattan on the footprint of the Harlem River Speedway (1870s). On the Bronx side, the Major Deegan Expressway links the southern Bronx to parts of New York State immediately north  of the city (since 1938), and beyond (1950s extension), providing links to the New York State Parkway system and other regions.¹ These highways, which define boundaries separating the community from the river, symbolize the beginning of the automobile era and the physical manifestation of Robert Moses’ public works vision.  Though his vision produced substantial recreational benefits for the greater metropolitan area, these parkways and roads function as impediments to local access in the Harlem River Study Area.

Running alongside the Major Deegan Expressway are vestiges of the railroads that were once critical to the economic vitality of the local communities and New York City.  In 1851, an extensive rail system was completed in the Central section of the study area, connecting lower Manhattan to communities north of the city as far as the Hudson River Valley.  During the industrial age, trains and ships were the primary means of passenger and freight transport. These made viable the transportation of raw goods to the industries that were emerging along the river’s margins, and transported the labor force that fueled New York City’s effervescent manufacturing sector.

Railroads competed with strong shipping activity on the Harlem River and nearby ports; the existing swing bridges and remnants of once busy docks and piers bear witness to this era.  These land and water activities were of paramount importance to the economic development of the region in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Other historic uses for the river include passenger ferry routes.  As early as the late seventeenth century, a ferry service linked what is today 125th Street to the Spuyten Duyvil Creek and Kingsbridge area.  This emphasis on cross-river transportation continued with the construction of several bridges connecting the Manhattan and Bronx sides of the river.  

There are five bridges that cross the Harlem River in the Central area: University Heights Bridge, Washington Bridge, Alexander Hamilton Bridge, High Bridge and Macomb’s Dam Bridge.  These include the earliest extant bridge on the Harlem River, High Bridge (1848), and the most recently constructed, the Alexander Hamilton (1964).  These two bridges as well as the Washington Bridge (1889) are fixed arch spans and are situated at high grades in the topography at approximately 100 to 160 feet above sea level.  The other two bridges, University Heights (1895/1906) and Macomb’s Dam (1895) are at lower grades, approximately twenty feet above sea level.

Industrial Sites and Structures:

In the mid-nineteenth century, as the engineering marvels of the High Bridge and Croton Aqueduct reached completion, a process of attempting to make use of the narrow shoreline began to reshape the region’s natural character.  The Bronx waterfront in the Central area is characterized by steep terrain and shoreline acreage fronting on relatively narrow, shallow reaches of the Harlem River.  These conditions inhibited industrial development on a scale more commonly found in the communities of Morrisania, Mott Haven, and Port Morris to the south.  In the absence of ideal building sites, successive bands of transportation infrastructure were laid along the river’s north-south axis, beginning with the Harlem Line rails in 1851 and culminating in the Major Deegan Expressway over one hundred years later.  On the artificial fill that expanded the acreage available alongside these rails, smaller industries thrived for a period of time, including commercial boat building and coal storage and distribution facilities; however, these became obsolete in the early twentieth century and their remnants have all but disappeared.  In their place, substantial recreation and housing developments have grown; however, utility and transportation infrastructures, often derelict, continue to dominate the Bronx waterfront.

On the Manhattan shore, working upriver from the section’s southern boundary, we find little in the way of waterfront with historically industrial or maritime character until we arrive at Sherman’s Creek, at the lower end of the Inwood Flats, where Tenth Avenue, Dyckman Street and Harlem River Drive converge.  Here are the remnants of a natural water feature, which at one point extended much deeper into Manhattan, and was probably the mouth of a creek that began near the present day Cloisters Museum.  North of the creek lies the Inwood waterfront, a large portion of which was the property of the Dyckman family estate until the late nineteenth-century. These lots, which are generally only ten feet above the water level, were considered a potential site for the World’s Fair in 1893, but this plan went unrealized.²  An amusement park along the lines of Coney Island, which exploited waterfront access for ferries and rides, was proposed and the land there leased in 1904, but the venture collapsed.³ The Manhattan street grid, laid out in 1811 under the Randel Plan, extended optimistically into the river in this district circa 1897; however, there is no indication it reached completion, and today is characterized by streets abruptly ending at the waterfront.⁴

The lowlands north of Sherman’s Creek provided few of the amenities offered in the communities further south, i.e. close freight railways and a deepwater port.  Expansion of the elevated service north along Manhattan and increasing power demand in the first decade of the twentieth century led to the construction here of a large power generating facility and a massive railway maintenance yard.  These set the tone for successive generations of public infrastructure built nearby, which continue to define the character of this section of the region’s waterfront. While these offer little in the way of historic fabric in the traditional sense, they provide a context for interpreting the diverse layers of development characterizing the Harlem River waterfront and its environs.  Even in the absence of original structures, patterns of land use and limits to accessibility persist.  Outdated zoning, low property valuations, and traffic congestion have the potential to plague redevelopment in the area, where heavy industrial use has been curtailed, supplanted primarily by commercial uses and sporadic, high-density housing.   

Recreation:

Recreation has long been a characteristic use within the Central part of the Harlem River study area and remains an enduring feature within the layers of mixed industrial, commercial, and residential uses present along the Harlem River.  The steep topography of much of the land within this section made many of these areas particularly unsuitable for development of any kind. Where the existing topographic conditions could not meet the demands of industry, infrastructure, and housing for land, the edges of the river were physically manipulated, establishing some of the area’s most significant recreational opportunities, from the Harlem River Speedway of the late nineteenth century, to Roberto Clemente State Park in the 1970s. Thus, recreation in the Central section of the study area has retained its importance within the developmental history of the Harlem River study area.

High-Density Housing Developments:

Emphasis has been placed on the Central section of the Harlem River as a location for small industrial and recreational use; however, the area is also home to several public housing developments.  These reflect a popular social ideology of the mid-twentieth century, during which local, state, and federal governments attempted to address urban problems such as high population density, overcrowded slums, and plights such as unemployment and poverty.  Four of these were built in the early 1950s, a time when the New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) output was at its height.  It was during this period that the Dyckman Houses (1951), Colonial Park Houses (1951), Marble Hill Houses (1952) and Highbridge Houses (1954) were constructed.  Two later developments include the Polo Grounds Towers (1968) and the River Park Towers (1974). 

Similar to the European approach to social housing, which incorporates recreational and educational activities in high-density housing, the goal along the Harlem River was to provide shelter for the increased population of the city and improve living conditions for those “’special cases,’ perpetually hobbled by their inability to escape the cycle of poverty, unemployment, ill health and social deprivation.”⁵  The designs were based on health, efficiency, and convenience; they emphasized light, air, views, greenspace, and amenities such as playgrounds, laundry facilities, and community centers.  Constructed according to two building plans, the cruciform plan structures maximized light and ventilation, while the slab-type constructions increased cost efficiency. 

Although several of the developments did offer improvements in living situations, it is important to note the underlying implications of these projects.  Their location along the Harlem River is a reflection of the low cost and value of the waterfront land.  Like most urban renewal, the majority of the developments were built on the same sites as the slums they replaced.  These buildings functioned to condense certain groups of the population; according to the 1950 National Housing Census, the occupants of public housing were close to 50% nonwhite, although nonwhites made up only 11% of the total national population.⁶  Although the location along the waterfront does provide increased cross ventilation and light for the public housing, the views of the nearby industrial buildings and the derelict plots of land are a reminder of why the public housing is situated along this desolate area. 

Significant Resources

With little built fabric, the resources in the Central section of the Harlem River Study Area are of a different nature than those in the North or South.  Large-scaled or public uses such as transportation, infrastructure, and recreation define the character of the area’s manmade structures and landscapes.  Although not all are worthy of preservation in the same manner as the historic structures typically found in the North and South, their importance to the Central area’s development and usage necessitates listing and qualifies them as significant historical resources.

Transportation and Infrastructure:

• Railroads
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: Circa 1840-1851
  Architect: N/A
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Educational Element

  Historically, railroads in the Central Harlem River study area were placed on the river’s margins, along the low lying shore of the Bronx. Eventually their presence provided a new foundation against which to place infill and thus expand waterfront acreage.  The railroads functioned as a path to transport raw materials and finished products to meet the demands of expanding industry on the Bronx side. They also served as a commuter line connecting the residential neighborhoods of Westchester County and Hudson River Valley to New York City.  The railroad system played a vital role in the industrial development of the Bronx and East Harlem, as well as in substantially dictating the extent of waterfront investment on the Bronx shore of the Harlem River.

• Croton Aqueduct*
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: 1842
  Architect: John B. Jervis, engineer
  Landmark Status: National Historic Landmark (1992)

  The original Croton Aqueduct was one of the great municipal public works projects of the nineteenth century. It provided clean water from the Croton River to city residents, who needed fresh water to extinguish fires and to mitigate the diseases that were prevalent in the area during that time. John B. Jervis, who engineered the Erie, Delaware, and Hudson Canals, designed the Croton Aqueduct, the construction of which began in 1837. It opened in 1842, and was hailed around the world as an engineering masterpiece. The Croton Aqueduct was the principle source of water for Manhattan until the 1890 opening of the "New” Croton Aqueduct.  Built nearby the old aqueduct underneath the Harlem River, it provided New Yorkers with an even greater volume of water. The “New” Croton Aqueduct is still in use today supplementing other, separate water tunnels for the City of New York.

• High Bridge*
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: 1848
  Architect: John B. Jervis, engineer
  Landmark Status: New York City Landmark (1970), National Register (1972)

  High Bridge, which was part of the original Croton Aqueduct system, carried fresh water across the Harlem River from the Bronx to Manhattan. Finished six years after the completion of the aqueduct itself (a temporary siphon carried the water across the river while the bridge was being built), its design was influenced by the typical ancient Roman aqueduct. The engineering of the bridge was monumental because, at the time of its construction, the length and height of a grade-level crossing demanded an enormous structure, the size of which had not been built in the United States. Upon its completion in 1848, the bridge and surrounding areas of the future Highbridge Park quickly became a recreation destination for people from throughout the region.  Its pedestrian walkway, scenic views and monumental profile were repeated prolifically in paintings, drawings and etchings.  Since the 1960s the bridge has been closed to the public because of structural and safety issues.

• Washington Bridge*
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: 1889
  Architect: John McAlpine, engineer
  Landmark Status: New York City Landmark (1982)

  As one of the oldest extant Harlem River bridges, Washington Bridge retains a connection with the Harlem River’s pastoral and industrial history in its design and construction.  It is considered a marvel of engineering and aesthetics, referred to shortly after its opening as “one of the few structures of a public character that New York City can reasonably show with pride to strangers.”⁷ 

  Connecting the two upland areas of High Bridge on the Manhattan side and Fordham on the Bronx side, the bridge was required to span a much larger distance than bridges at lower grades.  Its two large steel arches span the river and the railroad tracks on the narrow flats of the Bronx shore.  The bridge approaches are made of smaller masonry arches that reference the High Bridge just south of it.  The recreational Harlem River Speedway was constructed under its Manhattan-shore arches not long after the bridge opened, thus completing its status as part of a picturesque landscape of the city.  Its connection to the Central section of the Harlem River study area and the larger New York City area was “updated” in 1952 when it was connected to the George Washington Bridge over the Hudson River by the High Bridge Interchange. This project dramatically increased vehicular traffic on the Washington Bridge and in the Central area.  Today the bridge is a major local traffic artery that carries over 57,000 vehicles a day, but remains an important asset historically, aesthetically, and culturally to the Central area.

• Macomb’s Dam Bridge*
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: 1895
  Architect: Alfred Pancoast Boller, engineer
  Landmark Status: New York City Landmark (1992)
  

  Macomb’s Dam Bridge is the oldest extant swing bridge in New York City.  Constructed in 1895 by the bridge engineer Alfred P. Boller (who would have a prolific career on the Harlem River), the bridge is actually one in a succession of several built on the site since 1835.⁸  Its design is integrally connected to national and local investment in the Harlem River as a major shipping waterway with the completion of the Harlem River Shipping Canal in 1895.  Prior to the completion of the Shipping Canal, legislation was passed that required the bridges on the Harlem River be at least twenty-four feet over the water if a movable span.⁹   Although the current bridge’s immediate predecessor fulfilled that requirement, most of the earlier swing bridges on the river were not technologically advanced enough to accommodate increased land traffic due to slow opening and closing times.  Improved design was required to maintain use of the  new waterway and still address land use.  Macomb’s Dam was the first bridge chosen for upgrading in conjunction with the Shipping Canal, and the new span was applauded as being both advanced in engineering and aesthetically pleasing.¹⁰  It would become a cultural landmark when it was used as the footpath from the Polo Grounds in Manhattan to Yankee Stadium in the Bronx.  Today it carries over 39,000 vehicles a day and remains a major route from Manhattan to Yankee Stadium.

• University Heights Bridge*
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: 1895/1906
  Architect: Alfred Pancoast Boller, engineer
  Landmark Status: New York City Landmark (1984)

  University Heights Bridge was also constructed in 1895, just after the Macomb’s Dam Bridge and the completion of the Harlem River Shipping Canal.  Almost identical, the two bridges were both designed by Alfred P. Boller, and are considered to be the engineer’s masterpieces on the Harlem River.  Originally the University Heights Bridge sat at what is now the Broadway Bridge (also referred to as Ship Canal Bridge) further north on the river.  The structure served the local traffic well enough, but was soon deemed inadequate for the completion of the Interborough Rapid Transit line through Marble Hill in 1908, due to its inability to carry a second deck for subway trains.  Rather than discard the bridge, the Bridge Commissioner, Gustav Lindenthal, suggested the Boller design be reused at the location of 207th and Fordham Road, where a bridge had been needed for some time.  The bridge was floated down to its current location in 1906, eleven years after its original construction.¹¹  It proved to be a needed connection for vehicles and pedestrians between the University Heights area in the Bronx and Inwood in Manhattan.  In 1984, one of the pedestrian walkways was removed in order to widen the way for vehicular traffic.  Today this City Landmark serves over 46,000 vehicles per day.

• Major Deegan Expressway
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: 1935-1956
  Architect: Regional Plan Association (RPA) - New York-New Jersey-Connecticut
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Educational Element

  The Major Deegan Expressway, built between 1935 and 1956, is an expression of attempts of the time to effectively address traffic problems in New York City. The presence of the expressway today seriously affects the overall character of the Central Harlem River study area; this effect extends into the Southern portion of the study area.  Historically, this structure echoes the impact of the automobile era in the shaping of American cities during that period. It represents gestures of modernist design on an urban and regional scale, which were often characterized by massive extension of road systems and suburban expansion.

• Alexander Hamilton Bridge (Cross-Bronx Expressway)
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: 1964
  Architect: Ernest Clark
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Appropriate Signage

  The Alexander Hamilton Bridge, part of the Cross-Bronx Expressway, is the most recently built crossing on the Harlem River. It was completed in 1964 for the purpose of relieving traffic on the Washington Bridge, after the 1952 High Bridge Interchange project significantly increased the amount of vehicles in the area.  As part of an eight-lane roadway, it currently carries 175,000 vehicles per day.  The Hamilton’s single large steel arch references its immediate neighbors, the Washington and High Bridges, on either side of it.  The bridge and highway have a dramatic impact on the area.  The elaborate system of steel interchange loops connecting it to the Major Deegan Expressway on the Bronx shore has a confusing effect on the riverfront, emphasizing transportation above all other uses. The concrete arches of the elevated connector road on the Manhattan side clearly reference the nearby older bridges and are aesthetically compelling.  The elevated structure isolates the section of Highbridge Park above which it hovers and presents a psychological barrier to people wishing to access the Manhattan Greenway below.

Industrial Sites and Structures:

• Consolidated Edison Property (ConEd)
  Tax Block/Lot: 2183/1
  Constructed 1908; Demolished
  Architect: unknown
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Educational Element

  At the southern end of the western Inwood waterfront are lots owned by Consolidated Edison (ConEd), which front on Academy Street, Sherman’s Creek, and the Harlem River.  This was the location of an eight-story, coal fired power generating station originally constructed in 1908.  Although it generated some 1200 horsepower from its engines, belching smoke and ash while spoiling the surrounding land with wastewater runoff, the power station coexisted for some time with numerous small boathouses across the narrow creek and at least one onshore café, named Durando’s. The nuisance of the plant’s noise, water, and air pollution was most likely a major factor in the stunted development of the lots nearby, and was the subject of at least one lawsuit by adjacent landowners and residents seeking to shutter the plant as early as the mid-1920s.  The plant outlived a similar one located at the intersection of West 216th Street and Ninth Avenue where a “car shed” that served the Third Avenue Elevated Railroad was also located for a period of time in the early twentieth-century.

  The Sherman Creek plant was dismantled in 1995 but has left large amounts of PCB-contaminated soil both onshore and in the creek.  Its presence on the corner of this large waterfront parcel binds a district that evolved to contain primarily warehouses and public infrastructure, the character of which is still marginal in its underutilization.

• MTA 207th Street Maintenance Yard 
  Tax Block/Lot: 2189/1
  Date: Circa 1910
  Architect: unknown
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Individual Designation (National Register)

  The low topography and irregular waterfront of western Inwood, where no engineered bulkhead was erected consistently, created ideal locations in the pre-industrial era for small boat building yards as well as coal and lumberyards.  Following the completion of the West Side elevated lines to the Bronx in 1908, these vernacular structures were quickly absorbed by construction in the 1910s of the sprawling NYC Rapid Transit System Maintenance Yard.  The yard spanned from 207th Street to 215th Street and from Tenth Avenue to the Harlem River.  This complex, which consists of numerous structures and facilities of varying construction dates, presents a tall, attractive brick façade for many blocks along Tenth Avenue. On the other side it fronts the river with dock facilities and a substantial bulkhead.  The yard speaks to the great importance that was assigned to the young transit system. It also addresses the issue of placing public infrastructure on lands with marginal value and character, as it lies outside the perimeter of the more densely populated residential communities to the south and west in Manhattan.

• Manhattan Incinerator Plant 
  Tax Block/Lot: 2212/1
  Date: 1934 & 1939
  Architect: Frank S. Parker
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Individual Designation (New York City and National Register)

  One block north, at 215th Street and Tenth Avenue, are the unmistakable smokestacks and facades of the Manhattan incinerator plant and associated facilities of the NYC Department of Sanitation, which were designed by Frank S. Parker.  This cluster of public works projects dating from 1934 and 1939, respectively, illustrates the enormous effort on the part of the New York City government to deal with the ever-growing problem of debris and refuse.  In response to years of complaints and campaigning, incinerators, or “destructors” as they were known, were constructed throughout Manhattan and the Bronx to replace the practice of ocean dumping and landfill.  They were completed at the expense of local air quality.  The sanitation buildings in Inwood signified progress for the city as a whole, and their simple, classical lines and prominent stacks did so with dignity.  Yet their location and by-products adversely impacted the communities into which these buildings were inserted.  The function of these facilities appears to have been in no way related to the riverfront, since garbage was trucked in for disposal; however, their proximity to other major infrastructures, set against the backdrop of an increasingly polluted and industrialized Harlem River, no doubt contributed to diminished land values and perceptions of area resources.

  Currently, the incinerator does not function in its original capacity.  All of the structures serve either an administrative, storage, or parking role, yet they retain most of their historic fabric.  Their proximity to the waterfront without any real need for access remains troublesome for planners seeking to increase public space available for greenway alongside the river.  As monuments to an era of increased governmental activity on behalf of its constituency, the buildings firmly anchor the surrounding area; yet by advancing the city’s interests on the whole, they subjected this area and local population to blight.

Recreation:

• Sherman’s Creek
  10th Avenue, between Dyckman Street and Academy Street, Inwood
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: Turn of the nineteenth century
  Architect: N/A
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Appropriate Signage

  The physical presence of recreation on and along the Harlem River has waxed and waned over time.  At the turn of the nineteenth century, the Harlem River was being celebrated as a center for the sport of rowing in New York City. The sport has its genesis in the days when rowboats were the earliest means of transportation around New York Harbor.  Oarsman that worked off Whitehall Street in Lower Manhattan were known to have engaged in races and rivalry with their peers, which often drew an audience and eventually a following.  From that time, rowing quickly evolved into a club activity, and the sport gained widespread popularity, especially after its appearance in the 1900 Olympic games.  By the 1910s, Sherman’s Creek was the location of choice for boat clubs, many of which were social as well as rowing clubs created by local immigrant communities. Often these clubs hosted other sports in addition to rowing, such as handball, bowling, and billiards.”¹²   Although the last remnants of the original boating structures are gone, the spirit of rowing on the Harlem lives in the contemporary boating structures that remain near Sherman’s Creek.  A new boating structure that will be floating in Swindler’s Cove perpetuates this legacy and may spur renewed interest in rowing through its educational programs for the local youth.

• Highbridge Park 
  Manhattan: West 155th to Dyckman Street, between Harlem River Drive and Amsterdam Avenue
  Bronx: Harlem River and Major Deegan Expressway, West 174th Street to Alexander Hamilton Bridge
  Tax Block/Lot: 2106/1
  Date: 1867-1960
  Architect: N/A
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Individual Designation (New York City Scenic Landmark)

  Due to the difficult terrain comprising today’s Highbridge Park, roughly stretching from West 155th Street to Dyckman Street, between Harlem River Drive and Amsterdam Avenue, this area remained only sparsely populated with scattered farms and private estates well into the nineteenth century.¹³ By 1867, New York City had already begun to assemble pieces of the park, with its open vistas of the Harlem River, and magnificent cliffs and outcroppings of Manhattan’s native stones, in order to permanently save this natural asset for the posterity of the city.¹⁴ Assembled between 1867 and 1960, the majority of the park was acquired through condemnation proceedings from 1895 to 1901.  In 1872, the completion of the water tower of the Croton Aqueduct system became one of Manhattan’s most picturesque landmarks. This structure added a manmade element to this otherwise all-natural resource.¹⁵ In this way, Highbridge Park is significant both as an incomparable natural resource for the Central section and as an area reflective of the historic layering of land use that is typical within the Central part of the Harlem River Study Area.

• Maher Circle and John Hooper Fountain *
  West 155th Street and Macomb’s Dam Bridge
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: 1894
  Architect: N/A
  Landmark Status: New York City Landmark (1992)

  A survivor amid the construction of the Harlem River Drive is Maher Circle, which is located at the southwest end of the West 155th Street viaduct and is now part of the landmarked Macomb’s Dam Bridge. This small paved island is home to the John Hooper Fountain, installed in 1894 at the bequest of Mr. Hooper, a civic-minded businessman, who, upon his death, donated $10,000 to the independent cities of Brooklyn and Manhattan, for the creation of fountains.¹⁶ His special request was that the fountains be designed to refresh all -- humans, horses, dogs and cats alike.¹⁷  What remains today of this granite fountain is the large round horse trough, a carved pedestal drinking fountain, and a base flanked by two small basins. The base, according to New York Parks and Recreation archives, once supported an ionic column with a glass globe and weathervane.¹⁸

• Harlem River Speedway
  Harlem River, between 160th Street and Dyckman Avenue
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: 1898
  Architect: N/A
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Appropriate Signage

  The evolution of the historic Harlem River Speedway, from an exclusive recreational resource, through years of disrepair, to an important part of the Manhattan Greenway, is indicative of the disparate land uses common within the Central area. Originally constructed in 1898, the Harlem River Speedway was quoted in a local journal as “a unique use of a remarkably picturesque site.” ¹⁹ Running between 160th Street and Dyckman Avenue along the Harlem River in Manhattan, the Speedway opened as a carriage path and walkway along which New York’s elite could proudly display both themselves and their horses.²⁰  The Harlem River Speedway provided opportunities for horse racing, and enjoyment of expansive views of the Harlem River and rowing competitions. Existing passageways remain that led pedestrians safely to the speedway, which was difficult and dangerous to cross.²¹ 

  The desire for paved roads eventually surpassed the need for a recreational speedway in New York City. As a result, major portions of the speedway were paved over for automobile traffic in the 1920s, and remaining portions fell into disrepair.²²  In 1938, the City of New York and Robert Moses announced plans to construct the Harlem River Drive.  This major roadway, in accordance with prewar idealism regarding the benefits of highways in urban areas, was expected to “accomplish the clearing up of the existing unsightly and badly planned condition along the whole west bank of the Harlem River, making this river front property an orderly, beautiful area.”²³  Over sixty-years after the implementation of Robert Moses’ plans for the area, we would use his very words to define what is there now. The ‘unsightly badly planned conditions’ the Commissioner referred to back in 1938, took different shapes. The current character of the river front properties, cut by asphalt paved highways and many bridges and overpasses constantly animated by automobile traffic, seems far from our contemporary concept of beautiful area.

  In 1993, Mayor Giuliani implemented a Greenway Plan for the City of New York, which called for the development of a 350-mile network of greenways through all five boroughs.  This included a continuous ring around the island of Manhattan, known as the Manhattan Greenway Project.²⁴ The rehabilitation of the two-mile stretch of the former pedestrian promenade was the first phase completed of this joint City/State effort.²⁵ Much of the historic fabric was retained, while the memories of lost artifacts were also referenced in the design of new iron railings. The project furthermore reintroduces historic viewscapes of the High Bridge, as well as the Alexander Hamilton and Washington Bridges, which has previously been inaccessible during the years of decay.²⁶ The Manhattan Greenway returned a section of the Harlem River Speedway to the Central area and incorporated this historic recreational resource into the Greenway’s waterfront promenade.

• Macomb’s Dam Park and Fountain
  East 161st and Macomb’s Dam Bridge, Bronx
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: 1899 (Park), 1936 (Fountain)
  Architect of Park: N/A, Architect of Fountain: Martin Schenck and Arthur V. Waldregon
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Appropriate Signage

  Macomb’s Dam Park is a testament to the idea that recreation is beneficial to the well-being of New York City residents. This is clearly indicated in the Department of Parks Annual Statement of 1914, where it says children were "drawn to these playgrounds where they were able to give full vent to their excess of feelings, and enjoy to the fullest extent those kinds of exercise which were conducive to their well-being both mentally and physically."²⁷ Opened in 1899, just below East 161st Street in a typically industrial area of the Bronx, Macomb’s Dam Park was named for the Macomb family who operated a dam and a mill on the site in the early nineteenth century.

  Many recreational pursuits were satisfied at its extensive facilities, which included a quarter-mile track, baseball fields, tennis courts, comfort stations, and a playground. The building of Yankee Stadium in 1923 only enhanced the appeal of the park. In 1936, the Macomb's Dam Fountain, designed by Martin Schenck and Arthur V. Waldregon, was installed.  Boasting a “large granite basin ornamented with carved limestone dolphins and a lion's head.” The fountain, and its location within Macomb’s Dam Park, is a tribute to the continuing importance New Yorkers have placed on the recreational opportunities along the Harlem River. ²⁸.

• Roberto Clemente State Park
  West 176th Street to 180th Street, between the Major Deegan Expressway and the Harlem River
  Tax Block/Lot: N/A
  Date: 1973
  Architect: M. Paul Friedberg
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Educational Element

  Manmade recreational opportunities in the Central area continued to be created well into the twentieth century, even as uses associated with industry, transportation and infrastructure were simultaneously growing in this section. Opened in 1973, Roberto Clemente State Park is currently one of two State Parks located in New York City. Originally the “Harlem River State Park,” it was renamed in 1974 after the first Latino-American inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.²⁹ Stretching from West 176th Street to West 180th Street between the Major Deegan Expressway and the Harlem River, the original master plan for this park called for a mile-long stretch of open space that would incorporate a housing development in conjunction with public recreational facilities.³⁰ The landscape architect for the park, M. Paul Friedberg, was lauded in contemporary architectural periodicals for the urban landscape surrounding the Harlem River Park Tower apartments (1975), which utilized his trademark multi-level planes and amphitheater seats.³¹ Sports fields, a swimming pool, and other recreational facilities occupy the twenty-five acre site north of the plaza.³² All of the components take advantage of expansive views of the Harlem River, making Roberto Clemente State Park a significant recreational resource.

High-Density Housing Developments:

• The Dyckman Houses
  Dyckman Avenue and 204th Street, Inwood
  Tax Block/Lot: 2216/1
  Date: 1951
  Architect: William F. Ballard
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Appropriate Signage
  

  The Dyckman Houses is the first of three non-subsidized high-density housing developments in the Central area.  Completed in 1951, this housing project was specifically designed for returning veterans after World War II.  The non-subsidized housing rents covered the costs of the building and provided a small property tax break for the occupants.  Seven residential buildings, each of which is fourteen-stories high, house 2,580 residents in 1,167 apartments.  Designed by William F. Ballard, the project expresses the “tower in the park” ideal through its “slab” style and Beaux-Arts approach to axial orientation.  The corner windows at the Dyckman Houses were a unique feature to public housing projects during this era and were most likely incorporated to emphasize the views across the river to the Bronx.

• The Colonial Park (Ralph Rangel Houses)
  155th Street and Harlem River Drive, East Harlem
  Tax Block/Lot: 2106/320
  Date: 1951
  Architect: Whittlesey, Prince, Reiley
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Appropriate Signage

  The conception of Colonial Park reflected European ideology in that the approach of New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to social housing incorporated recreational as well as educational uses: green space, playgrounds and an elementary school are located on the site.   Later renamed the Ralph Rangel Houses, the buildings at Colonial Park were completed in 1951.  Although it is a high-density housing development, this complex was the second of three non-subsidized constructions in the Central section that were designed for middle-income veterans in need of housing after World War II.  The Rangel Houses include eight, fourteen-story buildings, which together provide 984 apartments to 2,242 residents.  The architectural firm of Whittlesey, Prince, Reiley designed this project according to the cruciform style, which further maximized light and ventilation. The bottom floors of the Rangel Houses were designed for commercial use, a unique concept for public housing of this era.

• Marble Hill Houses
  Broadway, West 225th Street, Exterior Street, and West 230th Street
  Tax Block/Lot: 2215/116
  Date: 1952
  Architect: John Ambrose Thompson
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Appropriate Signage

  The Marble Hill Houses were completed in 1952 at the height of high-density housing development in New York City.  The project is the third example of non-subsidized public housing in the Central section.  The maximum income for applicants was initially $4,900 a year and preference was given to veterans of World War II.  The site includes eleven, fourteen, and fifteen-story buildings.  John Ambrose Thompson’s “slab” design of Marble Hill Houses was the most cost-efficient building type compared to the “cruciform” or “garden apartment” styles also popular in this era.  The Marble Hill Houses represent the third wave of residential development in that community, following the development of single-family homes and later the apartment houses.

• The Highbridge Houses
  165th Street, Ogden Avenue, University Avenue, and Sedgewick Avenue, Bronx Terminal Market
  Tax Block/Lot: 2527/32
  Date: 1954
  Architect: John C. Peterkin
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Appropriate Signage

  Although constructed and managed by NYCHA, the Highbridge Houses is a federally funded high-density housing development in the Central area.  The site is located uphill from the Bronx Terminal Market.  Completed in 1954, John C. Peterkin designed the Highbridge Houses in the slab style.  Derived from European housing design, the axial orientation of the buildings maximizes green space.  The site plan includes six buildings, at thirteen or fourteen-stories, which together include 699 apartments for 1,728 residents.

• Polo Grounds Towers
  Frederick Douglass Boulevard, West 155th Street, and Harlem River Drive, East Harlem
  Tax Block/Lot: 2106/3
  Date: 1968
  Architect: Ballard & Todd Associates
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Appropriate Signage

  The site of the Polo Grounds Towers is culturally significant to the inhabitants of New York City in that the location served legendary athletic facilities.  The stadium, which served the original Polo Grounds, was later used by the Manhattan Athletic Club, the New York Giants and the Yankees.  The Towers were built on a 15.5 acre site by Ballard & Todd Associates, adjacent to the Rangel Houses, in 1968.  The federally funded high-density housing development includes four thirty-story buildings in the “cruciform” style that together provide 1,616 apartments for 4,207 residents.  Celebrated by the Municipal Art Society in the exhibition entitled, “New New York 3: Small Civic Works”, designs approved by NYCHA in 2000 for a community center feature athletic and educational facilities that provide internet and computer access to residents of the Polo Grounds Towers and the Rangel Houses.

• Harlem River Park Towers
  Roberto Clemente Park State Park
  West 176th Street to 180th Street, between the Major Deegan Expressway and the Harlem River
  Tax Block: 2882
  Date: 1975
  Architect: Davis, Brody Associates
  Recommended Acknowledgement: Appropriate Signage

  Designed by the firm of Davis, Brody and Associates and completed in 1975, the Harlem River Park Towers were part of a plan to develop the first New York State Park in New York City.  This Mitchell-Lama project was a collaboration between New York State’s Urban Development Corporation and the City of New York.  The architects’ program integrated social idealism into urban design during a period of decreasing federal involvement in high-density housing development. In spite of these efforts, the project failed to meet expectations. Three years after the two towers were completed, residents in the 1,600-unit complex attempted a rent strike due to their poor living conditions.  Currently, the forty-four and forty-two-story towers are in a state of physical disrepair and social instability.

ⁱ Importance of this is relative, since the Central section is sparsely populated, but provides opportunities to the larger region, including residents to the north and south.

¹ Travisano, Mikel. Project III:  Columbia University Historic Preservation Studio I.  Fall 2003.

² HarpWeek, Harpers Weekly Sept. 14, 1889. “Two Proposed Sites for the World’s Fair.”

³ New York Record and Guide November 19, 1904. “’Wonderland’ Contracts Let.”

⁴ Bone, Kevin. “The New York Waterfront:  Evolution and Building of the Port and Harbor”, Monacelli Press, New York, 1997. p. 265.

⁵ Thomson, Rob.  Project III:  Columbia University Historic Preservation Studio I.  Fall 2003.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Wright,Amos W. “Two Proposed Sites for the World's Fair,” Harper’s Weekly.  Volume 33, No. 1708,  September 14, 1889, p. 739.

⁸ Reier, Sharon.  The Bridges of New York.  1977.  New York: Dover, 2000.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Shockley, Jay.  “Macomb’s Dam Bridge.” Landmarks Preservation Commission Designation, January 1992.

¹¹ Reier.

¹² http://www.nyu.edu/athletics/clubs/crew/nychistory.html, accessed April 4, 2004.

¹³ “History of Washington Heights.” http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/000438.html

¹⁴ ”Washington Heights and Inwood” http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/000438.html

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ “History of Washington Heights.”

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ New York Landmarks Preservation Commission, “Macomb’s Dam Bridge (originally Central Bridge and 155th Street Viaduct” Designation Report, New York:  The Commission, 1992.

¹⁹ Sargent Jr., Charles Chapin. “A Horseman’s Paradise.” Munsey’s Magazine. 1899. Online. http://www.coffeedrome.com/bobspeed.html

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Office of the Mayor. “Mayor Michael Bloomberg Announces the First Phase Towards the Completion of the Manhattan Waterfront Greenway.” PR-271-03. September 30, 2003. Online. http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2003b/pr271-03.html

²³ “Board to Get Plan for Harlem Drive.” New York Times. Online. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. 10 October 1938: 21.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ “Manhattan Waterfront Greenway.” Online. Department of City Planning Website. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/mwg/mwghome.html

²⁷ http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/historical_signs/hs_historical_sign.php?id=6335, accessed April 7, 2004.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ “Room for a View: A 65-Acre Park Site on the Harlem River Illustrates the First Successful Working Relationship Between two Major State Agencies.” Industrial Design. 1970 Nov: p. 24-25.

³⁰ Schmertrz, Mildred F. “Designing the Urban Landscape: New Projects by M. Paul Friedberg and Associates.” Architectural Record. 1972 March. p. [97]-[104].

³¹ Ibid.