Rendering: A mezzanine at 34th and 11th


The new Manhattan terminus for the 7 train will feature a lengthy mezzanine and a direct entrance into the Javits Center. (Click the image to enlarg)

During the one and only time I went into the construction site for the 7 line extension, I wasn’t allowed to bring a camera. It is, as any subway construction site is, a grandiose cavern with equipment everywhere. When I saw it this past summer, eventual platforms were under construction and the two-story cavern was receiving its finishing touches.

Today, The Architect’s Newspaper shares some photos and renderings from the site. Tom Stoelker had a chance to journey down to 34th ST. and 11th Ave. late last month, and today, he published his piece on the site. It has photos of the work in progress as well as the latest in renderings. The scene above shows the station mezzanine, complete with entrance to the seemingly doomed Javits Center, and his post also features a nifty cutaway of the 7 train’s new deep cavern station.

The 7 line extension is still set to open in December of 2013, less than two years from now. By then, hopefully, work will have started at the Hudson Yards site, and we’ll have a better sense of what the future holds for the Javits Center. The subway, which has long ushered in development to the city’s wilds, will be there waiting for it all to grow.

Categories : 7 Line Extension

33 Responses to “Rendering: A mezzanine at 34th and 11th”

  1. Kai B says:

    I like to reference this photo of the Corona (now Flushing) line when it was under construction. It also looked like it was being built to the middle of nowhere:


    • Chet says:

      Thank you for that photo!

      I was looking for exactly that picture the other day in my US history classroom. (I spent sometime discussing the need, construction, and effect of the original subway line that opened in 1904.)

    • al says:

      That is 33rd st Rawson. There were towns further down the line at Winfield (Woodside) and Newtown (Elmhurst and Corona). This station would be surrounded by industrial development due to proximity to transit, surface running heavy rail with street level spurs, and waterborne cargo.

    • Alon Levy says:

      Queens was doubling its population every 10 years at the time, a trend that predates the opening of the line. Can you say the same of Hudson Yards?

      • ajedrez says:

        The population of the census tract containing 34th Street/11th Avenue has grown 68.4% since 2000: http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map

        Keep in mind that Queens had a very low population to begin with, any increase was significant percentage-wise.

        • Alon Levy says:

          The census tract containing 34th/11th, tract 99, stretches from 14th to 36th Street, and consists of everything west of 10th (link). Judging by the land use, most residents are in the teens and low 20s.

          For a census tract that covers closer territory to Hudson Yards, look to tract 117, which in the 1990s went from 252 to 340 people, a growth of 35%, strong but much smaller, and also starting from a tiny population level. The growth around 41st/10th was nearly as high, but started from a much stronger level – the intersection straddles the boundary between tract 117 and tract 115, which grew 30% and started from 1,128 people in 1990.

          • Jeff says:

            I think the point is that “if you build it, they will come”, which is the whole point of this project to begin with. It happened when the 7-line was built in Queens, and it will happen at the Hudson Yards.

            • Alon Levy says:

              Yes, and my point is that it’s not true. People were already coming to Queens in droves in the 15 years before the first segment of the 7 opened. So it was okay to build an interurban subway whose intermediate segments were through farmland and expect high ridership.

  2. Bgriff says:

    “First new subway station in almost a century” (in the linked article) is definitely not correct…even if you don’t call South Ferry new there’s still 63rd Street. And plenty of the “classic” stations don’t really count as “almost a century” old.

  3. rgr says:

    a waste, why does not the city put things were people already live like the queens, that would get cars off the roads.

    • SEAN says:

      1. money & 2. NIMBYS.

      See prior post for the latter.

    • Bolwerk says:

      Anything they build is a waste. It costs several times more than it needs to. This is a dense neighborhood without subway access, so what do you prefer?

      I also think the belief that transit gets cars off roads needs to be re-examined anyway. I think traffic planning (tolls, capacity, CP) is more responsible for fixing that. Transit provides an alternative, but it doesn’t fix other problems.

      • R. Graham says:

        More than likely its the new blasting and boring techniques used today rather than the old cut and cover method of yesteryear. But the benefit seems to be that the newer methods being used today are more stable than cut and cover.

        • Bolwerk says:

          If you ask me, the beauty to the old cut and cover is the accessibility. Stations like Astor Place aren’t four stories down like the bored stations on Second Avenue will be – despite generally not having to dive under other infrastructure. What’s so unstable about cut and cover?

          Also, I don’t remember the numbers, but boring in New York is still several times more expensive than boring in other places.

      • Jeff says:

        Getting cars off the road without an alternative for people to get around would undoubtedly hurt the economy of the city, which is a huge no no these days.

        • Bolwerk says:

          Not if cars are inhibiting people’s ability to get around, or inhibiting merchants’ abilities to attract users from other modes. Which they are, at least in some cases.

  4. Kevin Walsh says:

    And if Cuomo gets his wish and the Jav is ripped down, and the pie in the sky development doesn’t take place, what’s the purpose of the extension?

    • al says:

      Unless state and city want very high land rates (or a second leg down to a deep economic depression), the land within footprint of the Javits Center would be go faster than you can say developers.

    • Ron Aryel says:

      He won’t get his wish. He’s pandering to somebody for votes. Probably the lower middle class white residents of Queens who are upset about his support of gay rights. He threw them a bone.

      • al says:

        There’s more to it. It brings another source of revenue to state and city. The casino and convention center should beat the Aqueduct in financial performance. Throw in mass transit improvements in Queens (Politician’s legacy). Furthermore, real estate redevelopment in Manhattan with land leases generates another revenue source for city and state. That existing TIF for the west side would get a revenue boost. It might be enough to pay for another station on the 7 or reactivation on LIRR Rockaway Beach.

      • Alon Levy says:

        Serious question: do people in Ozone Park support this? I’d guess they’re against it since it would bring gentrification, big developers, and traffic.

        • Bolwerk says:

          So they think. Is the A Train bringing gentrification and big developers to East New York? Or the uber-hip L Train? :-O

          If those things are truly concerns, they can be suppressed by zoning. Sometimes I feel like the only reasons NIMBYs act like NIMBYs is so they can exercise their one little ounce of power in this world. 😐

          • Alon Levy says:

            A train that’s been there forever isn’t the same as new development, especially when it’s development that’s explicitly geared toward outsiders: casinos, convention centers, hotels, greenfield CBDs, office parks.

            • Bolwerk says:

              The development is supposed to be happening anyway, and not along “QueensWay.” Arguments like that are akin to complaining that people pass through Grand Central on a subway to get to Times Square.

      • Bolwerk says:

        Not sure I buy it. Queens is already only about 40% white – under 30% non-Hispanic white, which is what most people mean when they say “white.” I can see where high rates of immigrant status, religious piousness (incl. at least Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu), and maybe some cultural backgrounds (Chinese?) may correlate to some homophobia, but I don’t see that breaking down very neatly by race. At the same time, Queens has some of the few gay-friendly neighborhoods in the USA that are also budget-friendly.

  5. rgr says:

    That’s the plan more rich people living in Manhattan.

  6. John Jacobs says:

    That jerk Bloomberg is never held accountable for anything. He should have used his own billions to put this waste of a subway stop here. And to think they cut out the station at 10th and 41st…

  7. Alargule says:

    Will there be escalators between the platform, mezzanine and street level?

  8. jj says:

    Can’t wait for this station to open
    The west side of Manhattan will finally get the service that it deserves between 34th and 50th near 11th avenue

  9. TJ says:

    I hope they find the funding to build the 10th Ave/41st St station. There are so many new residential buildings over there (MiMa, Atelier, Silver Towers, River Place, RiverBank West, and on and on with more going up all the time) it’s poor planning and short-sighted of these decision-makers to leave out such a critical station… especially when they clamor to proclaim the West Side as the city’s hottest/most exciting new neighborhood. Put in the station!! And, I know this is a wild dream, but hopefully someday the badly needed 10th Avenue line will register as a concept in their minds… mainly because the West Side really IS growing and will require a subway line to move people from Midtown West to Uptown or Downtown.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>