|
Why does this city have community boards again? Can't we just abolish them and let the people have no say in development.
Of course that's not always a good thing, but giving these creatures too much power isn't good either! Can't someone tell them to go jump off a bridge? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
These people are stupid because this is the last parcel of developable land left in Manhattan and if they reduce the amount of buildable space here, in the future, growth will have to come at the expense of razing older structures in other parts of Manhattan. Dumb NIMBYs. One of these days I'm going to have to write a letter to our dumb elected officials to explain a concept as simple as this so that they can understand. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The good thing is that the MTA owns the land, and they already worked out an agreement on zoning specifics with the City Council prior to the official land use process. |
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...FREE/907029982
No lie: Javits Center redo finally good to go http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pb...ef=AR&maxw=800 Long-delayed renovation and much-scaled-back expansion of meeting space gets last bureaucratic approval in Albany. Work on $463 million project to begin immediately. By Erik Engquist July 2, 2009 The Jacob K. Javits Convention Center renovation starts soon. Really. No kidding. The long-troubled project, which was supposed to begin three governors ago, received final approval Wednesday at a meeting of the Public Authorities Control Board in Albany. Work on the West side site will begin immediately. The repair and expansion project is expected to generate close to $880 million in direct and indirect sales and 9,000 direct and indirect construction and construction-related jobs, according to Gov. David Paterson’s office. “We may now proceed with this significant development project,” the governor said in a press release. But the project is just a fraction of the major expansion that was originally envisioned during the Pataki administration. That plan had to be shelved when the Spitzer administration calculated it would cost over $3 billion, more than twice the previous estimate. The $463 million compromise approved Wednesday will focus on repairing the convention center’s leaky roof and include a modest 100,000-square-foot expansion. Only 40,000 square feet of true exhibition space will be added; the other 60,000 will be devoted to pre-function and registration areas, restrooms, food service areas, a truck court and loading docks. The Legislature had approved an expansion six times larger in 2004, but rising costs killed the idea. Still, approval of the scaled-down plan Wednesday came as a relief to the Hotel Association of New York City, whose member hotels have been tacking a $1.50 per night surcharge to visitors’ bills since April 2005 to fund the Javits project. More than $150 million has been collected so far to back the bonds that will pay for the work upfront. “It’s not how we started out, but it’s certainly better than nothing,” said one hotel industry representative, speaking on background about the project because he was not authorized to discuss it publicly. “At least we’ll get a facelift, some much-needed repairs, and a little more exhibition space.” Joseph Spinnato and John Fitzpatrick, president and chairman of the Hotel Association of New York City, respectively, were each overseas and could not be reached for comment. The 23-year-old Javits Center’s roof is in such bad shape that huge “diapers” hang from the ceiling to catch the falling water. Javits supporters had wanted a larger expansion because there is a high demand for exhibition space. But trade shows, conventions and exhibitions alone would not generate enough direct revenue to pay for the project, and the Spitzer administration rejected the argument that large subsidies would pay for themselves by boosting the local economy. The Paterson administration maintained that stance. The Javits approval had been on the control board’s agenda June 17, but it was delayed because legislative staffers asked for more information about the differences between the original plan and the one slated for approval. Wednesday’s board meeting was called solely to approve the project. The expansion will be built on the block bounded by West 39th and West 40th streets and 11th and 12th avenues. The Javits Center opened in 1986 as a replacement for the old Coliseum Convention Center at West 59th Street and Broadway. |
http://chelseanow.com/articles/2009/...6682897558.txt
Hudson Yards Heights: a gated community of skyscrapers? Tuesday, July 7, 2009 By Diane Vacca “The thing is just too big and does not function.” That’s how Joe Restuccia, co-chairperson of Community Board 4’s housing committee, summed up the board’s exasperation with development plans proposed for the western portion of the Hudson Yards at a joint meeting with the board’s land use committee held on Thurs., June 25. The meeting was part of the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) process, in which the public and the community board review and comment on the proposed development. Open space and the High Line’s relationship to the site garnered much discussion, but the development’s density proved the biggest sticking point. The plan currently calls for one commercial and six residential towers set within five acres of open space on the 13-acre lot, which is bounded by 11th Ave and the Hudson River from 30th to 33rd Sts. The proposed zoning has a maximum FAR (floor-area ratio) of 10, which means that the total area of all the floors in all the buildings constructed on the parcel must be no more than 10 times the area of the parcel itself. In typical city lots, a building’s footprint covers most of the site, but the seven buildings proposed for the Western Rail Yard will be sited on a parcel that includes five acres of open space with two streets. Anna Hayes Levin, chairperson of the Hudson Yards Community Advisory committee, reminded those present of the comments made by the board last October, when it wrote that a base FAR of 10 would be reasonable if it weren’t “calculated across the entire Western Rail Yard, including streets and open space.” Levin explained that as a result of this planning, “the effective density of the proposal is closer to 25 FAR if you exclude streets and open space in the calculation, as is commonly done elsewhere in the city.” This density is “unprecedented … over such a large area anywhere in the city and far exceeds what can be considered good planning for the future of the city or the local community.” Elaine Marlovitch, a resident of W. 52nd St., questioned why open space was included in the FAR calculation for this site. “The MTA wants to make more money,” Restuccia responded. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority owns the property, and one of the goals of the proposal is “maximizing value and revenue for the MTA’s capital financial plan,” according to the project’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). “But why are we letting them?” Marlovitch asked. “The MTA and the city made a political deal for it to be that way,” Restuccia replied. “I know why it happened,” Marlovitch shot back, “but why are we letting it happen?” “Because we’re powerless,” Levin interjected. Public-private tangle The open space presents its own problems because of the hybrid nature of the site—it is privately owned, but the park will be used by the public. The overriding concern was that the development not become a type of gated community. The two streets in the development will end in culs-de-sac on the western end because there is a grade differential of more 20 feet between the site and 12th Ave. Board member Gretchen Minneman observed that the lack of through streets, coupled with the development’s siting high above pedestrians’ heads, would serve to keep people out. The requirement that the rail yards continue to function unimpeded necessitates the building of a platform that will serve as a base for the development. The louvers and curb cuts along 30th St. and 12th Ave., needed for ventilation and access to the rail yard, “will be a bleak façade for pedestrians,” Levin said. Asked where the ventilators for the rail yards would be situated, Michael Samuelian, a representative for developer The Related Companies, replied that they are “not designed yet.” Elisa Gerontianos, chairperson of the land use committee, wondered what the ground rules are for public use of private space, while Board 4 chairperson JD Noland considered First Amendment rights: Can people hold a rally in the park? Would they be able to demonstrate against Related, the current developer? Under what circumstances can the developer exclude the public, Levin asked. How will the streets be governed? Will the city have any jurisdiction at all? The park will have no gates, fences or barriers, as stipulated in the zoning text. Sarah Desmond, co-chair of the housing committee, asked if private security guards would drive a homeless person out of the park. She also worried about “café creep,” which may occur when a developer leases out space for tables and chairs that may infringe on public space. Minneman asked what would happen if non-residents, or even residents, had a loud picnic at night. “Do we really want this huge, public, open space to be run by Related?” asked Restuccia. “There’s such a public-private mishmosh.” “It’s even worse,” Levin contended, “because there are all these buildings that are probably, at the end of the day, under different ownership.” That “fractured ownership,” as board member Jay Marcus put it, implies other governance and jurisdiction issues that will have to be addressed in the future. In an exchange with Peter Mullan, the High Line’s director of planning, the committees agreed that changes to the original proposal, such as the creation of a five-foot “safe zone” between buildings and the High Line, were beneficial. But some things are still uncertain, Mullan said. There are no specific protections for the High Line in the zoning text, so it is feasible that it could be torn down. A commitment to preserve the High Line should be added to the zoning text, the committee concluded, as well as a specification that it will be developed in its own time frame with its own design process. In addition, dedicated facilities for maintenance and trash removal should be required. Mullan also said that for the High Line to work, it should be owned by the city and run by the Parks Department. But no one could figure out how this “behemoth of a project,” as Gerontianos called it, will work. “This is a whole dream happening here,” Restuccia claimed. “This has nothing to do with the market reality.” The deal amounts to an agreement between the MTA and the developer “to control a large site over a long period of time,” he concluded. “And the mayor wants his vision realized. It has nothing to do with what the market wants today.” ___________________________________________ Quote:
Nothing - and I do mean nothing - will be built on that site today. Or most likely for the next few years. So someone shut those morons up already about what the "market" wants today. That goes out to the idiots all over New York who insists all planning should cease because of "today's" market. |
http://www.observer.com/2009/real-es...nifest-density
Manifest Density By Eliot Brown July 28, 2009 Quote:
|
Quote:
|
^ About 7 months...(or 9, I forget)
http://chelseanow.com/articles/2009/...4468913598.txt West Side neighbors have harsh words for Hudson Yards August 13, 2009 By Patrick Hedlund In playing a game of word association regarding the Hudson Yards mega-project, members of the West Side Neighborhood Alliance didn’t hesitate in expressing their dissatisfaction with the proposed development currently wending its way through public review process. The organization’s Rail Yards Committee met on Thurs., Aug. 6, to discuss the western portion of the sprawling development site and to prepare testimony for an upcoming public hearing with the Department of City Planning. Following Community Board 4’s contentious approval of a plan that will compromise height limits in the Clinton Special District to accommodate off-site affordable housing, WSNA offered a more visceral interpretation of the ambitious proposal for the 13-acre rail yards. “You guys can think of better uses for that site,” declared WSNA and Board 4 member Pete Diaz, speaking of the project’s genesis from sports stadium to a massive work/live community stretching from 30th to 33rd Sts. on the Hudson River. In contrast to Board 4—which in recent years has expended great energy in poring over every detail of the Hudson Yards—some WSNA members learned of project’s impacts for the first time at the meeting. Chief among the reservations held by the committee were the site’s use of a high FAR (floor-area ratio) to accommodate the development’s planned skyscrapers, the dearth of permanently affordable housing accompanying the project, and the lack of community facilities and school seats to handle the influx of new residents. The seven towers slated for the western rail yards (one commercial and six residential) will utilize a 10 FAR per zoning regulations, meaning that the total area of all the floors in all the buildings constructed on the site must be no more than 10 times the area of the site itself. However, since the FAR was calculated across the entire site—including streets and open space, and not just the individual parcels—the effective FAR is more like 25. “That thinking is so crooked,” offered Elaine Marlovitch, noting that the same calculation was not used during the development of a similar mega-project, Battery Park City. Yetta Kurland, a candidate for City Council Speaker Christine Quinn’s District 3 office—which covers the Hudson Yards—called the plan “unconscionable.” “I think [Quinn] is a little too close to the mayor,” she added of why a project of this scale was allowed to move forward. Additionally, not one unit of affordable housing will be included in the 6 to 7 million square feet of space to be built on the western portion of the rail yards, members explained. Instead, the affordable units will be located at two off-site locations: a Department of Environmental Protection-owned site on 10th Ave. between 47th and 49th Sts., and an MTA-owned site at 54th St. and Ninth Ave. “I want you to pay attention to the fact that it’s listed as affordable, not permanently affordable,” said Anita Black, explaining that that 20 percent of the residential units are being considered for the state’s 80/20 program—which stipulates that 20 percent of the project’s units must remain affordable for low-income households, but only for a period of about 20 years. When the units revert to market-rate after 20 years, residents are “going to have to move into senior citizen housing” if they can’t afford to stay, Marlovitch commented. The group then discussed how the community board’s concession regarding the off-site affordable housing will force those buildings to rise above set heights for the nearly 40-year-old Clinton Special District, which limits buildings to a 66-foot maximum. “We need affordable housing, but we’re forced to build upward,” Diaz stated. However, some weren’t willing to give in just yet. “We cannot be pushed,” said Marguerite Yaghjian. “We can’t allow ourselves to give up on this. We have to take a stand at this point.” Members also said that police and fire stations should be included in the plan to help ensure the safety of the thousands of residents who will move there. As well, school overcrowding on the West Side demands that more seats be added to the neighborhood. Members explained that the school being considered for the site only addresses the current need for additional seats and not future overcrowding. “We can’t keep up with it,” Marlovitch said of the increasing number of students. The project’s designated developer, The Related Companies, has estimated the site will require 1,300 parking spots, a figure that “traffic won’t allow,” Diaz said. He said he expects for Related to ask for even more parking in the future. If anything, the meeting functioned as a trial run in advance of the public-testimony portion of City Planning’s hearing on the project scheduled for Sept. 9. The committee agreed to break up into smaller two- and three-person teams to focus on specific aspects of the development while preparing their statements. In typical WSNA fashion, the group also discussed making T-shirts, buttons and signs with “provocative” language to draw more attention to their cause. In response to the wide-ranging criticisms, Gloria Sukenick struck a more plaintive—if not realistic—tone regarding the upcoming proceedings. “We talk like we have power,” she said. |
They have to take a stand is right.
|
Quote:
http://curbed.com/archives/2009/08/2..._redux.php?o=0 http://cdn0.curbednetwork.com/cache/...0542277a_o.jpg The big Javits shed going up on Twelfth Avenue and West 40th Street http://cdn0.curbednetwork.com/cache/...37e9fac5_o.jpg Looking east: An old classic and the new Rockrose siblings at 455 and 505 West 37th. http://cdn0.curbednetwork.com/cache/...7360d414_o.jpg A full block for more shows 'n' stuff on West 39th running east from Twelfth Avenue. http://cdn0.curbednetwork.com/cache/...65d55d19_o.jpg The spires of Times Square rising in the east. http://cdn0.curbednetwork.com/cache/...50d1fdda_o.jpg The crown of 1 Bryant Park points the way to the new Javits shed. |
http://www.observer.com/2009/real-es...-amanda-burden
The Week of Amanda Burden http://www.observer.com/files/articl...urdendcp_0.jpg By Eliot Brown September 7, 2009 Quote:
|
The RPA comes out in favor of something...
http://www.rpa.org/2009/09/l-nicolas...-rezoning.html http://www.rpa.org/Western%20Rail%20Yard.JPG Statement for the Western Rail Yard Rezoning City Planning Commission Public Hearing by L. Nicolas Ronderos, Director of Urban Development Programs, RPA September 9, 2009 My name is L. Nicolas Ronderos and I'm Director of Urban Development Programs for Regional Plan Association, a private, nonprofit research and planning organization serving the greater New York metropolitan region. RPA wants to comment on the Western Rail Yard Rezoning and express our support for the actions under review. The proposed actions would have an overall beneficial effect on neighborhood character at the development site, additional housing sites, and the areas surrounding them. As we expressed in our 2004 report "Urban Development Alternatives for the Hudson Rail Yards", a mixed-use development on the yard is more desirable than other options and would better connect the waterfront to the district, promote urban development throughout the area and provide a significantly larger rate of return for public infrastructure investments. The project under review will provide a new mixed use neighborhood, will generate a consistent source of income for the MTA capital plan, and provide a source of jobs and economic activity to support the long-term growth of midtown and the Hudson Yards. Construction of permanently affordable housing on the additional housing sites would support the Clinton neighborhood by emphasizing its residential character and help to preserve its mixed-income character. Replacing a large, underutilized, and inaccessible site with a mix of uses, open spaces and reactivating the street grid would complement the emerging development in the Hudson Yards and West Chelsea neighborhoods, and would provide a link in the system of open spaces now under development. The proposed density is consistent with the rest of Hudson Yards and will create a transition from the higher density development along 34th Street and 11th Avenue to the riverfront to the west and Chelsea to the south. As the EIS states, the Western Rail Yard Rezoning will succeed in meeting project goals-- It will provide much-needed funds for MTA's capital program, create a transit oriented development, accommodate anticipated population and employment growth in Manhattan, enhance the vitality of the Hudson Yards area, add to the system of public open spaces now emerging in the Hudson Yards and West Chelsea areas, help meet the need for affordable housing, and expand the City's tax base. RPA supports this project and hopes the City Planning Commission approves the application. |
A shot in the wind here but is there any chance Brookfield can get back into it with Related not signing a contract yet?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Another shot of Javits expansion... shootingbrooklyn http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2427/...4824c52e_b.jpg |
Saw this over at SSC:
Quote:
|
http://www.observer.com/2009/real-es...ide-rail-yards
Council O.K.'s Key West Side Rail Yards Rezoning http://www.observer.com/files/full/d...eview_02_1.jpg By Eliot Brown December 14, 2009 While the Related Companies on Monday was handed a rare, high-profile rebuke by the City Council over its $323 million Kingsbridge Armory retail project, the giant developer did happen to win the Council's thumbs-up on another little project: the $15 billion West Side rail yards development. The Council approved a rezoning for half of the 26-acre development, a planned complex of towering commercial and apartment buildings by the Javits Center, finishing a job it started in 2005 (the other half was approved in the run-up to the failed Olympic bid). And, as usually happens in the worlds of land-use and government, the approval came after the developer and the city offered a set of concessions to assuage the concerns of the local Council member, which, in this case, was Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The main deal struck was one over below-market rate housing, in which Related and the city agreed to boost the number of apartments with affordability restrictions in exchange for a "yes" vote from the Council. Related had previously had no affordability requirements on the project, which envisions more than 5,000 apartments on the western half of the development (the half that was being rezoned Monday), though the firm would be able to build more density on individual buildings if 20 percent of a building's apartments were below market rate. According to Ms. Quinn's office, Related agreed to set aside at least 431 units on the rail yards for low-income families, and then to extend the length of affordability programs in five other Related-owned apartment buildings in the West Side. Taken with a city-owned lot and a state-owned lot on which the city would develop moderate- and middle-income housing, there are nearly 1,300 below market-rate apartments: either new units or ones with affordability requirements extended. The biggest question with the rail yards, of course, is whether Related will actually develop them. The firm has until the end of January to execute a contract with the M.T.A., which owns the site, and Related executives have said they expect to do so. Still, committing to building--and starting payments for a price tag totaling $1 billion--is a harrowing task in this market. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/ny...1&ref=nyregion
Rezoning Will Allow Railyard Project to Advance http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/..._CA0/popup.jpg By CHARLES V. BAGLI December 21, 2009 The last element of the Bloomberg administration’s eight-year effort to transform a 26-acre railyard on the Far West Side into a residential and commercial complex fell into place Monday with the approval of a new zoning plan for a portion of the land. The new zoning approved by the City Council would enable the developer — a joint venture of Related Companies and Goldman Sachs — to build eight towers, which will house a hotel and more than 5,000 apartments on a platform on the western portion of the railyard stretching from 11th to 12th Avenues, between 30th and 33rd Streets. Monday’s action also included an agreement between the project’s developers and the city to build or preserve a total of 1,294 apartments in the neighborhood for poor and working-class tenants. This phase of the rezoning is the culmination of years of work on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s signature project, which began when he first took office in 2002 with plans to turn the former industrial area into a bustling high-rise district. His initial proposal, to build a $2 billion football stadium for the Jets at the site, was widely criticized and collapsed in the State Legislature. In 2005, the city rezoned a stretch of the railyard on the east side of 11th Avenue, between 30th and 33rd Streets, for office towers, retail space, a hotel and housing. The city and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which owns the railyards, selected Related, which agreed to pay $1 billion for the development rights for what would be a $15 billion project over both railyards. “With the rezoning in place and the extension of the No. 7 subway line on the way,” Mr. Bloomberg said at a news conference Monday, “the area is finally poised to become a vibrant new residential and commercial neighborhood with more than 10 acres of open space, new cultural amenities and a new public school.” Still, it may be years before the first building is erected, given the recession, widespread layoffs and hundreds of stalled residential projects in the city. Jay Cross, president of the joint venture, Related Hudson Yards, acknowledged Monday that the developer had yet to design the residential towers and would not begin the office towers until it secured a major tenant. After lengthy negotiations with community groups, elected officials and the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, Related promised that 431 of the more than 5,000 apartments it planned to build at the site would be at below-market rates. The developer also pledged to preserve an additional 401 apartments in nearby housing complexes it owns for subsidized housing. At the same time the city agreed to build 320 apartments for low- and moderate-income families on sites it owns in the neighborhood and to try to acquire an additional 150 units in single-room occupancy hotels. “Compared with where we started, this is fantastic,” Joe Restuccia, a member of Community Board 4, said of the affordable housing. Related is scheduled to sign a contract with the transit authority for the development rights at the end of January and to give the authority a $43.5 million down payment. The developer is still negotiating a closing date for the eastern railyard; the closing for the western yard will take place a year later. So far it has paid the authority about $25 million. __________________________________________ http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/s...gHzLqgpAi5kuNP Quote:
|
I can't find the thread that had pictures of all 5 of the bids. Is that still on this site?
I've been mixed up about where everything is going. I'm glad to see Brookfield still plans to build their 2 buildings that bend against each other. Looks like only the two buildings with an air bridge connector is the only part they had that I will miss. As for the JETS, I hope they still make plans to come to Manhattan 10-15 years from now. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yes the Jets signed on to the new meadowlands stadium but there is an opt out clause for it, I just can't remember how many years it is. I'm hoping it's 10-15 which would be a good time to refresh the iniative to return to NY. |
Quote:
|
Rail>Auto, to clarify: you meant that you're hoping for some other Manhattan site to come into play in that timeframe?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
^^^ Central Park.;)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And I'm pretty sure the residents of the West Side have no CLUE what they're talking about, considering they only listen to the local news stations, who are biased as hell about anything they ever talk about. The railyards aren't HISTORICAL. Whoever thinks that must have no idea what it takes for any structure to even be a piece of history. Just... just give UP. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Please first read the thread. There is no Jets stadium in Hudson Yards, and the Brookfield Site isn't even in Hudson Yards. The Jets are finishing a new stadium in the Meadowlands. The Brookfield Site is to the immediate east of Hudson Yards, just west of Penn Station. |
Quote:
N.S there is no Jets stadium in the Hudson Yards and they are in the meadowlands. That's why I said 10-15 years bc I wasn't sure when their opt out clause comes in to play (turns out its 15 years). The fact that the Brookfield buildings are not in the Hudson Yards is specifically why I said that I am glad the only part of Brookfields plan that I like that WON'T get built is that one building with the air bridge. |
Quote:
I have no clue what Manhattan will look like that far down the road and any site I list would just be pure speculation. They could build out, build over the Westside highway, demolish current buildings, or look to Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, etc. If the Jets really want to return to Manhattan or any other part of NYC they will have plenty of opportunities to do so. |
If the Jets ever wanted to move into NYC, they'd probably go into the outer boroughs somewhere. It'd be cool if they found a location on Jamaica Bay...
|
The only plausible location in Manhattan IMHO would be in any more infilled piers, such as Battery Park City, and unless there is another very large project on the west side, (something in the WTC range), then no developer in hell would want to fork over all the dough to fund such a stadium. Not to mention the NIMBYs...
|
Quote:
The Hudson Yards isn't about "Brooklyn" or "Queens". And the JETS don't have "plenty" of oppurtunities to return to Manhattan. The one chance was over the railyards - where open space, combined with the city and state's plan to tie it into the Javits and an expanded subway system, in a relatively "desolate" part of the island. And even then, the pricetag was too high. And if you think they are going to demolish buildings and close streets in Manhattan to build a football stadium, then you have got to be the least informed person on the planet. |
lower manhattan should expand into soho wherever possible and midtown should demolish and expand upward....or we could like Dubai and build islands and expand manhattan lol
|
Wht about in the Sherman Creek area in upper Manhattan, maybe over the subway yard?
|
There is plenty of room in Manhattan for growth, one just needs to be creative. Don't worry.
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
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. |
This will rival the WTC in comparison. NY's boom is far from over.
|
Quote:
|
"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." |
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... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev