SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   NEW YORK | Hudson Yards; 40 msf of development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123575)

nygirl1 Jan 3, 2010 9:56 PM

No way Lower Manhattan should expand into SoHo and it would not be possible on any large scale. I forecast Trump SoHo sitting by it's lonesome for some time to come. I'd love to get rid of Peter Cooper village and reintegrate the grid through it. I hope the best for the Hudson Yards.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Jan 3, 2010 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nygirl1 (Post 4632968)
No way Lower Manhattan should expand into SoHo and it would not be possible on any large scale. I forecast Trump SoHo sitting by it's lonesome for some time to come. I'd love to get rid of Peter Cooper village and reintegrate the grid through it. I hope the best for the Hudson Yards.

if push comes to shove thats wat it'll come to

Dac150 Jan 3, 2010 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 4632991)
if push comes to shove thats wat it'll come to

:rolleyes: Please, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Most of what is directly north of Lower Manhattan is protected from demolition; and building commercial office buildings around that would be neither practical nor welcomed.

As far as I’m concerned (in my lifetime at least) after the World Trade Center, Lower Manhattan will be essentially tapped out for new commercial development (short of major demolition of existing structures).

I guarantee you that during the course of the next few decades, Lower Manhattan will become less and less of a predominantly commercial district and more of a residential district. The conversions (of office buildings that were even built as recently as the 60’s and 70’s) are already happening.

The next major commercial district shift will take place on the far Westside, and that’ll most likely begin to take place gradually over the course of the next couple decades or so. Midtown is becoming increasingly full to capacity of new office buildings, and even residential. You can even say, short of a few places, Midtown is even tapped out.

The raising of structures on the Upper West and Eastside for a stadium and new commercial buildings? Not a chance.

NYguy Jan 4, 2010 2:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150 (Post 4633011)
:rolleyes: Please, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Most of what is directly north of Lower Manhattan is protected from demolition; and building commercial office buildings around that would be neither practical nor welcomed.

As far as I’m concerned (in my lifetime at least) after the World Trade Center, Lower Manhattan will be essentially tapped out for new commercial development.

It is, which is the main reason for the west side redevelopment - Hudson Yards in it's entirety, and which also happens to be the reason for this thread, which has gotten way off course. The bottom line is there will be no football stadium constructed in Manhattan for the JETS, mainly because there is no land or logical location to put one. But there are a host of other reasons not necessary to get into.

NYguy Jan 5, 2010 2:03 AM

Please return discussion to the Hudson Yards redevelopment. If you want to continue exploring the fantasy of building a football stadium in Manhattan, this isn't the place for it.

NYguy Jan 19, 2010 11:15 PM

http://www.observer.com/2010/real-es...80%99s-finally

The West Side Rail Yards—It’s Alive!

By Eliot Brown
January 19, 2010


The Related Companies, the real estate giant that built the Time Warner Center, is nearing an agreement to commit to building over the West Side rail yards, an oft-delayed project that could be Manhattan's single biggest development.

The firm envisions $15 billion of new office, hotel and apartment towers on a 26-acre site near the Javits Center.

Related, led by billionaire Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross, was conditionally designated to develop the site by the yards' owner, the M.T.A., back in 2008. The firm now faces a Jan. 31 deadline to sign a contract and put down a deposit of more than $40 million, a step it now seems poised to take after earlier delays related to the economy.

Staring at a similar deadline 12 months ago, Related—understandably reticent to commit to payments worth $1 billion amid a lending drought and a global recession—successfully lobbied the M.T.A. to put off the cutoff date for a contract by a year, hoping the economy would improve substantially.

It didn't.

Apparently still keen on the deal, Mr. Ross is now looking to buy himself some more breathing room, effectively setting down a "Related Cos." placeholder on the property until better times, when he would be committed to return. According to multiple people familiar with the discussions, Related has agreed to sign a contract consenting to the land sale, putting up the deposit needed to do so.

But, according to those indivduals, the firm would be required to close on the deal and commit to its 99-year lease and payments worth $1 billion only once the local economy improves and hits a set of "triggers"—quantifiable measures like improved unemployment and commercial vacancy rates.

There are still other outstanding issues to be hashed out between Related and the M.T.A. before a contract is signed, but people familiar with the discussions expressed optimism that the deal would be made, characterizing the remaining issues as lengthy paperwork.

Should a contract indeed be signed, it would represent an unusual display of forward motion in the sullen economy, which has caused landowners across the city to scrap or pull out of development plans.

Still, it would push the question of when-or if-the West Side rail yards will actually be developed to an uncertain point in the future, welding the M.T.A.'s ability to make money on the property to a set of economic indicators.

In a joint statement, M.T.A. and the developer said they were finalizing the deal. "M.T.A. and Related are working diligently to finalize the transactional documents," the statement said. "We look forward to completing the contract and moving into the next phase of this exciting development."

The air above the West Side rail yards, two 13-acre squares between 10th and 12th avenues, have proved a glimmer in the eyes of planners for years. In the 1980s, the Reichmann real estate family and Gulf and Western had plans to move Madison Square Garden and develop the area, a dream that later fizzled as the Garden decided to stay put.

The current vision is an outgrowth of the Bloomberg administration's bid to host the 2012 Olympics, as the mayor fought to build a football stadium for the Jets on the West Side rail yards, a battle he lost nearly five years ago. When that failed, the city pushed for a mixed-use development scheme for the site, and with a rezoning approved by the City Council last month, the site can give rise to more than 6,000 apartments and 6 million square feet of commercial space in a larger far West Side redevelopment that's been compared in scope and ambition to London's Canary Wharf.

Related, which built the Time Warner Center and numerous luxury and below-market-rate residential buildings around the city, was conditionally designated to be the site's developer in May 2008.

Since, Related, which is partners with Goldman Sachs on the project, has spent considerable money on the would-be development as the real estate market collapsed around it. Should it put down the deposit, the firm will have paid $60 million in costs to the M.T.A. and the city, on top of its private spending on the project.

Even if the economy improves and Related is obligated to start paying rent, it would need to find tenants willing to take a chance on a new part of town (33rd Street and 11th Avenue is hardly a prime location right now). The Bloomberg administration is paying $2 billion to extend the No. 7 line to the area, but, for now, there are not many office tenants on the market wanting big blocks of space anywhere, let alone a new building in an unproven area. Related has said it expects it would need at least one major anchor tenant for retail, hotel and office components in order for the firm to build a platform over half the rail yards, at a cost of up to $1 billion.

Times, of course, are different than they were back in 2007, when developers like the Durst Organization, Vornado Realty Trust, Tishman Speyer and Brookfield Properties lined up to bid on the yards. Back then, there were three major corporate tenants tentatively committed to put headquarters on the West Side, and a fourth that was very interested.

All three-News Corp., Morgan Stanley and Condé Nast-have since scaled back their ambitions or at least put them on hold. As for the fourth: It was Lehman Brothers.

NYC4Life Jan 20, 2010 7:25 PM

This will rival the WTC in comparison. NY's boom is far from over.

NYguy Jan 21, 2010 3:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC4Life (Post 4658674)
This will rival the WTC in comparison. NY's boom is far from over.

Well, I would put this one in the next boom, though there is still a lot of active construction in New York.

NYguy Jan 30, 2010 2:05 PM

"Hong Kong on the Hudson" is so yesterday for the up and coming NIMBY. Now, "Dubai on the Hudson", that has a nice ring to it...:rolleyes:


http://www.cityrealty.com/new-york-c...-horsley/30182
Civic group assails MTA yards project as "Dubai on the Hudson"

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/u...tedhudson2.jpg

January 29, 2010
By Carter B. Horsley

The West Side Neighborhood Alliance, a community-based group in Chelsea, published an article yesterday in this week's edition of Chelsea Now criticizing the agreement about affordable housing at the Western and Eastern rail yards of the Metropoitan Transportation Authority in West Midtown made by the authority and The Related Companies and Goldman Sachs, the designated developer. That agreement is due to be finalized January 31, 2010.

The Alliance had been organized originally in opposition to the stadium proposed for the site, and has since participated in the process of the rezoning of the site since the Authority awarded the development contract to Related and Goldman Sachs in 2007.

In its article, the organization stated that "While we feel the development of this property for commercial and residential use is a step in the right direction, there are crucial points where the project, as it stands, is simply unsatisfactory."

"To begin with, the planned construction is staggering in scale, with residential buildings reaching heights of 450 to 810 feet (81 to 95 floors) and commercial space soaring to heights of 810 to 950 feet, towering over the surrounding area
....Five-thousand residential units were projected for the site. Our position was that at least 20 to 30 percent of the on-site units should be allocated for permanently affordable housing, including two- and three-bedroom family units," the article continued.

Related, citing the $1 billion dollar sale price set by the MTA and the $1 billion needed to build a platform over the yards, has maintained that it could not afford to build any permanently affordable housing on the site and that it could only provide 431 "affordable" units for the life of the mortgage.

"Eleventh-hour negotiations by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and her staff were successful in securing additional community benefits, including the preservation of existing affordable housing already owned by Related and permanent affordability for those 431 units. In the end, only 5 to 10 percent of the residential units built over the publicly owned rail yards will be permanently affordable," the article maintained.

"After the rezoning, despite the laudatory press and declarations by the mayor that the area is finally poised to become a vibrant new residential and commercial neighborhood, the site will still represent an enclave of high-rise, high-income housing--or 'Dubai on the Hudson.' It is unlikely that anybody working in these new commercial buildings will be able to afford to live in the new residential buildings. As with many other upscale areas of Manhattan, those wealthy enough to buy or rent these properties may be more inclined to visit their apartments than actually live in them. Our community should expect more from such large-scale developments," the article said.

The group said it will "continue the fight for development that will better serve the surrounding communities and to prevent this once colorful and iconoclastic town from becoming something it should never be: Exclusive."

Busy Bee Jan 30, 2010 5:36 PM

Is there an island we can send these people to? NY is full of dramatic contrasts between height and scale. That's what make it so dynamic in many ways. This just reaffirms my impression of NIMBY's that their efforts are less about noble activism and more about having a sense of control over something, even if completely unwarranted, giving their life some sort of supplemental meaning and a sense of being a part of some like-minded collective that they don't receive through family, friends, work, spirituality, etc...

A true negative side effect of living in post-modern times I reckon...

NYC4Life Jan 30, 2010 7:29 PM

Too bad for the NIMBY losers, the area is already zoned for large and tall buildings. :haha:

And yes, there are Islands where we can send these NIMBY's.....right on Dubai's Palm Islands.

Lecom Jan 30, 2010 7:58 PM

Lolwut? First it's Hong Kong on the Hudson, now it's Dubai?

ardecila Jan 30, 2010 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 4674322)
Is there an island we can send these people to?

They're already on an island. Maybe they could move to Staten?

Busy Bee Jan 30, 2010 11:03 PM

Or Rikers.

NYguy Jan 31, 2010 3:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 4674322)
Is there an island we can send these people to? ...

Forget the 9/11 trials, move these idiots to Governors Island.

NYC4Life Jan 31, 2010 5:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 4675056)
Forget the 9/11 trials, move these idiots to Governors Island.

There's always Potter's Field on Hart Island.

Dac150 Jan 31, 2010 3:54 PM

I wouldn’t waste too much time being concerned with these folks. It’s the same old song and dance every time, but in this case a lot of zoning work was performed to warrant such a large development. I have no doubt that this site will eventually amount to that; it’s just a question of when (which will most likely be during the next boom).

kenratboy Feb 1, 2010 7:13 AM

I think this is a self-correcting problem. As free property, especially lots conducive to BIG projects, become more scarce and expensive, you will see bigger and bigger projects built (vs. some 15 story 'thing' that does not raise eyebrows).

If we are lucky, small developments will be priced out of the market, and only very tall or very unique/special projects will be built out of business necessity.

photoLith Feb 1, 2010 5:16 PM

Why do these NIMBY fuckwits live in NYC? Why dont they move to the suburbs and enjoy a lack of architectural diversity there instead of living in one of the most dense cities on the planet? These people piss me off to no end, uhg.

FerrariEnzo Feb 1, 2010 8:19 PM

http://www.boston.com/business/artic...ent_unchanged/

Goldman-Sachs has backed out of their minority stake but that will not halt development...


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.