NEW YORK | Empire Station District | 9 Towers (18-20 msf)| FT | FLOORS

[NYguy]

Just so everybody’s clear here, which a lot of the NIMBYs and even the media are not, we’re talking about 2 major projects here that intersect because they have the same overall goal - improving the mess that is our country’s busiest transit hub.


PROJECT 1

The expansion of the station, which in conjunction with Gateway will allow more trains into Penn Station. This is the portion of the project that brings the 10 new towers into play, as well as creating many new entrances into the Station throughout the area (similar to what we have at Grand Central) and connections to the PATH and multiple subway lines.


PROJECT 2

The rebuilding of the current Penn Station - which has nothing to do with rail capacity - will greatly improve the experience for those who currently use the dark, crowded, and often hell-like Penn Sation. It will improve pedestrian flow, unite the 2 levels, and open the current station up to daylight like it once was.

Both are necessary, and together with Moynihan create the modern station Penn Station should be.

Of course, some people want the original building rebuilt (the equivalent of a new paint job on a junked car), but that fantasy can continue to live on in their minds.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Amtrak owns Penn Station, but the expansion isn’t necessarily about Amtrak service (which is now centered in the new Moynihan Hall). But improved access overall is good for everyone at Penn Station, and could do away with the daily delays.

The Gateway project alone is necessary to ensure that even current level of service is not threatened (which it currently is).

The tunnels are certainly needed but that article is talking about more platform space which can only really be obtained with another ESA level investment. Amtrak has advocated for this. I don't think I'm being unreasonable for wanting to see a service plan laying out how they will utilize that investment before agreeing it is a good idea.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm not sure how this is true. Only 5% of LIRR travellers head to Atlantic Terminal and only 2% have DT Broklyn as their final destination. Yes most service will operate as a Jamaica-Atlantic shuttle, but with increased service how is that such a big deal?

We spent $11B and only made commutes a lot worse for some of our riders is maybe the most LIRR explanation I've ever heard. The up and over transfers are bad but the shuttle frequency is worse because they say they don't have rolling stock to run more often, a problem that was entirely foreseeable for many years.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by k1052

The tunnels are certainly needed but that article is talking about more platform space which can only really be obtained with another ESA level investment. Amtrak has advocated for this. I don't think I'm being unreasonable for wanting to see a service plan laying out how they will utilize that investment before agreeing it is a good idea.

Yes, the new platform space is what the expansion, and basically this thread is all about. Gateway, the rebuilding of the current Penn Station, the added platforms (the expansion), and Moynihan are all separate pieces of the same puzzle, each with differing funding methods. They all have the same ultimate goal.

[NYguy]

Too many pages to read (1,000's), but some information from the FEIS...




















Some may need to read this twice so the question doesn't keep coming up...







New transit entrances and improvements...

[MAC123]

Nice. Do you have a link to it?

Also I count at least 4 supertalls. With 2 or 3 that are close.
Yes I read the thing and these are not final, but that just gets me more excited

[Busy Bee]

Very pleased they seem to at least be taking preserving the Gimbels skybridge seriously depending on whether or not the former Gimbels Building at Site 8 is reused for a residential tower or lost entirely (tragic imo) to a ground up commercial tower.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Very pleased they seem to at least be taking preserving the Gimbels skybridge seriously depending on whether or not the former Gimbels Building at Site 8 is reused for a residential tower or lost entirely (tragic imo) to a ground up commercial tower.

Yeah we might see a "Macy's Tower" type development there or they might choose the office (ehh, I'll bet on the residential version)

[Busy Bee]

I think the residential addition will prove to be much more popular.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Nice. Do you have a link to it?

Also I count at least 4 supertalls. With 2 or 3 that are close.
Yes I read the thing and these are not final, but that just gets me more excited

I believe most if it came from here…

https://esd.ny.gov/sites/default/fil...%20Summary.pdf


The heights of the towerscwill most likely end up taller than those generic numbers given. Only 15 Penn is an active proposal, and even it is subject to change, depending on tenant.

The surprising thing is the height increase on site 4. Didn’t think they would build as high there, but it could still be higher or lower.

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I think the residential addition will prove to be much more popular.

The residential option for site 8 would look great if we got a Stern-like tower with a crown. On the other hand, another office tower to blunt the impact of 15 Penn could work well. In either case though, the bridge may not be saved.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I think the residential addition will prove to be much more popular.

Well remember like NYguy said,even if the resi option is picked that doesn't necessarily mean the bridge is saved.

Also the sqft difference between the office and resi towers is immense, they may just pick the office option to take advantage

[Busy Bee]

^ No, but it's strongly hinted that the residential option would preserve the Manhattann Mall (Gimbels) Building and thus increasing the likelihood the skybridge wouldn't need to be removed. In other words the Gimbels Building remaining would facilitate preserving the skybridge which they are clearly, and thankfully, approaching as a valuable visual asset.

[Sky88]

The heights of the towers will most likely end up taller than those generic numbers given.

This is good. So on site 2B (block 780) we could have a 1,560 ft tower. While on site 3 it wouldn't hurt to have a 1,150ft tower. Instead on site 5 there could be a tower with a spire, higher than the ESB.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Sky88

This is good. So on site 2B (block 780) we could have a 1,560 ft tower. While on site 3 it wouldn't hurt to have a 1,150ft tower. Instead on site 5 there could be a tower with a spire, higher than the ESB.

At 2.8 mil we could have a lot bigger than 1,560 ft. Remember 175 Park is 2.6 mil, and it was originally going to be 1,642. It just depends on how the developer uses the sqft.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by MAC123

At 2.8 mil we could have a lot bigger than 1,560 ft. Remember 175 Park is 2.6 mil, and it was originally going to be 1,642. It just depends on how the developer uses the sqft.

Does each building proposal have to be approved? If so, I doubt they will be higher and hope they won't be shortened through the approval process, since the sites are in the vicinity of ESP and some on the council may argue about designs blocking the view of the ESP. Let's hope we don't end up with a bunch of blocky towers like the recent Hudson Yards but get something like the Park Ave or Midtown East proposals.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Does each building proposal have to be approved? If so, I doubt they will be higher and hope they won't be shortened through the approval process, since the sites are in the vicinity of ESP and some on the council may argue about designs blocking the view of the ESP. Let's hope we don't end up with a bunch of blocky towers like the recent Hudson Yards but get something like the Park Ave or Midtown East proposals.

Unfortunately we may end up with some short ones simply because the developers want more floor space, which would be unfortunate.

As for the approvals process, I don't think there should be a problem. These sites have unlimited height, any direct opposition to just the site can be thrown out. As for the ESB I think Hochal should have already dealt with that when she decreased the overall size of the development.

But I'm optimistic. With the sqft they have we could see a 500 M (or 2) by roof height, then stack a 100 M spire on top ya know what I'm saying.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Does each building proposal have to be approved? If so, I doubt they will be higher and hope they won't be shortened through the approval process, since the sites are in the vicinity of ESP and some on the council may argue about designs blocking the view of the ESP. Let's hope we don't end up with a bunch of blocky towers like the recent Hudson Yards but get something like the Park Ave or Midtown East proposals.

No, they don’t have to be approved. This is a General Project Plan, a state action. What’s being shown is basically the site plan - what can go where, and how much. It’s no different really from the city’s own process, except the NIMBYs can’t touch it.

The heights, obviously, will be dictated by floorplate sizes, and the general design guidelines (base and setback regulations, etc.). It will basically similar to Hudson Yards, except that the FAR is outright, no transfers from the railyards.

It will also differ from Midtown East, where a provision was put in for larger towers to be scrutinized individually. But even there, it’s a matter of a formality.

[NYguy]

https://archinect.com/news/article/1...ansion-project

Arup will lead Penn Station’s new $73 million expansion project

By Josh Niland
Jun 30, '22

Arup has been placed in the lead for MTA/NJ Transit and Amtrak’s planned redevelopment and expansion of Penn Station in New York City. The tender was announced recently by the rail service and is part of a larger Gateway Program aimed at improving a critical infrastructure clog situated in a ten-mile stretch along Amtrak’s overworked Northeast Corridor.

The multinational engineering concern is now tasked with designing the first new tracks, platforms, and concourses at the 117-year-old station in over a century. The project will relieve an ugly bottleneck at the western end of Penn Station, doubling its capacity in a process that also generates a much-improved customer experience for commuters to the country’s busiest transportation hub.

…..The expansion design will cost a total of $73 million and take approximately two years to complete.

”The expansion of Penn Station is critical to ensuring the preeminence of the New York region as the center of global commerce,” NJ TRANSIT President & CEO Kevin S. Corbett said in a statement. “Ridership has tripled from 200,000 in 1968 to 600,000 today. The existing station, even when fully renovated, will still be woefully inadequate to meet current demand much less the anticipated growth for the coming decades. This design work is the foundation upon which this vital expansion project will be built, and sets the stage to realizing the full benefits the Gateway Program will deliver to this region.”

Arup will be joined by Kohn Pedersen Fox and Grimshaw for the concept design portion of the project’s still under-review vetting process. Next steps include a federally-mandated environmental review, after which the public comments segment of the project will ensue. The team will look to expand on its impressive past successes, which to date include the Fulton Center, Hudson Yards, and Second Avenue Subway developments in New York…

[NYguy]

A little more info from the FEIS...



1



2



3





4



5



6



7



8





9

[NYguy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/n...river.amp.html

Hudson River Tunnel Project Moves Ahead as States Agree to Share Costs
A project to build new tunnels from New Jersey to Penn Station moved a step closer to construction with an agreement between New York and New Jersey.


By Patrick McGeehan
July 5, 2022

…..While the actual digging of the tunnels is still at least more than a year away, the announcement on Tuesday was a sign that Gateway might finally be moving forward.

…..Before the federal government could agree to pay half or more of the cost, the two states had to come to an understanding about splitting the local share. The states did not specify how they planned to pay for their portions, but New Jersey has previously said that it would raise some of its share by issuing bonds.

“This agreement is a major step forward for Gateway,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, the Democratic majority leader. “I’d told the governors of New York and New Jersey unless they came to an agreement quickly, we’d not be able to procure federal funds for the first round of funding.”

https://www.nj.com/news/2022/07/nj-n...outputType=amp

N.J., N.Y. sign funding agreement on Gateway rail tunnel, bridge. Tunnel work could begin in 2023.


Jul. 05, 2022
By Larry Higgs

…..The phase one Memorandum of Understanding deals with financing two critical pieces of Gateway infrastructure, a new Portal North Bridge to carry the Northeast Corridor line over the Hackensack River in Kearny and construction of two new rail tunnels to Penn Station New York and rehabilitation of the 111-year-old existing tunnels to and from Manhattan.

…..The funding formula calls for a 50-50 split between the federal government and the two states for the tunnel project and a similar funding split for the Portal North Bridge, which has begun construction.

The agreement is a major milestone toward a goal of having federal funding in place by the end of 2022, with tunnel construction possibly starting in summer 2023. However, a former Federal Transit Administration official said a full funding grant agreement might not happen until 2024 because of the complexity of the work that remains and the size of Gateway’s cost.