Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc
thanks for that reminder. they chose amazing well from the get go here. not married to any of that old and outdated stock.
well ok, there are maybe few things that would need a good reason to go, like say B aka 285 madison, which is stately and functional, but again its outdated and in no way outstanding or anything. i mean i would hate to give something good like that up for a cheap, garbage glass box, but otherwise most of these sites can go away anytime to make way for modern office space.
at the very least the good news as you can see on the maps is there are no obvious ploys to try take down truer classic buildings.
|
It can be argued that the City didn't do enough to generate enough incentive for larger office buildings in Midtown East, but the fact is, there really aren't enough sites to do it without widespread demolition and disruption. That's why the Hudson Yards came into play.
It can also be argued that there should have at least been greater density allowed on the sites. But I think a lot of that has to do with the mechanism on how the city allows you to reach those maximum FAR densities. In other words, it aint free. Unlike the upzonings in other parts of the city, the Hudson Yards and Midtown East upzonings come for a price.
The Vanderbilt corridor sites, which were approved earlier, have a maximum FAR of 30.
[QUOTE=NYguy;8885913]
Landmark development rights can be transferred anywhere within the district, unlike anywhere else in the city.